Archbishop Chaput: Pope Francis cannot contradict John Paul II on Communion

[TMC]

Did the Holy Father not privately publish a letter to the Argentine Bishops calling their interpretation of Amoris Laetitia the “only correct one,” or words to that effect? Was this letter not leaked to the press? Has he not denied remembering the infamous footnote in question? Has he not refused, thus far, to clarify the Dubia? Did he not tell folks to consult Cardinal Schoenborn on all of this, who himself has had at least two positions on the proper interpretation of AL, rather than clarifying things himself? Has he directly addressed the past 1994 ruling of the CDF, approved by the Holy Father Pope St. John Paul II, which clearly and adamently saw the Kasper proposal as being contrary to the constant and universal practice of the Church?

Those are the things I was referencing, and there are many more. But regardless, the Pope has not issued a teaching document that once and for all settles all of the various questions that reflective theologians, Priests, Bishops, and Cardinals have been asking about all of this. I’m not sure why that’s even debatable. What we have is an ambiguous document which one could interpret in several ways, which has so far only been clarified by the actions of Bishop’s conferences and by private correspondences. The former would conform with what you originally mentioned: one Pope correcting the non-infallible teachings of another. The latter does no such thing.

Your accusations that the Pope is dealing in secrecy and innuendo are simply wrong. The Pope communicates with his brother bishops privately at times, sure. But AL is the Pope’s teaching, and it is very public, as are his public sermons and many, many public statements. No one teaching document could ever settle every issue, but the Pope is certainly teaching. That some resist his teaching does not deny or diminish it.

 

[PhosElelythen]

But AL is the Pope’s teaching, and it is very public, as are his public sermons and many, many public statements. No one teaching document could ever settle every issue, but the Pope is certainly teaching.

Let’s frame this again. We are here discussing whether or not the present Holy Father can correct the past, non-infallible teaching of Pope St. John Paul II. The answer is that he can. But the further answer is that he can only do so using the means at his disposal: to issue a document of greater or equal authority than Familiaris Consortio and Veritatis Splendor wherein he clearly corrects the past teaching and offers a new one. Homilies and public statements don’t meet that criteria. I’m sorry, but that’s an overly simplistic understanding of authority.

Now, perhaps it is your opinion that AL clearly corrects those documents with regard to certain teachings, and perhaps you think everyone who thinks that document is ambiguous is just a nut. That’s fine, I don’t mind if you have that opinion.

But let’s at least agree that your opinion is not so overwhelmingly obvious that people in good conscience, and with a dispassioned mind, could not possibly see things in a different way. Many people believe that the document can be read in several ways, and that this accounts for the objective fact that various Bishops contradict themselves on what the document means. Many people are looking for more clarity, and it is by no means an act of mercy to simply ignore them or to belittle them, as various people in the Catholic media seem to do. And if we can’t agree on that, let’s at least agree that AL can’t possibly directly correct Veritatis Splendor, since that document is never even mentioned in it.

Moreover—and I do not aim this at you, since I think the question you raised here is absolutely excellent—there’s people who, in my opinion, are either hiding their heads in the sand with regard to AL being problematic, or else are running around like the sky is falling and as if nothing is true anymore. We have to admit that something serious is occurring here, or we will no longer be pursuing truth.

… and just to be clear, I’m not trying to “accuse” the Holy Father as if I don’t like him. I’m very fond of him and of many aspects of his Papacy, even if I can’t love him as I’ve loved other Popes.

 

[TMC]

Let’s frame this again. We are here discussing whether or not the present Holy Father can correct the past, non-infallible teaching of Pope St. John Paul II. The answer is that he can. But the further answer is that he can only do so using the means at his disposal: to issue a document of greater or equal authority than Familiaris Consortio and Veritatis Splendor wherein he clearly corrects the past teaching and offers a new one. Homilies and public statements don’t meet that criteria. I’m sorry, but that’s an overly simplistic understanding of authority.

Now, perhaps it is your opinion that AL clearly corrects those documents with regard to certain teachings, and perhaps you think everyone who thinks that document is ambiguous is just a nut. That’s fine, I don’t mind if you have that opinion.

But let’s at least agree that your opinion is not so overwhelmingly obvious that people in good conscience, and with a dispassioned mind, could not possibly see things in that way. Many people believe that the document can be read in several ways, and that this accounts for the objective fact that various Bishops contradict themselves on what the document means. Many people are looking for more clarity, and it is by no means an act of mercy to simply ignore them or to belittle them, as various people in the Catholic media seem to do.

Moreover—and I do not aim this at you, since I think the question you raised here is absolutely excellent—there’s people who, in my opinion, are either hiding their heads in the sand with regard to AL being problematic, or else are running around like the sky is falling and as if nothing is true anymore. We have to admit that something serious is occurring here, or we will no longer be pursuing truth.

… and just to be clear, I’m not trying to “accuse” the Holy Father as if I don’t like him. I’m very fond of him and of many aspects of his Papacy, even if I can’t love him as I’ve loved other Popes.

So you agree that a current Pope can alter (or develop or evolve) the non-infallible teaching of a past Pope. Why then do you say he must do so in a document that you find to be “clear”? And why is the Pope’s authority limited to certain types of formal statements? Where is that proscribed? Of course, in this instance the Pope has issued very formal and authoritative documents, so I would suggest that point is moot.

As a bit of an aside, for my part, I do not find AL to be particularly unclear. I find it to be deep and rich, which are different qualities. It takes some time to absorb as an individual, and will take time to unpack and absorb as a faith community. None of that is particularly unusual. We are still unpacking and absorbing some of the teachings of the great masters of yesteryear.

But even so, I don’t think that the value or authority of a particular teaching is tied to its simplicity or clarity. I think that Pope Francis is building on the teachings of the past (not ignoring or abolishing them), and that he need not be simplistic in the way he goes about doing that. I acknowledge that a lot of people would prefer simplicity, and that there is value in simplicity. But that is not his style. Moreover, theology is not always simple. Like any serious area of study, there are some simple and elegant aspects, mixed with others that are deep, complex and nuanced.

All that said, I understand that many people of good faith find AL to be problematic. I also believe, unfortunately, that there are many people who say they are “confused” by the Pope, that they don’t understand him, or that he is “unclear,” when they actually mean that they disagree with him; and what they cannot understand is why he doesn’t conform his teaching to their opinions. When they say these things, they contribute to the concerns and confusion of others. That is not to say that there are no legitimate concerns. But those concerns are not helped or addressed by those that describe the Pope’s teaching as ignoring adultery, making sin optional, or destroying objective morality. Those deliberate distortions of the Pope’s teachings are not meant to advance discussion or contribute to understanding. They are meant to foment discord and increase agitation.

I agree with you that something serious is happening here. The serious thing that is happening is that the Vicar of Christ is leading the Church toward a deeper understanding of the Faith. I understand that some disagree with the Pope’s teaching, and think it is heading in the wrong direction. I welcome any serious discussion of those issues that begins with an acknowledgment (at a minimum) that the Pope is making a serious and good faith attempt at leading the Church toward a fuller understanding of the Faith. But many of these threads seem to begin with an assumption of the opposite, and with accusations that anyone who supports the Pope is weak, watering down the faith, or even aligned with evil. I admit that those constant attacks on the Pope (here on a Catholic forum) sometimes leave me a bit testy. I am still willing to attempt to discuss the issues, but frankly I don’t know that it is still possible to seriously discuss Catholic theology on this forum, given the heated rhetoric and the inherent limitations of the venue.

(Sorry for the longish stream of consciousness.)

 

[Blue_Horizon]

That sounds like a ‘yes’ then.

See forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…5&postcount=71
But if you are one of those who must always have the last word knock yourself out…

 

[Blue_Horizon]

So you agree that a current Pope can alter (or develop or evolve) the non-infallible teaching of a past Pope. Why then do you say he must do so in a document that you find to be “clear”? And why is the Pope’s authority limited to certain types of formal statements? Where is that proscribed? Of course, in this instance the Pope has issued very formal and authoritative documents, so I would suggest that point is moot.

As a bit of an aside, for my part, I do not find AL to be particularly unclear. I find it to be deep and rich, which are different qualities. It takes some time to absorb as an individual, and will take time to unpack and absorb as a faith community. None of that is particularly unusual. We are still unpacking and absorbing some of the teachings of the great masters of yesteryear.

But even so, I don’t think that the value or authority of a particular teaching is tied to its simplicity or clarity. I think that Pope Francis is building on the teachings of the past (not ignoring or abolishing them), and that he need not be simplistic in the way he goes about doing that. I acknowledge that a lot of people would prefer simplicity, and that there is value in simplicity. But that is not his style. Moreover, theology is not always simple. Like any serious area of study, there are some simple and elegant aspects, mixed with others that are deep, complex and nuanced.

All that said, I understand that many people of good faith find AL to be problematic. I also believe, unfortunately, that there are many people who say they are “confused” by the Pope, that they don’t understand him, or that he is “unclear,” when they actually mean that they disagree with him; and what they cannot understand is why he doesn’t conform his teaching to their opinions. When they say these things, they contribute to the concerns and confusion of others. That is not to say that there are no legitimate concerns. But those concerns are not helped or addressed by those that describe the Pope’s teaching as ignoring adultery, making sin optional, or destroying objective morality. Those deliberate distortions of the Pope’s teachings are not meant to advance discussion or contribute to understanding. They are meant to foment discord and increase agitation.

I agree with you that something serious is happening here. The serious thing that is happening is that the Vicar of Christ is leading the Church toward a deeper understanding of the Faith. I understand that some disagree with the Pope’s teaching, and think it is heading in the wrong direction. I welcome any serious discussion of those issues that begins with an acknowledgment (at a minimum) that the Pope is making a serious and good faith attempt at leading the Church toward a fuller understanding of the Faith. But many of these threads seem to begin with an assumption of the opposite, and with accusations that anyone who supports the Pope is weak, watering down the faith, or even aligned with evil. I admit that those constant attacks on the Pope (here on a Catholic forum) sometimes leave me a bit testy. I am still willing to attempt to discuss the issues, but frankly I don’t know that it is still possible to seriously discuss Catholic theology on this forum, given the heated rhetoric and the inherent limitations of the venue.

(Sorry for the longish stream of consciousness.)

Bump

 

[hwriggles4]

I said already that I appreciate Archbishop Chaput for taking a stand on the guidelines for Catholics to receive communion. I’ve also emphasized that Bishop Lopes sent a well thought out statement that upholds the current guidelines for receiving communion.

For those who haven’t read Bishop Lopes A Pledged Troth, I highly recommend it, particularly since it was not well publicized, even in Catholic circles. Bishop Lopes is the Bishop for the Ordinariate for the Chair of St. Peter, and quite a few former Anglicans (and Episcopalians) became Catholic in part due to Holy Mother Church standing up for traditional marriage.

Here are some issues that I see with Amoris Laetetia:
- Currently, the Dubia has not been answered, even though several Cardinals have asked.

• Different bishops are making their own conclusions. I hope the Church doesn’t end up split on this, where in one diocese a Catholic could receive communion without an annulment, while other places the traditional teaching holds. That’s sounds too much like a non-denominational Church - where’s the authority?
• Catholics who took the time to go through the annulment process (and those that even lived as brother and sister for a time), are going to start thinking, “what’s the point?”
• Converts (and reverts like me) are going to start thinking, “why did I convert if the Church is leaning the way that many of their Protestant bretheren have gone?”
• Existing documents like *Familiaris Consortio *are being ignored.
• I also don’t know whatever became of Pope Benedict XVI’s encylical Sacramentum Caritatis, which has guidelines for receiving communion. Honestly, I haven’t heard much about this document in years.

This is why the Dubia needs to be answered.

 

[irenaeus1]

So you agree that a current Pope can alter (or develop or evolve) the non-infallible teaching of a past Pope. Why then do you say he must do so in a document that you find to be “clear”? And why is the Pope’s authority limited to certain types of formal statements? Where is that proscribed? Of course, in this instance the Pope has issued very formal and authoritative documents, so I would suggest that point is moot.

As a bit of an aside, for my part, I do not find AL to be particularly unclear. I find it to be deep and rich, which are different qualities. It takes some time to absorb as an individual, and will take time to unpack and absorb as a faith community. None of that is particularly unusual. We are still unpacking and absorbing some of the teachings of the great masters of yesteryear.

But even so, I don’t think that the value or authority of a particular teaching is tied to its simplicity or clarity. I think that Pope Francis is building on the teachings of the past (not ignoring or abolishing them), and that he need not be simplistic in the way he goes about doing that. I acknowledge that a lot of people would prefer simplicity, and that there is value in simplicity. But that is not his style. Moreover, theology is not always simple. Like any serious area of study, there are some simple and elegant aspects, mixed with others that are deep, complex and nuanced.

All that said, I understand that many people of good faith find AL to be problematic. I also believe, unfortunately, that there are many people who say they are “confused” by the Pope, that they don’t understand him, or that he is “unclear,” when they actually mean that they disagree with him; and what they cannot understand is why he doesn’t conform his teaching to their opinions. When they say these things, they contribute to the concerns and confusion of others. That is not to say that there are no legitimate concerns. But those concerns are not helped or addressed by those that describe the Pope’s teaching as ignoring adultery, making sin optional, or destroying objective morality. Those deliberate distortions of the Pope’s teachings are not meant to advance discussion or contribute to understanding. They are meant to foment discord and increase agitation.

I agree with you that something serious is happening here. The serious thing that is happening is that the Vicar of Christ is leading the Church toward a deeper understanding of the Faith. I understand that some disagree with the Pope’s teaching, and think it is heading in the wrong direction. I welcome any serious discussion of those issues that begins with an acknowledgment (at a minimum) that the Pope is making a serious and good faith attempt at leading the Church toward a fuller understanding of the Faith. But many of these threads seem to begin with an assumption of the opposite, and with accusations that anyone who supports the Pope is weak, watering down the faith, or even aligned with evil. I admit that those constant attacks on the Pope (here on a Catholic forum) sometimes leave me a bit testy. I am still willing to attempt to discuss the issues, but frankly I don’t know that it is still possible to seriously discuss Catholic theology on this forum, given the heated rhetoric and the inherent limitations of the venue.

(Sorry for the longish stream of consciousness.)

I see what you are saying, but I wouldn’t attribute malice to those who find the pope confusing and thus using that as an excuse to hide behind a supposed disagreement with him. And by the way, it’s not even that the ‘pope disagrees with my opinion’ but rather where it may appear that the pope disagrees with scripture and tradition that is the concern of many. For example, if the pope stated that Jesus did not die for our sins but His death merely served as an example to teach us how to love, one person could say, “we know exactly what the pope is teaching; namely, that Jesus did not die for our sins.” But others would say, “Wait, this is confusing because we know that the Church has always taught the Jesus died for our sins. So, giving the pope the benefit of the doubt, what did the pope actually mean by what he said?” It stands to reason that this would be treated as ‘confusion’ because it gives the benefit of the doubt to the pope that he may be correct, and we are unable to connect the dots to understand why this is NOT a change in Church doctrine.

So on one side, I think I know that what the pope is teaching; namely, that the divorced and civilly remarried who are not living as brother and sister can, in certain (supposedly rare) instances, receive Holy Communion, although this is not explicitly stated in Amoris Laetitia. That this seems to contradict Church teaching, most specifically Veritatis Splendor, Familiaris Consortio, Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, Sacramentum Caritatis, the Council of Trent, the Catechism of the Catholic Church seems quite evident. What is not provided is, assuming that the pope’s teaching as articulated above is correct, how this does not contradict past Church teaching; hence, the dubia. I gave two specific examples of this apparent contradiction in Post #93.

 

[TMC]

I see what you are saying, but I wouldn’t attribute malice to those who find the pope confusing and thus using that as an excuse to hide behind a supposed disagreement with him. And by the way, it’s not even that the ‘pope disagrees with my opinion’ but rather where it may appear that the pope disagrees with scripture and tradition that is the concern of many. For example, if the pope stated that Jesus did not die for our sins but His death merely served as an example to teach us how to love, one person could say, “we know exactly what the pope is teaching; namely, that Jesus did not die for our sins.” But others would say, “Wait, this is confusing because we know that the Church has always taught the Jesus died for our sins. So, giving the pope the benefit of the doubt, what did the pope actually mean by what he said?” It stands to reason that this would be treated as ‘confusion’ because it gives the benefit of the doubt to the pope that he may be correct, and we are unable to connect the dots to understand why this is NOT a change in Church doctrine.

I don’t believe that everyone who says they find the Pope confusing are using that as an excuse, but I do believe that many are. As to whether it is an opinion or not - of course it is. To say that the Pope is teaching (or “appears” to be teaching) against tradition or against scripture is obviously an opinion. Certainly the Pope doesn’t believe that. The truth is that there are as many opinions on the meaning of scripture and the contents of the deposit of faith as there are Christians. Discussion of those shades and variances of opinion can be fruitful, but not if the discussions start with the proposition that only one interpretation of scripture and tradition is possible.

So on one side, I think I know that what the pope is teaching; namely, that the divorced and civilly remarried who are not living as brother and sister can, in certain (supposedly rare) instances, receive Holy Communion, although this is not explicitly stated in Amoris Laetitia. That this seems to contradict Church teaching, most specifically Veritatis Splendor, Familiaris Consortio, Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, Sacramentum Caritatis, the Council of Trent, the Catechism of the Catholic Church seems quite evident. What is not provided is, assuming that the pope’s teaching as articulated above is correct, how this does not contradict past Church teaching; hence, the dubia. I gave two specific examples of this apparent contradiction in Post #93.

I think you are reading that particular aspect of the Pope’s teaching more or less correctly. I don’t think that anyone would say that this is not a change in teaching (or development or evolution, if you prefer). The term that so many want to use and can’t get past is “contradict.” To understand whether the Pope is contradicting something it is important to get at the heart of what was taught in the past, and what is being taught now.

Most people focus on the externalities of teaching. For example, the Church has long taught EENS - that outside the Church there is no salvation. For many years, that was interpreted to mean that pagans, atheists, protestants and other non-Catholics could not be saved. But today we understand that it means that all salvation comes through the Church, and that non-Catholics can be saved, but that occurs through a connection with the Church that we frankly don’t fully understand. When that teaching was announced, many Catholics focused on the externality - we used to say that pagans were damned, now we say they can be saved, that is a 180 change. But over time we learned to look at the deeper teaching - that salvation comes through the Church, and that all who are saved are saved by that means.

That is what is also going on here, in my view. The Church has taught that to receive the Sacraments requires a certain relationship with God - one that is usually described as not being in mortal sin. To approach God while actively rejecting God through mortal sin is contrary to the purpose of the Sacraments, and therefore we do not allow it. We focus on the externality of this teaching - the remarried can’t receive Communion. (Setting aside for the moment that the teaching applies equally to all sinners, something we often conveniently ignore.)

Pope Francis is saying - wait a minute. The real core of this teaching is that the Sacraments require a certain relationship with God, a relationship that includes a real and good faith intention to live one’s life properly and morally. The Pope, I believe, is saying that we can’t apply blanket labels to everyone in irregular marriages and declare that they are all necessarily in such a broken position regarding God - in active mortal sin - that they cannot approach God through the Sacraments. Individual inquiry must be made, because some of these individuals may be in a position to receive the Sacraments, even if they are in relationships the Church does not approve of. So the core teaching is preserved - that one must be in a certain place in relationship to God to approach God in the Sacraments, but the externalities have changed - the blanket prohibition on the remarried having access to the Sacraments. The parallel to EENS is precise, which is why I use it as an example. We are not saying that being pagan is just as good as being Catholic, but we now acknowledge that some pagans may be able to live a life such that they are saved. Similarly, we are not saying that being remarried is fine, or just as good as keeping to one marriage, but the Church is acknowledging that some of the remarried may be in a position to approach God in the Sacraments.

 

[TMC]

Following on my last post (which hit character limit)

Obviously there will be concerns over the implementation of this development. How can we tell who can receive the Sacraments without a bright line rule? The Pope is charging pastors with sorting that out, together with the individuals. Will mistakes be made - sure. But Pope Francis is not willing to give up on those that may be in a position to benefit from the Sacraments for the sake of maintaining a more simple rule.

That is how I see it, anyway. (Sorry for the long post, but that is part of what I meant when I referred to the inherent limitations of discussion theology in a forum.)

 

[irenaeus1]

Following on my last post (which hit character limit)

Obviously there will be concerns over the implementation of this development. How can we tell who can receive the Sacraments without a bright line rule? The Pope is charging pastors with sorting that out, together with the individuals. Will mistakes be made - sure. But Pope Francis is not willing to give up on those that may be in a position to benefit from the Sacraments for the sake of maintaining a more simple rule.

That is how I see it, anyway. (Sorry for the long post, but that is part of what I meant when I referred to the inherent limitations of discussion theology in a forum.)

Thanks, I really like this analogy. Although I don’t know how strictly the Church has always taught EENS, from Fr. Feeney getting into trouble (and this was pre-Vatican II) all the way back to St. Augustine who stated something to the effect that there are those who appear to be in the Church who are not, and those who appear not to be within the Church but are. Other more forceful pronouncements were typically drawn up due a specific heretical or schismatic groups.

But regardless, if what you propose is indeed the case, and I admit that it sounds reasonable, how are we ever to judge what is morally licit then with any confidence. So, for example, the gay lobby believes the Church is wrong regarding same-sex acts and same-sex marriage and needs to ‘update’ her teachings. Or how about Catholics for Choice who believe that the Church is wrong regarding abortion and is simply waiting for the Church to ‘catch up’ and recognize a nuance somewhere that will allow for abortion. How do the faithful know whether they may actually be correct?

 

[Ginny89]

Thanks, I really like this analogy. Although I don’t know how strictly the Church has always taught EENS, from Fr. Feeney getting into trouble (and this was pre-Vatican II) all the way back to St. Augustine who stated something to the effect that there are those who appear to be in the Church who are not, and those who appear not to be within the Church but are. Other more forceful pronouncements were typically drawn up due a specific heretical or schismatic groups.

But regardless, if what you propose is indeed the case, and I admit that it sounds reasonable, how are we ever to judge what is morally licit then with any confidence. So, for example, the gay lobby believes the Church is wrong regarding same-sex acts and same-sex marriage and needs to ‘update’ her teachings. Or how about Catholics for Choice who believe that the Church is wrong regarding abortion and is simply waiting for the Church to ‘catch up’ and recognize a nuance somewhere that will allow for abortion. How do the faithful know whether they may actually be correct?

The early church recognized the validity of baptism by heretics. This was already an acknowledgment of the reality of salvation outside the visible bounds of the church. EENS was in response to a secular authority (king) claiming that he was ‘free’ from the church’s authority merely by virtue of these worldly authority. Its meaning, in context, was that absolutely everyone, be he an emperor or a peasant was bound to the church’s authority and none was free to set it aside.

There is no conflict between that and modern teaching. Even now it is a mortal sin to willfully leave the church knowing who she is or to refuse to join the church once one knows what the church is. The church’s acknowledgment of the reality of salvation outside her visible bounds is nearly as old as the church and the requirement to become and remain catholic is still Catholic teaching today. The development that occurred is perfectly in line with intellectual consistency. The variety been touted now as a similar one to that is a clear contradiction. You have to throw away the foundations of reason to reconcile them.

 

[Ender]

To say that the Pope is teaching (or “appears” to be teaching) against tradition or against scripture is obviously an opinion.

Since it isn’t known what the pope is teaching on this subject, anything said about it is obviously an opinion. That said, if the teaching is as the Malta bishops have interpreted it then, yes, it would be against tradition.

The truth is that there are as many opinions on the meaning of scripture and the contents of the deposit of faith as there are Christians. Discussion of those shades and variances of opinion can be fruitful, but not if the discussions start with the proposition that only one interpretation of scripture and tradition is possible.

If truth cannot be known, if everything is merely one person’s opinion against that of another, then what good is discussion? If we are unwilling to say “this is wrong, that is right” in regard to these issues then not only can the debate not be fruitful but the topics are not even worth discussing. If the church is divided on an issue, that’s about as serious as a problem can be. It implies that either the truth is not knowable or that it is irrelevant.

I think you are reading that particular aspect of the Pope’s teaching more or less correctly.

Perhaps, but there is no way to know what constitutes a correct interpretation given that the bishops are on all sides of the matter.

I don’t think that anyone would say that this is not a change in teaching (or development or evolution, if you prefer). The term that so many want to use and can’t get past is “contradict.” To understand whether the Pope is contradicting something it is important to get at the heart of what was taught in the past, and what is being taught now.

Here is how the Malta interpretation appears to me: it allows people who are committing adultery to receive communion. If it appears different to you I would like to know how you understand it.

Most people focus on the externalities of teaching. For example, the Church has long taught EENS - that outside the Church there is no salvation. For many years, that was interpreted to mean that pagans, atheists, protestants and other non-Catholics could not be saved.

The question is not how that was understood by the public, but how it was understood by the church. If you believe the church taught it that way then I would challenge you to provide relevant citations, because if the church never taught that then she can hardly be charged with having reversed her position by teaching it “differently” now.

That is what is also going on here, in my view. The Church has taught that to receive the Sacraments requires a certain relationship with God - one that is usually described as not being in mortal sin.

If the church now teaches that one can receive even in a state of mortal sin does this not constitute a contradiction of what was taught before?

The real core of this teaching is that the Sacraments require a certain relationship with God, a relationship that includes a real and good faith intention to live one’s life properly and morally.

But it is understood that the reason they were banned before was because they were in a state of mortal sin and didn’t intend to change. If your interpretation is valid then people in such situations would be allowed to receive **without **“a real and good faith intention to live one’s life properly and morally.” That’s precisely the problem.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Cont…

TMC:

The Pope, I believe, is saying that we can’t apply blanket labels to everyone in irregular marriages and declare that they are all necessarily in such a broken position regarding God - in active mortal sin - that they cannot approach God through the Sacraments.

It is one thing to say that not all people who were divorced and civilly remarried are in mortal sin, but it is quite a different thing to suggest that some of those who are in mortal sin may justifiably receive communion. Which is your understanding of what position is being taught?

Individual inquiry must be made, because some of these individuals may be in a position to receive the Sacraments, even if they are in relationships the Church does not approve of.

This is ambiguous: is the “relationship the church does not approve of” one of adultery or uncertainty? Is she saying that sometimes adultery can be overlooked, or that when there is doubt about the first marriage the people involved may receive because it is not known for sure that adultery is being committed?

So the core teaching is preserved - that one must be in a certain place in relationship to God to approach God in the Sacraments, but the externalities have changed - the blanket prohibition on the remarried having access to the Sacraments.

Well, the core teaching is that if one is in a state of mortal sin one is not in the proper relationship with God…and therefore may not receive. Has this changed?

The parallel to EENS is precise, which is why I use it as an example. We are not saying that being pagan is just as good as being Catholic, but we now acknowledge that some pagans may be able to live a life such that they are saved.

The comparison is precise only if the church ever taught that all non-Catholics were damned. If you can’t substantiate that claim then your comparison doesn’t exist.

Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

The understanding of Church teaching does advance. The consecrated bread and wine remains just that–bread and wine–but it also becomes, as bread and wine, the body and blood of Christ. Is it supposed that everyone understands this mysterious spiritual process? Or is it that one’s understanding may or may not develop?

The Church did indeed once teach that absent invincible ignorance salvation was only possible within the Roman Catholic Church. This dogma has evolved since the time of Pope Leo XIII. See CCC 846 and pay close attention to its careful (and revised) wording.

 

[_Abyssinia]

The understanding of Church teaching does advance. The consecrated bread and wine remains just that–bread and wine–but it also becomes, as bread and wine, the body and blood of Christ. Is it supposed that everyone understands this mysterious spiritual process? Or is it that one’s understanding may or may not develop?

The Church did indeed once teach that absent invincible ignorance salvation was only possible within the Roman Catholic Church. This dogma has evolved since the time of Pope Leo XIII. See CCC 846 and pay close attention to its careful (and revised) wording.

Are you talking about development of doctrine? Rev. Juan R. Velez analysed the Kasper proposal and the seven tests by Cardinal Newman and Rev. Juan R. Velez commented, 'it is very doubtful that the doctrine on Communion for divorced and remarried persons proposed by Cardinal Walter Kasper can be considered authentic development of doctrine. ’ : catholicworldreport.com/Item/3490/cardinal_newman_the_synod_and_the_kasper_proposal.aspx

Here is an article regarding what Cardinal Muller has said on development of doctrine:

he rightly sees that doctrinal development has to be homogeneous with the essential principles of the teaching. Thus, doctrinal development, according to Müller, cannot be legitimate when it occurs “in a way that contradicts basic principles [of the teaching] . . .] that would conclude or affirm the contrary.” This important point has been obscured or even lost in the recent discussion about doctrinal development.

catholicworldreport.com/Item/3455/development_of_doctrine_or_change_in_teaching.aspx

Does Communion for the divorced and remarried contradict or affirm teaching, because if it contradicts, it is not development of doctrine.

 

[Thomas_White]

Are you talking about development of doctrine? Rev. Juan R. Velez analysed the Kasper proposal and the seven tests by Cardinal Newman and Rev. Juan R. Velez commented, 'it is very doubtful that the doctrine on Communion for divorced and remarried persons proposed by Cardinal Walter Kasper can be considered authentic development of doctrine. ’ : catholicworldreport.com/Item/3490/cardinal_newman_the_synod_and_the_kasper_proposal.aspx

I was talking about the development of doctrine in general and not with reference to Cardinal Kasper’s proposal.

Here is an article regarding what Cardinal Muller has said on development of doctrine:

catholicworldreport.com/Item/3455/development_of_doctrine_or_change_in_teaching.aspx

Discussion of Amoris Latitia is polarized, and Cardinal Muller represents the conservative end of the spectrum. I do not know that it is helpful to quote a source from either end of the spectrum.

Does Communion for the divorced and remarried contradict or affirm teaching, because if it contradicts, it is not development of doctrine.

I think this is not an either/or proposition and is rather more complex in its specifics if it refers to Amoris Latitia. It is disappointing to see so many glosses of a complicated issue as it relates to the person. I cannot answer the question in the way it is framed.

 

[mozartpc27]

Man, I love this guy.

If you love him, you can have him. As a Catholic from Philadelphia, I’d love to see him re-assigned…

…to the Moon…

…or further, if possible.

Yech.

 

[Ginny89]

The understanding of Church teaching does advance. The consecrated bread and wine remains just that–bread and wine–but it also becomes, as bread and wine, the body and blood of Christ. Is it supposed that everyone understands this mysterious spiritual process? Or is it that one’s understanding may or may not develop?

I’m sorry but I had to interject because this sounds very unorthodox to me. Our faith is that after the consecration, THERE IS NO MORE BREAD OR WINE. That sounds like the Lutheran belief in consubstantiation: bread and wine PLUS the body and blood of Jesus. This is not catholic teaching. For us, there is only an APPEARANCE of bread and wine, the accidents, but the not the substance/the REALITY which is ONLY Jesus: body, blood, soul and divinity. Transubstantiation NOT consubstantiation.

 

[JimG]

I’m sorry but I had to interject because this sounds very unorthodox to me. Our faith is that after the consecration, THERE IS NO MORE BREAD OR WINE. That sounds like the Lutheran belief in consubstantiation: bread and wine PLUS the body and blood of Jesus. This is not catholic teaching. For us, there is only an APPEARANCE of bread and wine, the accidents, but the not the substance/the REALITY which is ONLY Jesus: body, blood, soul and divinity. Transubstantiation NOT consubstantiation.

That is correct. After the consecration, the bread and wine are gone, replaced by Jesus’ body and blood. But the appearances of bread and wine remain. It helps to remember that from a human sensory point of view, all that we can perceive of any object are its appearances. Human senses cannot perceive substance.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

That is correct. After the consecration, the bread and wine are gone, replaced by Jesus’ body and blood. But the appearances of bread and wine remain. It helps to remember that from a human sensory point of view, all that we can perceive of any object are its appearances. Human senses cannot perceive substance.

If bread is defined, at least in modern English, by its effects(ie the senses) and not its causes…then for modern man the bread and wine are in fact more than mere sensory “appearances” and a Latin world view (based on causes) becomes incomprehensible.

There must be a better way we can communicate the reality of the real prese certain than these formulations which no longer make the sense they once did.

Sure, the real presence is always difficult, but is was never meant to be additionally difficult on this level as well.