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

  • Thread starter Thread starter _Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ender said:
Well, nobody other than the four bishops who submitted the dubia, the Canadian bishops (who spoke out on the matter), the Polish bishops, the aforementioned US bishops, the Colombian bishops, etc.
And this is the disconnect: it is between you me, not Pope Francis and me.

So the sun revolved around the Earth during the time Pope Urban said it did? You may be satisfied with according the pope the authority to decide right and wrong but it’s not an ability the church has ever recognized.
Well there you go. If he’s not at odds with true doctrines of the past then here are the options: the past teachings on communion for the divorced and remarried were all wrong and therefore not true doctrines, or your interpretation of what is allowed now - which is at odds with past doctrines - is incorrect.
The cuttlefish defense: when cornered scuttle away to safety behind a cloud of noxious ink.

Ender
Click to expand...
🤷 There really does seem little hope for one so defensive of ego as to confuse friendly counsel for yet another intellectual argument. I tried.
 
It has to do with the objective fact that the temporal world is a world of continuous change. It is perhaps complex, but if a person were to study the theology of Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI), he would see that Ratzinger’s views concerning revelation are in accord with ‘Dei Verbum’, which he very much influenced. It is a recognition that what seems ‘reality’ is a process that will continue until the end of time, and that to each generation an advance in the understanding of revelation is revealed. Very simply stated, what were the realities of the world of the 1500’s are not the realities of the world of a young person in the 21st century, and it is in this way that revelation is understood anew by each succeeding generation. It seems to me that it would be fair to conclude that not everyone is able to appreciate this truth (or not yet) and for that reason it does scant good to simply point to it.

To everything there is a season. A person learns it is better not to even try, but nevertheless it is an error to view the temporal world as static.
 
Blue_Horizon said:
🤷 There really does seem little hope for one so defensive of ego as to confuse friendly counsel for yet another intellectual argument. I tried.
Click to expand...
Must be operating under a different definition of ‘friendly’.
 
irenaeus1 said:
Must be operating under a different definition of ‘friendly’.
Click to expand...
Messengers of bad news are always shot, and honest friends rejected.

This truth lies at the heart of Christianity - not material adultery and Communion ;).
 
Thomas_White said:
It has to do with the objective fact that the temporal world is a world of continuous change.
Click to expand...
While this is certainly true it doesn’t really go to the issue at hand, for while the temporal world may change, moral truths do not. What was moral before is moral now just as what was immoral before is equally immoral now.
It is a recognition that what seems ‘reality’ is a process that will continue until the end of time, and that to each generation an advance in the understanding of revelation is revealed.
Click to expand...
Where is the recognition that truth is a reality that can be known? What is the basis for thinking that what we believe today is true if truth is so malleable that we can just as easily believe the opposite tomorrow? Yes, knowledge can progress and truth can be better comprehended, but truth cannot change its position. The problem with the expansive interpretation of AL is just that: what was true before is true no longer. “Truth” has gone from no to yes.
Very simply stated, what were the realities of the world of the 1500’s are not the realities of the world of a young person in the 21st century, and it is in this way that revelation is understood anew by each succeeding generation. It seems to me that it would be fair to conclude that not everyone is able to appreciate this truth (or not yet) and for that reason it does scant good to simply point to it.
Click to expand...
I am not a fan of generalities and argument by implication. What point are you trying to make here?

Ender
 
Ender said:
While this is certainly true it doesn’t really go to the issue at hand, for while the temporal world may change, moral truths do not. What was moral before is moral now just as what was immoral before is equally immoral now.
Click to expand...
An interesting comment from one who is “not a fan of generalities”.
Ender said:
Where is the recognition that truth is a reality that can be known? What is the basis for thinking that what we believe today is true if truth is so malleable that we can just as easily believe the opposite tomorrow? Yes, knowledge can progress and truth can be better comprehended, but truth cannot change its position. The problem with the expansive interpretation of AL is just that: what was true before is true no longer. “Truth” has gone from no to yes.
Click to expand...
.

Truth can be objectively known (e.g., 2+2=4), but “absolute truth” is another matter. Catholic teaching is that revelation with continue until the end of time. Is it not presumptuous to assume that a person can know what only Christ knows?
Ender said:
I am not a fan of generalities and argument by implication. What point are you trying to make here?

Ender
Click to expand...
The point was stated: we live in the temporal world of continuous change. Where would one draw the line on the advancement of revelation and its understanding? In the second century AD? The fourteenth? With Trent? Vatican I or II maybe? With Amoris Latitia? Again, Catholic teaching is that revelation will continue until the end of time. There thus can be no point in time where it can be said that Absolute Truth is fully known. Christ alone is the source of moral truth and not any document composed by man.
 
Thomas_White said:
An interesting comment from one who is “not a fan of generalities”.

Truth can be objectively known (e.g., 2+2=4), but “absolute truth” is another matter. Catholic teaching is that revelation with continue until the end of time. Is it not presumptuous to assume that a person can know what only Christ knows?

The point was stated: we live in the temporal world of continuous change. Where would one draw the line on the advancement of revelation and its understanding? In the second century AD? The fourteenth? With Trent? Vatican I or II maybe? With Amoris Latitia? Again, Catholic teaching is that revelation will continue until the end of time. There thus can be no point in time where it can be said that Absolute Truth is fully known. Christ alone is the source of moral truth and not any document composed by man.
Click to expand...
No new revelation though… which is different than development or a deeper understanding of existing revelation. A deeper and fuller understanding of revelation cannot mean the opposite of what the Church once taught and proposed for our belief.
 
It is my understanding that public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle. The Church may grow in its understanding of revelation, but there will be no new public revelation. That is why the Church is entrusted with handing down the deposit of Faith.
 
Blue_Horizon said:
🤷 There really does seem little hope for one so defensive of ego as to confuse friendly counsel for yet another intellectual argument. I tried.
Click to expand...
Your defense of the proportionalist viewpoint, is it not a defense of ego as well?
 
JimG said:
It is my understanding that public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle. The Church may grow in its understanding of revelation, but there will be no new public revelation. That is why the Church is entrusted with handing down the deposit of Faith.
Click to expand...
This is always a predictable point of contention among conservatives, i.e., those who by definition resist change. Is it supposed that the earliest Christians–or young children–at once understood the full revelation? Or is it that the understanding of revelation develops over time? In the same way the understanding of revelation develops among children, it develops among each succeeding generation (who see it in its present context). Or at least this is the view of Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI).
 
Thomas_White said:
This is always a predictable point of contention among conservatives, i.e., those who by definition resist change. Is it supposed that the earliest Christians–or young children–at once understood the full revelation? Or is it that the understanding of revelation develops over time? In the same way the understanding of revelation develops among children, it develops among each succeeding generation (who see it in its present context). Or at least this is the view of Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI).
Click to expand...
One’s understanding of the content of divine revelation can of course deepen over time (just as one’s understanding of physical reality deepens over time.) A child learns basic concepts of the physical world, and later learns the details of physics and chemistry. But reality does not change. Neither does divine revelation.
 
JimG said:
One’s understanding of the content of divine revelation can of course deepen over time (just as one’s understanding of physical reality deepens over time.) A child learns basic concepts of the physical world, and later learns the details of physics and chemistry. But reality does not change. Neither does divine revelation.
Click to expand...
👍

It’s also my understanding that more than an understanding of conservatives, this is the teaching of the church.
 
irenaeus1 said:
No new revelation though… which is different than development or a deeper understanding of existing revelation. A deeper and fuller understanding of revelation cannot mean the opposite of what the Church once taught and proposed for our belief.
Click to expand...
The only way the moral law can change is if nature itself changed. The natural moral law is the design and purpose inscribed in nature by God. Has our nature changed (and for the worst) since Jesus walked the earth? How then can his teaching on sexual ethics have changed?
 
Moderator Notice

Please charitably discuss the topic in the original post, not each other
 
Amoris Laetitia appears to state that it is possible that a person (e.g., one who is divorced and civilly remarried) can continue to be morally good and in the state of grace, (i.e., persevere in God’s grace and attain salvation), even if certain of his or her specific kinds of acts were deliberately and gravely contrary to God’s commandments as set forth by the Church (e.g., committing adultery within a new union with one who is not their spouse)… the proposal being that if they continue to be morally good and in the state of grace, then they are eligible to receive Holy Communion.

Another perspective I have heard proposed is that Amoris Laetitia allows for the legitimate choice of a person to continue in adultery because greater harm or evil could result if the person tried to live in complete continence.

Neither of these positions seem tenable per Veritatis Splendor.
 
TMC said:
And yet Pope Francis is Pope, and his role is not just to sit and parrot past Popes. His role is to continue to develop doctrine and expand the Church’s understanding.
Click to expand...
The Pope is bound by many things, and while he can correct previous, non-infallible statements, he cannot do so without exercising his actual authority as Pope. The present Holy Father has not done so.

It is not the Pope’s job to quietly and privately and by innuendo and leaked documents support positions which the Magisterium has previously ruled to be against the constant and universal teaching of the Church, nor to ignore the natural confusion which results.

As the article in the OP states, quoting +Chaput:
At the same time, he’s being pope in a way that’s very different from his predecessors, and that has been confusing for people, and I think it’s important for us to help the Holy Father understand that but also to help people understand the Holy Father and to do what we can to help people through the confusion and disappointment I think some people are experiencing.
Click to expand...
 
PhosElelythen said:
The Pope is bound by many things, and while he can correct previous, non-infallible statements, he cannot do so without exercising his actual authority as Pope. The present Holy Father has not done so.

It is not the Pope’s job to quietly and privately and by innuendo and leaked documents support positions which the Magisterium has previously ruled to be against the constant and universal teaching of the Church, nor to ignore the natural confusion which results.

As the article in the OP states, quoting +Chaput:
Click to expand...
The Pope is not teaching “quietly and privately” or by “innuendo.” He is publishing exhortations and preaching publically and openly.
 
TMC said:
The Pope is not teaching “quietly and privately” or by “innuendo.” He is publishing exhortations and preaching publically and openly.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top