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

  • Thread starter Thread starter _Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Following on from Iranaeus1’s very good point about an intellectual mind not being required to discern between Right and Wrong, does anyone else find this argument patronizing and insulting? Interestingly Cardinal Kasper had similar words for our African Cardinals.

HOWEVER Pope Francis has already nominated them for the Synod so well done Holy Father 👍 God bless you.

Also anyone care to guess where these arguments come from? Let me point it out…

“Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris liken faith to mental illness…”
 
Irenaeus , you said discerning was not difficult or easy ,in a previous post.
How could you discern this ?
Well, especially in this case, the Church has helped us discern the truth this with excellent precision… from interpreting the relevant scriptures for us, to the canons of the Council of Trent, to the Catechism (and it’s citations of sources), to St. JP II’s Familiaris Consortio, to elaborations within Canon Law, etc.
 
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.
Your view opposes the Holy Spirit and the entire definition of authentic sensus fidei which was upheld by the recent theological commission. Of course, one must actually assent to teaching and live the faith life to recognize true doctrine and reject falsehood. It only comes from the gift of faith and is particular to the prophetic office we all share at baptism. It is a distortion to assume such as these reject authority.
 
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?
Soooo, orthodoxy, but heteropraxy???
 
Unfortunately, yes, I think this is exactly the idea. Conservatives get to keep our dusty, old doctrine, but progressives get to ignore it in practice :rolleyes:
This sentence very nicely captures my deepest fear ever since this whole debate opened up. I would just add that the selective “ignoring” of doctrine will expand and expand. But, let’s face it, this has been common parish experience for a while now, just without official sanction.
 
Unfortunately, yes, I think this is exactly the idea. Conservatives get to keep our dusty, old doctrine, but progressives get to ignore it in practice :rolleyes:
The Church is probably impossible to control but instances of abuses should be taken seriously. The example I have is receipt of the Blessed Eucharist. I had one case whereby a Minister refused to put the Host on my tongue and I had to accept it into my hand. I was furious and spoke to the priest and he told me to come to him for Communion. That is a priest who is not being supported by his Bishop because he wasn’t happy about it.
His minister is a woman who has a very arrogant, haughty and self-righteous attitude. These people have so much influence at a local level with the community, financial donors that the Bishop readily accepts their control. Sometimes too willingly as far as I can see
 
This sentence very nicely captures my deepest fear ever since this whole debate opened up. I would just add that the selective “ignoring” of doctrine will expand and expand. But, let’s face it, this has been common parish experience for a while now, just without official sanction.
Better to fight it rather than accept it surely?
 
Well, especially in this case, the Church has helped us discern the truth this with excellent precision… from interpreting the relevant scriptures for us, to the canons of the Council of Trent, to the Catechism (and it’s citations of sources), to St. JP II’s Familiaris Consortio, to elaborations within Canon Law, etc.
I understand this. I also understand Prodigal.and his question Is it a sin ? Which is in fact what one asks oneself when presented with the choice do it or not personally.
I have little experience in divorces and remarriages around me , I have already stated I have been married for 27 years same man and despite being very sociable and meeting many people I know of only one annulment in all my life.
Having said that what I differ or at least bring forth is that when an issue is due to be explored by those who are to do so , it is to be done.The request is no sin and looking into it presuposes no evil. That would be judging for me ( for me…I am not judging you , Irenaeus)
Yes , I appreciate dialogue.It may be a personal choice.
What I find when trying to find the greater good , and I may be wrong cause I do not find it that easy , is that listening and doing our job and what we are called to do , is better than defending the Church that has not been attacked by being asked to.explore an issue.
We end up causing pain and hurting when that is not the intention I guess for none of us .
Thanks for answering.
 
Unfortunately, yes, I think this is exactly the idea. Conservatives get to keep our dusty, old doctrine, but progressives get to ignore it in practice :rolleyes:
You nailed it. It’s why this “discussion” is so absurd.
 
I understand this. I also understand Prodigal.and his question Is it a sin ? Which is in fact what one asks oneself when presented with the choice do it or not personally.
I have little experience in divorces and remarriages around me , I have already stated I have been married for 27 years same man and despite being very sociable and meeting many people I know of only one annulment in all my life.
Having said that what I differ or at least bring forth is that when an issue is due to be explored by those who are to do so , it is to be done.The request is no sin and looking into it presuposes no evil. That would be judging for me ( for me…I am not judging you , Irenaeus)
Yes , I appreciate dialogue.It may be a personal choice.
What I find when trying to find the greater good , and I may be wrong cause I do not find it that easy , is that listening and doing our job and what we are called to do , is better than defending the Church that has not been attacked by being asked to.explore an issue.
We end up causing pain and hurting when that is not the intention I guess for none of us .
Thanks for answering.
The intention is to try and obtain a different answer otherwise there’d be no reason to ask a question when the answer remains the same.
 
The intention is to try and obtain a different answer otherwise there’d be no reason to ask a question when the answer remains the same.
I understand.
But in all honesty , it may not be.so. And when presented with everything at the end of the Synod , there may also be another answer.
We just do not know , Prodigal.
All that has come up was already there. It has come out to light.It is not that a request has caused anything for me , whatever there was it is now in the light. And the light is good for me.Today , here and now .
We follow , we do not lead.
The good thing for me is to rememebr this is a synod of the family. And I really have faith it will help our families stricken by all fronts. And Pope Francis knows it.
Bless you , Prodigal.
 
I understand.
But in all honesty , it may not be.so. And when presented with everything at the end of the Synod , there may also be another answer.
We just do not know , Prodigal.
All that has come up was already there. It has come out to light.It is not that a request has caused anything for me , whatever there was it is now in the light. And the light is good for me.Today , here and now .
We follow , we do not lead.
The good thing for me is to rememebr this is a synod of the family. And I really have faith it will help our families stricken by all fronts. And Pope Francis knows it.
Bless you , Prodigal.
There is only one answer so yes it is the case that there’s a desire to change church teaching and we do know. Cardinal Kasper has told us unless of course he wants to change what he “actually meant” in that interview too
 
From Card Burke’s recent interview:

Question: The term “development of doctrine,” as articulated by Cardinal Newman in his famous 1845 essay, was cited by some bishops at the Extraordinary Synod. Please explain what the term means and when it applies. Is its use justified for changes being proposed for dogmatic teachings on marriage, the family, reception of Holy Communion, and other topics that are included in the Synod’s final relatio?

Answer: The “development of doctrine” means that the truths of the Faith, which remain unchanged and are unchangeable, experience a deeper understanding in the Church. In other words, the Church can deepen her appreciation of such truths as, for example, the indissolubility of marriage and the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Holy Eucharist. Technically speaking, the doctrine does not develop — it remains the same. What is attained rather is a richer appreciation of the doctrine under consideration.

For instance, any change with regard to the reception of Holy Communion on the part of those in irregular matrimonial unions cannot occur. The doctrine is clear — it is the word of Christ Himself Who said, “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery.” The meaning is very clear because even His disciples said to Him, “If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” But Our Lord reassures them that if a person is called to marriage, God will give him or her the grace to live the sacrament. So there can be no change with regard to the truth of the indissolubility of marriage. Therefore, there is an inability for those who attempt a second marriage, while still bound in a matrimonial union, to receive Holy Communion. They are living in an objective state of grave sin.

It would be the same with regard to the suggestion that the Church could discover elements of goodness in extramarital sexual relations. This is impossible — these are gravely sinful relations, and there cannot be anything good about them. The same is true for homosexual acts.

Question: Returning to a point you previously mentioned, you noted that even though three contentious paragraphs failed to garner the required two-thirds majority, they were included in the final relatio. You subsequently called for these “hot-button topics” to be removed from consideration. Do you think there is a legitimate possibility that they will be taken off the table prior to the General Synod?

In the meantime, how can faithful Catholics respond to questions regarding the perception of many that the Church is on the verge of changing her teaching? What positive steps can be taken by the laity?

Answer: I trust that there is a possibility that these topics will be taken off the table prior to the General Synod — that is precisely why I have insisted upon it. But it will not happen easily because those insisting on their consideration are in positions of great influence with regard to the Synod of Bishops.

**The Church cannot change her teaching on the indissolubility of marriage and the grave sinfulness of sexual relations outside the matrimonial union and the grave sinfulness of homosexual acts.

The laity needs to nourish themselves with the teaching of the Church’s Magisterium on marriage, with the teaching that is contained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. They must also give witness to it in their everyday dealings, not only with other Catholics but with people who are not of the Catholic Faith, to make it clear that the Church is not changing her teaching — indeed, that she cannot.

I am hopeful that there will be opportunities for the lay faithful to take part in days of study with regard to the Church’s teaching on marriage and its beauty. I also hope that there might be demonstrations and other public manifestations in support of the truth about marriage.**

thewandererpress.com/uncategorized/in-wanderer-interview-cardinal-burke-offers-insights-on-the-synod-on-the-family-and-the-new-evangelization/
 
I think Cardinal Burke needs to talk to Cardinal Dolan and explain things to him
 
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.
This is not being proposed. It is quite clear that it is only* some* of those who are civilly divorced and re-married that are referred to by these bishops and any I have seen so far, not those living in adultery. It is not an exception for those living in an adultery, but an examination of situations which are not adultery, for which now canon law assumes adultery, only to be proven false later. Every annulment approved is as example where canon law takes the assumption of adultery and then that assumption is dropped upon examination.
 
You nailed it. It’s why this “discussion” is so absurd.
Are you referring to this thread, or the discussion the Holy Father requested. If you find it absurd, you have no onus to participate.
 
This is not being proposed. It is quite clear that it is only* some* of those who are civilly divorced and re-married that are referred to by these bishops and any I have seen so far, not those living in adultery. It is not an exception for those living in an adultery, but an examination of situations which are not adultery, for which now canon law assumes adultery, only to be proven false later. Every annulment approved is as example where canon law takes the assumption of adultery and then that assumption is dropped upon examination.
Are you kidding me?.. Of course that is what is being proposed (the proposal being that some couples in an adulterous situation are now to be admitted to Holy Communion). No one has ever clarified their intent by what you are claiming. And if what you are saying above is ‘actually’ what is being proposed, then we already have a process to evaluate that. The couple petitions for a declaration of nullity, which then determines whether the original marriage was in fact invalid, and if so, the couple is then free to marry. Ta Da! So what’s the point of the Synod??? No, what is being proposed is that certain couples in an adulterous situation that meet some yet to be specified criteria and after enduring some sort of penitential period are to be admitted to Holy Communion. Even the German Bishops Conference, prior to the Symod, issued a policy allowing exactly that without any scrutiny regarding penance or declaration of nullity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top