Cardinal: German bishops support allowing some remarried Catholics to receive communion

[Tigg]

Well that is what this year is about. Expert theologians familiar with Catholic teaching, along
with holy inquiry and prayer, will bring us something one way or the other by the Synod close in October.

I could come to the obvious conclusion, then, that if the current day theologians could/will invalidate such a clear and solid teaching coming directly from Christ and defended all these years in Sacred Tradition, then there is no longer *any * guarantee that *any *teaching will remain sacrosanct. What the culture demands, it will get?

 

[Tigg]

The One True Faith is now and forever more. Amen

Amen!

 

[SWolf]

This exception has several times been addressed. No one has an issue with it. It should not be necessary to spell everything out every time the question is discussed, nonetheless I’ll try to do it here: someone who has been divorced from a valid marriage, has remarried, and has conjugal relations with his spouse is barred from receiving communion.
Well, that is the concern so let’s investigate this. Here are the teachings involved:

• Conjugal relations among someone who has divorced from a valid marriage and remarried constitute adultery.
• Adultery is a grave sin.
• Communion cannot be received while in a state of grave sin.
• A sin cannot be forgiven without contrition which includes the intention not to repeat the sin.

So, which of these teachings is not doctrinal but merely a discipline and may be “modified” to allow someone who meets the conditions stated above to receive communion? I’m unimpressed with vague suggestions that “something” may change or that “some” other conditions may apply that would allow a change. A little specificity would go a long way to clearing this all up. The problem is, however, that as soon as something specific is suggested it would then clearly be seen as unacceptable and the whole issue would collapse. Clarity is the enemy of those pushing for the change, which is why there has been so little of it up to this point.

Ender

If anything, one could say doctrine has not changed, but the Church now passively allows couples in known mortal sin to receive communion.

Um, Victory?

 

[FollowChrist34]

I could come to the obvious conclusion, then, that if the current day theologians could/will invalidate such a clear and solid teaching coming directly from Christ and defended all these years in Sacred Tradition, then there is no longer *any *teaching that might remain sacrosanct. What the culture demands, it will get?

This is my fear. (just jumping in) I think the proponents of this proposal fall roughly into two categories, (1) the sincere who genuinely care about this issue from the standpoint of mercy and (2) those (more numerous) who are riding this bandwagon for where it will go once this proposal is accepted and doctrine is altered. (Pell has identified and discussed this group; this is not just my paranoia.) We are sitting on the tip of the “modernizing” iceberg. Those in category (1) I feel are well-intentioned but naive and a little self-serving. They think the sacraments, the rest of the magisterium will magically hold firm of their own accord once we’ve ironed out this little kink; no precedent being set here at all; no further issues of contention out there. It’s laughable.

 

[Prodigal_40s]

This exception has several times been addressed. No one has an issue with it. It should not be necessary to spell everything out every time the question is discussed, nonetheless I’ll try to do it here: someone who has been divorced from a valid marriage, has remarried, and has conjugal relations with his spouse is barred from receiving communion.
Well, that is the concern so let’s investigate this. Here are the teachings involved:

• Conjugal relations among someone who has divorced from a valid marriage and remarried constitute adultery.
• Adultery is a grave sin.
• Communion cannot be received while in a state of grave sin.
• A sin cannot be forgiven without contrition which includes the intention not to repeat the sin.

So, which of these teachings is not doctrinal but merely a discipline and may be “modified” to allow someone who meets the conditions stated above to receive communion? I’m unimpressed with vague suggestions that “something” may change or that “some” other conditions may apply that would allow a change. A little specificity would go a long way to clearing this all up. The problem is, however, that as soon as something specific is suggested it would then clearly be seen as unacceptable and the whole issue would collapse. Clarity is the enemy of those pushing for the change, which is why there has been so little of it up to this point.

Ender

Exactly and there’s no more to be said.

 

[Prodigal_40s]

I could come to the obvious conclusion, then, that if the current day theologians could/will invalidate such a clear and solid teaching coming directly from Christ and defended all these years in Sacred Tradition, then there is no longer *any * guarantee that *any *teaching will remain sacrosanct. What the culture demands, it will get?

It’s something we have to stand firm against and that argument about “accepting the Holy Spirit’s will” if it means “reformulating”/“reinventing”/“upgrading”/“updating” one of the Ten Commandments is sacrilegious manipulation.

I’m always reminded that the Gospel of Matthew called on us to be “as wise as serpents and innocent as doves”

 

[graciew]

Anyone ever notice the tedious preponderance of secular analogies when it comes to a position of pushing for a change in doctrine? It’s tiresome but pathetic and sad when you consider how futile it is and how obvious the failure to include sacred scripture or the teachings of Our Lord Jesus Christ. The One True Faith is now and forever more. Amen

Ok but remember You Know Who Father of Lies could include Scripture into his speech too. Matthew 4:1-11. Just saying…

 

[Prodigal_40s]

Ok but remember You Know Who Father of Lies could include Scripture into his speech too. Matthew 4:1-11. ** Just saying**…

Do you think the Father of Lies would seek to change or retain The Ten Commandments? I’m asking

 

[graciew]

Do you think the Father of Lies would seek to change or retain The Ten Commandments? I’m asking

He sometimes whispers in my ear I am doing fine with all of them.
And I drop the sword and get a binocular to inspect my brothers and sisters.
I am answering.

 

[Prodigal_40s]

He sometimes whispers in my ear I am doing fine with all of them.
And I drop the sword and get a binocular to inspect my brothers and sisters.
I am answering.

I’m being as polite as I can you understand but yet again I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. If you mean “a pair of binoculars” I assume you mean that you’re observing your brothers and sisters?

However my question was do you think that the master of lies would want to change one of the Ten Commandments and you haven’t answered it. The truth is black or white. I know that the Ten Commandments should NEVER be broken and that’s a law from God. You agree?

 

[LongingSoul]

I am not looking for an exception. My position is that these issues have carried over into the second round of the Synod, and it appears that it is no a couple of bishops promoting the idea; it appears that there may be a majority doing so.

And before you go down the route, I am well aware that a majority can be wrong; - I was through college when Humanae Vitae came out and I know decisions such as these are not based on a nose count.

I see individuals hardening up on the issue in adamant disagreement - stating that absolutely nothing can change. They very well may be right; and they may not; I am trying to suggest that rather than digging deeper into the positions, we simply let the Church finish considering the matter.

And yes, I have heard that it has been decided repeatedly. Again those in these threads who take the position are not trained in these matters, have not sat through the prior discussions the Church has had, have not sat through these discussions, and I am not entirely sure they have the word “nuance” in their dictionaries. All I can say is that if the Church were to make a decision that under such and such limited circumstances, some in irregular marriages might be permitted to receive Communion, there are going to be some people who had dug a mighty deep hole, at least from an emotional standpoint. Sometimes it is better to not get so involved. Comments about leaving the Church are not ones I take lightly; perhaps those who have said or implied it are simply blowing off steam. Or perhaps they are serious. I would rather they let the matter alone, and let others work in it.

Do I think it is likely that there will be a change? Likely, no. Possible? That is not within my competence, and because it is not, I am not going to take the position that it is absolutely impossible. That is the Church’s responsibility, and I have enough to do taking care of what I am responsible for.

If the Church says there is no way that suits me just fine.

If the Church decides there is a way, I am not going to have a crisis of faith - as I suspect some may who are so adamant that it can’t. In either circumstance, I choose not to be an armchair expert.

And if the Church were to find an exception, I am not going to feel that nothing is certain, that truth is not knowable, and etc. as per Ender. What I will feel is that the Church, as it meditates on Christ and His revelation, knows a bit more tomorrow than it knew yesterday.

For 2000 years this has been the consistent attitude/disposition of the lay Catholic faithful. There are always those unable to be open to the teachings on the Church on faith and morals both relativists and fundamentalists, but the reaction of those groups to the Church is identical. They call into question the authority of the Pope and even the authenticity of Jesus guarantee to the Church. They claim only the authenticity of their own subjective opinion or their own ‘objective’ opinion (which is really their subjective opinion of ‘objectivity’)

Thankfully the Church will continue to endure despite the white noise.

 

[graciew]

I’m being as polite as I can you understand but yet again I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. If you mean “a pair of binoculars” I assume you mean that you’re observing your brothers and sisters?

However my question was do you think that the master of lies would want to change one of the Ten Commandments and you haven’t answered it. The truth is black or white. I know that the Ten Commandments should NEVER be broken and that’s a law from God. You agree?

Please delete " just saying" from.my first post and my apologies. According to dictionaries I missused it and I guess it could have annoyed you.
Yes , I agree that Commandments should not be broken and they are God 's law.

 

[irenaeus1]

I am not looking for an exception. My position is that these issues have carried over into the second round of the Synod, and it appears that it is no a couple of bishops promoting the idea; it appears that there may be a majority doing so.

So you would accept holding your judgment in abeyance if a bishop (or a number of bishops) wanted to explore whether Jesus was actually the only begotten Son of God, or rather could there be a ‘nuance’ in which case He is not the “one and only” Son? Or that perhaps he was not ‘eternally’ begotten of the Father, but was begotten in time, such that we need to ‘nuance’ our understanding of what ‘born of the Father before all ages’ – what we thought was a settled point – actually means? Yes, doctrine can develop, but not to mean the opposite of what was once taught – doctrinal back-flips as one bishop stated regarding the issue of divorce/remarriage cannot happen.

And what about poor John the Baptist, Thomas More, Archbishop John Fisher, Irish monks Kilian, Kolonat, and Totnan, and others who lost their lives because they could not come up with a nuance over the divorce/remarriage issue to save their life – literally. What a waste of martyrs’ blood.

And before you go down the route, I am well aware that a majority can be wrong; - I was through college when Humanae Vitae came out and I know decisions such as these are not based on a nose count.

Then why even bring up whether a bishop or perhaps a majority of bishops are promoting the idea of an exception because you are correct, it doesn’t matter a hill of beans.

 

[irenaeus1]

And if the Church were to find an exception, I am not going to feel that nothing is certain, that truth is not knowable, and etc. as per Ender. What I will feel is that the Church, as it meditates on Christ and His revelation, knows a bit more tomorrow than it knew yesterday.

Perhaps not unknowable, but definitely not knowable with any amount of moral certainty that could later be turned on its head. Heck, that’s what Catholics for Free Choice are waiting for… they are simply waiting for the Church to correct itself on the issue of abortion - at least some nuance of the issue where it could be deemed morally licit in certain circumstances. Or what about the woman who was ‘ordained’ a Catholic priest in Kansas City; she’s simply waiting for the Church to catch up, because after all, there may be some nuance regarding women’s ordination that has not been discovered yet. Really! Truth is not that difficult for believers to discern as you make it out to be.

 

[irenaeus1]

Well that is what this year is about. Expert theologians familiar with Catholic teaching, along with holy inquiry and prayer, will bring us something one way or the other by the Synod close in October.

I’m reminded by the SUV add on TV at the moment. The kid knows what their destination is and how long the drive will take, but sits in the back seat the whole way saying “are we there yet” to which the father drolly replies “no” a billion times.

Lets let the process happen without being too petulant.

One does not need to be a theologian or canon lawyer to figure out what is the truth regarding divorce and remarriage, especially since it is one of the clearest teachings in all of scripture. Jesus taught this very issue to ordinary people as well as to educated teachers of the law. And one does not need to be a theologian or canon lawyer to figure that there is presently an attempt to undermine the truth regarding divorce and remarriage. Cardinal Kasper invited dialogue over his proposal and then acts surprised when others challenge his view. So when I say I cannot see how those who advocate Cardinal Kasper’s proposal can present their point in a morally coherent manner, it’s not because I’m not a theologian or canon lawyer. There are a whole lot smarter folks than me (who happen to be theologians and canon lawyers) who are struggling to see where this is going as well, so I’m in good company.

Bottom line: It’s the evil intent within the hearts of men that try to find a loop hole in order to avoid pricking their conscience as they attempt to contravenes God’s law, and then there are those in their naivete who under the false pretense of ‘mercy’ want to help accommodate them.

 

[irenaeus1]

Here are the teachings involved:

• Conjugal relations among someone who has divorced from a valid marriage and remarried constitute adultery.
• Adultery is a grave sin.
• Communion cannot be received while in a state of grave sin.
• A sin cannot be forgiven without contrition which includes the intention not to repeat the sin.

So, which of these teachings is not doctrinal but merely a discipline and may be “modified” to allow someone who meets the conditions stated above to receive communion? I’m unimpressed with vague suggestions that “something” may change or that “some” other conditions may apply that would allow a change. A little specificity would go a long way to clearing this all up. The problem is, however, that as soon as something specific is suggested it would then clearly be seen as unacceptable and the whole issue would collapse. Clarity is the enemy of those pushing for the change, which is why there has been so little of it up to this point.

Ender

Very nice summary, Ender.

And again, for all the advocates proposing some kind of fix or exception that will allow a couple who is in a valid marriage to divorce their spouse and subsequently civilly remarry another permission to receive Holy Communion, not one has actually proposed a remedy to the moral issue. The mere fact that no one has even proposed how this could possibly be done demonstrates that, really what is happening is, “Can we figure out a way to call something that is objectively gravely sinful not really a sin and get away with it?” - in the name of mercy, of course.

 

[irenaeus1]

For 2000 years this has been the consistent attitude/disposition of the lay Catholic faithful. There are always those unable to be open to the teachings on the Church on faith and morals both relativists and fundamentalists, but the reaction of those groups to the Church is identical. They call into question the authority of the Pope and even the authenticity of Jesus guarantee to the Church. They claim only the authenticity of their own subjective opinion or their own ‘objective’ opinion (which is really their subjective opinion of ‘objectivity’)

Thankfully the Church will continue to endure despite the white noise.

I’m not calling into question the authority of the Pope or the authenticity of Jesus’ guarantee to the Church. I believe that the Holy Spirit will prevent the Pope from promulgating anything in an official manner that is heretical. But as I noted prior, the Holy Spirit will NOT necessarily prevent the Church from doing something stupid and imprudent or even promulgating error. The embarrassing interim report from the synod last fall is proof of that.

 

[graciew]

Bottom line: It’s the evil intent within the hearts of men that try to find a loop hole in order to avoid pricking their conscience as they attempt to contravenes God’s law, and then there are those in their naivete who under the false pretense of ‘mercy’ want to help accommodate them.

Irenaeus , you said discerning was not difficult or easy ,in a previous post.
How could you discern this ?

 

[Prodigal_40s]

Very nice summary, Ender.

And again, for all the advocates proposing some kind of fix or exception that will allow a couple who is in a valid marriage to divorce their spouse and subsequently civilly remarry another permission to receive Holy Communion, not one has actually proposed a remedy to the moral issue. The mere fact that no one has even proposed how this could possibly be done demonstrates that, really what is happening is, “Can we figure out a way to call something that is objectively gravely sinful not really a sin and get away with it?” - in the name of mercy, of course.

Try asking a straight question like “Is this a Sin or not?”. I guarantee you get an answer that will go on and on and sound as if it’s authentic teaching but it isn’t and it’s never a clear answer. The interesting thing is that they’ll make it you’re being too direct!

“I would find it difficult to provide an answer to such an ontological question”. Always good to see that everyone involved in fighting for the faith is experiencing the same. God bless you brother and keep up the fight

 

[Prodigal_40s]

One does not need to be a theologian or canon lawyer to figure out what is the truth regarding divorce and remarriage, especially since it is one of the clearest teachings in all of scripture. Jesus taught this very issue to ordinary people as well as to educated teachers of the law. And one does not need to be a theologian or canon lawyer to figure that there is presently an attempt to undermine the truth regarding divorce and remarriage. Cardinal Kasper invited dialogue over his proposal and then acts surprised when others challenge his view. So when I say I cannot see how those who advocate Cardinal Kasper’s proposal can present their point in a morally coherent manner, it’s not because I’m not a theologian or canon lawyer. There are a whole lot smarter folks than me (who happen to be theologians and canon lawyers) who are struggling to see where this is going as well, so I’m in good company.

Bottom line: It’s the evil intent within the hearts of men that try to find a loop hole in order to avoid pricking their conscience as they attempt to contravenes God’s law, and then there are those in their naivete who under the false pretense of ‘mercy’ want to help accommodate them.

The classic language of the people who want to change church teaching includes the word “DIALOGUE”. In other words let’s not give a straight answer and use confusing and vague language to conceal the core truth