Canadian bishops: no change in policy on Communion for divorced/remarried

[Rau]

You mean like the more charitable thing is to flatly state that I have said the pope intended to mislead? Yeah, lets talk about how charitably we are to construe others’ statements.

Ginny - What you’ve said speaks for itself. If you believe I have misconstrued the position you’ve taken regarding the statement to the Argentinian Bishops, please identify the precise section of the post.

 

[Ginny89]

Ginny - it’s NOT my claim. It is a claim you have made in respect of his communication to the Argentinian Bishops. It follows directly from what you have said. Or is that letter not “formal” enough to count for anything?

Yes it is. My position is a DENIAL that AL contradicts the previous teaching. Yours is that I am wrong, “uncharitable” and even “irrational” to posit such a thing. Talk about denying ones own statements!

You are assuming the issue in debate. This is merely your interpretation.

Feel free to provide the passage in AL that gives the Argentinian interpretation. I’m all ears, or should I say “eyes”?

Regarding that last point - how would you know Ginny? Private letters etc.

I imagine that had the Pope written to the Argentinian Bishops and told them they had misunderstood entirely, and what he meant was…“no change to previous practice”… you would not be unwilling to point to that as a proper elucidation of AL?

I imagine that you can understand the difference between a private letter simply reiterating the magisterium and one purporting to overturn it, can’t you? Why would the pope overturn a 2000 year consistent teaching amidst great controversy in the manner you purport he has?

Your key problem is that you seem to treat these competing positions as equal, as if we are starting on a clean slate on this question and not against the backdrop of an ESTABLISHED binding teaching. As if the last 2000 years never happened.

 

[Rau]

I will therefore continue to follow the lead of the head of the CDF, Cardinal Muller, and regard the only authentic interpretation as that which DOES NOT CONTRADICT Catholic teaching. Pope Francis and the Aregentinians, to the extent that they do, are wrong.

Yes, I understand that is your position.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Ok, so you cannot disprove my reading of the letter to the Argentinians in the same way I read Pope Honorius letter to an entire section of the Church back in the day. My position: that incident and the consequent condemnation of that pope for those letters proves that such letters are not the same as the teachings intended as a teaching to the whole church to be read by all bishops. I will therefore continue to follow the lead of the head of the CDF, Cardinal Muller, and regard the only authentic interpretation as that which DOES NOT CONTRADICT Catholic teaching. Pope Francis and the Aregentinians, to the extent that they do, are wrong.

Excuse me? Neither you nor any one on this thread has the stature to decide the Pope is wrong.

“The first see is judged by no one.”

Every day, since March 13, 2013, I have been giving thanks to the Lord for the inestimable gift to the Church He has given us in Pope Francis.

For those who reject him, or even presume to question him, my response is very simple: “Good Bye.”

This thread, as I look at my notifications, has occasion far too many worthless notifications. That function is now turned off.

 

[Ginny89]

Excuse me? Neither you nor any one on this thread has the stature to decide the Pope is wrong.

“The first see is judged by no one.”

Every day, since March 13, 2013, I have been giving thanks to the Lord for the inestimable gift to the Church He has given us in Pope Francis.

For those who reject him, or even presume to question him, my response is very simple: “Good Bye.”

Two can play this game:

Excuse me, neither you nor anyone has the right to reject Pope John Paul II’s teaching that it is impossible to grant communion in the manner the Argentinians purport to and that Pope Francis has encouraged.

For those who reject him or presume to question him, my response is simple: GOOD BYE!

 

[Rau]

Yes it is. My position is a DENIAL that AL contradicts the previous teaching. Yours is that I am wrong, “uncharitable” and even “irrational” to posit such a thing. Talk about denying ones own statements!

Ginny - your responses are erratic. You are harking back to old points, not the ones in present debate, and making wild accusations.

Why would the pope overturn a 2000 year consistent teaching amidst great controversy in the manner you purport he has?

Is he “overturning” anything or searching for a deeper truth? Clearly you deem his guidance to the Church in Argentina as an “overturning”. If it is that - why would he do it? It had to become public as soon as the Argentinian’s established their process.

Your key problem is that you seem to treat these competing positions as equal, as if we are starting on a clean slate on this question and not against the backdrop of an ESTABLISHED teaching.

I do wish you would stop telling me my problems and my mind…

 

[Ginny89]

Ginny - What you’ve said speaks for itself. If you believe I have misconstrued the position you’ve taken regarding the statement to the Argentinian Bishops, please identify the precise section of the post.

My goodness, I have many times! It is you who must privide the statememt where I claimed the “pope intended to mislead” . You are accusing me if saying the pope was lying. Do you know the difference between lying and being wrong about something? I stated FROM THE BEGINNING that the pope intended exactly what the Argentiniams did but that this is not enough to make the Argentinia position the proper AL interpretation. Do you honestly not see the diffetence or is it just mire convenient to claim flatly I am accusing the pope of lying? I am accusung the pope if being WRONG not lying, in his sayings outside AL.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Two can play this game:

Excuse me, neither you nor anyone has the right to reject Pope John Paul II’s teaching that it is impossible to grant communion in the manner the Argentinians purport to and that Pope Francis has encouraged.

For those who reject him or presume to question him, my response is simple: GOOD BYE!

Then you show who you really are: faithless.

Faithless to a total and ddocile adherence to the Vicar of Christ upon earth.
Faithless to the Saint of God, his predecessor, who wrote:

*4. The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, "comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. /…/

But especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishop of Rome and the Body of Bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church*

May God have mercy upon your immortal soul, for having chosen the path you have chosen. How tragic for you.

 

[Ginny89]

Ginny - your responses are erratic. You are harking back to old points, not the ones in present debate, and making wild accusations.

They are not but yours certainly are. You make arguments you are terrified of defending, and dodge them the moment a qyestion is put to you about them. You now claim there is more than one debate here… So you make points and forget them and end up taking the rest of the discussion out of context by ditching what was said earlier. Now I certainly understand your strange: No you are wrong, no youre not wrong, yes this is it, no its not really it, dance.

Is he “overturning” anything or searching for a deeper truth? Clearly you deem his guidance to the Church in Argentina as an “overturning”. If it is that - why would he do it? It had to become public as soon as the Argentinian’s established their process.

The position of John Paul IIs and the rest of the last 2000 years that short of an intention to cease sexual relations, the sacraments are inaccessible. That’s the thing purported to be overturned in this weird manner.

I do wish you would stop telling me my problems and my mind…

They are plain logical conclusions from your arguments. I say it is a “problem” in the sense that it is the reason you and I are clashing. Youvare operating an an entirely different set of assumptons regarding how papal statements ought to be interpretated than I am: thats all Im saying.

 

[Ginny89]

Then you show who you really are: faithless.

Faithless to a total and ddocile adherence to the Vicar of Christ upon earth.
Faithless to the Saint of God, his predecessor, who wrote:

4. The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, "comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. /…/

But especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishop of Rome and the Body of Bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church

May God have mercy upon your immortal soul, for having chosen the path you have chosen. How tragic for you.

Do you not understand the meaning of “Good bye”?

 

[Rau]

My goodness, I have many times! It is you who must privide the statememt where I claimed the “pope intended to mislead” . You are accusing me if saying the pope was lying. Do you know the difference between lying and being wrong about something? I stated FROM THE BEGINNING that the pope intended exactly what the Argentiniams did but that this is not enough to make the Argentinia position the proper AL interpretation. Do you honestly not see the diffetence or is it just mire convenient to claim flatly I am accusing the pope of lying? I am accusung the pope if being WRONG not lying, in his sayings outside AL.

But you don’t mean “wrong” as though it is some honest mistake, do you? You’ve said it’s deliberate on his part.

If the Pope - as the Author of AL - encourages the Church in Argentina to believe it has the correct interpretation of AL - but in fact (according to you) they do not - this seems to be misleading them. And you did agree he communicated this to them very deliberately, and you remarked that it is what he in fact believes. And since you identify AL as consistent with authentic Church teaching, then it would follow that you believe he has deliberately led the Church in Argentina contrary to authentic church teaching.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Ginny - your responses are erratic. You are harking back to old points, not the ones in present debate, and making wild accusations.

Is he “overturning” anything or searching for a deeper truth? Clearly you deem his guidance to the Church in Argentina as an “overturning”. If it is that - why would he do it? It had to become public as soon as the Argentinian’s established their process.

I do wish you would stop telling me my problems and my mind…

Reading this post of yours, I would ask you why you would engage in the folly of a discussion with a person who behaves in all the ways you yourself enumerate in this post.

 

[Rau]

They are not but yours certainly are. You make arguments you are terrified of defending, and dodge them the moment a qyestion is put to you about them. You now claim there is more than one debate here… …

Yes, I think you are confused. I referred not to multiple debates, but to “old points, not the ones in present debate”.

As to who’s confused or erratic. We don’t need to discuss. We can of course leave such matters to readers to judge.

 

[Ginny89]

But you don’t mean “wrong” as though it is some honest mistake, do you? You’ve said it’s deliberate on his part.

If the Pope - as the Author of AL - encourages the Church in Argentina to believe it has the correct interpretation of AL - but in fact (according to you) they do not - this seems to be misleading them. And you did agree he communicated this to them very deliberately, and you remarked that it is what he in fact believes. And since you identify AL as consistent with authentic Church teaching, then it would follow that you believe he has deliberately led the Church in Argentina contrary to authentic church teaching.

No. You simply dont get what I am saying. Let me put it in bullets

-For the NTH TIME, the pope is being HONEST with the Argentinians about what HE intended in writing AL.

So you are flatly mistating my position. I am not claiming he intended one thing in AL and then lued to the Argentinians about it.

-God as the ultimate author guiding the magisterium and the pope are NOT THE SAME THING.

-Pope Francis may have fully MEANT the Argentinian position when he wrote AL. BUT HE DID NOT PUT IT IN AL. If he did, I am waiting the quotation

-Regardless of how the Pope understands AL, it is not in it that Argentinia position is correct.

-Only what the pope actually teaches the church, not how he intended it, binds the church.

• All papal teaching cannot be read in isolation with the rest of the magisterium.

THAT is my position

Please notice: NOWHERE do I claim that the pope intended to exclude the Argentinian position and then lied to the Argentiniabs about it. I am saying he was honest. But wrong. And God has not allowed him to put the Argentianian pisition in AL. If he has, I would like to read just where.

So yeah, you are uncharitably making a false accusation about me.

 

[Rau]

Reading this post of yours, I would ask you why you would engage in the folly of a discussion with a person who behaves in all the ways you yourself enumerate in this post.

You have a point. It has gone on too long.

 

[Ginny89]

Yes, I think you are confused. I referred not to multiple debates, but to “old points, not the ones in present debate”.

As to who’s confused or erratic. We don’t need to discuss. We can of course leave such matters to readers to judge.

“Present” debate in reference to which?

 

[Ginny89]

You have a point. It has gone on too long.

Again, super convenient.

 

[Ginny89]

Reading this post of yours, I would ask you why you would engage in the folly of a discussion with a person who behaves in all the ways you yourself enumerate in this post.

Is this how you behave with your parishioners? You try to bully them into adopting your views through emotional black mail then engage adhominems? What a grand example of compassion you are?

 

[Rau]

-For the NTH TIME, the pope is being HONEST with the Argentinians about what HE intended in writing AL.

He told the Argentinians their “interpretation is correct. There is no other”. I openly declare that I merely assume that what the Pope wrote in AL is that which he intended.

My other conclusion viz a viz your opinion is that you hold the Pope is encouraging the Church of Argentina contrary to authentic Church teaching. Is that your view?

 

[Rau]

Again, super convenient.

Or Truth?