Breaking: pope declares troubling interpretation of al ‘authentic magisterium’

  • Thread starter Thread starter theCardinalbird
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Haven’t early Fathers declared there will be an anti-pope and that hes basically the beast? What of St. Malachy’s prophecy about supposed false popes and the end? Being in RCIA, im not sure what to think of all this. What do we do if the Pope changes this?
 
But a non-Catholic Christian wouldn’t be receiving the Eucharist anyway, right?
And if his/her spouse is Catholic, as a Catholic they would know the situation involved grave sin, even if the non-Catholic spouse did not recognize it as such.
So the Catholic spouse should refrain from receiving because of objective sin, and the non-Catholic spouse should not receive because non-Catholics do not receive anyway.

I know, it’s late and I’m probably missing something, but seriously, I just don’t see where a non-Catholic would ‘insist’ that his or her ‘second’ spouse, if Catholic, ‘had to receive communion’ anyway. . .
 
pnewton said:
40.png
steve-b:
That said,

It’s never in history been so easy as it is today, to gain information.
Click to expand...
Information does not eliminate ignorance, and ease of information may not increase culpability. Consider the context in which I started, that of a non-Catholic Christian. Such a one would not look into the Catechism for understanding of marriage, but to his pastor, who might very well teach that his first marriage was a legitimate case of divorce and re-marriage is not only allowed, but encouraged.
Click to expand...
yet we can’t legitimize one remaining in error, when/if error is there, no matter who promotes it.
 
Last edited:
Also I don’t think the prophecy of St Malachy says that.
It says the last pope will lead us through much trouble or something like that
 
Once again I apologize for the disrespectful post about Pope Francis
 
steve-b said:
yet we can’t legitimize one remaining in error, when/if error is there, no matter who promotes it.
Click to expand...
Of course not. Besides being the criteria of being without fault the other part of invincible ignorance is the ignorance.
 
JesusReigns said:
Being in RCIA, im not sure what to think of all this. What do we do if the Pope changes this?
Click to expand...
My advice to anyone who is focused on future prophecy, end times and apocalyptic literature is to remember the parable of the virgins waiting the bridegroom. Focus on keeping your own oil ready at all times, meaning one’s own spiritual readiness. Either Jesus comes back or we die. Either is possible at any time.
 
I have no trouble with allowing divorced and re-married communion under certain conditions.

The conditions are probably very common. I have attended many marriages. All except one was in a Christian Church. In every case the couple was cohabiting prior to marriage. I suspect that those who did not take Christian faith seriously also did not take marriage vows seriously. The marriages were not valid.

Today’s society teaches that marriage is almost like going steady, but, with a legal contract to help establish property rights. Till death do you part, unless someone falls out of love with the other, or no longer feels fulfilled, or even meets someone better…very sad.
 
Boler said:
Only a decree of nullity by a Church tribunal can definitively determine that.
Click to expand...
A decree of nullity by a Church tribunal is not necessary. Canon law was changed in 2015. There is a shorter process. One of the situations that can allow the shorter process is:

“lack of faith resulting in the simulation of consent to be married or an error that determines the will regarding one of the requirements of marriage”

The bishop himself is a judge. The responsibility rests solely with him.

Here’s a link from Catholic.com
 
My understanding is that he is saying that while a couple in an invalid marriage is objectively grave it may not meet the criteria to be mortal. The doctrinal requirement re Holy Communion is that the sin be mortal imo.

However, I think that the situations in which it would not be mortal would be rare, and would at max only apply to one member of a couple. I also think that the Priest should be working to get the couple to live as brother and sister.
 
Thanks for the link. Correction: only a decree of nullity by a Church tribunal or other proper ecclesiastical authority can definitively determine that.
 
pnewton said:
I don’t mind some repetition. This has been going on for a few years now. But one example of reduced culpability, or maybe not culpability, would be those who believe that marriage is dissoluble at the cause of adultery, and marriage again is not a sin. This is a common teaching among other Christians. Additionally, it is a common teaching that even when divorce is a sin, one can still be forgiven and then be re-married. It is not an ongoing sin. A person may be a a spiritually strong Christian, and still ignorant of the Catholic theology of marriage. Then when the second marriage is with a Catholic, or they try to convert, they are not morally culpable of mortal sin, but cannot receive communion. This is one rare situation, but it does happen.
Click to expand...
In your example, im pretty sure an annulment would be acknowledged for someone who married with a spouse who did not believe in the indissolubility of marriage even in adultery. That is, if they got married with that affecting their will to consent.

Otherwise, if the tribunal determines their marriage valid, then even though divorce is permitted, a second marriage is adultery.

I think a better example might be more realistic. Sometimes its likely that clergy themselves had misguided a divorcee to seek another relationship (civil marriage). Clergy is very reluctant to instruct the faithful in the Sacrament of Marriage. How many people here remember their pastor letting them know that even in cases of adultery there can be no second marriage?

Still, so far the only situation ive heard mentioned for these so called special cases, has been when children are involved. Which would make for a very large percentage of Catholics in second marriages.
 
Elf01 said:
My understanding is that he is saying that while a couple in an invalid marriage is objectively grave it may not meet the criteria to be mortal. The doctrinal requirement re Holy Communion is that the sin be mortal imo.

However, I think that the situations in which it would not be mortal would be rare, and would at max only apply to one member of a couple. I also think that the Priest should be working to get the couple to live as brother and sister.
Click to expand...
Yes, reasonably said. If we look into individual cases in marriages, there may be such situations. That was not clarified though and therefore left to our guesses.

What takes the Catholic community by storm is the proclamation that a divorced person after remarried can receive Holy Communion after undergoing counseling with a priest. Unless explained and clarified, there is an imbaguity there.

For such person to receive Holy Communion is a departure of what we practice and believe all these while, and thus the controversy. At least in my part of the world they are.
 
pnewton said:
40.png
steve-b:
yet we can’t legitimize one remaining in error, when/if error is there, no matter who promotes it.
Click to expand...
Of course not. Besides being the criteria of being without fault the other part of invincible ignorance is the ignorance.
Click to expand...
Re: ignorance, (absent the mentally challenged)

I would just say, our faith isn’t rocket science. Re: invincible ignorance not just plain old garden variety ignorance, I would ask, is God going to give us an impossible faith to understand for the average person? One who has the ability to put just a wee bit of effort into studying the subject and they won’t get it? I would ask, What is soooooo invincible about our faith to understand? And I would ask How many qualify for this type of invincible ignorance? 1%? 5%? 10%? How many reasonably speaking?

How is this passage from the CCC understood?
1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.” In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits. So how is this settled? Library : Ignorance—Invincible and Vincible | Catholic Culture

Given that it’s never in history been so easy to gain knowledge than today, i’ve said this before, by 2020, it’s estimated that 7 billion smart phones will be in circulation. That is almost 1 smart phone for everyone on the planet.

Ask anyone a question with a smart phone, and see how quick they have an answer to the question asked.
 
Last edited:
Kei said:
In other, more complex cases, and when a declaration of nullity has not been obtained, the above mentioned option may not, in fact, be feasible.
Click to expand...
This is so evil and twisted…
 
Don’t forget the practice of the Eastern Churches as well.

Eastern Orthodox Catholics go so far as to remarry divorced people by the Holy Mystery… minus crowning, plus using a somber/repentant tone instead of joyful and celebratory.
 
I don’t know the exact cases they are talking about.
Is it, like, a mother with children in a country where women aren’t allowed to work and so she can’t take care of her children unless remarried or something?
 
Hm…I have not read the papal documents, I quoted from the interpretation of the bishopric of Buenos Aires.

But God’s ways truly are mysterious.

But I am not sure it is saying it is OK to sin, but that there are cases wherein the sin is mitigated to the point where it is not mortal and so they can receive. I believe it is specifically about civil marriages and not sacramental.

But do note it is a translation and we don’t know what specific situations it is talking about, so try not to get caught up in the specific wording.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top