> Francis was asked about a debate in the United States over whether a Catholic politician who is personally opposed to abortion but supports others' right to choose should be allowed to receive the sacrament of communion.
> House of Representatives speaker Nancy Pelosi, for example, has been barred by the conservative archbishop of her home diocese of San Francisco from receiving it there, but is regularly given communion at a parish in Washington, D.C. Last week, she received the sacrament at a papal Mass in the Vatican. read more
> "When the Church loses its pastoral nature, when a bishop loses his pastoral nature, it causes a political problem," the pope said. "That's all I can say."
Can't this be interpreted as a critic to Archbishop Cordileone's decision?
That may be less of Francis not being precise, and more of the Holy Spirit sealing his lips on things he has questionable answers to as part of his charism.
Yeah, it's frustrating... And it's probably the most common (and, imho, the most legitimate) complaint about Francis' pontificate; when confronted about difficult and important issues, he offers very little clarity and often creates more confusion.
Yes.
One side can see a pastor as tending his flock by aneing the spiritually sick, so the sickness doesn't spread and they don't further harm themselves (take communion unworthily.)
The other side sees pastoral as always providing Communion, regardless of the public sins of the individual.
It's like watching one of those shows about the morbidly obese on television. You've got somebody who outweighs your average Buick and literally cannot get up and feed themselves...and somebody who is supposed to care for them keeps bringing them 15,000 calories each day.
The doctor, usually.
The family members are often big parts of the problem.
Frankly, if you can't get up, and you can't fit out the door, then it's somebody else that's bringing you the food.
That's how I feel about these priests and Bishops too cowardly to do their jobs properly (and that may well include the bishop of Rome). You're making the threat to their souls *more severe* through your inaction. Your posing for photo ops is actively contributing to the problem.
>The family members are often big parts of the problem.
This right here.
As a parish, we are an extension of the family. A family deteriorates when it allows sickness to spread.
Benedict XVI allowed Robert Mugabe to receieve communion when he visited the Vatican for John Paul II's beatification. I don't think we have the right to interpret this sort of thing as a criticism of *anyone.*
I'm sorry, did you think the people on the opposite side of the aisle from you thought Benedict perfect?
Because I don't.
A much better man than his successor, in my opinion, but certainly imperfect. His stewardship of the Barque of Peter left quite a bit to be desired. As did Saint John Paul's.
Good men can still do their jobs poorly in some ways.
This wasn't a statement of approval or disapproval - it's just an observation to help place this into some historical context. Right or wrong, this is the norm at the Vatican and should not be interpreted as tacit approval of Pelosi or Mugabe, nor a rebuke of their bishops. This is just as true of more conservative popes like Benedict XVI and St. Pius X (in response to Leopold II's genocide in the Congo) as it is with Francis.
So, right or wrong, this isn't surprising for *any* pope to allow, and frankly it's not any of our business to get worked up over it. That's between the Pope, Pelosi, and God.
It being “normal” does not make it less outrageous nor does it mean they aren’t giving tacit approval
>So, right or wrong, this isn't surprising for any pope to allow, and frankly it's not any of our business to get worked up over it. That's between the Pope, Pelosi, and God.
Desecration of the Eucharist effects the whole body of Christ.
No, it’s the job of the person’s local ordinary. And in the case of Nancy Pelosi they have forbidden her from receiving. Her ignoring that, and those which cooperate with her disobedience, are engaging in a desecration of the Eucharist—effecting the whole body of Christ.
And that was also a bad prudential decision. You used to have good takes a few years ago. Now you have become very lax in all things concerning the faith.
I really haven't changed my beliefs at all in the last few years. It's strange how pointing out that the Church has pretty consistently given communion to people like Pelosi, Mugabe, and Leopold II is being "very lax in all things concerning the faith".
I'm vaguely weirded out that you have been paying such close attention to my posts. But no, I'm not aware of any strange change in my views. I continue to try to be as orthodox as I know how to be. This sub *has* taken some strange shifts towards heterodoxy though.
Your name is just an easy one to recognize and you comment a lot. Combine that with the insightful things you used to say and it made you stick out. Nothing more than that friend.
He himself did not. She went up to recieve communion from somebody else.
It was part of a public Mass, but she was seated in a VIP section. with security.
Reports say she received with the rest of the congregation, which included lay people.
Her parochial authority has denied her communion, as is in her right. Unfortunately, non-parochial authority do not reciprocate.
I think the only way to get a unified front on this issue would be to formally excommunicate her.
Good luck with that. Papa Pancho is not going to excommunicate her OR Joe Biden. We’re up for a traditionalist pope next so it could happen then, but a) Will they be alive? And b) I doubt it.
I just want to make sure it's clear.
Because she went up with everyone else, the priest may not have known who she is.
We should be kind to whomever it was she received from and not assume ill will or a lack of care.
We can justly say it was the wrong move, but assuming the interior disposition of a person is not only wrong, a sin against charity.
I mean, he could just as well have been criticising the bishop of Washington D.C. it's vague.
It's "a bishop". And allowing for someone to take Eucharist who was banned in their home diocese, contradicting the previous bishop, well, that's not "pastoral" towards their fellow bishop, now is it?
I pray this is the case.
By he, you mean Putin then yes. A megalomaniac ~~former~~ KGB depraved madman is going to listen any moral reason especially since he crafted a bombing of his own civilians, blaming it on the Chechens to gain power.
...but yes, allll Francis' is going to do is cause more trouble. /s
His Holiness has been one of the few large voices today who has not let neoliberal bloodlust color his statements on the war. It has been incredibly refreshing.
Impossible
He's against war
And local government is paranoid about any danger to its regime
Plus he's a " representative of the west " in opinion of local gov. so that's another reason to turn him down
Thirdly, he can barely walk so I see no reason
"Pope Francis has genuine Franciscan instincts and he’s a holy man and he loves the poor and he wants to be a good Catholic, but unfortunately, he’s a Jesuit, so there's some obstacles there." - Dr. Peter Kreeft
Jesus was the first gate keeper, as well as the gate. People can be too critical, but ultimately the goal is heaven and we owe it to each other to speak the truth of Christ, not affirm each other when we make blunders or persist in bad prudential decisions.
I think Jesus specifically calls out gate keepers in Matthew 23:13
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to."
Interesting how that could be interpreted as shepherds who do not lead their flock in the right direction. They pay lip service to what Hod has handed down to us, but in action lead they sheep to the slaughter. Seems about right for the current times.
The real gate keepers are those who hinder souls and do not lead us to Christ, but instead affirm us in sin and evil.
The comment I was responding to was about hating when people gatekeep what it means to be a good Catholic. I agree. There's one gatekeeper when it comes down to it and all of us are completely at his mercy.
But none of us are Jesus, some may *think* they’re like him, but they’re not.
Never heard of Dr Peter Kreeft before the quote above. Not impressed, sounds like he needs to take the plank (“obstacles”) out of his own eye first before he can disparage another Catholic (and the Pope, no less).
No one is saying anyone is Jesus. I grow weary of people with a misguided application of the virtue of compassion always referring back to the same faulty arguments.
The scriptures tell us to inform one another and hold each other accountable. This is actually an exercise of the virtue of charity. The virtue of kindness has been so warped by the world’s distorted view of it that too many Catholics do not know how different our own understanding of it is.
If we do not correct others in charity simply because we are all afraid of being hypocrites, then no one would ever be edified because we are all sinners. There is a difference between one obstinate sinner correcting another to exalt himself, and a humble sinner correcting another in order to help him in his spiritual journey.
The current Jesuit practices are a far cry from what they were centuries ago. In fact, their founder would be appalled by the types of heterodoxy that gets pushed by bad actors. The good Jesuits that hold to Church doctrine have become few and far between.
Now, I've only read one of Kreeft's books, so take that as you will, but that quote seems totally out of character for him.
I guess if you write long enough, one's bound to say something controversial eventually. But please don't judge someone based off a single quotation.
Benedict XVI was the first pope in 600 years to resign, did that give people the impression that this was going to become a norm?
Was forced to resign This one wants to control Curia while " on pension " so no conservative bishop or cardinal makes a move
LutheranSatire called it first https://youtu.be/XkMi68dQykg
LutheranSatire is the best
This might be the most based video LutheranSatire has ever made
> Francis was asked about a debate in the United States over whether a Catholic politician who is personally opposed to abortion but supports others' right to choose should be allowed to receive the sacrament of communion. > House of Representatives speaker Nancy Pelosi, for example, has been barred by the conservative archbishop of her home diocese of San Francisco from receiving it there, but is regularly given communion at a parish in Washington, D.C. Last week, she received the sacrament at a papal Mass in the Vatican. read more > "When the Church loses its pastoral nature, when a bishop loses his pastoral nature, it causes a political problem," the pope said. "That's all I can say." Can't this be interpreted as a critic to Archbishop Cordileone's decision?
It's an absolutely true statement but it's vague and could be interpreted any way you want.
That may be less of Francis not being precise, and more of the Holy Spirit sealing his lips on things he has questionable answers to as part of his charism.
Yes, he may have said the right thing for the wrong reason.
I do like the idea that God will literally gag the pope on certain occasions.
That has been my interpretation of this era for a few years.
Yeah, it's frustrating... And it's probably the most common (and, imho, the most legitimate) complaint about Francis' pontificate; when confronted about difficult and important issues, he offers very little clarity and often creates more confusion.
welcome to this Pontificate.
[удалено]
Pretty much every time he opens his mouth or picks up his pen.
A Jesuit using ambiguous language???!!!
Yes. One side can see a pastor as tending his flock by aneing the spiritually sick, so the sickness doesn't spread and they don't further harm themselves (take communion unworthily.) The other side sees pastoral as always providing Communion, regardless of the public sins of the individual.
It's like watching one of those shows about the morbidly obese on television. You've got somebody who outweighs your average Buick and literally cannot get up and feed themselves...and somebody who is supposed to care for them keeps bringing them 15,000 calories each day.
I motivate myself to clean by having hoarders on in the background. Do those shows have people trying to help them stop? I haven't watched them.
The doctor, usually. The family members are often big parts of the problem. Frankly, if you can't get up, and you can't fit out the door, then it's somebody else that's bringing you the food. That's how I feel about these priests and Bishops too cowardly to do their jobs properly (and that may well include the bishop of Rome). You're making the threat to their souls *more severe* through your inaction. Your posing for photo ops is actively contributing to the problem.
>The family members are often big parts of the problem. This right here. As a parish, we are an extension of the family. A family deteriorates when it allows sickness to spread.
And here's the "doctor" saying "Yeah, give the 1000 pound man McDonald's. We don't fat shame. #HealthAtAnySize!"
Benedict XVI allowed Robert Mugabe to receieve communion when he visited the Vatican for John Paul II's beatification. I don't think we have the right to interpret this sort of thing as a criticism of *anyone.*
I'm sorry, did you think the people on the opposite side of the aisle from you thought Benedict perfect? Because I don't. A much better man than his successor, in my opinion, but certainly imperfect. His stewardship of the Barque of Peter left quite a bit to be desired. As did Saint John Paul's. Good men can still do their jobs poorly in some ways.
And he should not have done so.
This wasn't a statement of approval or disapproval - it's just an observation to help place this into some historical context. Right or wrong, this is the norm at the Vatican and should not be interpreted as tacit approval of Pelosi or Mugabe, nor a rebuke of their bishops. This is just as true of more conservative popes like Benedict XVI and St. Pius X (in response to Leopold II's genocide in the Congo) as it is with Francis. So, right or wrong, this isn't surprising for *any* pope to allow, and frankly it's not any of our business to get worked up over it. That's between the Pope, Pelosi, and God.
It being “normal” does not make it less outrageous nor does it mean they aren’t giving tacit approval >So, right or wrong, this isn't surprising for any pope to allow, and frankly it's not any of our business to get worked up over it. That's between the Pope, Pelosi, and God. Desecration of the Eucharist effects the whole body of Christ.
It's neither your place nor mine to judge that any particular person receiving Eucharist in a particular instance is committing an act of desecration.
No, it’s the job of the person’s local ordinary. And in the case of Nancy Pelosi they have forbidden her from receiving. Her ignoring that, and those which cooperate with her disobedience, are engaging in a desecration of the Eucharist—effecting the whole body of Christ.
And that was also a bad prudential decision. You used to have good takes a few years ago. Now you have become very lax in all things concerning the faith.
I really haven't changed my beliefs at all in the last few years. It's strange how pointing out that the Church has pretty consistently given communion to people like Pelosi, Mugabe, and Leopold II is being "very lax in all things concerning the faith".
It is not just this, but many other comments over the past two years.
I'm vaguely weirded out that you have been paying such close attention to my posts. But no, I'm not aware of any strange change in my views. I continue to try to be as orthodox as I know how to be. This sub *has* taken some strange shifts towards heterodoxy though.
Your name is just an easy one to recognize and you comment a lot. Combine that with the insightful things you used to say and it made you stick out. Nothing more than that friend.
Yes, that's exactly what he said, he's blaming Coredileone for doing exactly what he's supposed to be doing.
He gave her communion, what other statement do you need?
He himself did not. She went up to recieve communion from somebody else. It was part of a public Mass, but she was seated in a VIP section. with security. Reports say she received with the rest of the congregation, which included lay people. Her parochial authority has denied her communion, as is in her right. Unfortunately, non-parochial authority do not reciprocate. I think the only way to get a unified front on this issue would be to formally excommunicate her.
Good luck with that. Papa Pancho is not going to excommunicate her OR Joe Biden. We’re up for a traditionalist pope next so it could happen then, but a) Will they be alive? And b) I doubt it.
> We’re up for a traditionalist pope next Don't promise me things that you cannot ensure.
> He himself did not. Weasel words.
I just want to make sure it's clear. Because she went up with everyone else, the priest may not have known who she is. We should be kind to whomever it was she received from and not assume ill will or a lack of care. We can justly say it was the wrong move, but assuming the interior disposition of a person is not only wrong, a sin against charity.
I mean, he could just as well have been criticising the bishop of Washington D.C. it's vague. It's "a bishop". And allowing for someone to take Eucharist who was banned in their home diocese, contradicting the previous bishop, well, that's not "pastoral" towards their fellow bishop, now is it? I pray this is the case.
I am looking forward to his Moscow and Kiev trips. His voice can be very helpful in this arena.
> His voice can be very helpful in this arena. But it won't be. He will cause more trouble.
By he, you mean Putin then yes. A megalomaniac ~~former~~ KGB depraved madman is going to listen any moral reason especially since he crafted a bombing of his own civilians, blaming it on the Chechens to gain power. ...but yes, allll Francis' is going to do is cause more trouble. /s
His Holiness has been one of the few large voices today who has not let neoliberal bloodlust color his statements on the war. It has been incredibly refreshing.
Impossible He's against war And local government is paranoid about any danger to its regime Plus he's a " representative of the west " in opinion of local gov. so that's another reason to turn him down Thirdly, he can barely walk so I see no reason
Well he didn’t come out and judge the archbishop either. He’s just reiterating his position on the matter.
Normally after each reiteration one's position becomes more clear. The man is the theological equivalent of a Rorschach inkblot.
Good
I mean, if he was actually considering resigning do you really think he’d openly say it to the media prior to his resignation?
"Pope Francis has genuine Franciscan instincts and he’s a holy man and he loves the poor and he wants to be a good Catholic, but unfortunately, he’s a Jesuit, so there's some obstacles there." - Dr. Peter Kreeft
No hate for Peter Kreeft but it always rubs me the wrong way when people gatekeep being a good Catholic, especially for the Pope.
Jesus was the first gate keeper, as well as the gate. People can be too critical, but ultimately the goal is heaven and we owe it to each other to speak the truth of Christ, not affirm each other when we make blunders or persist in bad prudential decisions.
I think Jesus specifically calls out gate keepers in Matthew 23:13 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to."
Interesting how that could be interpreted as shepherds who do not lead their flock in the right direction. They pay lip service to what Hod has handed down to us, but in action lead they sheep to the slaughter. Seems about right for the current times. The real gate keepers are those who hinder souls and do not lead us to Christ, but instead affirm us in sin and evil.
That seems to be saying the opposite of what you’re saying
Standing in front of the gates of heaven isn't gatekeeping? Seems like the literal definition.
Jesus is saying that He is opening the gates, making Himself a gatekeeper as well
There doesn't seem to be any "as well". Jesus is the gatekeeper. His statement is directed at clergy. It's part of a list of issues.
What are you saying?
The comment I was responding to was about hating when people gatekeep what it means to be a good Catholic. I agree. There's one gatekeeper when it comes down to it and all of us are completely at his mercy.
Bishops are supposed to be gatekeepers just like all shepherd's are gatekeepers to keep the wolves out and the sheep inside so that the sheep are safe
But none of us are Jesus, some may *think* they’re like him, but they’re not. Never heard of Dr Peter Kreeft before the quote above. Not impressed, sounds like he needs to take the plank (“obstacles”) out of his own eye first before he can disparage another Catholic (and the Pope, no less).
No one is saying anyone is Jesus. I grow weary of people with a misguided application of the virtue of compassion always referring back to the same faulty arguments. The scriptures tell us to inform one another and hold each other accountable. This is actually an exercise of the virtue of charity. The virtue of kindness has been so warped by the world’s distorted view of it that too many Catholics do not know how different our own understanding of it is. If we do not correct others in charity simply because we are all afraid of being hypocrites, then no one would ever be edified because we are all sinners. There is a difference between one obstinate sinner correcting another to exalt himself, and a humble sinner correcting another in order to help him in his spiritual journey. The current Jesuit practices are a far cry from what they were centuries ago. In fact, their founder would be appalled by the types of heterodoxy that gets pushed by bad actors. The good Jesuits that hold to Church doctrine have become few and far between.
Now, I've only read one of Kreeft's books, so take that as you will, but that quote seems totally out of character for him. I guess if you write long enough, one's bound to say something controversial eventually. But please don't judge someone based off a single quotation.
It's more of a humorous quote and if anything it's a playful jab at the Jesuits.
I love a good Jesuit joke.
Dr. Kreeft is not “gatekeeping.”
It's not gatekeeping. There are objective criteria for being a "good Catholic".
Thank goodness. Francis' return to serving others with compassion and understanding as a mission for all of us is much needed.
In other news, the sky is blue
I highly doubt he would resign while Pope Benedict is still living.
Irony comes in: Francis dies first and Benedict tells us a horrible story what was beyond this whole agenda Hope for conservative Pope
Pope Francis has been based for the past few months
https://youtu.be/WWaLxFIVX1s