Cardinal Coccopalmerio Explains

[Pulvis]

ncregister.com/daily-news/cardinal-coccopalmerio-explains-his-positions-on-catholics-in-irregular-uni

VATICAN CITY — Rather than admonish cohabitating Catholics as “public sinners,” the head of the Vatican department for interpreting Church law has said it’s more important to look “beneficently upon” the couple in the hope that through encouragement they will eventually marry.

 

[Stat_Crux]

But they can’t ever marry if one of them is already in a valid sacramental Marriage to a third person whom they have civilly divorced.

Hmmm.

And what is this suppose to mean:

Interviewer:- One last topic: At a recent plenary meeting with the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, you reportedly encouraged the members to push for a less rigid understanding of the priesthood, essentially telling them to give up on an objective and metaphysical notion of priesthood. Your notion was that as we have an understanding of different levels of communion with the Church among the baptized, we should have different degrees of the fullness of priesthood, so as to permit Protestants to minister without being fully ordained. What exactly did you say, and why did you say it?

Cardinal Coccopalmerio:- I was saying we have to reflect on questions. We say, everything is valid; nothing is valid. Maybe we have to reflect on this concept of validity or invalidity. The Second Vatican Council said there is a true communion even if it is not yet definitive or full. You see, they made a concept not so decisive, either all or nothing. There’s a communion that is already good, but some elements are missing. But, if you say some things are missing and that therefore there is nothing, you err. There are pieces missing, but there is already a communion, but it is not full communion. The same thing can be said, or something similar, of the validity or invalidity of ordination. I said let’s think about it. It’s a hypothesis. Maybe there is something, or maybe there’s nothing — a study, a reflection.

Is he suggesting that protestant “priests” are “not fully ordained” but “partially ordained”? So their invalid protestant ordinations have left only a “partially indelible” spiritual mark on their souls?

 

[_Abyssinia]

Check this out from Fr Raymond De Souza:

Four questions for Cardinal Coccopalmerio

catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2017/02/23/four-questions-for-cardinal-coccopalmerio/

 

[JimG]

That was one of the most confusing interviews I have ever read, especially the parts about those unmarried couples who are cohabiting, and the reflections about ordination.

“We see this couple that is cohabitating or only civilly married — cohabitating, let’s say. It’s not the Christian ideal. Let’s admit that it’s not the ideal, a good thing, not a legitimate union. But let’s see also that there is good. They really love each other. They are not yet married because they don’t have sufficient means for the future. They are people who do good in the community in which they find themselves. All these things are positive.”

I don’t think anyone is suggesting that cohabiting couples must be shamed as public sinners. The fact remains that they are living in fornication, and marriage is certainly possible. There is nothing whatever wrong with having a pastoral dialogue and reflection with them. The purpose would be to bring them out of their current state of living and presumably into a valid marriage, not to bring them to communion while still cohabiting.

As to the comments on ordination, I am nonplussed. Is there a middle state between validity and invalidity? Partially ordained? We admit three stages of ordination: deacon, priest, and bishop, but not partial stages of validity.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

Things are moving with all the dizzying speed of an October Revolution. We have now passed from Communion for remarried divorcees to Communion (in some cases) for cohabiting couples who could marry but choose not to, and on to partially valid Protestant ordinations.

Next on the list is - and I speak with the Voice of Prophecy - Communion for homosexual and lesbian couples. And then Communion for anyone who in any way is breaking the 6th and 9th Commandments and who feels he/she is not really able to keep them just yet…

This is not facetious, just the simple truth. Remember the opening scene in Speed? The lift cables have been blown, only in this case the emergency brakes have been blown with them. Down we go…

 

[Pulvis]

Things are moving with all the dizzying speed of an October Revolution. We have now passed from Communion for remarried divorcees to Communion (in some cases) for cohabiting couples who could marry but choose not to, and on to partially valid Protestant ordinations.

Next on the list is - and I speak with the Voice of Prophecy - Communion for homosexual and lesbian couples. And then Communion for anyone who in any way is breaking the 6th and 9th Commandments and who feels he/she is not really able to keep them just yet…

This is not facetious, just the simple truth. Remember the opening scene in Speed? The lift cables have been blown, only in this case the emergency brakes have been blown with them. Down we go…

Justin, I share your fears. But I believe we will see an intervention before that happens. At least that is what I am praying for daily.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

Justin, I share your fears. But I believe we will see an intervention before that happens. At least that is what I am praying for daily.

Actually we’ve seen it already. In this whole business neither the Pope nor the prelates who support him have touched the definitive Magisterium of the Church. Cardinal Coccopalmerio is explicit on the fact that Church teaching and even Canon Law remain in force.

The Pope could - humanly speaking - make a clear and unambiguous Magisterial pronouncement tomorrow and break the back of all remaining resistance, as convinced Catholics would feel obliged to acquiesce to such a pronouncement (or blow their brains out if they could not handle the mental contradiction). The majority of the hierarchy and the vast majority of the laity would support him, as would the near-totality of secular opinion.

Why doesn’t he? Because Our Lord has intervened. He is currently, directly and actively protecting the indefectibility of the Church. However wild the declarations of progressive prelates may be, they are all private opinions that in no way engage the Church’s official teaching authority. This is a remarkable fact.

 

[Pulvis]

Actually we’ve seen it already. In this whole business neither the Pope nor the prelates who support him have touched the definitive Magisterium of the Church. Cardinal Coccopalmerio is explicit on the fact that Church teaching and even Canon Law remain in force.

The Pope could - humanly speaking - make a clear and unambiguous Magisterial pronouncement tomorrow and break the back of all remaining resistance, as convinced Catholics would feel obliged to acquiesce to such a pronouncement (or blow their brains out if they could not handle the mental contradiction). The majority of the hierarchy and the vast majority of the laity would support him, as would the near-totality of secular opinion.

Why doesn’t he? Because Our Lord has intervened. He is currently, directly and actively protecting the indefectibility of the Church. However wild the declarations of progressive prelates may be, they are all private opinions that in no way engage the Church’s official teaching authority. This is a remarkable fact.

Yes it is!

 

[QuiVenit]

Cardinal Coccopalmerio is explicit on the fact that Church teaching and even Canon Law remain in force.

Of course they do.

That is because none of this has anything to do with doctrine and none of this has anything to do with discipline. This is a matter of praxis, and of developing the Church’s understanding of the “careful discernment of situations” of Pope St. John Paul II with regard to those in irregular unions.

It is not possible to say that ALL divorced and remarried couples can or cannot receive the Sacraments. This has to do with many things that basically boil down to culpability, and of the difference between grave sin and mortal sin. This is not a new understanding, and it is one that Cardinal Schoenborn makes clear was already being held by then-Cardinal Ratzinger even in the early 1990’s.

There is no such thing as a norm that can cover all of the individual cases, although there is a general norm. The quicker folks stop trying to argue against that or to be scandalized by that or to insist that this offends doctrine, the quicker they can be at peace and stop acting hysterically about absolutely nothing.

 

[Pulvis]

Of course they do.

That is because none of this has anything to do with doctrine and none of this has anything to do with discipline. This is a matter of praxis, and of developing the Church’s understanding of the “careful discernment of situations” of Pope St. John Paul II with regard to those in irregular unions.

It is not possible to say that ALL divorced and remarried couples can or cannot receive the Sacraments. This has to do with many things that basically boil down to culpability, and of the difference between grave sin and mortal sin. This is not a new understanding, and it is one that Cardinal Schoenborn makes clear was already being held by then-Cardinal Ratzinger even in the early 1990’s.

There is no such thing as a norm that can cover all of the individual cases, although there is a general norm. The quicker folks stop trying to argue against that or to be scandalized by that or to insist that this offends doctrine, the quicker they can be at peace and stop acting hysterically about absolutely nothing.

In all charity, your idea of “acting hysterically about absolutely nothing” reminds me of Neville Chamberlain in 1937.
And this is about much more than just Divorced and Remarried.

 

[Tobias2]

That was one of the most confusing interviews I have ever read, especially the parts about those unmarried couples who are cohabiting, and the reflections about ordination.

“We see this couple that is cohabitating or only civilly married — cohabitating, let’s say. It’s not the Christian ideal. Let’s admit that it’s not the ideal, a good thing, not a legitimate union. But let’s see also that there is good. They really love each other. They are not yet married because they don’t have sufficient means for the future. They are people who do good in the community in which they find themselves. All these things are positive.”

I don’t think anyone is suggesting that cohabiting couples must be shamed as public sinners. The fact remains that they are living in fornication, and marriage is certainly possible. There is nothing whatever wrong with having a pastoral dialogue and reflection with them. The purpose would be to bring them out of their current state of living and presumably into a valid marriage, not to bring them to communion while still cohabiting.

As to the comments on ordination, I am nonplussed. Is there a middle state between validity and invalidity? Partially ordained? We admit three stages of ordination: deacon, priest, and bishop, but not partial stages of validity.

The ordination comments are not confusing. They are indicative of a growing, developing understanding of ordination and the priesthood.

Just as those outside the physical church can be saved, they are in an imperfect communion with the church, so too Christian ministers not formally ordained in the Catholic Church have an imperfect/partial ministry or priesthood.

The synod of 2018 will partly be about vocations and the priesthood. There are indications the nature of the priesthood (a fuller understanding of it) and perhaps female ordination will be discussed. The upcoming synod promises to be a door to the further discernment of Christian ordained ministry.

 

[JimG]

The ordination comments are not confusing. They are indicative of a growing, developing understanding of ordination and the priesthood.

Just as those outside the physical church can be saved, they are in an imperfect communion with the church, so too Christian ministers not formally ordained in the Catholic Church have an imperfect/partial ministry or priesthood.

The synod of 2018 will partly be about vocations and the priesthood. There are indications the nature of the priesthood (a fuller understanding of it) and perhaps female ordination will be discussed. The upcoming synod promises to be a door to the further discernment of Christian ordained ministry.

Well, we already have the concept of “the priesthood of all believers.” But we are not in that case speaking of an ordained priesthood, or of the sacrament of Holy Orders.

And yes, it is possible for those not in formal communion with the Catholic Church to be saved, by being somehow incorporated into Christ and his Church, though the incorporation may be incomplete.

But it has also been determined that women priests are impossible; and I do not envision there being a finding that non-Catholic ministers may somehow participate incompletely in the sacrament of Holy Orders. I don’t know what type of non-Catholic ministers such an idea could apply to. Protestant ministers, Unitarian ministers, Hindu ministers. The idea seems rather incoherent.

Shall we also refer to those cohabiting couples as incompletely married?

 

[twf]

Things are moving with all the dizzying speed of an October Revolution. We have now passed from Communion for remarried divorcees to Communion (in some cases) for cohabiting couples who could marry but choose not to, and on to partially valid Protestant ordinations.

Next on the list is - and I speak with the Voice of Prophecy - Communion for homosexual and lesbian couples. And then Communion for anyone who in any way is breaking the 6th and 9th Commandments and who feels he/she is not really able to keep them just yet…

This is not facetious, just the simple truth. Remember the opening scene in Speed? The lift cables have been blown, only in this case the emergency brakes have been blown with them. Down we go…

Those who sin against the environment? No mercy.
Those who sin against the poor? No mercy.
Those who are too “rigid”? No mercy.
Those who break the 6th and 9th commandments? We need to be pastoral.
Where’s the pastoral accompaniment for the “rigid” Catholics we are constantly hearing about? It bothers me. I agree that these situations regarding various sexual sins need to be handled with pastoral delicacy. I have an aunt in a Lesbian relationship and I have, I hope, only shown her love and compassion… but it seems that all this talk of mercy is very focused on particular sins. Other category of sinners seem to be left out in the cold.
Cardinal Napier in South Africa talked about this in regards to polygamists and the struggles they deal with in Africa.

 

[Tobias2]

Well, we already have the concept of “the priesthood of all believers.” But we are not in that case speaking of an ordained priesthood, or of the sacrament of Holy Orders.

And yes, it is possible for those not in formal communion with the Catholic Church to be saved, by being somehow incorporated into Christ and his Church, though the incorporation may be incomplete.

But it has also been determined that women priests are impossible; and I do not envision there being a finding that non-Catholic ministers may somehow participate incompletely in the sacrament of Holy Orders. I don’t know what type of non-Catholic ministers such an idea could apply to. Protestant ministers, Unitarian ministers, Hindu ministers. The idea seems rather incoherent.

Shall we also refer to those cohabiting couples as incompletely married?

JP2 did not formally define ex cathedra that females could not be ordained as priests. To the consternation of some on the “right” of Church politics who even at the time saw wiggle room and regretted the lack of a formal definition.

I choose to believe the Spirit kept JP2 from formally defining the nature of the priesthood as being all-male as the Spirit was and is leading the Church to a fuller understanding of the priesthood. How far the 2018 synod goes on discussion regarding this no one knows.

 

[Mongo]

But they can’t ever marry if one of them is already in a valid sacramental Marriage to a third person whom they have civilly divorced.

Hmmm.

And what is this suppose to mean:

Is he suggesting that protestant “priests” are “not fully ordained” but “partially ordained”? So their invalid protestant ordinations have left only a “partially indelible” spiritual mark on their souls?

And the Lutheran Eucharist is 75 percent the body and blood of Christ, while that of born against is only about 50 percent.

 

[Mongo]

JP2 did not formally define ex cathedra that females could not be ordained as priests. To the consternation of some on the “right” of Church politics who even at the time saw wiggle room and regretted the lack of a formal definition.

I choose to believe the Spirit kept JP2 from formally defining the nature of the priesthood as being all-male as the Spirit was and is leading the Church to a fuller understanding of the priesthood. How far the 2018 synod goes on discussion regarding this no one knows.

“Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.” Familiar is consortio, John Paul II

That is pretty definitive.

 

[Mongo]

The whole concept of sacramentality is up for grabs. The incarnation isn’t far behind.

 

[catholicmom2010]

I thought this article was scandalous. I feel like I am pretty well informed about the faith, but I think of all the headlines that will come and the people that will be led astray by this interview. I am saddened that this has happened. I will continue to pray for those who are telling the faithful that a sin is no longer a sin.

 

[Stat_Crux]

It is not possible to say that ALL divorced and remarried couples can or cannot receive the Sacraments. This has to do with many things that basically boil down to culpability, and of the difference between grave sin and mortal sin. This is not a new understanding, and it is one that Cardinal Schoenborn makes clear was already being held by then-Cardinal Ratzinger even in the early 1990’s.

That is fiction. The then Cardinal Ratzinger opposed Cardinal Kasper’s misunderstanding of the Sacramemts of Marriage, the Eucharist and Confession consistently and in fact have clashed numerous times since the 1970’s on the subject. If Cardinal Ratzinger was coming round to Cardinal Kasper’s position, why did the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, headed up by Cardinal Ratzinger, reiterate the Magisterial teaching of Familiaris Consortio paragraph 84 and condemned those opinions which went contrary to the church’s constant teaching hat sex outside of marriage is a mortal sin.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_14091994_rec-holy-comm-by-divorced_en.html

 

[Stat_Crux]

And yes, it is possible for those not in formal communion with the Catholic Church to be saved, by being somehow incorporated into Christ and his Church, though the incorporation may be incomplete.

It is indeed possible. But if they are saved it is in spite of their erroneous understanding of Christianity (in the Catholic faith, which represents God’s true intentions for mankind), not because of it.

And one has to ask; what is “informal communion”? One might say “not in full communion” for example for those in the sspx who hold true to what the Catholic faith taught up to the 1960s, but reject much of the events since then. Their canonical situation is difficult, but they hold to the faith as it was understood before Vatican II so could not be called heretical. However, when you’re talking about protestants in the Anglican church, who deny the very Sacraments themselves, the euphemism “in informal communion” seems an inappropriate way to avoid pronouncing the truth that they established a worldly church in opposition to the Church Christ founded.