Or you can say FC must be read in light of AL 351. The bottom line for me is same as was recently expressed by Cardinal Walter Kasper…Then you will have to find peace that AL 351 must be read in light of Familiaris Consortio otherwise you will have to admit that one the two popes have taught errorr which is not possible…even Pope Francis said AL is read in light of FC…it even quotes it. FC is quite clear no ambiguity. Its an objective state NOT subjective.
Familiaris Consortio
84…However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.
This isn’t about Pope Francis vs JPII - its about the development of a doctrine to better represent the entirely of the Gospel so that what Jesus says in Mark 10 is consistent with what he does in John 4.So you say a footnote from one apostolic exhortation trumps a paragraph of another? FC is quite clear and the Great Saint was spot on…
Again, St. John Paul wrote that he is reaffirming a practice. New practice can supersede old practice. I am not saying it does, but this idea that the two are incompatible is only an opinion. They are not literally (as in according to the language) contradictory and incompatible.So you say a footnote from one apostolic exhortation trumps a paragraph of another? FC is quite clear…
I think we have to keep in mind here that a practice can be doctrinal. Many people have been taking St John Paul’s wording in FC 84 out of context, thinking that he was not reaffirming something doctrinal. If this practice has its origin in immutable divine law, then a new practice (admitting some unrepentant adulterers to Communion) cannot supersede an old practice, which in this case is not old (receiving the Eucharist if living as brother and sister) and is still binding.Again, St. John Paul wrote that he is reaffirming a practice. New practice can supersede old practice. I am not saying it does, but this idea that the two are incompatible is only an opinion.
“t is important to recall that the Church’s infallibility is not limited to its primary object, which is the deposit of faith — the body of truths revealed by God (dogmas). Both Vatican Councils have made it clear that the charism of infallibility extends also to whatever teaching is necessary for ‘devoutly guarding and faithfully expounding’ this revealed deposit. …
“In dealing with this point, the Catechism of the Catholic Church [para. 2035 citing LG 25 and Mysterium Ecclesiae] adda further clarification in order to rebut those recent theologians who have claimed that in questions of morality there are so many ‘grey areas’, nuances, and exceptions to ‘rules’ that the Church’s infallibility does not extend to moral teachings…
“This explicit mention of ‘morals’ is not of course an innovation on the part of the Catechism, since the scope of the Church’s infallibility has always been taught (as is seen in the solemn definition of Vatican I) to be ‘doctrine of faith and morals’ (fides et mores). Moreover, the Latin term ‘mores’ includes more than just ‘morality’. For us English-speakers, ‘morals’ and ‘morality’ refer to ethical norms, most of which are part of the natural moral law as well as being handed down in Scripture and/or Tradition. We find them expounded, for instance, in Part III of the Catechism and in courses of ‘moral theology’. But in the context of the term fides et mores, fides means ‘faith’ in the narrow sense of speculative (purely intellectual) beliefs such as those we profess in the Creeds, while mores, in contrast, covers all practical, behavioral norms and customs that Catholics are to observe; and the Church can discern some of these customs or practices to be immutably necessary for integral Catholic living and so teach this fact infallibly. Examples of such infallibly enjoined practices that are not also part of the natural moral law would be the observance of Sunday instead of Saturday under the New Covenant, and the need for infant baptism.”
- Aware however that authentic understanding and genuine mercy are never separated from the truth, pastors have the duty to remind these faithful of the Church’s doctrine concerning the celebration of the sacraments, in particular, the reception of the Holy Communion. In recent years, in various regions, different pastoral solutions in this area have been suggested according to which, to be sure, a general admission of divorced and remarried to Eucharistic communion would not be possible, but the divorced and remarried members of the faithful could approach Holy Communion in specific cases when they consider themselves authorised according to a judgement of conscience to do so. …In some places, it has also been proposed that in order objectively to examine their actual situation, the divorced and remarried would have to consult a prudent and expert priest. This priest, however, would have to respect their eventual decision to approach Holy Communion, without this implying an official authorisation. …
- It falls to the universal Magisterium, in fidelity to Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to teach and to interpret authentically the depositum fidei. With respect to the aforementioned new pastoral proposals, this Congregation deems itself obliged therefore to recall the doctrine and discipline of the Church in this matter. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ (Mk 10:11-12), the Church affirms that a new union cannot be recognised as valid if the preceding marriage was valid. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Holy Communion as long as this situation persists(Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1650; cf. also n. 1640 and the Council of Trent, sess. XXIV: DS 1797-1812).
This norm is not at all a punishment or a discrimination against the divorced and remarried, but rather expresses an objective situation that of itself renders impossible the reception of Holy Communion [cf. FC 84]. (Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church Concerning the Reception of Holy Communion By the Divorced and Remarried Members of the Faithful, Articles 3, 4)
I do not agree, at least with the last part. I understand that any practice must be doctrinally sound. That is exactly the context St. John Paul places this practice in, yet the practice remains practice and not doctrine. I note later you call it doctrine. That too is a change, as St. John Paul did not call it thus.I think we have to keep in mind here that a practice can be doctrinal. Many people have been taking St John Paul’s wording in FC 84 out of context, thinking that he was not reaffirming something doctrinal. If this practice has its origin in immutable divine law, then a new practice (admitting some unrepentant adulterers to Holy Communion) cannot supersede an old practice, which in this case is not old (receiving the Eucharist if living as brother and sister) and is still binding.
That’s not what that letter says.St. John Paul’s mention of this practice is not the only recent authoritative document to reaffirm this doctrine preventing those living more uxorio from receiving the Eucharist
If you don’t agree, that’s fine, but you’re misunderstanding the point I’m making, as well as how Fr. Harrison describes it. He states that his study “considerI do not agree, at least with the last part. I understand that any practice must be doctrinally sound. That is exactly the context St. John Paul places this practice in, yet the practice remains practice and not doctrine. I note later you call it doctrine. That too is a change, as St. John Paul did not call it thus.
…
There are not few theologians that agree with you though. Some do consider this as a doctrine, though the Church has not defined it as such. At this point therefore, there is some freedom of belief, until such a time the Church defines this practice as a doctrine.
The exclusion of the divorced and remarried living more uxorio from the Eucharist is another such infallibly enjoined practice. In AL’s footnote 351, Pope Francis has not changed anything; he is to be read in continuity with St. John Paul II and the past pronouncements of the Church, precisely as Cardinal Muller and many others have pointed out. However, there are also many who are twisting the words of the Holy Father in the footnote. A few people think Pope Francis is spouting heresy in AL. I do not. Along with Cardinal Muller, I believe that there are high ranking men in the episcopate who are twisting the words of the Holy Father in a way that their interpretation becomes erroneous.in the context of the term fides et mores, [faith and morals] fides means ‘faith’ in the narrow sense of speculative (purely intellectual) beliefs such as those we profess in the Creeds, while mores, in contrast, covers all practical, behavioral norms and customs that Catholics are to observe; and the Church can discern some of these customs or practices to be immutably necessary for integral Catholic living and so teach this fact infallibly. Examples of such infallibly enjoined practices that are not also part of the natural moral law would be the observance of Sunday instead of Saturday under the New Covenant, and the need for infant baptism.”
If you don’t agree, that’s fine, but you’re misunderstanding the point I’m making, as well as how Fr. Harrison describes it. He states that his study “considerthe dogmatic status of the traditional exclusion of those in question [divorced and remarried Catholics living more uxorio] from the sacraments, arguing that this is in fact an infallibly proposed doctrine of the Church’s universal and ordinary magisterium.”
I do not think it is the doctrine on Matrimony that is being looked at in a new light, but that of the Eucharist. The way Pope Francis talks about the church as a field hospital, I think he sees the Eucharist as medicine that should not be kept from those who are sick and want to be with Christ, but who may be weak or in a situation they cannot change because it will hurt other people - like the children born in a second marriage.I agree. I believe Pope Francis’s footnote is in the spirit of his predecessor’s (The great saint) Paragraph. The church of “today” you refer to includes the pontificates of at least the last 5 popes. John Paul II along with Francis both were Popes in the Church of “today”. If you are implying that marriage morality has changed enough in the last 10-13 years that doctrine has developed in that tiny sliver of time, I think you are grasping at straws. The development of doctrine takes quite a bit longer than an 8 year stretch between two pontificates.
I also see the way the doctrine of sin is being applied to reception of the Eucharist is going to be refined. We all know and admit that the problem with mortal sin is that it is mortal, that is, deadly a relationship with God. Yet we also know it takes more than objective matter to make a grave sin mortal. I cannot count how may people here have argued the point that one does not receive because he is unworthy and in a state of actual mortal sin, then when it is pointed out that this is not always, maybe not even usually, the case, then the flip-flop to scandal and the role of the Church comes.I do not think it is the doctrine on Matrimony that is being looked at in a new light, but that of the Eucharist.
I mentioned priests, but I am well aware that deacons will be part of the tool set, work horse, or whatever metaphor you like.Yes, Pope Francis is calling for a field hospital with healers to authentically accompany the patients in their illnesses so they can be disposed to receive the proper treatment
Then I hope the next step will be to address the shortage of priests, because the current workload is already too much. My pastor has been hospitalized more than once due to stress related illnesses.All he is saying is that people are not categories, priests can’t use categories to avoid the hard work, and and they need to role up their sleeves and spend time guiding the unmarried. I would bet that one result of this letter will be a more diligent priesthood.