Posted on 04/24/2014 1:48:53 PM PDT by NYer
After yesterday’s media confusion about a phone call Pope Francis made to a woman in Argentina regarding her reception of Communion, Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi today made a statement confirming that the phone call did take place, but indicating that reports about what was said may not be reliable and have no bearing on Church teaching.
It has been widely reported that Pope Francis called Jaquelina Lisbona of San Lorenzo, Argentina on Easter Monday in response to a letter she sent him last fall. The Holy Father allegedly told her that she may receive Communion despite being married to a man who is divorced.
Today Father Lombardi stated:
Several telephone calls have taken place in the context of Pope Francis’ personal pastoral relationships.
Since they do not in any way form part of the Pope's public activities, no information or comments are to be expected from the Holy See Press Office.
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.
Therefore, consequences relating to the teaching of the Church are not to be inferred from these occurrences.
Meanwhile, Catholic News Agency has more information on the situation, including details about the couple in question and quotes from a local priest, who called the suggestion that the Pope had given permission for Lisbona to receive Communion “absurd.”
[Julio Sabetta, Lisbona’s husband] was married into the Catholic church in 1985, but got legally divorced in 1992. In 1994, he was re-introduced to Jaquelina – they had been boyfriend and girlfriend in their teens – and the two started to live together in a civil union. Since then, they had two children, Candela and Josefina, aged 17 and 14, respectively.
Six years ago, during Candela's preparation for her confirmation – both daughters have been baptized, received first Holy Communion and have been confirmed – the local pastor at that time, who has been erroneously described as having left the priesthood by some news sources, told Jaquelina that she could not receive Communion because of her marital status.
Last September, encouraged by a friend, she decided to write Pope Francis about her situation and her desire to receive Communion.
The story of the Pope's “permission” to Jaquelina to receive Communion was first posted on Monday evening by Sabetta on his Facebook Page when he wrote: “Today one of the most beautiful things happened to me since the birth of my two daughters, I got a call in my home from none other than Pope Francis, it was a big emotion, we cannot figure it out yet, this call was originated by my wife who sent him a letter and he took his time to call her and talk to her and I can assure you that we he talks, he gives you total peace. Thanks God for this blessing!” …
What the Pope exactly told Jaquelina is a matter of controversy. Speaking to La Red, Jaquelina said that after talking for about ten minutes with the Pope, he allegedly told her that there are some priests that are “more Papist than the Pope” and that she should “go to confession and start taking communion at a different parish.”
In a second interview, overwhelmed by the international attention and the phone calls from around the world, she confirmed that she received “permission” to receive Communion by the Pope, but she complained: “this was supposed to be discrete, now I don't think I will be able to go anywhere now.”
Since Wednesday, Jaquelina has not been available for comments. …
Sabetta instead has been happy to respond to the press. According to his version: “Francisco told my wife that she was free from all sin, that she should go to communion, that she should go with peace of mind, since a divorced who goes (to Communion) is doing nothing wrong.”
“He only told her to go to communion to another parish to avoid frictions (with the pastor.)”
But the pastor of San Lorenzo's church, Fr. José Ceschi, said late on Wednesday that the alleged “permission” to receive communion given by the Pope is “absurd.”
Speaking to local radio station La Ocho, Fr. Ceschi said that “first of all, I am very happy to know that the Pope called someone in San Lorenzo, the Pope surprises with these calls and people is so surprised, and that makes me happy. I do believe in the call, but what is hard to believe is that he gave her permission to go to communion.”
“The Pope would never do that, is impossible. If he is coming from a previous sacrament and they are living together is absolutely impossible,” Fr. Ceschi told the radio station.
“What happens is that the Pope, like all bishops and priests, needs to be father, mother and teacher, always with an open heart, while telling things as they are.”
Speaking of his predecessor, who told Jaquelina that she could not receive communion, the priest noted that “Fr. Sergio was right, if a previous sacrament of marriage is involved, the Church cannot go beyond what Jesus has taught.” …
“Again, I believe that the call happened, I just don't believe the Pope would go over the head of the (local) bishop – it is absurd,” he reiterated.
But the early church didn't exist without Scripture. That was all available before someone had the idea to compile it into one handy book.
How can I offer Biblical authority when you won’t even define your understanding of communion? Like I said we can’t be sure we’re talking about the same thing. I gave you my definition. Terms need to be defined if we’re going to move forward. It’s not about asking you to prove a negative. It’s ensuring we’re on the same wavelength. There’s nothing nonsensical about that.
If you don’t believe in the Real Presence then say so. At least we know where each other stands and we can build upon that.
1 Corinthians 4:6 I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.
This is the same Sola Scriptura argument that Catholics and Protestants have disagreed on for centuries.
Protestants believe that if something is silent in the Bible then God has no position on the matter, so depending on the version of Protestant belief it is either 1) prohibited, or 3) allowed according to the whims of the interpreter.
Catholics believe that God is bigger than can fit in all the books in all the libraries that will ever exist. Though the Bible has all that is necessary and sufficient for salvation, there is so much more of God to be explored. One who truly loves God will naturally seek more than what is in the Bible. So long as it is not contradicting what is stated in the Bible, it is worthy of consideration. That is why priests have to learn philosophy and theology, which involve investigations about God beyond what is in the Bible for a deeper understading. It is also this need for more that we have Magisterium and Tradition to tell us more about God.
It is as if you do not know or understand yet what Catholics are about. Saying something is not strictly scriptural and therefore allowed/not allowd has no effect on us, because we have also to consider Tradition and Magisterium.
We will not convice you here. You will not convince us either. Both sides are just talking past each other. As it is an internal matter to the Catholic Church, why are you even concerned?
There is no NT priesthood except for the priesthood of the believers.
There's no need for it because there is no longer any sacrifice for sin that needs to be offered. Jesus said *It is finished* when He died on the cross and the veil in the temple was torn in two from top to bottom, by God Himself, showing that the way to the Holy of Holies was now open and men had direct access to Him without priests.
Jesus death was final and once for all, and He is now seated at the right hand of God waiting for His enemies to be made His footstool.
Which is a far cry from declaring it truth based on the fact that the Bible doesn't say specifically that it's NOT true. And that's what the Catholic church does.
The assumption of Mary? The Bible doesn't say it didn't happen so they teach that it did and anathema anyone who disagrees.
Understanding what you think that person should understand about communion is another issue.
We've already been over this. What looked like a good-faith discussion seems to have devolved into repetitious nonsense. If you have nothing more substantive to offer, I'm done.
I Corinthians 11:27
Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord
-— I appreciate your kind words but I have to ask what man-made rules are you referring to? -—
It’s not Sola Scriptura. This foundational dogma of Protestantism, which is found nowhere in Scripture, is never questioned.
You have a problem with the scriptures. Why not email Paul and ask him to clarify what he really meant.
hehe
And it’s not even Sola Scriptura. It’s Scripture-plus-the-Holy-Spirit, AKA ‘a voice in my head’.
In a way you are right. No one but God can prevent anyone from taking Communion unworthily. The Church cares for souls.
Mark 8:36
“For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul?
I know this is a little out of context but for what do you risk your soul? Receiving communion is a priceless gift from Christ, He gives Himself body and blood, soul and divinity. But we are greedy and we want it all. We want to live our lives the way we want and then take the gift without repercussion.
If you are remarried without receiving a nullity of your previous marriage through the Church you are openly living in sin. Therefore you should not want to go against Church teaching at the risk of your soul.
Which may be the point.
I appreciate the response. As for Biblical authority Matthew 16:18-19 gives the Holy Roman Catholic Church all the authority it needs to decide such matters, particularly when it comes to administering the sacraments.
As such The Church’s Canon No.: 915 states: Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.
Furthermore as 1 Corinthians 11:27 tells us that those who eat the Body and Blood of Christ do so unworthily and furher condemn themselves.
Therefore, denying someone who is in a state of manifest grave sin is the duty of the priest. It is also an act of mercy to prevent further damnation of the individual’s soul.
It makes my blood boil to see man using his own rules to prevent God's precious people, who Jesus died for, from coming to him and communing with him.
Again, please read what I first posted - I love Catholics and admire greatly much of what the Catholic church does.
You seem to be a reasonable guy. Thank you for the unimpassioned explanation. However, there are many levels of issues I have with this stuff - I hardly know where to begin. I must say, I've never been confronted with this kind of argument or thought structure that presumes justifiable interference between man and God, if the interference is not expressly forbidden in the Bible. Although I know there are basic, fundamental flaws with that way of thinking, I'll have to pray about scriptural support.
This reminds me a lot of the Constitution. The Constitution delegates government limited, specific enumerated certain powers. If the power is not delegated, then the power is off limits to the central government. But if we were to use the Catholic logic as you've portrayed, then government is presumed to have the power becasue Constitution does not expressly forbid it.
Also, if what you say is true about the Catholic logic here, then to me it would be like my saying, there are pink elephants and cyclops on the earth today. And then I tell you that you have the burden of proof to show there are no pink elephants or cyclops on the earth. It's an absurdity. They're trying to force you to prove a negative which you can't do. On the face, that right there tells you there's a fundamental flaw with it.
Not sure what point you are making; KJV below in context; note Paul is a father, and Timothy will instruct in person and orally so their church follows the catholic apostolic doctrine Paul is teaching all the churches. Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God. 2 Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful. 3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self. 4 For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord. 5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God. 6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another. 7 For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it? 8 Now ye are full, now ye are rich, ye have reigned as kings without us: and I would to God ye did reign, that we also might reign with you. 9 For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men. 10 We are fools for Christ's sake, but ye are wise in Christ; we are weak, but ye are strong; ye are honourable, but we are despised. 11 Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwellingplace; 12 And labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it: 13 Being defamed, we intreat: we are made as the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of all things unto this day. 14 I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you. 15 For though ye have ten thousand instructers in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. 16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me. 17 For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church. 18 Now some are puffed up, as though I would not come to you. 19 But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and will know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power. 20 For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power. 21 What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in the spirit of meekness?
“That was all available before someone had the idea to compile it into one handy book”
Oh, to hell with those mean ole Catholics that actually sorted through the hundreds of different gospels under the guidance of the Holy Spirit to come up with the Bible you and your cohorts read. It would have been much better if they had been left alone so you could have the Gospel of Judas to read. The Catholics put everything on a computer and using Microsoft Office made it much better for you and your Catholic-hating ilk to read.
Will there ever come a time in their life where certain FR posters ever give the Catholic Church credit for anything? There’s a certain poster on here that is absolutely incapable of doing so. Figure out who I’m talking about.
I tend to avoid theological arguments, but isn’t it a basic tenet of Christianity that we’re all living in sin, openly or not? If the church barred every sinner from communion, the line would be very short indeed.
The Bible does not forbid one from taking communion becasue of sin.
There is no information outside of the bible to study about God...
Understanding does not and can not come from man's philosophical wisdom...Understanding comes from the Spirit of God...
One who truly loves God will naturally seek more than what is in the Bible.
That's a completely false statement...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.