P
pnewton
Guest
The question will remain what each priest things, as the document also does not rule it out in this instance, nor limit the priest to the practice found in canon law.
- Status
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Earlier in the week there was talk of an internal forum and there is an internal forum idea that forms a path for Communion for the divorced and the remarried BUT I’m pretty sure that’s not what the final document lays out, because look at the statements from Cardinal Pell’s spokesman here and the Polish Bishops are speaking out,I am glad you posted this. It gives a different side to this document than I found at the EWTN website. This idea of an “internal forum” is not something that all Catholics I know (including priest) believe to be a legitimate means of dealing with those who are remarried. I know this has been practiced in places, so in that sense practice will not change. But I think this is the first time (if approved) the internal forum will have universal ecclesial recognition.
I also not that the role of discernment is left with the pastor (lucky him) with his responsibility being to adhere to his bishop and doctrine. I find it interesting that canon law was exclude, but I guess that is the “internal” part.
twitter.com/catholicsat/status/658251872604659712
If there was an internal forum pathway to Communion, without the need to live as brother and sister, I don’t think they’d have said what they have.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
Much is perhaps unnecessarily raised here. A Catholic need only receive communion once a year, and surely this could easily be accomplished in ‘private’ without scandal so that a person would be permitted to practice his religion. This of course would not be ideal but would suffice.
For a very long time the internal forum was recognized in this way. It was only during the 1990’s that this was changed with respect to communion. Not wanting to create more controversy where there already is too much, I will let it go with that. From a wider perspective, it concerns an interior spiritual focus that was a more significant part of the Church during the pre-Vatican II era. Thus, the focus of Pope Francis is perhaps not always clearly understood, I think.
For a very long time the internal forum was recognized in this way. It was only during the 1990’s that this was changed with respect to communion. Not wanting to create more controversy where there already is too much, I will let it go with that. From a wider perspective, it concerns an interior spiritual focus that was a more significant part of the Church during the pre-Vatican II era. Thus, the focus of Pope Francis is perhaps not always clearly understood, I think.
P
pnewton
Guest
Regardless of whether any who are remarried receive communion, it has always been recognized, even under Cardinal Kasper’s proposal that most remarried would still not receive communion, so the statement above is needed regardless of whether a priest might give communion to one person here or there who he deems fits the criteria given in the document.
F
frangiuliano115
Guest
F
frangiuliano115
Guest
INTERNALLY
EXTERNALLY
CANON LAW
Uffa!
Could we use plain language just anybody like me could understand!!
I’m understanding from reading 84,85 and 86 that a priest will be able to decide, on an individual basis, if that particular couple sitting in front of him can participate in the Eucharist after having determined some spiritual things which I know in my head but no use getting into here. I’m talking about divorced and remarried couples.
Now, I know we have to wait for the Pope to declare, in some form, the new regulations. I’ve been expecting a change since last year and so have others in my church group.
If I can speak to my priest during the week, I’ll post. Maybe Tuesday evening.
Fran
F
frangiuliano115
Guest
An interior spiritual focus was a MORE significant part of the Chruch pre-Vatican II??
You feel we had more spirituality before Vatican II?
Don’t want to get into this, just curious.
And re receiving once a year in your first pp. What’s that all about? If you can’t receive how do you follow the once a year rule?
We’re too complicated I fear.
Fran
C
commenter
Guest
Just a caution, this information is coming through “Crux”. This is not a Catholic source, has nothing to do with the Magisterium. It is a secular outlet which analyzes religion from a liberal, secular viewpoint. That doesn’t mean we should ignore it, but keep in mind their viewpoint. I don’t believe they would report false information, but they may pick and choose which facts to report based on their own agenda.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
I cannot say what any other person has or is experiencing, nor can I go back in time to the pre-Vatican II era and really explain anything in that context. I don’t wish to say more about it.
Obviously, to receive once a year permission is necessary. I am no longer interested in attempting to explain my understanding (and actual experience) concerning the teaching on conscience. It seems lost to history, would likely be misunderstood and seems too often not fully open to understanding at this time. It seems better and likely more charitable to remain silent. The code of Canon Law as it reads today concerning the internal forum with respect to the instant question is not the way it read in 1983.
What I will say is there is a difference between the Tridentine Mass and the OF Mass. This is no revelation, and I will let it go with that, though am not saying either is above the other since both are valid forms of the Mass.
It seems so. Peace.
F
frangiuliano115
Guest
Thanks for your reply.
I go to a tridentne Mass at times; at a sanctuary about 40 minutes from home. A brother who is also a priest celebrates the mass. It lasts about 1 1/2 hours. You kneel for communion as like when I was a little girl. (I’m still a little girl, just older). No communion in hand, which I agree with.
It just seems to me that these are exterrnal things and spirituality is internal.
For divorced and remarried couples I see the same concept. Some get divorced for whatever reason then they remarry and remain remarried for the rest of their lives and desire to be close to God.
Some get divorced for whatever reason, are not able to establish a permanent second relationship, have no regard for the well-being (psychological) of their child/ren and have no desire for God in their lives.
Seems to me some distinction should be made.
But Jesus said ‘But I say to you’ - thus bringing us back to what God had originally intended: for husband and wife to stay together forever.
Let’s end it here. As I said: it’s complicated.
Fran
J
johnnyc176
Guest
Isn’t that what the annulment process is for?
G
gilliam
Guest
I would echo that as far as any source is concerned. Very few of even what people here would call Catholic sources don’t have anything to do with the Magisterium. So everyone take all news reports as picking and choosing what they feel their audience would like to read. With saying that, I would say that a lot of what Crux reports as news is objective or I wouldn’t start a thread with a report from them. John Allen who is the editor and chief of Crux has a superb reputation at the Vatican for objectivity and fairness.
C
commenter
Guest
The editor of Crux is Theresa Hanafin, who generally has opposed most positions of the Catholic Church over the last 3 decades. John Allen, who is associate editor, formerly worked for National Catholic Reporter (!). Compared to their other writers, or compared to Theresa Hanafin, or compared to the Boston Globe, he would be considered objective. I agree he is a very good writer.
But Crux is owned by the Boston Globe, which is considered possibly the most adversarial, to Catholicism, major daily newspaper in the US. I believe the late Fr. Benedict Groeschel “awarded” them his “Robie” award one year, for the most adversarial, non-objective, unfair, newspaper in the US. (Robie, named after Robespierre of French Revolution fame).
I would say there are 3 kinds of publications: there are those specifically pro Catholic; there are others, not in any way connected to the Catholic Church, not for or against; then there are those who are adversarial. I am not saying don’t read Crux; but better to call it what it is: an online department of the Boston Globe. I bet some of the more neutral or objective coverage might might come from Protestant sources, by the way.
G
gilliam
Guest
They have their own agendas. Whether what people here would call liberal or in the case of evangelical outlets, what people here would call conservative. (i.e., I agree with those who say those labels don’t exactly fit, but they are in common use, so I will use them here.)
Anyway, let’s get back on topic and stop the ad hominem posts before the moderator slaps our hands.
F
frangiuliano115
Guest
No johnnyc. I’m not sure if you don’t know a lot about annulment, or if I just didn’t make myself clear in my post no. 29.
The church doesn’t annul a marriage. You can’t undo a marriage. What annulment means is that there was never a marrige to begin with. The marriage is null. If the marriage was lawful it cannot be annulled.
I’m not an expert on this but it comes up a lot. For a marriage to be null, from the very beginning, certain conditions must exist. For example:
The bride doesn’t want children and the groom didn’t know.
The marriage was forced on either the bride or the groom.
The groom or the bride are getting married but with the intention to be unfaithful.
Either one is planning to leave the marriage if it doesn’t “work”.
There are other reasons but these I know.
As you can tell, the above had to exist BEFORE the marriage, thus making it null. The church only declares it so at some point, requested by either spouse.
I was speaking, instead, to divorced and civilly remarried couples that are not permitted to receive communion and how situations could be so different in each case.
Fran
B
Brendan
Guest
Both the internal forum and the external forum are nothing new to the Annulment process. Both are used.
The External formum deals with what can be publically known or declared. , the presence or absence of Canonical form, the age of the participants, their use of drugs or alcohol during the wedding etc…
The internal forum dealt with acceptance or rejection of children, if one party felt duress or pressure to marry, undiagnosed mental issues, the view (or lack of view) of marriage as a permanent institution.
So use of the internal forum is not new in the least, and no one is suggesting that it is. And likewise, no one, least of all the Synod, is suggesting an EXCLUSIVE use of the internal forum, or one absent a marriage tribunal of some sort.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
A marriage case is a trial conducted in accordance with canon law. It concerns the legal validity of the marriage, and is an objective process that judges the validity of the marriage in accordance with canon law. It not the ‘internal forum’. These are very different things.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
A marriage case is a trial conducted in accordance with canon law. It concerns the legal validity of the marriage, and is an objective process that judges the validity of the marriage in accordance with canon law. It is not the ‘internal forum’. These are very different things.
B
Brendan
Guest
If you note, I specifically stated that they were not the same thing. A marriage tribunal will always reference the internal forum, which means that it is distinct from BEING the internal forum.
And a Marriage Tribunal focuses on the validity of the Sacrament. PART of that is Canon Law, to see if the marriage was conducted to Canonical Form. A tribunal can certainly discover that a marriage was correct according to Canon Law, but still invalid due to an issue brought forward by one of the parties via the internal forum.
What the internal forum is NOT is a means of a person declaring, by themselves, apart from a Marriage Tribunal, that their marriage was invalid.
And no one in the Synod is attempting to make that claim.
C
ComplineSanFran
Guest
I agree with your assessment of Crux. They do a fine job of reporting the news and if you don’t care for their commentary, you can stay away from those specific pieces. John Allen is excellent. He is extremely objective in both his reporting and his analysis.
- Status