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

[Ender]

The Church ‘makes the rules’ since Jesus gave her the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.

That’s not what that phrase means.553 The power to “bind and loose” connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgements, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church.
The job of the church is to discern what the rules are, not decide what they should be. She has no authority to decide on her own.*The knowledge which the Church offers to man has its origin not in any speculation of her own, however sublime, but in the word of God which she has received in faith. *(Fides et Ratio)

She has the job of interpreting scripture and making the rules by which we are bound or loosed. The Church who is the living Magisterium ministering to her people from age to age.

The job of the Magisterium is to pass on the faith, not to reinvent it. A doctrine may develop but it cannot reverse itself; it cannot permit today what was forbidden before.

Ender

 

[Prodigal_40s]

That’s not what that phrase means.553 The power to “bind and loose” connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgements, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church.
The job of the church is to discern what the rules are, not decide what they should be. She has no authority to decide on her own.*The knowledge which the Church offers to man has its origin not in any speculation of her own, however sublime, but in the word of God which she has received in faith. *(Fides et Ratio)
The job of the Magisterium is to pass on the faith, not to reinvent it. A doctrine may develop but it cannot reverse itself; it cannot permit today what was forbidden before.

Ender

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be.

 

[Mark121359]

The job of the Magisterium is to pass on the faith, not to reinvent it. A doctrine may develop but it cannot reverse itself; it cannot permit today what was forbidden before.

Ender

This quote right here from Ender should be copied and pasted as the standard response to those on this forum who continue to insist that Church Teachings for homosexuality, so-called SSM, divorce etc. are still developing, and therefore subject to change.

Peace, Mark

 

[LongingSoul]

That’s not what that phrase means.553 The power to “bind and loose” connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgements, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church.
The job of the church is to discern what the rules are, not decide what they should be. She has no authority to decide on her own.*The knowledge which the Church offers to man has its origin not in any speculation of her own, however sublime, but in the word of God which she has received in faith. *(Fides et Ratio)
The job of the Magisterium is to pass on the faith, not to reinvent it. A doctrine may develop but it cannot reverse itself; it cannot permit today what was forbidden before.

Ender

You’ve misread my post. I said ‘reformulate’, not ‘reinvent’. Reformulate is the term used by the Church to explain the doctrine of salvation and the Church in a way that redressed the widely held belief that the doctrine meant that anyone not baptised in the Church would inevitably end up in hell.

Reformulate would also apply to the teaching of the Church regarding use of the death penalty which more aptly described it as a permission granted the State, rather than a divine law effecting divine retribution.

The fact that the Church opens its ears to listen to discussion on the issue of communion for certain divorced/remarried couples, indicates that a reformulation could be possible if it were to add a fuller dimension and Catholic understanding to the truth of the doctrine. Who knows until we know.

 

[Prodigal_40s]

This quote right here from Ender should be copied and pasted as the standard response to those on this forum who continue to insist that Church Teachings for homosexuality, so-called SSM, divorce etc. are still developing, and therefore subject to change.

Peace, Mark

I think the phrase is “reevaluated to move with the times”. I’m actually energized by the Holy Father’s appointments today; 15 Cardinals and the “diversity” is a geographical one. I seem to remember that our African Cardinals met with unfair criticism from certain people within the church. Pope Francis has certainly addressed that.
The African Cardinals preach the truth from what I’ve heard. Wish we had the like of them in Europe

Maybe it isn’t “reevaulate” Can’t think of the word now? Any one help me out?

 

[Ender]

The fact that the Church opens its ears to listen to discussion on the issue of communion for certain divorced/remarried couples, indicates that a reformulation could be possible if it were to add a fuller dimension and Catholic understanding to the truth of the doctrine.

A rose by any other name… Whether you call it a reformulation instead of a reinvention the objection stands. It is not possible to reverse doctrines as firmly entrenched as the ones prohibiting communion to those in irregular marriages.

Who knows until we know.

I find this disturbing as it implies that nothing is settled, nothing is known, and that consistency with the past is not important. If the major doctrines of the church are not set in stone then she is a fraud.

Ender

 

[Sirach2]

You’ve misread my post. I said ‘reformulate’, not ‘reinvent’. Reformulate is the term used by the Church to explain the doctrine of salvation and the Church in a way that redressed the widely held belief that the doctrine meant that anyone not baptised in the Church would inevitably end up in hell.

Reformulate would also apply to the teaching of the Church regarding use of the death penalty which more aptly described it as a permission granted the State, rather than a divine law effecting divine retribution.

The fact that the Church opens its ears to listen to discussion on the issue of communion for certain divorced/remarried couples, indicates that a reformulation could be possible if it were to add a fuller dimension and Catholic understanding to the truth of the doctrine. Who knows until we know.

Good points, L.S. Let’s also consider that the church may change the discipline of a previous ruling, which will not essentially change the doctrine. For example, Christ commands us to do penance, lest we perish. Without changing the doctrine of penance, the Church modified the Friday abstinence regulations.

Another example, formerly the Church automatically excommunicated anyone who obtained a divorce - no reception of communion was possible with an excommunication. The “reformulation” in no longer excommunicating them, did not change the doctrine - only the discipline in connection with it. I believe strongly that we will see a new direction in the discipline with regard to remarried divorcees, without changing the underlying doctrine. Since Pope Francis called for a synod to examine this matter, I sense that he is being moved by the Holy Spirit, and that we will see a new direction.

 

[LongingSoul]

A rose by any other name… Whether you call it a reformulation instead of a reinvention the objection stands. It is not possible to reverse doctrines as firmly entrenched as the ones prohibiting communion to those in irregular marriages.

Again, ‘reformulation’ is the word used by the Church to explain a difference that some mistakenly think is a ‘reinvention’ or ‘reversal’ of doctrine. Reformulation is used to clear up a misunderstanding that has developed regarding the doctrine due to natural deficiencies in language or experience at any given time.

I find this disturbing as it implies that nothing is settled, nothing is known, and that consistency with the past is not important. If the major doctrines of the church are not set in stone then she is a fraud.

Ender

The year of discussion and theological debate on the issue has commenced and by next October, some result one way or the other will emerge. Who knows until we know. You’ve mistakenly thought that I was making an existential lamentation about the meaning of life but you should make an effort just to read the posts in context.

 

[Prodigal_40s]

A rose by any other name… Whether you call it a reformulation instead of a reinvention the objection stands. It is not possible to reverse doctrines as firmly entrenched as the ones prohibiting communion to those in irregular marriages.

I find this disturbing as it implies that nothing is settled, nothing is known, and that consistency with the past is not important. If the major doctrines of the church are not set in stone then she is a fraud.



They are and therefore she isn’t

Ender

 

[pnewton]

“Cardinal Reinhard Marx, who presented the findings of a special working group in the German bishops’ conference on the subject in Bonn on 22 December, described divorce and remarriage as ‘often the beginning of a process of alienation from the Church’.”

I think the Cardinal has this spot on!

It’s what’s called Sin and to embrace it is to alienate yourself from God so that’s very accurate from His Eminence.

Divorce and remarriage is *not *always sin. Many people receive communion who have been married in the Catholic Church after being divorced. As the statement was limited its scope to “under certain conditions” and refers to civil remarriage, there would be no reason to think that anyone would receive communion in a state of mortal sin.

 

[pnewton]

Wouldn’t repeated statements of those conditions by successive Popes be one indication of their veracity?

These bishops, and others are listening and responding to what a pope* is* saying. Yes, the current pope, and no one in the Church can contradict established doctrine. However, the flip side is that no previous pope can bind the Church in matters of discipline after they are no longer pope. I stated, “. As long as a proposed condition does not contradict doctrine, it can contradict Canon Law…” So I never suggested that doctrine could change, so there is no question of veracity. I am sure we can all agree by this point that Truth cannot change, that we all know this and that no bishop has thought that truth can change.

 

[LongingSoul]

Good points, L.S. Let’s also consider that the church may change the discipline of a previous ruling, which will not essentially change the doctrine. For example, Christ commands us to do penance, lest we perish. Without changing the doctrine of penance, the Church modified the Friday abstinence regulations.

Another example, formerly the Church automatically excommunicated anyone who obtained a divorce - no reception of communion was possible with an excommunication. The “reformulation” in no longer excommunicating them, did not change the doctrine - only the discipline in connection with it. I believe strongly that we will see a new direction in the discipline with regard to remarried divorcees, without changing the underlying doctrine. Since Pope Francis called for a synod to examine this matter, I sense that he is being moved by the Holy Spirit, and that we will see a new direction.

There are so many examples both recent and over 2000 years where we have seen the mysteries of Gods gifts to us unfold in surprising, unimaginable and awe inspiring ways. It nevertheless seems to be hard to grasp that just because our limited minds and foresight cannot see the way… that there can possibly be any way. It makes me wonder how often God has called people to come but they have turned away because they can’t see the the pathway there with their own eyes.

 

[Colorad007]

A rose by any other name… Whether you call it a reformulation instead of a reinvention the objection stands. It is not possible to reverse doctrines as firmly entrenched as the ones prohibiting communion to those in irregular marriages.

I find this disturbing as it implies that nothing is settled, nothing is known, and that consistency with the past is not important. If the major doctrines of the church are not set in stone then she is a fraud.

Ender

This, basically.

 

[ProVobis]

These bishops, and others are listening and responding to what a pope* is* saying. Yes, the current pope, and no one in the Church can contradict established doctrine. However, the flip side is that no previous pope can bind the Church in matters of discipline after they are no longer pope. I stated, “. As long as a proposed condition does not contradict doctrine, it can contradict Canon Law…” So I never suggested that doctrine could change, so there is no question of veracity. I am sure we can all agree by this point that Truth cannot change, that we all know this and that no bishop has thought that truth can change.

Canon Law is not the issue. If it contains elements of doctrine or underlying doctrine, it’s still the doctrine that’s at issue. “Under certain conditions” and having those conditions defined is part of that doctrine as I see it. Living as brother and sister seems to be too vague. Either they live in a state of adultery or they don’t. If they do, there’s no point to going to confession and communion won’t help them much either. If they commit acts of adultery and live apart, that’s a different state. If they’re elderly or handicapped and there is no possible scandal to kids, etc. that also is a different state as far as I see. But the Pope may rule differently, I don’t know.

 

[pnewton]

Canon Law is not the issue. If it contains elements of doctrine or underlying doctrine, it’s still the doctrine that’s at issue. “Under certain conditions” and having those conditions defined is part of that doctrine as I see it…

I simply do not see it that way. I believe it is *not *doctrine.

Either they live in a state of adultery or they don’t.

Not all civilly divorce and remarried are living in a state of adultery, if we restrict the discussion to doctrine. If the previous marriage was not valid, then they are not living in a state of adultery.

Also, it seems this whole “state of” situation is subject to clarification, if we want to talk about vague terms. Sin is not viewed in any other situation as a “state or”. One does not live in a state of lying, a state of murder, a state of slander, or a state of stealing. But that is another topic. Usually, if a phrase is unique in usage, then there is plenty of room to explore why this is so. I am no theologian, but I do note that theologians are not in one accord since the Holy Father asked this to be examined. I cannot logically accept this is as black and white as many here do until a reasonable explanation of this divergence is understood.

 

[graciew]

If they’re elderly or handicapped and there is no possible scandal to kids, etc. that also is a different state as far as I see. But the Pope may rule differently, I don’t know.

In all honesty , ProVobis , the concept of scandal has brought me sleepless nights. And sometimes we have to teach our children what scandal is from a different perspective.
I was ahead of thw Social Pastoral for some years in a certain area. Yes , God does not always pick out the best. Sometimes we had to get into very difficult situations , for the sake of one person. A case that would take all of our resources , strength and wit cause it was …the loving thing to do. Cases lost within a multitude. It does take community effort .
To this day , I do not regret the risks run for one.I regret we could not do more. But it was always in God s hands anyway.
I am not specifically refering to divorced , but to what somehow pastoral implied. I may be wrong.

 

[LongingSoul]

Canon Law is not the issue. If it contains elements of doctrine or underlying doctrine, it’s still the doctrine that’s at issue.

Taking a purely human tradition that involves some basic truth… 1000 years ago man was conscious that meat needed to be cooked to be safe for human consumption. Fire was important to that end, hence the expression of the basic truth was ‘applying fire is essential to meat preparation’.

200 years ago, man developed an electric coil generating enough heat to cook their meat. Now the expression of the basic truth is no longer ‘fire is essential to meat preparation’… it is more along the lines of ‘applying heat is essential to meat preparation’.

100 years ago, man discovered that radiation in the microwave spectrum acted on molecules in food to cook it from the inside out and the basic truth could no longer be limited by ‘applying heat is essential to meat preparation’ but rather ‘affecting a change in molecules is essential to meat preparation’.

There is a basic truth that remains constant in each developed expression of it, despite the fact the application was entirely different.

We can’t just accept that one expression of doctrine in one era, contains the fullness of the Truth it endeavours to promote. It’s essential to incorporate new knowledge and human development into our expressions so that there is no mistaking what belongs to the Truth and what is just the application of a discipline serving the Truth.

 

[ProVobis]

I simply do not see it that way. I believe it is *not *doctrine.
Not all civilly divorce and remarried are living in a state of adultery, if we restrict the discussion to doctrine. If the previous marriage was not valid, then they are not living in a state of adultery.

Then technically it would be cohabiting, wouldn’t it, if they are not married inside the church? I hope what comes out of the synod doesn’t glorify marriage outside the church.

 

[ProVobis]

In all honesty , ProVobis , the concept of scandal has brought me sleepless nights. And sometimes we have to teach our children what scandal is from a different perspective.

It’s not an unforgiveable sin. At least I hope not since I’ve confessed it as such.

 

[pnewton]

Then technically it would be cohabiting, wouldn’t it, if they are not married inside the church? I hope what comes out of the synod doesn’t glorify marriage outside the church.

It is not always cohabiting to be married outside the Church. Only Catholics are bound to the Catholic form of marriage. Non-catholics, including those entering the Church, can have valid marriages that were performed outside of the Catholic Church.