Cardinal Dolan: don't expect "dramatic change" on Communion for divorced and remarried

  • Thread starter Thread starter Colorad007
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
pnewton said:
The Church cannot abandon Christ. Martin Luther said that she did and he was just as wrong. The error in making the teaching of the Church over the Church is that it makes the same basic error of all who teach each should interpret the Bible for themselves, namely, that it is not the Church teaching that one makes a priority, but rather one’s own opinion of what Church doctrine is. This error of elevating one’s opinion of doctrine over the authority in the Church can lead to a schismatic mindset, based on one’s personal interpretation.
Click to expand...
I can bottom line everything for you. If the Church abandons marriage and 2000 years of Tradition, it will be proven false. I have complete confidence that the Church will not trample on marriage by allowing divorced and remarried to receive communion. Because the Church I belong to, in the time we live in in regards to the attack on marriage will not abandon the sheep.

There are two unchangeable Truths. That marriage cannot be undone. And that communion cannot be taken outside of a state of grace. If either of those two things are violated then the rest of the faith is a house of cards.

IT WILL NOT HAPPEN.
 
MarcoPolo said:
Sounds like Burke might not be there as of this story today. We’ll see.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I saw Sandro Magister’s article yesterday. I would dismiss it as mere hearsay, but for someone like Magister to run the story, I’m inclined to think there is something to it. It would seem that if the move is made before the Synod, then his presence would no longer be required. I guess we shall see.

I don’t think Burke would be the lone voice holding back the tide of “dramatic change” at the Synod, though.
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
I can bottom line everything for you. If the Church abandons marriage and 2000 years of Tradition, it will be proven false. I have complete confidence that the Church will not trample on marriage by allowing divorced and remarried to receive communion. Because the Church I belong to, in the time we live in in regards to the attack on marriage will not abandon the sheep.

There are two unchangeable Truths. That marriage cannot be undone. And that communion cannot be taken outside of a state of grace. If either of those two things are violated then the rest of the faith is a house of cards.

IT WILL NOT HAPPEN.
Click to expand...
Jesus will never abandon His Church, but I think it extreme naivete to think there is nothing to worry about. I predict much suffering ahead for the faithful and I especially pray for Crdl Burke and others who may face humiliation and persecution in the days ahead. No matter what transpires, nor how bleak the prospects look, we all must remember to keep the faith and trust. No doubt hopelessness and doubt overcome the Apostles as they watched the Master die. Pray for a great and unfailing faith. Pray for the grace to fast and pray. God works in ways unknown to man, and in His wisdom He may lead us down a circuitous path. Mother Mary, pray for us.
 
RaphaelJ said:
ncronline.org/news/vatican/doctrinal-wars-both-sides-fire-over-communion-divorced-remarried

I am concerned about this link. It states that there is friction about this and that it is likely that Communion will be given to divorced and remarried Catholics with no modifiers. Is this website a reputable one?
Click to expand...
There’s a thread on this article here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=909887

NCR is an extremely liberal publication. I don’t think the article is saying that it’s likely that communion will be given to the remarried, just that there is a lot of friction over the issue, which there is.
 
RaphaelJ said:
ncronline.org/news/vatican/doctrinal-wars-both-sides-fire-over-communion-divorced-remarried

I am concerned about this link. It states that there is friction about this and that it is likely that Communion will be given to divorced and remarried Catholics with no modifiers. Is this website a reputable one?
Click to expand...
[Bishops have] directed the editors of the Reporter to remove the word “Catholic” from the title of their publication.

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=16911
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
There are two unchangeable Truths. That marriage cannot be undone. And that communion cannot be taken outside of a state of grace. If either of those two things are violated then the rest of the faith is a house of cards.

IT WILL NOT HAPPEN.
Click to expand...
The way around that, of course, is to proclaim everyone will be in the state of grace upon, for example, entering a church. Is this a possibility? People seem to rationalize their own sins anyway.
 
ProVobis said:
The way around that, of course, is to proclaim everyone will be in the state of grace upon, for example, entering a church. Is this a possibility? People seem to rationalize their own sins anyway.
Click to expand...
…sort of like when the priest says, “The Lord is with you” instead of “The Lord be with you”. The latter being a priestly prayer, and the former being a sort of presumption of grace.
 
InFlux said:
…sort of like when the priest says, “The Lord is with you” instead of “The Lord be with you”. The latter being a priestly prayer, and the former being a sort of presumption of grace.
Click to expand...
That would be “May the grace/peace/etc of the Lord be with you.” The Latin (and Polish) seem to be neutral in “Dominus vobiscum” (or “Pan z wami”) The English forces one to use a verb and go one way or the other. In the Hail Mary, the “Lord IS with thee/you” is a sort of a guarantee or assurance. There is no reason why it couldn’t be in the Mass as well IMO. However, as I understand it “The Lord be with you” is now considered just an English greeting, done for the sake of tradition and conformity, and really doesn’t have theological implications.
 
ProVobis said:
That would be “May the grace/peace/etc of the Lord be with you.” The Latin (and Polish) seem to be neutral in “Dominus vobiscum” (or “Pan z wami”) The English forces one to use a verb and go one way or the other. In the Hail Mary, the “Lord IS with thee/you” is a sort of a guarantee or assurance. There is no reason why it couldn’t be in the Mass as well IMO. However, as I understand it “The Lord be with you” is now considered just an English greeting, done for the sake of tradition and conformity, and really doesn’t have theological implications.
Click to expand...
One significant difference, of course, is that the angel greeting Mary could with complete confidence assure Mary that the Lord was indeed with her. The priest can not know that about the people, especially when many of them are living in adulterous situatrions or using contraceptives.

I would be interested in hearing an authoritative response (rather than ‘…seem to…’, ‘IMO’, and ‘as I understand it’, no offense meant). Can the original Latin ‘Dominus vobiscum’ really be translated as ‘The Lord is with you’, and was there an authoritative reason for the original English ‘The Lord be with you’ upon moving to the vernacular?

Google translates ‘Dominus vobiscum’ as ‘God bless you’ or ‘The Lord be with you’, both of which could be understood as a prayer of blessing, not just a greeting. ‘The Lord is with you’ is according to Google ‘Dominus tecum est’. FWIW
 
InFlux said:
One significant difference, of course, is that the angel greeting Mary could with complete confidence assure Mary that the Lord was indeed with her. The priest can not know that about the people, especially when many of them are living in adulterous situatrions or using contraceptives.

I would be interested in hearing an authoritative response (rather than ‘…seem to…’, ‘IMO’, and ‘as I understand it’, no offense meant). Can the original Latin ‘Dominus vobiscum’ really be translated as ‘The Lord is with you’, and was there an authoritative reason for the original English ‘The Lord be with you’ upon moving to the vernacular?

Google translates ‘Dominus vobiscum’ as ‘God bless you’ or ‘The Lord be with you’, both of which could be understood as a prayer of blessing, not just a greeting. ‘The Lord is with you’ is according to Google ‘Dominus tecum est’. FWIW
Click to expand...
It could have been translated “Lord with you.” We say “Glory to God in the Highest” without the verb. Just a matter of training the ear.

“Lord be with you” may have started with Cranmer, who may have had his reasons, but I’m not sure. In any case, it’s an old translation and no one saw fit to change it. Who notices the subjunctive in the English anyway?

Google has its own algorithms for determining translations, mostly based on existing sources. But translation is an art more than a science. (name removed by moderator)ut the same phrase the next day, do words one by one, capitalize a letter, and you get a different result. There really is no better source IMO than a good Latin dictionary, which among other things, shows the different ways the Roman authors used the words. Cassell’s for example.
 
ProVobis said:
Who notices the subjunctive in the English anyway?
Click to expand...
I do.

I also notice it in Spanish, where the priest used to say ‘El Señor esté con ustedes’ or ‘…con vosotros’ in which ‘esté’ is the subjunctive or imperative, like the English ‘be’ but now more and more often it becomes ‘El Señor está con ustedes’, which is the present indicative, like the English ‘is’. I do notice this, and i also notice that the more conservative priests still use the subjunctive / imperative, while liberal ones use the indicative.

I also believe that, even when a person may not consciously notice these little variances, after hundreds of repetitions they start to impact the way one thinks and believes. Words do matter.

As you recall, this question was in response to your comment
ProVobis said:
The way around that, of course, is to proclaim everyone will be in the state of grace upon, for example, entering a church. Is this a possibility?
Click to expand...
Am not sure if you meant that sarcastically or as a real possibility. But my response is to wonder whether that is in fact what is already occurring; that modern priests and bishops are now assuming salvation and sanctity in the people rather than warning them of moral dangers (including the danger of presumption).
 
InFlux said:
I do.

I also notice it in Spanish, where the priest used to say ‘El Señor esté con ustedes’ or ‘…con vosotros’ in which ‘esté’ is the subjunctive or imperative, like the English ‘be’ but now more and more often it becomes ‘El Señor está con ustedes’, which is the present indicative, like the English ‘is’. I do notice this, and i also notice that the more conservative priests still use the subjunctive / imperative, while liberal ones use the indicative.

I also believe that, even when a person may not consciously notice these little variances, after hundreds of repetitions they start to impact the way one thinks and believes. Words do matter.

…
Am not sure if you meant that sarcastically or as a real possibility. But my response is to wonder whether that is in fact what is already occurring; that modern priests and bishops are now assuming salvation and sanctity in the people rather than warning them of moral dangers (including the danger of presumption).
Click to expand...
Good points.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top