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

[graciew]

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

Oh ! I did not get it … I do not unserstand you…sorry…
.

I meant to say that when so many are living in inhumane conditions ,extreme.poverty , well , that is scandal. And among thieves and drugdealers , there live peopme who struggle to be good , not to steal ,and that one case merits all effort.
As for confession , you bet I had to bite the dust to learn.And I still do.

 

[ProVobis]

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.

I don’t really know how to respond to that. I’m thinking the Council of Trent and its pages marked “doctrina.” They have anathemas inside those pages that people now call disciplines. There is “apostolica discipllina” such as vestments, incense, candles, low tones, etc…Of course, Mass can be said without these things but at some point the doctrine behind them becomes undermined. But that’s about the Mass.

But what do we say about the sacrament of Matrimony now in terms of Truth, if what comes out of the synod amounts to glorifying marriage outside the church?

 

[pnewton]

But what do we say about the sacrament of Matrimony now in terms of Truth, if what comes out of the synod amounts to glorifying marriage outside the church?

I do not see this happening at all. Even those bishops who want to see communion for some Catholics who were civilly divorced and remarried are not saying that the Sacrament of Matrimony be change, or that we elevate marriage outside of the Church (for Catholics). This synod will operate inside established doctrine, though changes to canon law might be suggested (at most).

 

[ProVobis]

I meant to say that when so many are living in inhumane conditions ,extreme.poverty , well , that is scandal. And among thieves and drugdealers , there live peopme who struggle to be good , not to steal ,and that one case merits all effort.

Okay. That’s probably about 80% of the world.

 

[graciew]

Okay. That’s probably about 80% of the world.

One at a time , within our little world , in God 's hands.

 

[ProVobis]

I do not see this happening at all. Even those bishops who want to see communion for some Catholics who were civilly divorced and remarried are not saying that the Sacrament of Matrimony be change, or that we elevate marriage outside of the Church (for Catholics). This synod will operate inside established doctrine, though changes to canon law might be suggested (at most).

I always lose these arguments about doctrine and disciplines even showing the documents in Latin so I’m bowing out of this discussion. I have no stake in the matter, not anymore anyway.

As graciew suggests, there are other priorities.

.

 

[Prodigal_40s]

This, basically.

I’ve learned not to engage in debates that include “I believe” or “We agree” and “there are exceptions that currently exist”. It all stinks of opinion and the Church’s teachings and doctrines are probably being ignored at local levels. That’s up to the perpetrators but what won’t happen is a central acceptance of their outrageous disregard for the Church.

Receipt of communion in the hand is a perfect example of this.

 

[saintjohnxxiii]

And where would they go?

If one were to trace all groups which have decided to leave, one would find that the longer they remain in schism, the farther they edge away from truth.

Who says that they would have to “go” anywhere? Consider the Canadian Bishops with the Winnipeg Statement after Humanae Vitae where they publicly stated to Canadian Catholics that you can use ABC and still be a faithful Catholic.

If leadership at the Vatican is weak, then nobody has to go anywhere.

 

[Prodigal_40s]

While it still may be a long shot, I think the odds of a schism within the Catholic Church in the near future have increased considerably.

I don’t think so. However if there are people who don’t agree with church teaching and refuse to accept Canon law, they can form their own church.

Mind you there are about 30+ thousand of them so they might find that they’re less unique than they think they are.

 

[otjm]

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

You are completely overstating the case. There is one exception already to people in an irregular marriage - the brother and sister exception - and you can paint that any way you want; but they are still in an irregular marriage.

If - and that is a major “if” - the Church determines that there are limited circumstances in addition to the brother and sister exception - it will not be because doctrine has been turned upside down, or that “nothing is known”, or that there is an inconsistency.

People have said as much about the changes in Canon law which provided a greater understanding of what impediments might prohibit the confecting of a valid marriage. They have insisted that marriage no longer means what it has for the millennia.

They are flat out wrong, and they will not listen to any explanation. They “know” that somehow the doctrinal definition of marriage has been changed.

If there is any change to who may receive and under what circumstances, it will be within the disciplinary matters and not as a change in doctrine.

I have no clue if anything will change. I am not suggesting that it will, or that it can, as I am not trained in Sacramental and Moral theology enough to have any clue. But rather than saying it absolutely cannot, I say 1) trust the Holy Spirit, and 2) sit down, be still, and watch. If anything does change, it will not be because doctrine has changed; it will be because after careful review, the possibility of disciplinary change was found. And if it does not change, then comments about nothing being known, nothing settled, and issues of consistency are unnecessary.

We don’t have to understand everything that occurs in the Church. We need to trust Christ and the Holy Spirit, and let the Church deal with these issues.

 

[otjm]

But what do we say about the sacrament of Matrimony now in terms of Truth, if what comes out of the synod amounts to glorifying marriage outside the church?

I don’t think that the brother-sister exception “glorifies marriage outside the Church”. If there I any other exception (and that is a major “if”) it will be limited and within the disciplinary authority of the Church.

The same could be said of the increased impediments to a valid marriage - that they glorify divorce. Some still think they do.

 

[irenaeus1]

I don’t think that the brother-sister exception “glorifies marriage outside the Church”. If there I any other exception (and that is a major “if”) it will be limited and within the disciplinary authority of the Church.

The same could be said of the increased impediments to a valid marriage - that they glorify divorce. Some still think they do.

You continue to bring up the ‘brother/sister’ exception. This is really no exception; the two people involved are simply removing the real crux of the moral problem, which lies in the conjugal act that is proper only to marriage. Hence, the reason why “remarriage” following divorce (putting away one’s spouse) from a valid marriage is deemed adultery. It’s not simply about two people who are not ‘married’ holding hands, or having dinner together, or catching a movie, or even living under the same roof - that’s not what constitutes adultery.

And what other ‘exception’ are you and others looking for? The only ‘exceptions’ being advocated are those that would allow a couple in an adulterous situation to now be admitted to Holy Communion. And no one (not one individual advocating this position, either inside or outside the synod) has put forward how this can be proposed in a morally licit manner. Really!.. no thought about this at all?

 

[irenaeus1]

Thou art Kephas…

This whole thing is growing to the silly level. Christ promised the Church the protection of the Holy Spirit in matters of Faith and Morals.

The Holy Spirit will NOT necessarily prevent the Church from doing something stupid and imprudent or even promulgating error. We saw that in the embarrassing interim report from the synod just a couple of months ago. The Holy Spirit only protects the Church in matters of Faith and Morals when the Church is teaching in an official capacity through the ordinary or extraordinary Magisterium.

Bishops, groups of bishops, and yes, even the pope can utter erroneous statements, And with the current speed of information travel, the confusion of the lay faithful is ever more swift and damaging.

 

[Prodigal_40s]

The Holy Spirit will NOT necessarily prevent the Church from doing something stupid and imprudent or even promulgating error. We saw that in the embarrassing interim report from the synod just a couple of months ago. The Holy Spirit only protects the Church in matters of Faith and Morals when the Church is teaching in an official capacity through the ordinary or extraordinary Magisterium.

Bishops, groups of bishops, and yes, even the pope can utter erroneous statements, And with the current speed of information travel, the confusion of the lay faithful is ever more swift and damaging.

The mainstream media should be approached through official press releases which go through a formal process to ensure what gets through are unequivocal statements.

 

[LongingSoul]

Really!.. no thought about this at all?

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.

 

[Prodigal_40s]

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

 

[otjm]

And what other ‘exception’ are you and others looking for? The only ‘exceptions’ being advocated are those that would allow a couple in an adulterous situation to now be admitted to Holy Communion. And no one (not one individual advocating this position, either inside or outside the synod) has put forward how this can be proposed in a morally licit manner. Really!.. no thought about this at all?

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.

 

[otjm]

The Holy Spirit will NOT necessarily prevent the Church from doing something stupid and imprudent or even promulgating error. We saw that in the embarrassing interim report from the synod just a couple of months ago. The Holy Spirit only protects the Church in matters of Faith and Morals when the Church is teaching in an official capacity through the ordinary or extraordinary Magisterium.

Bishops, groups of bishops, and yes, even the pope can utter erroneous statements, And with the current speed of information travel, the confusion of the lay faithful is ever more swift and damaging.

Well, if the Church, after the end of the Synod, decides that under certain, limited circumstances, people in irregular marriages may receive Communion, then whether you, I and everyone else here thinks that may be stupid or imprudent, I trust that the Holy Spirit has prevented error in matters of Faith and Morals. And considering that such a decision would have aspects of both, you and I would be in disagreement as to promulgating error.

 

[otjm]

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

I presume you are speaking of the secular media; no one in this thread has pushed for any change in doctrine that I am aware of.

 

[Ender]

You are completely overstating the case. There is one exception already to people in an irregular marriage - the brother and sister exception - and you can paint that any way you want; but they are still in an irregular marriage.

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.

If there is any change to who may receive and under what circumstances, it will be within the disciplinary matters and not as a change in doctrine.

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