I wasn’t really suggesting a philosophic analysis but simply a comparison of alternative spiritualities that led to your comment that Jesuit methodology does not rely on communally objectively explicitating everything when there are difficulties.
Approaching the media statements of a Latin organisation with Celtic or Anglo Saxon presumptions re “truth” and single meanings is likely a recipe for utter confusion on this ongoing political debate.
This simply means you cannot accept that Pope Francis did actually mean your worst interpretation nightmare surely?
.Church teaching regarding reception of Eucharist for D/R, non-annulled, sexually active persons was universally/homogeneosly understood to be prohibited prior to various interpretations of a footnote in chapter 8 of AL.
Who is seeking to prevent or discourage one from the best possible solution? Are you suggesting the Church used to treat people this way?Prove a thing by absence of evidence? Not possible. However, if the accusation is the Holy Father is changing doctrine, then the burden of proof is not on me.
It contradicts common sense, at least in this day and age, though not natural law. There is no natural law for a procedure to determine validity of marriage. The paragraph from the catechism you gave did not address procedures of validity at all.
I have no problem standing before God on judgment day professing that I believed Pope Francis to be mistaken… either that or I would have to profess believing that Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI to be mistaken. They cannot both be correct.This simply means you cannot accept that Pope Francis did actually mean your worst interpretation nightmare surely?
The Arg Draft has now put that beyond doubt
That suggests (the Cardinals) and yourself have to make a personal choice.
Either the Pope is mistaken or your above identification of contradiction is mistaken.
Come judgement day I would rather say I followed the Pope because I lacked intellectual certitude rather than the reverse.
But then maybe your pastoral, theological and moral learning and experience is enough to have a certitude on these matters equal to Pope Francis and so can claim invincible ignorance if you turn out mistaken.
Me, I don’t have the b**ls myself to go that far on these sorts of grey areas.
I understand that every Catholic has a right, and even a duty, to reconcile the teachings of the Church with his or her conscience. I certainly struggle with many Church teachings (to say the least). So it is important to work to understand the Church’s teachings.Church teaching regarding reception of Eucharist for D/R, non-annulled, sexually active persons was universally/homogeneosly understood to be prohibited prior to various interpretations of a footnote in chapter 8 of AL.
Pope JPII stated the prohibition was based on Sacred Scripture (Christ’s very words as universally understood by those in union with the Church) and how the Church has always understood the sacrament of the Eucharist (Body and Blood of Christ incorporated into our own bodies), and the sacrament of Marriage (God joining 2 persons into 1 flesh- “let no man tear asunder”). He was clear that their state and condition of life objectively contradicts the union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. He didn’t teach this as an arbitrary discipline or practice, but as actions that conform to Church doctrine and are derived from Scripture.
“Catholic” means for all people, in all places and all times. It is one of the four marks by which one can recognize the one, true Church founded by Christ.
Who is suggesting the Church shouldn’t pastor souls individually?
The debate is about trying to remain “catholic” -reconciling past teachings regarding doctrine with new, very different interpretations.
Which poster/s do you think are suggesting the pope doesn’t have the authority? Perhaps you are not understanding the reasons for requesting clarification. Read the Dubia -the Cardinals are clear that they are under papal authority and that they await his ruling. They also have a commission to teach, sanctify, and rule those under their care according to the teachings of the Church. They are asking how to reconcile 2 different understandings of Church teaching. They (and posters) are begging the pope speak authoritatively to clear up the confusion for the sake of the salvation of souls affected by various misinterpretations of what is true and necessary for salvation. We shouldn’t wish to remain ignorant.
thanks for posting this thanks for posting this articleYes. Also and interesting thing is that one is in such a situation and believes that the prior marriage was invalid (and it really was but could not be proven), could receive sanctifying grace through an act of contrition along with proper disposition, although denied absolution in sacramental confession, because it is morally impossible to receive absolution from a priest. However no reception of Communion.
The first refuge of a bad argument is to call the other side ignorant.
My understanding is that I lack understanding. I guess I lean toward the law of gradualness. A great deal that Ginny said I actually agree with, but I perhaps prefer a greater, merciful time-table. Let us take the worse case scenario.
We are “victims” of original sin only to the extent that we don’t receive free gifts that weren’t ours by “right” to begin with. Adam’s descendants come into the world deprived of sanctifying grace and we inherit his punishments as we would have inherited his gifts had he remained faithful to God.That one had me nearly in tears.
Oh dear…sin is bigger than this Ender. In fact we are victims of others actual sins and can be put into sinful states by others. Such sinful states may have little to do with personal responsibility
If you cannot accept or understand this ancient reality that the Church has always accepted (eg the stain of original sin, the old legal canonical consequences of being a bastard etc etc) then you cannot get too far in understanding these issues I suggest.
I think that a desire that one could desire to renounce sin is actually a very good start.
With advance apologies to edwayne for my quoting it here, above is the comment to which I originally replied: “Certain public teaching, such as Familiaris Consortio, is quite clear while Amoris Laetitia is not…” I replied to this by saying that AL "is clear is what it advances, i.e., a clarity not in the actual words of the document but in their potential. The concepts of Actual and Potential are a fundamental dichotomy in Aristotelian-Thomastic thought, but it was not my intent to even note this let alone to ever explain it. But what was meant was that AL has the potential to resolve the anguish of certain “irregulars” relative to permission to receive communion. And this resolution would of course entail a subjective component and it would concern culpability. This process would necessarily be an individual one, and thus it cannot be described in detail, for the many, by AL. There is necessary ambiguity.
It is precisely because we acknowledge the authority of the pope that we are struggling - specifically, trying to reconcile what the Church has taught clearly in the past but now appears to be overturned. This is why the appeals for clarity are going to him as the chief bishop, the successor of Peter… exactly because we recognize his authority.