I got a similiar eye opener a couple of weeks back form a young priest who in his sermon mentioned the Holy Father. (I attended this young priest's first mass a year or two back. ) Anyway he mentioned that several other young priests he knew were highly critical of the Holy Father. I was very, very surprised at this. I had thought the young clergy and religious would have been naturally supportive of the Pope. The young priest in his turn attacked his fellow priests describing them as too fond of their own comforts and the status quo. Again a surprise to me that a priest should condemn other priests in public from the pulpit. Again a great surprise the depth and vehemence of the division.
Oh dear, this video is again produced as evidence for bad behaviour by the bishops! It just isn't true. Please look at the thread at http://motheofgod.com/threads/shock...hops-refuse-to-shake-hands-with-benedic.6620/ In particular, I quote the article at http://seedsmagazine.wordpress.com/...ntly-refuse-to-shake-hands-with-benedict-xvi/ The pope introduces one by one each of the cardinals and bishops to the president. This is why in the video the pope walks politely behind the president. Benedict XVI walks along, extending his right arm as he tells the president the name of every prelate.....
I know that was the excuse given and I accepted it at the time, David. But have another look at it, at the body language and faces of the Bishops and Cardianls in question. I have no doubt this was a multiple slap in the face. Also if they were not supposed to shake, how come some did and some didn't?
I am with you Padraig, that video cannot be explained away so easily. Those bishops don't look to me to be thrilled at meeting the Vicar of God, which you'd imagine they should be. Personally I think it puts into perspective why the Pope resigned.
The moment we want to believe something, we suddenly see all the arguments for it, and become blind to the arguments against it. George Bernard Shaw Some links on this human characteristic: http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2012/12/believe-what-we-want-to-believe.html http://www.str.org/articles/people-believe-what-they-want#.VGscnvmsXh4 http://blogs.adobe.com/digitalmarke...u-want-to-believe-observer-expectancy-effect/ I realise that I, also, have to be constantly reminding myself of all the above good advice....
It seemed to me that the point to be considered in the synod was really whether people in undoubtedly sinful unions were to be allowed receive communion or not. The debate was never about whether remarriage after divorce or same sex unions would have the blessing of the Church. But that's what took most attention. using the train analogy, I know we're on the right train, but we're still sitting in the station. There are other trains too, and they look much more attractive, but we all know they are either going the wrong direction or take such a circuitous route that people may be dead before they get to the destination. How do we get people to come onto our train? Kidnapping is not allowed, people have to choose to come on board. Some people have so much baggage they hardly fit, and we know that Confession and repentance would solve that problem. How do we bring them to repentance? Does that have to be done on the platform? On our train we have the dining carraige of the Eucharist. If anyone with excess baggage is refused entry to the dining carraige will that encourage more people to confess on the platform or will they just go get on another train with all their baggage? I don't know the answers. Fr. Pat's weighing of Belonging, Belief, and Behavior caught my attention. Religion is made of all three but how do we order them? with the help of God by the time we die we have all three and we receive our viaticum worthily. Even today's Gospel with Zaccheus up a tree makes me wonder rather than understand? I'm glad the weight of these decisions isn't on my shoulders, and yes I'd be happier if they were on BXVI's!!! Which is another reason why I'm not God and i don't get to start my own religion
I know if I were to meet with people who acted like this I would know they had the hatchets out for me for sure. I would not turn my back on them. Pope Benedit was a shy retiring man and this would have cut like a knife. As for the Shaw quote, it cuts both ways.
"If anyone with excess baggage is refused entry to the dining carriage".... What is missing here is that excluding people from the Eucharist is a mercy. This is based on St. Paul's teaching on the Eucharist: 1 Cor. 11:27-29 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. It is not a punishment to deny someone the Eucharist. It is to prevent someone in manifest grave sin or someone who is manifestly unable to "discern the body" (i.e. not Catholic) from eating and drinking judgment on themselves. If someone was allergic to the ingredients being used in the dining car, it is a mercy to refuse them entry.
Although, Paul's admonition was to those who did not truly believe as yet that this was truly the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. There was much greater emphasis on a banquet, a meal and thus lack of true discernment and realization of just what they were doing. Sadly we have a lot of that, generally, today....from decades of poor or even lack of correct instruction in the Truth.
If you believe it truly is the body and blood and eat it, surely you are more culpable than one who eats and drinks without belief?
If you eat with full knowledge and belief while knowing yourself unworthy, surely you are more guilty than one who is without faith? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invincible_ignorance_(Catholic_theology) Therefore Paul's warning would apply even more to those who claim to Church membership?
I just referenced who Paul was speaking to in example given....nothing more. Only those more knowledgeable in the rubrics can offer more than "opinions". I wouldn't dare try to know the hearts or minds of the various possible cases which could possibly be great numbers these days.
There are two aspects to the equation. Nobody can know "hearts and minds" - so that is one aspect - but situations where people are living in manifest grave sin or are outside the Church are sometimes obvious, and the Eucharist cannot be given in those situations, for their own good.
The Church Fathers actually instance cases of people who died after taking Communion unworthily. The Church Fathers took this very,very seriously and so did the Church always through her 2000 year history. http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/holycom/denial.htm
I did not know either. The Church appears very,very bitterly divided. If it is true as Scripture says, 'By their fruits you shall know them' ..and the fruit of this Synod is a bitterly divided Church then what does this say of the Synod, the tree from which this very bitter fruit has fallen?
Sometimes it is hard to hear the other side over the noise of our own argument. Synod debate seems to be often stuck in that vein! I appreciate your posts Mary Ann, Maryschild and Padraig- ye've driven me back to Scripture which is never a bad thing!
The way I see it, the divisions in the Church were already there long before the Synod; all the Synod did was bring them out into the open. I see that as part of the 'separating the sheep from the goats' process; at least, that is what I hope.
Yes but I notice some very,very good and wise people on the Forum take one view and some very good and wise people on the Forum take quite another. The same for the Church as a whole. Very confusing. But there is an objective right and wrong in all of this. The trouble is finding it. But I think it is important to remember that the fact that other people adopt a different viewpoint does not make the other person bad. ..and also to be kind and loving to each other in expressing our own viewpoints. But I agree if we go down a certain path at this point we risk reaching a dark and very bad place.
Padraig - you hit the nail on the head - the trouble is 'finding it' - If we on the forum who pray and are interested in the things of God and love God and the Church are finding it difficult to 'find the truth' in all of these things then the only conclusion I can come to is that we are living through the period of 'diabolical disorientation' as predicted by Lucia of Fatima. It would be great if everything was clear cut but unfortunately things will get even messier. At the feet of our Lady.
