I absolutely loved Pope Francis' homilies from the chapel of his Motel 6 residence. These are jewels to say the least and what a jewel today's is! This is but one quote that will drive the progressives crazy as they see the Church as being what they do, how they make the liturgy and on and on and on, babel, babel, babel, but the Pope makes clear that the Church is God's divine institution, not a human construct much less a functionary, intermediary or domestic administrator, She is Mother!:
"The disciples do not make the Church – they are the messengers sent by Jesus. And Christ was sent by the Father: “The Church begins there,” he said, “in the heart of the Father, who had this idea . . . of love. So this love story began, a story that has gone on for so long, and is not yet ended. We, the women and men of the Church, we are in the middle of a love story: each of us is a link in this chain of love. And if we do not understand this, we have understood nothing of what the Church is."
Pope Francis: Church is in a love story
(Vatican Radio) The Church is not a bureaucratic organization, but a love story. This was Pope Francis’ message during Wednesday’s Mass in the Chapel of the Casa Santa Marta.
Attending the Mass this morning were employees of the Institute for the Works of Religion, commonly called the Vatican bank. Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragán, President Emeritus of the Pontifical Council for Health Pastoral Care, concelebrated Mass with the Holy Father.
The day’s readings tell the story of the growth of the first Christian community. In his homily, the Pope warned against being tempted to make "deals" simply to get "more partners in this enterprise."
Instead, he said, “the road that Jesus willed for His Church is otherwise: the way of difficulties, the way of the Cross, the way of persecution . . . And this makes us wonder: what is this Church? Because it seems it is not a human enterprise."
The Church, he said, is "something else." The disciples do not make the Church – they are the messengers sent by Jesus. And Christ was sent by the Father: “The Church begins there,” he said, “in the heart of the Father, who had this idea . . . of love. So this love story began, a story that has gone on for so long, and is not yet ended. We, the women and men of the Church, we are in the middle of a love story: each of us is a link in this chain of love. And if we do not understand this, we have understood nothing of what the Church is."
The temptation is to focus on the growth of the Church without taking the path of love: "But the Church does not grow by human strength. Some Christians have gone wrong for historical reasons, they have taken the wrong path, they have raised armies, they have waged wars of religion: that is another story, that is not the story of love. Yet we learn, with our mistakes, how the story of love goes. But how does it increase? Jesus said simply: like the mustard seed, it grows like yeast in the flour, without noise."
A head of state once asked how big the Pope’s army was. The Church does not increase “through military might”, said Pope Francis, but through the power of the Holy Spirit. This is because the Church is not just another organisation: “she is Mother” he said. The Pope commented on the number of mothers present at the Mass. “How would you feel,” he asked, “if someone said: she’s a domestic administrator? 'No, I am the mother!' And the Church is Mother. And we are in the middle of a love story that continues thanks to the power of the Holy Spirit. All of us together are a family in the Church, who is our Mother."
The Pope concluded his reflection with a prayer to Mary, asking that she might "give us the grace of the spiritual joy of participating in this love story."
14 comments:
He certainly seems to be saying orthodox things, (though most seem to relate to faith rather than morals). Let's assume that he continues thus. That's certainly a good thing, but then the problem becomes the same one that the hierarchy has demonstrated for the last 40 years: action (or lack thereof). What will he do?
Case in point: In 2007 then-Cardinal Bergoglio signed onto, and gave an address on, the Aparecida Document, which states “We should be conscious that people cannot receive Holy Communion and at the same time act or speak against the commandments, in particular when abortion, euthanasia, and other serious crimes against life and family are facilitated. This responsibility applies particularly to legislators, governors, and health professionals.” (Note the stern "cannot" rather than the mealy-mouthed "should not.") So now that he's pope, what is he prepared to do to put teeth into this statement? Especially in light of the fact that two of the most notorious pro-abort "Catholics" in the world received communion at his installation?
In sum, and as I've said many times on this blog when discussing the state of the Church, talk is cheap.
I think in terms of morality and failure to be moral or holy, the Holy Father is calling all of us to repent and go to confession and that God's mercy is a great abyss, but we must not fail to go to the font of mercy. God never grows tired of forgiving us, but we grow tired of asking and to our detriment.
In terms of enforcing who can and cannot go to Holy Communion, that is a delicate operation and indeed needs the backing of the Holy Father in terms of instructions to local bishops. It has to be modeled from the top down.
However, I know that I don't like being a policeman at Mass, so if someone who is in a state of mortal sin and receives to make a political point, he is condemning himself to the everlasting fires of Gehenna if he doesn't repent or doesn't stop committing this sacrilege.
Yes, Fr, but if I had spoken at a pro-abortion rally and had my name and picture in the paper and came to you that following Sunday to receive, would you not refuse me?
I know that the policeman thing does present pastoral problems, and I don't think that, even if a priest or bishop were so inclined, Mass could ever be policed in such a way as to to eliminate sacreligious communions. But I think that this particular problem goes beyond Mass-policing and to the question of public excommunication, which of course bishops have refused to do in recent times. Out of false charity, they permit the sin of scandal to run rampant, and they cop out by saying that these people are already excommunicated, thus allowing the (ex)communicants to add to their sins rather than perform the unpleasant duty of confronting them and/or stirring up a public hornets' nest. Too self-serving in my book. They say that they don't want to play politics with the sacrament, but in essence that's exactly whet they're doing. Or was rchbishop Burke wrong to state that he would deny Kerry communion if he presented himself?
At the very least the bishops should directly, personally inform the (ex)communicants that they are committing grave sin by receiving in such circumstances. Perhaps they have actually done this in some circumstances, but my guess would be that they haven't. If Pelosi had been told that by a bishop, she probably would have disclosed it in order to make political hay of it. Even if some bishops have done so, it doesn't have the same deterrent and instructional value that a public excommunication does, so it still fails to deal with scandal and does the Faithful a disservice.
In short, I'm not the one who stated that such people _can't_ receive. The Church chose that language, and then-Cardinal Bergoglio signed on to it. What I want to know is if he's actually prepared to do anything in accord with that statement or whether it's as toothless as most of the orthodox statements of the past forty years.
I have in the past spoken to parishioners who I knew were in a bad situation and publicly with the Church and told them not to come up to Holy Communion and I have refused Communion to those who shouldn't.
We should not be surprised that people who make their livings opposing Church teachings should commit sacrilege with communion. they are being consistent. I cannot know, and should not know, if they have gone to confession that morning and are now able to receive. The priests are in a tough place when they have to make that call. There are folks who have been taught in error that they can have this difference in 'conscience' with the Church and still receive. I have been taught that by a priest, but realised it was bunk. Some folks will chose convenience. I had a good friend refused communion on Easter because he wanted it on the tongue. So one can be 'ex-communicated' easily if the priest wants to do it.
I suppose it is difficult, but we should be willing to refuse communion to people who are publicly at odds with the Church and do it in a friendly manner. It is sort of like the Baptists that were insulted that FrAJm would not give them communion. No need for a dust up, just say no and explain. They really should not want it, after all.
rcg,
You make very good points. You're right that we often aren't in a position to know. But regarding Pelosi et al., it's a safe bet that they haven't, based on their public statements and actions. I.e., they are prima facie meeting Canon 915's requirement of "obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin"--indeed, they are going to some pains to call attention to the fact.
As for those who've been taught erroneously thatthey can receive, thy can honestly say at their judgment that they didn't know better, but the easy remedy here is for all priests to teach it very plainly and very publicly. If they still don't hear it because they don't attend Mass, well, then the Church has done its best to correct the problem.
Re refusing communion on the tongue: this points out the irony. Modernists have no problem at all exercising their power in pointed, decisive, albeit wrong ways. It's like Fr. Martin Tran and Bishop Tod Brown banning kneeling for communion. I don't think that Brown actually excommunicated anyone over that, but they didn't heasitate to use very hars words to characterize it including rebellion, mortal sin, and grave disobedience.
I am genuinely shocked. Even if the custom in a particular parish is for most/all to receive in the hand, how can a priest possibly refuse receiving on the tongue? In my 33 years at St. Josephs parishioners have received in both ways. I thought we always had that choice since V2. What don’t I know?
Anon2: Trying to going to a different Parish other than St Joseph and dropping to your knees to receive on the tongue. I have had Priests stare at me, grunt at me, roll their eyes at me, gesture at me to stand, etc.
But I've also had a Priest (a very young one) thank me for doing it too.
I'm sick and tired of words not deeds from Clergy and the Church in general. If they want to be followed they have to learn to lead.
Templar, I can understand that dropping to your knees where that option is not indicated by, for example, kneelers, might take a priest by surprise but surely not standing and receiving on the tongue (which is how I read rcg’s comment -- but perhaps the friend dropped to his knees too)?
My wife was publicly scolded by a deacon for attempting to receive on the tongue. She was standing. He said very loudly to her, "Hold out your hand." She was quite embarrassed.
That was in the Archdiocese of St. Louis, which is usually thought to be one of the better dioceses in the USA.
Can you get in trouble for punching a Deacon?
St. Nicholas punched another bishop at the First Council of Nicaea. They other bishops present were upset about having to excommunicate him because he was such a great defender of the Faith. God revealed to them that he had pinched the other bishop out of holy anger because the other bishop was a heretic, an enemy of Truth.
So, God revealed St. Nicholas needn't be excommunicated because his anger was pure and righteous like the anger of Christ with the Temple merchants.
Unfortunately, my anger in most cases is rarely pure. So, I resist punching clerics even if they are heretics (or, worse, permanent deacons).
:-)
Marc, Perhaps, if we could get a Priest to bless our fists
ahead of time...Julius II used to bless cannon...even direct their placement for better effect.
Post a Comment