ok… thanks for the clarification. But the declaration of nullity process will discern those conditions as well. Again the controversial issue is regarding those in a valid marriage who divorce and subsequently re-marry.I am speaking of Catholics that were non-Catholic at the time. As the issue is the examination of all Catholics, those that wish to enter the Church are as much a pastoral consideration as those that were baptized Catholics. This group is accounting for more and more of the Church. So yes, I am talking about non-Catholics, at least those converts that were not Catholic at the time of previously being married.
I agree that there are certain problematic issues on both sides - whether “traditionalists and intellectuals" who may complain that the Mass is not in Latin, or “progressives and liberals" who claim that helping the poor and underprivileged does not include the unborn. But the issue here is not regarding “traditionalists and intellectuals" or “progressives and liberals", but rather orthodoxy or heterodoxy.What he is aiming at is:
“…to find concrete solutions to so many difficulties and innumerable challenges that families must confront; to give answers to the many discouragements that surround and suffocate families.”
We do not have to guess at something he has stated. Speaking of which, I think we should consider addressing those temptations that are nearest to us, not focus on the temptations others face. The two that come to mind are:
“One, a temptation to hostile inflexibility, that is, wanting to close oneself within the written word, (the letter) and not allowing oneself to be surprised by God, by the God of surprises, (the spirit); within the law, within the certitude of what we know and not of what we still need to learn and to achieve. From the time of Christ, it is the temptation of the zealous, of the scrupulous, of the solicitous and of the so-called – today – “traditionalists” and also of the intellectuals.”
and
"The temptation to a destructive tendency to goodness, that in the name of a deceptive mercy binds the wounds without first curing them and treating them; that treats the symptoms and not the causes and the roots. It is the temptation of the “do-gooders,” of the fearful, and also of the so-called “progressives and liberals.”
Remembering the lesson of the mote and the beam, we can deal with our own shortcomings easier than we can address that of each other.
en.radiovaticana.va/news/2014/10/18/pope_francis_speech_at_the_conclusion_of_the_synod/1108944
It probably will, but only after years. Also, I would not that it is the marriage that is examined, not the sinfulness of the people involved. In the case of the latter, even an objectively sinful act may be an act devoid of personal sin, and it is personal sin that damages our relationship with God.ok… thanks for the clarification. But the declaration of nullity process will discern those conditions as well.
I don’t know how long the ‘annulment’ process takes on average, but I agree that the process could probably be streamlined without adversely impacting the juridic process. The annulment process itself is useful and prudent by natural law to achieve justice. And this is what it is all about, as Pope St. John Paul II repeatedly stated, the annulment process is about justice — not mercy, not charity, not political correctness, not cultural norms, but rather justice.It probably will, but only after years.
Yes, the operative word being ‘may’… it may (or may not necessarily) mitigate the culpability of the people involved. Most folks know that there is an inherent problem with getting re-married (even most secular non-religious people know what the Catholic Church teaches on this). I don’t know that many Catholics would approach their priest to ask them to marry them if they have been previously divorced. Catholics, even poorly catechized Catholics, know that there exists an obstacle, so they often (disobediently) go to the Justice of the Peace or non-Catholic church to get ‘married’ a second time knowing that they cannot be married ‘in the church.’Also, I would not that it is the marriage that is examined, not the sinfulness of the people involved. In the case of the latter, even an objectively sinful act may be an act devoid of personal sin, and it is personal sin that damages our relationship with God.
Are you suggesting I am an ideologue because I cite church teaching? Does believing church doctrine make me an ideologue? You make unsupported (and unsupportable) assertions which I refute by citing specific teachings to the contrary…and I am the ideologue? Does it even occur to you that if your positions are directly contradicted by what the church teaches that it is perhaps your ideas that are mistaken?One of Pope Francis’ aims is to expose the ‘ideologues’ of the Church who try to poison the faithfuls hearts against God. They have been a big problem since the antics of the Pharisees 2000 years ago.
That’s OK. I will continue to engage whatever ideas are presented that are contrary to what the church actually believes.He has the right idea in not even engaging them. I’m not going to either.
I don’t actually consider your comments to be those of Pope Francis. I’ve been responding to your statements, not his. I’m sure you don’t consider yourself his spokesman so at least recognize that it is you, not him, that I am pitted against.I’m merely pointing out the way Ender is pitting himself against Pope Francis.
This is the problem.I know a couple in this exact situation as well (she had never married, but married a man divorced from his wife) from the same parish as the incident mentioned above. This couple is very involved in the Church; she helps lead an adult faith formation ministry, he’s heavily involved in St. Vincent de Paul, but they respectfully and reverently approach the altar in the Communion line at Mass with their arms crossed.
And this is the only solution.Again, this is a difficult and delicate issue, especially when witnessed up close in real life. My heart goes out to them. But the Church cannot do anything but propose the teachings of the Master.
When someone loses a discussion:Are you suggesting I am an ideologue because I cite church teaching? Does believing church doctrine make me an ideologue? You make unsupported (and unsupportable) assertions which I refute by citing specific teachings to the contrary…and I am the ideologue? Does it even occur to you that if your positions are directly contradicted by what the church teaches that it is perhaps your ideas that are mistaken?
Ender
I’ve spent enough years experiencing Enders game here. I quote the Church documents regarding the Churchs position on capital punishment for example and he basically counters that I’m dumb or stupid and can’t understand anything because that isn’t the teaching of the Church. I’ve quoted the CCC for heavens sake! Uh uh. I’m not banging my head against that brick wall again.When someone loses a discussion:
They can admit defeat
Say they will have to do more research
Call the other person a meany-head.
The third option is used much too often.
This is false. Not once have I ever made a comment about you personally, which is a good deal more than you can say. My statements on capital punishment, which are entirely irrelevant to this topic, are in exactly the same form as my comments here: I make an assertion either in support of my position or in opposition to yours and defend it with a specific citation from an official source.I quote the Church documents regarding the Churchs position on capital punishment for example and he basically counters that I’m dumb or stupid and can’t understand anything because that isn’t the teaching of the Church.
As have I. Beyond that I have cited sources throughout the entire history of the church, which is what I have done here. Our positions on several topics are diametrically opposed and I am no less convinced of the accuracy of my opinions than you are of yours. Your problem is that I am able to demonstrate from church documents the inaccuracies in your assumptions.I’ve quoted the CCC for heavens sake!
Unfortunately you’ve misunderstood and misapplied most of the quotes from Church documents written at different periods and different past environments to convey Scripture and Tradition to people.This is false. Not once have I ever made a comment about you personally, which is a good deal more than you can say. My statements on capital punishment, which are entirely irrelevant to this topic, are in exactly the same form as my comments here: I make an assertion either in support of my position or in opposition to yours and defend it with a specific citation from an official source.
As have I. Beyond that I have cited sources throughout the entire history of the church, which is what I have done here. Our positions on several topics are diametrically opposed and I am no less convinced of the accuracy of my opinions than you are of yours. Your problem is that I am able to demonstrate from church documents the inaccuracies in your assumptions.
Ender
I believe that Francis asked the Synod to study issues and challenges to the family in general. He also specifically appointed a group to look at optimizing/streamlining the annulment process after divorce/re-marriage was evidently becoming a larger issue of focus. The issue regarding the reception of Holy Communion by divorced and civilly re-married Catholics came up prior to the Synod, most notably by the German Bishops Conference issuing ‘permission’ on their own initiative for divorced and civilly re-married Catholics to receive Communion as a matter of conscience and in the name of mercy. When certain folks say that this has been addressed, that is indeed the case – and very clearly so. For example from JPII’s Familiaris Consortio:Unfortunately you’ve (talking about Ender) misunderstood and misapplied most of the quotes from Church documents written at different periods and different past environments to convey Scripture and Tradition to people.
That is why in light of Pope Francis’ decision to invite deeper examination of this current issue to a synod discussion you would retort… “The church has already examined this issue, and has done so several times. How many times must it be revisited before it becomes settled?” #212
I think about comments like this with bewilderment. The Church has examined the issue ‘several times’ before which suggests to me that the issue is complex and ever evolving within culture warranting continuing theological revising for deeper understanding.
I’m not sure what you mean by pilgrim Church on earth, but pilgrim church on earth is typically understood as meaning the church on earth journeying on its way to be with the church in heaven. We are on a pilgrimage – running the race, fighting the good fight, keeping the faith. I don’t believe pilgrim Church is meant to convey that we as a Church are on a journey to understand our faith differently than in past generations, and in the case of the reception of Holy Communion by divorced and civilly re-married Catholics, we are not to understand an aspect of our faith differently than clearly stated by the church just a few years ago, if by different, we mean to understand the opposite of what we once believed.One of the most significant aspects of the Church’s nature is that she is a pilgrim on this earth. We are not settlers. Settlers are no longer ‘pilgrims’. That is not meant to be a meaningless description.