Pope Francis - Closing Address To Synod

[PhuturePriest]

Responses and understands of the Synod like this are why the Synod was a failure:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/20/opinion/uganda-homosexuality-opinion/

 

 Many people believe that "working document" nonsense meant the Catholic Church "embracing the gay community" is not only plausible, but perhaps even an eventuality. The clergy's absolute failure of knowing Church teaching and knowing that these things cannot be changed has caused such a riff raff in the world that now more than ever, people think the Church is going to change its position on gay marriage. It is quite honestly sickening. The nonsense written in the working document is quite honestly disgraceful. In this day and age of the internet, we need to be bold and clear with our wording, not timid and confusing, and that document had the greatest of theologians scratching their head as to just what exactly it meant.

Edited October 21, 2014 by FuturePacker

[Nihil Obstat]

Closed subjects must be discussed all the time--not to change the outcome, but for the benefit of the faithful. How many times have you heard, "I wish Rome would say something about this." We can't have our cake and eat it too. Trust the church. It's what I do.

But there is a big difference between reiterating Church teaching, and reopening it for debate. Reiterating teachings is great, but there was precious little of that going on at the Synod.

[Ed Normile]

- One, a temptation to hostile inflexibility, that is, wanting to close oneself within the written word, (the letter) and not allowing oneself to be surprised by God, by the God of surprises, (the spirit); within the law

 

 The God of surprises wants us to abandon the written word ...? I guess the written word which I assume is the Gospel must be wrong or outdated. But heck, who could expect that God could possibly foresee the changes in human sexual mores, at least  "we still have one year to mature" cause everyone knows we childish believers of the word of God are just fooling ourselves being so hateful and unaccepting. Maybe in 2 years it will be wife swapping orgies and beastiality, I mean who could be so cruel to deny these people communion ?

 

Remember " Hate the sin, Love the sinner"

 

ed

[dUSt]

- One, a temptation to hostile inflexibility, that is, wanting to close oneself within the written word, (the letter) and not allowing oneself to be surprised by God, by the God of surprises, (the spirit); within the law

 

 The God of surprises wants us to abandon the written word ...? I guess the written word which I assume is the Gospel must be wrong or outdated. But heck, who could expect that God could possibly foresee the changes in human sexual mores, at least  "we still have one year to mature" cause everyone knows we childish believers of the word of God are just fooling ourselves being so hateful and unaccepting. Maybe in 2 years it will be wife swapping orgies and beastiality, I mean who could be so cruel to deny these people communion ?

 

Remember " Hate the sin, Love the sinner"

 

ed

 

You interpret things like the media does. Lol. Where does it say abandon the written word?

 

Here's an example of what I think the pope might be saying: If I close myself within the written word and strictly follow, "thou shalt not steal", then I would never come up with a plan of stealing my wife's wedding ring from her so I can surprise her with it a few weeks later during our 10th anniversary, with another band added to it. I would be so caught up in my interpretation of those words that I would not let the spirit of our love blossom with a wonderful surprise to my wife.

[Nihil Obstat]

You interpret things like the media does. Lol. Where does it say abandon the written word?

 

Here's an example of what I think the pope might be saying: If I close myself within the written word and strictly follow, "thou shalt not steal", then I would never come up with a plan of stealing my wife's wedding ring from her so I can surprise her with it a few weeks later during our 10th anniversary, with another band added to it. I would be so caught up in my interpretation of those words that I would not let the spirit of our love blossom with a wonderful surprise to my wife.

Except that the Church has never interpreted theft in that manner. On the other hand, the Church has always infallibly taught that to attempt a second marriage is gravely sinful, and relations in such a union constitute adultery. Kasper's proposal then to admit some such people to communion flatly contradicts what the Church has always taught, that such relations are adultery, and that one may not receive the Eucharist while in such a state.

[BarbTherese]

A second marriage without an annulment of the first is grave matter. That is an objective consideration. There are two other concurrent conditions required for mortal sin and these are subjective considerations (pastoral matters).  Only mortal sin can separate a person from God and His Church.

 

  http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/are-most-catholics-in-america-going-to-hell

 

Catholics can make the mistake of calling grave matter a mortal sin.  Grave matter is only potentially mortally sinful.

 

______________________

 

1 Corinthians Ch11

 

[26] For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. [27] Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. [28] But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. [29] For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. [30] Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep.

 

 

The above passage from St Paul is interesting in that it seems that the "unworthily" St Paul is speaking about is someone who does not grasp the reality of actually receiving The Body and Blood of Jesus.  That seems to be St Paul's interpretation of "unworthily" for his times and I suspect that The Church might be able to interpret "unworthily" for a later time and times.

 

  Another point to me is: Who actually can consider themselves worthy?  The Church has answered this question for me by stating that one must be in the state of Grace.  To me being worthy to receive The Body and Blood of Jesus is a mind boggling matter!  But then Grace is indeed another mind boggling matter.

 

I am certainly not intending to arrive at conclusions in any of the above because I just do not have any.  All the above are simply questions in my own mind while always holding to what The Church teaches as a certainly by far superior wisdom in all things pertaining to Faith and Morals certainly.

Edited October 21, 2014 by BarbaraTherese

[CountrySteve937]

Wonderful!

[truthfinder]

BarbaraTherese, a priest once reminded me that even if the person if not culpable of mortal sin (because they lacked one of the criteria), committing grave matter still has repercussions.  

[BarbTherese]

BarbaraTherese, a priest once reminded me that even if the person if not culpable of mortal sin (because they lacked one of the criteria), committing grave matter still has repercussions.  

 

I agree.  All sin, including venial, has repercussions both personal and for The Church.  Kind and degree of negative repercussion(s) is probably a quite complex matter.  All sin, regardless of degree, is a serious matter (as opposed to grave matter) and never to be taken lightly.  The Ultimate Judge of souls of course is God only.

 

Pope Benedict: "The only danger the church can and should fear is the sin of her members," the pope said

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1104798.htm

 

  Be this as it may, it is only mortal sin that can completely separate a person from God and His Church.

 

A good quiet read and a very long one is Reconciliatio et Paenitentia.  I must confess that I am in the lay state under private vows, living alone, and probably in a far better position to read these documents than probably most in the lay state where secular life can be demanding and very short on reading time, especially for those married with families. These documents can be read over a period of time and as time given to spiritual reading.

Because I can and do read, or try to read, these documents does not make me any more informed than anyone else.  I always have my P Plates on!

 

 http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_02121984_reconciliatio-et-paenitentia_en.html

POST-SYNODAL
APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION
RECONCILIATION AND PENANCE
OF JOHN PAUL II
TO THE BISHOPS
CLERGY AND FAITHFUL
ON RECONCILIATION AND PENANCE
IN THE MISSION OF THE CHURCH TODAY

[dUSt]

Except that the Church has never interpreted theft in that manner. On the other hand, the Church has always infallibly taught that to attempt a second marriage is gravely sinful, and relations in such a union constitute adultery. Kasper's proposal then to admit some such people to communion flatly contradicts what the Church has always taught, that such relations are adultery, and that one may not receive the Eucharist while in such a state.

 

You are making an argument where there is none. Where did the pope say that people in an invalid second marriage can receive communion? I must have missed it. If you can't show me where he said that then my original statement of "you guys are interpreting things like the media" stands. That is the only point I am trying to make--that some people are jumping to conclusions prematurely.

[Nihil Obstat]

You are making an argument where there is none. Where did the pope say that people in an invalid second marriage can receive communion? I must have missed it. If you can't show me where he said that then my original statement of "you guys are interpreting things like the media" stands. That is the only point I am trying to make--that some people are jumping to conclusions prematurely.

The pope, no. We do not know precisely where he stands. Many bishops, and claiming the pope's blessing, yes.

[Amppax]

I didn't entirely understand the Holy Father's statement, I think in large part because it is a very rough translation, but it did seem to me that he said much more to chastise those in the Kasper camp than the Burke camp. I can see two reasons for this. One would be that he tends to be harder on those with whom he agrees than those with whom he disagrees, which would mean he sees more promise in the Kaspar proposal than I would like him to. The other is that he really finds it to be an offense against right reason and the Catholic faith. My hesitation with thinking its the latter is the lack of any public statements by our Holy Father distancing himself from Kasper and his proposal. However, I suppose he could have various reasons for this. 

 

It's a mess of a situation all around. But I have full faith that it will work itself out. We've all got to pray. 

[PhuturePriest]

I didn't entirely understand the Holy Father's statement, I think in large part because it is a very rough translation, but it did seem to me that he said much more to chastise those in the Kasper camp than the Burke camp. I can see two reasons for this. One would be that he tends to be harder on those with whom he agrees than those with whom he disagrees, which would mean he sees more promise in the Kaspar proposal than I would like him to. The other is that he really finds it to be an offense against right reason and the Catholic faith. My hesitation with thinking its the latter is the lack of any public statements by our Holy Father distancing himself from Kasper and his proposal. However, I suppose he could have various reasons for this. 

 

It's a mess of a situation all around. But I have full faith that it will work itself out. We've all got to pray. 

 

Any time I'm thinking the Church is going to hell in a hand basket, I remember this quote:

 

Napoleon Bonaparte: “Your eminence, are you not aware that I have the power to destroy the Catholic Church?”

 

Cardinal: “Your majesty, we, the Catholic clergy, have done our best to destroy the church for the last 1,800 years. We have not succeeded, and neither will you.”

[BarbTherese]

The pope, no. We do not know precisely where he stands. Many bishops, and claiming the pope's blessing, yes.

 

Always helpful to state actual text with link to support what one is stating :)
 

[Nihil Obstat]

Always helpful to state actual text with link to support what one is stating :)
 

What. that there are bishops supporting practices which undermine orthodox belief, and who claim the pope's support?

 

Interview with Kasper:

 

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-game-is-up-on-synod-and-communion.html

 

Did you expect this controversy regarding your address to the Consistory?

 

"I'm not naïve. I knew that there are other positions, but I didn't think that the debate would become, and now is shown to be also, without manners. Not one of my fellow Cardinals ever spoke to me. I, instead, [spoke] twice with the Holy Father. I agreed upon everything with him. He was in agreement. What can a cardinal do, except be with Pope? I am not the target, the target is another one."

 

Is it Pope Francis?

 

"Probably yes."

 

What else do you say, finally, to your opponents?

 

"They know that I have not done these things by myself. I agreed with the Pope, I spoke twice with him. He showed himself content [with it]. Now, they create this controversy. A Cardinal must be close to the Pope, by his side. The Cardinals are the Pope's cooperators."

 

 

 

Kasper has claimed several times that he has the full support of Pope Francis. What precisely this support means to him is less clear. What it means to Pope Francis is not clear at all, but he says very little.

[Seven77]

The sky is falling!! O NOES!!!

[BarbTherese]

I think Pope Francis might be wise to my mind to avoid commenting on those involved in the Synod or what it is reported in some form of media as what they have had to say.  The final sitting of the Synod in 2015 and the result will be submitted to him and then, after due consideration, he will have his quite public say.

 

This recent sitting was supposed to be an open and quite free and honest discussion among those summoned to the Synod and as instructed by Pope Francis - and not checking out with Pope Francis his thoughts and then siding with the thoughts of Pope Francis .............if indeed this happened.  Possibility: Perhaps Cardinal Kasper did speak with His Holiness about his own thoughts and Pope Francis did not pass any real comment one way or the other respecting Cardinal Kasper's comments as his thoughts to be shared in the recent Synod sitting.  And this has been taken as agreement by Cardinal Kasper of his own thinking.

 

Who knows!

 

Truth of the matter probably is that any sort of spin can be put on what media is reporting.......and perhaps with a spin investment of their own. :stars:

Edited October 23, 2014 by BarbaraTherese

[puellapaschalis]

That the media spin this is on their heads.

That some cardinals most definitely implied that such spin would not be entirely inaccurate is on their own. More so because they're cardinals.

[Nihil Obstat]

Words of the highly imitable Robert Hugh Benson:

 

The Catholic Church then is, and always will be, violent and intransigent when the rights of God are in question. She will be absolutely ruthless, for example, towards heresy, for heresy affects not personal matters on which Charity may yield, but a Divine right on which there must be no yielding. Yet, simultaneously, she will be infinitely kind towards the heretic, since a thousand human motives and circumstances may come in and modify his responsibility. At a word of repentance she will readmit his person into her treasury of souls, but not his heresy into her treasury of wisdom; she will strike his name eagerly and freely from her black list of the rebellious, but not his book from the pages of her Index. She exhibits meekness towards him and violence towards his error; since he is human, but her Truth is Divine.

 

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/10/benson-at-100-royal-catholic-church.html

[dUSt]

 

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/10/benson-at-100-royal-catholic-church.html

 

 

If I got all my information from that blog I don't think I'd be Catholic anymore. I have an extremely hard time seeing how it glorifies the church. It's like a TMZ for the religious.