No one is saying these reports are lies Mac. But I would not rush to a set opinion about anyone, let alone the Pope on such a serious issue without being really sure of my ground. Like Mary I like to , 'Store these things in my heart' to mull and pray over. We are all of us innocent until proven guilty and the Holy Father himself is entitled to be regarded as innocent . I am sure we have all of us suffered from time to time from rumour and gossip. One thing I sense about Pope Francis is if these things are true he will come out one way or another and confirm them. Even if he does not but supports this it will become clear in time. I am happy to wait prayerfully and see. I won't work myself up unto a tizzy unless I am sure there is something to get worked up about. Even then I will take it to the Lord in prayer. Prayer, prayer , prayer it all goes back to prayer. Oh Lord let me change the whole world, beginning with myself. (Having written all this (for I am such a hypocrite) if it ever did turn out to be true I would probably burst a few valves.
Agreed Padraig, just reporting , This story will probably gain momentum and then we will find out it has no basis. Then again the real problem is ,some of us [like me] wont be that surprised to find it is true.
I think Pope Francis is like me far too impulsive. But if I mess up the dogs growl, if a Pope boobs the world rocks.
The Catholic Herald report a Vatican response to the report, in the following article: "The Vatican has denied reports that Pope Francis indicated a change in Church teaching on Holy Communion for the remarried during a phone call with an Argentine woman. Earlier this week Argentine news agency Telam reported that Jacqui Lisbona received the phone call after writing to the Pope to say that she had been refused Communion by her local priest, who objected to the fact that she was married to a divorced man. During the phone call, Pope Francis is reported to have said: “A divorcee who takes Communion is not doing anything wrong.” Mrs Lisbona, who later called a Buenos Aires radio station to discuss the phone call, also claimed that in reference to her priest the Pontiff said, “There are some priests who are more papist than the Pope.” She also said that Francis told her he was “dealing with the issue” of Communion for the divorced and remarried. In a statement released today, the Vatican said that it would not be releasing any information about the phone call and that “consequences relating to the teaching of the Church are not to be inferred from these occurrences”. The statement said: “That which has been communicated in relation to this matter, outside the scope of personal relationships, and the consequent media amplification, cannot be confirmed as reliable, and is a source of misunderstanding and confusion.” One priest blogger, Father Ray Blake, has stated that the persons involved are either mistaken about what was said or are telling lies because, if true, the denial of the teaching of Christ Himself and the unaltered teaching of His Church would be a 'diabolic blasphemy' which he cannot bring himself to believe has occurred.
Okay, I have to admit that the stories that come out about what pope Francis said or didn't say can be confusing. In this case, I don't know what to believe. That being said, what about the topic of divorce? If I am correct, divorce was permitted in the Old Testament. Joseph was planning on divorcing Mary before being visited by the angel of God. So, if divorce was permitted then, why is it not permitted now? I'm not trying to be facetious here and I'm hoping some of you can help me to understand.
I think Thomas that is a very good question, and maybe I can help a little. If you haven't read your Bible completely, I highly recommend it! Really helps us to see order of things and how Christ came to testify to the Truth and to set things right and to set the view of the Commandments right. In a nutshell, there is only ONE contract on this earth that God enters into with humans, and that is the contract of Marriage. If one spouse deserts the marriage, God and the other spouse are left behind. Jesus very much confirmed that the two are not only joined into one body spiritually, but also physically, and that one body of the married couple are joined with the Body of Christ, who is also a physical body. Any sin against the physical body is a sin against Christ and the Holy Spirit, who cannot abide in a sinful temple, which is why we call breaking a commandment a "mortal sin" because the Holy Spirit must leave us until we are reconciled through complete repentance and the Sacrament of Confession. Until that time, if we receive the Eucharist, we are basically spitting in Christ's face. Or like Judas, we are betraying Him with a Kiss (while receiving Him). Corinthians tells us that if we DO separate from our spouse, we MUST remain single or reconcile with our spouse. The Protestants do not believe in the Body of Christ, nor do they believe that the body of a human is a temple for the Holy Spirit. They do not believe that sin can be separated from the human condition, and so you can see why their teachings are SO different from ours and why SO much is allowed.
The answer, Thomas, is in Matthew Ch 9, V 7-8: They said to him, "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?" He said to them, "For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.
Okay, some good stuff here. But I have to ask ... what about when one spouse abuses another (physically, emotionally, etc). What does one do then?
This is where in Corinthians it says IF we have to leave our spouse, we must remain single or reconcile with our spouse. Or that would apply if our spouse leaves us and refuses to reconcile, we would have to remain single (Like my situation) or we would be committing adultery. Marriage is for life and is not able to be dissolved.
Corinthians 1 ch 7 good for them to stay as they are, like me. 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry, since it is better to be married than to be burnt up. 10 To the married I give this ruling, and this is not mine but the Lord's: a wife must not be separated from her husband- 11 or if she has already left him, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband -- and a husband must not divorce his wife.
This is from the OLD Testament Malachi 2 You cry out, "Why doesn't the LORD accept my worship?" I'll tell you why! Because the LORD witnessed the vows you and your wife made when you were young. But you have been unfaithful to her, though she remained your faithful partner, the wife of your marriage vows. Basically He is saying that if we leave our spouse, He will turn His back on us, confirming the teachings of the Catholic Church.
I confess I know as little as I did before I read this Vatican statement. In fact less. It has just left me feeling confused.
Leaving Pope Francis' phone call aside, let us deal with the issue. St. Paul clearly teaches that "if a person receives the body and blood of Christ unworthily they receive unto their own condemnation". 1) being divorced/separated is not a sin and one can still be a good practicing Catholic in being divorced/seperated. 2) Unless a married person receives an annulment they cannot remarry and a civil marriage is not recognized as a valid sacramental marraige. 3) If a married/divorced person has any sexual relations with another person without an annulment they commit adultery. 4) If in adultery you surely fit into St. Paul's condemnation and clearly cannot receive communion without grave sin. So as I see it, if a priest, bishop, cardinal or pope allows communion without going through the annulment process then they would surely be in apostasy. Tell me where I am wrong here.
Yes most certainly Apostate. In fact a phrase comes back from childhood, 'Material heresy' I will have to look , 'Material heresy' up but I think it means heresy in action.
No it is not material heresy as I thought: http://irishanddangerous.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/difference-between-formal-and-material.html Rather perhaps implicit heresy? Certainly anyone who holds such views is Apostate and Anaethema. Automatically excomunicate.
We dont really know what the pope exactly said so I for one am not going to worry about it. All I am asked to do is to be faithful and to pray for priests/ Pope and Bishops. We are in strange times, a time of diabolical disorientation so I would not believe all I hear and especially stuff that is headlined based on the word of one person. So much prayer is needed for the church and Our Lady is begging us to pray for priests and not to spend our time criticising them. http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/the-city-gates.cfm?ID=786
ANYONE who pretends that they don't know the Pope's view on this matter, following his clear and unmistakeable remarks at the February Consistory of Cardinals, is being willfully ignorant (a sin). He has just 'jumped the gun' by a few months when the Bishops will undoubtedly support this new teaching and we all have to face up to it. His spokesman could have easily said 'The Pope has been misquoted' (five words) instead of the 'smokescreen' we have in response to this couple's claims. Our Lady told us at Akita that cardinal would oppose cardinal and bishop would oppose bishop and that the Church would be full of compromises. Those who believe that her predictions about a Warning are 'more than imminent' or imminent or near. Have to ignore Her words in that place to believe that such things as this were also not imminent. They are no longer imminent, they are HERE.
There is certainly allot of confusing clerical activities taking place. Has anyone forgotten the last mockery of faith allowing two lesbians to have their baby baptized in contradiction to canon law? It just keeps on coming.
As it looks like it will continue to keep coming Fatima. Pray for us oh Holy Mother of God that we may be made worthy of the promises of Jesus Christ!! (I like to add the Jesus in there for there is great power in both saying and typing His name if you ask me!)
