Cardinal Muller: no need to clarify Amoris Laetitia [CC]

[Blue_Horizon]

You’re using a false argument from authority. Just because Cardinal Schonborn was involved in compiling the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and just because you name drop that then Cardinal Ratzinger was involved in the process, doesn’t mean that every subsequent word of Cardinal Schonborn in the 20 years following has the same Magisterial weight as the CCC. I can point to at least four Cardinals whose personal opinions have exactly the same weight as his.

You react like stung by a bee for some reason .
I simply introduced the writer of the article and gave his credentials (directly copied from the publication actually) … did you think I was making some sort of argument from authority/infallibility? Why would anyone even think like that .

Calm down, its simply a coherent and consistent view of AL to that readers here can better understand what AL and Pope Francis’s supporters are on about.

I don’t mind at all if you disagree, I am not trying to annihilate your views, only trying to assist with your confusion. I am not out to “win” an argument but to relieve confusion if possible. If the sources I present are not helpful to you by all means move on.
Perhaps you are here to “win” an argument? But I don’t really know what that would mean in this context.

If it doesn’t help that’s fine, you will remain confused and perhaps someone else can help.
But one day you will have to accept somebody’s explanations otherwise you must eventually make the big boy’s call that either:
(a) Pope Francis is stubbornly wrong;
(b) You don’t have the intellectual or educational abilities you think you may have on this issue (apologies if you find that insulting…its simply a logical possibility given the tight constraints of the situation).
(c) …cannot think of any other calls at the moment.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Or alternatively:

There is only one way to read AL since the Portland/Philadelphia/Ordinariate document

I really have no idea where you are going with this contribution.

The Pope’s complete endorsement of the ArgDraft clarified any significant pastoral ambiguities in AL that remained for most thinking people - whether they liked those clarifications or not.

The Pope did not endorse any other Guidelines in that way so I do not know what you are on about re the above.

If the above contradict the Arg Draft then indeed there is Pope Francis’s “condemnation”, though this seems a strange expectation.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Yet post the letter Pope Francis sent in response to the Argentine Bishops, the Anglican Ordinariate released their guidelines with a traditional respective on Amoris Laetitia. Bishop Egan tweeted out the letter he wrote after Amoris Laetitia was released within the past week or so, which again has a traditional perspective on Amoris Latetia and I doubt the letter has changed since the letter that Pope Francis wrote in response to the Argentine Bishops was released.

Since the Pope Francis letter was released there are still differing interpretations on the part of the clergy in regards to Amoris Laetitia.

Can you provide specifics on the remaining AL pastoral ambiguities then?
The above is a little vague to understand.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Was St Paul rigid, unmerciful or outright wrong when he said the following in 1 Corinthians?

That’s another matter.

The point is it didn’t come from Jesus’s lips and what jesus actually wants has to be interpreted and further evolved by his followers - including both Paul and Pope Francis.

 

[billy15]

And in none of those passages does Jesus say that the remarried must be excluded from the Sacraments. Those are words that a few are putting in the Lord’s mouth to advance their own agenda against the Pope.

TMC, JP made some valid points here straight from Scripture. I think we need to keep a few things in mind…

1. Scripture is the word of God. Remember, Jesus is God. The US Conference of Bishops comments, citing GIRM no. 29, “[The Scriptures] are the vehicle God uses to reveal himself to us, the means by which we come to know the depth of God’s love for us, and the responsibilities entailed by being Christ’s followers, members of his Body.” GIRM no. 29 states: “When the Sacred Scriptures are read in the Church, God himself speaks to his people, and Christ, present in his word, proclaims the Gospel”. Everything JP cited was Scripture. Therefore, we can safely say Scripture is the word of Jesus.
2. Jesus didn’t say a lot of things. He never said to explicitly baptize infants, as many Calvinists will tell you. He never said only males may become priests. So it doesn’t matter that Jesus never said what was explicitly stated in magisterial teaching, such as *Familiaris Consortio *84, for example. Which leads me to my next point…
3. **You CANNOT separate Jesus from the Church. I don’t who these “few” are that are putting words in our Lord’s mouth, but if you are referring to the four cardinals and those that believe the dubia raise valid questions and should elicit an answer, you should know that these people are not putting words in our Lord’s mouth, and their number is not “few”. This is true throughout the centuries that the Church has existed.

Anyways, I feel that when someone says that the Church (the bishops are part of the Church) puts words in Jesus’ mouth, I can’t help but be amazed as the Church literally is Jesus. Jesus is the Head of the Church; we are the body, the members. The Catechism puts this well:

Christ “is the head of the body, the Church.” He is the principle of creation and redemption. Raised to the Father’s glory, “in everything he [is] preeminent,” especially in the Church, through whom he extends his reign over all things. (CCC 792)

Christ and his Church thus together make up the “whole Christ” (Christus totus). The Church is one with Christ. (CCC 795)

So if the bishops in union with the Pope declare something (such as that the divorced and civilly remarried may not receive communion if they haven’t received a decree of nullity and continue to live more uxorio) in an exercise of their ministry, we shouldn’t differentiate between Jesus and members of the clergy. Jesus, our God, speaks through His Church.

As Jesus Himself said before His Ascension:

“I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you." (John 16: 12-15)

The Holy Spirit works through the Church always. The Holy Spirit speaks for Jesus. Jesus is Head of the Mystical Body, the Church. Therefore, Jesus as head of the Church has already made declarations, and has addressed the reception of Communion throughout the ages. Do the guidelines for reception of the Eucharist, as it is laid out in canon law and in our doctrine, not stem from the Holy Spirit then? I answer, yes, they do.

I can’t help but think that underlying the whole controversy about divorce and remarriage, there lies an unspoken perhaps unrealized rejection of Jesus’ teaching on the matter and the Church’s adherence to it. We are like Jesus’ apostles who said “If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” The idea of permanence in marriage has become nearly unacceptable to us, and we have the idea that if a first marriage fails, it must have been null from the beginning. It simply must have been.

And JimG, I think you make a very valid point, too. It’s also why many people I know wish to receive a “prenup” before getting married. Permanence has become almost an impossibility in the secular world, and that sentiment has of course crept into the minds of the laity.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Seriously?

Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:1–17, Deuteronomy 5:6–21)
6. Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Matt. 5:19
Whoever then relaxes (breaks) one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

James 2:10-11
For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it. For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” said also, “Do not kill.”

Matthew 5:22
But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell.

Revelation 21:8
But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars–they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.

Matthew 15:18-20
18 But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20 These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them.

Ephesians 5:3
But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people.

Colossians 3:5-6
…whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. 6 Because of these, the wrath of God is coming.

Galatians 5:19-21
19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers…will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Personally speaking, I can’t really say that I like these verses, now that I’m reading them. They came from Catholic Answers, by the way, in an article about mortal sins. But this is the source of your Catholic teaching…

And how many of these were from Jesus’s lips?
Matt. 5:19 - sounds like venial sin to me if still in the kingdom?
Matthew 15:18-20: One question at issue is whether there are some forms of adultery like unto unwashed hands where the uncleanness is on the outside not the inside. Surely the Church has the authority to decide on that question - just as it can decide who was validly married or not.

Matthew 5:22: Hidden sins such as adultery of the eyes is a sin against the 9th, is not restricted to irregulars and, being private, is not usually considered referenced by Canon 915 as a reason for prohibiting Communion. Of course if you tell the congregation that you have been fantasising about the lonely widow next door then you should probably be banned from Communion or at least sent for counselling .

By the way I thought you had a life and were too busy to respond to challenging questions here such as the below I put to you.

We did get it that you had no credible response to offer.
As they say, “if you cannot take the heat maybe its better not to try and cook in the kitchen”.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The idea of permanence in marriage has become nearly unacceptable to us, and we have the idea that if a first marriage fails, it must have been null from the beginning. It simply must have been.

As Tonto would say, “who is the “we” whiteman?”

How on earth can any of us speak for every irregular from the comfort of our armchairs?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

1. Jesus didn’t say a lot of things.

Some solid ground here at last.

That is exactly why we have living Councils and Popes to keep clarifying and even evolving answers to new questions just as Jesus would do if he were here. Though it may take a little longer.

 

[TMC]

Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying. If we discerned ourselves, we would not be under judgment; but since we are judged by (the) Lord, we are being disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world (1 Cor 11:27-31)

Yes, I am familiar with the text of 1 Corinthians. But still, Jesus (nor Paul) never said that the remarried should be barred from the Sacraments.

 

[TMC]

TMC, JP made some valid points here straight from Scripture. I think we need to keep a few things in mind…

1. Scripture is the word of God. Remember, Jesus is God. The US Conference of Bishops comments, citing GIRM no. 29, “[The Scriptures] are the vehicle God uses to reveal himself to us, the means by which we come to know the depth of God’s love for us, and the responsibilities entailed by being Christ’s followers, members of his Body.” GIRM no. 29 states: “When the Sacred Scriptures are read in the Church, God himself speaks to his people, and Christ, present in his word, proclaims the Gospel”. Everything JP cited was Scripture. Therefore, we can safely say Scripture is the word of Jesus.
2. Jesus didn’t say a lot of things. He never said to explicitly baptize infants, as many Calvinists will tell you. He never said only males may become priests. So it doesn’t matter that Jesus never said what was explicitly stated in magisterial teaching, such as *Familiaris Consortio *84, for example. Which leads me to my next point…
3. **You *CANNOT ***separate Jesus from the Church. I don’t who these “few” are that are putting words in our Lord’s mouth, but if you are referring to the four cardinals and those that believe the dubia raise valid questions and should elicit an answer, you should know that these people are not putting words in our Lord’s mouth, and their number is not “few”. This is true throughout the centuries that the Church has existed.

Anyways, I feel that when someone says that the Church (the bishops are part of the Church) puts words in Jesus’ mouth, I can’t help but be amazed as the Church literally is Jesus. Jesus is the Head of the Church; we are the body, the members. The Catechism puts this well:

So if the bishops in union with the Pope declare something (such as that the divorced and civilly remarried may not receive communion if they haven’t received a decree of nullity and continue to live more uxorio) in an exercise of their ministry, we shouldn’t differentiate between Jesus and members of the clergy. Jesus, our God, speaks through His Church.

As Jesus Himself said before His Ascension:

The Holy Spirit works through the Church always. The Holy Spirit speaks for Jesus. Jesus is Head of the Mystical Body, the Church. Therefore, Jesus as head of the Church has already made declarations, and has addressed the reception of Communion throughout the ages. Do the guidelines for reception of the Eucharist, as it is laid out in canon law and in our doctrine, not stem from the Holy Spirit then? I answer, yes, they do.

And JimG, I think you make a very valid point, too. It’s also why many people I know wish to receive a “prenup” before getting married. Permanence has become almost an impossibility in the secular world, and that sentiment has of course crept into the minds of the laity.

But the issue is that the Church is saying, through the Pope and the bishops, that there are circumstances where the remarried may be admitted to the sacraments. The Holy Spirit is working through the Church to accomplish that development. And some are here claiming that the Pope lacks the authority to teach in that way, or at least is wrong in doing so. And to defend their position they are claiming the be directly supported by the words of Christ, suggesting both that they understand Christ better than the Church, and that the Pope is ignoring Jesus’ express instructions. So I don’t understand your appeal to the authority of the Church, when the issue is that some here are denying that same authority.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Yes, I am familiar with the text of 1 Corinthians. But still, Jesus (nor Paul) never said that the remarried should be barred from the Sacraments.

And. . .He never (to our knowledge) said they should not be barred, did He?

 

[TMC]

And. . .He never (to our knowledge) said they should not be barred, did He?

No, He did not. The administration of the Sacraments is left to the Church to handle. I have my opinions on the topic. I am sure others have different opinions. But it is given to the Church to administer the Sacraments. The Pope and the bishops are exercising that authority in the way they deem fit and proper. Some think those decisions are above criticism - I do not. Criticize away and we can discuss. But Catholics should not pretend the Church lacks that authority, or suggest that the Pope and the bishops are deliberately working against the clear mandate of Jesus.

 

[Stat_Crux]

Yes, I am familiar with the text of 1 Corinthians. But still, Jesus (nor Paul) never said that the remarried should be barred from the Sacraments.

So do you support Gay marriage? After all, Christ never literally said it was a bad thing. In fact he never even commented on homosexuality, one of the principle arguments used by those Christians who support “gay rights”. Or what about nuclear weapons? Or communism? Or fascism? Again, not a word mentioned. Along the same lines, Amoris Laetitia never says “those sexually active divorced and remarried Catholics can/should receive Communion”.

The Catholic Church does not believe in the idea of “sola scriptura” for this very reason. It’s the constant teaching and tradition which guides our understanding of how to interpret Scripture. The Church, being the Body of Christ and the “Ark of Salvation” teaches the path to salvation infallibly and is guided by the Holy Spirit, and communicates the truth of how we are to be saved in an uncorrupted form. If we’re now stating that the Church was wrong since the beginning to say that it’s important to confess mortal sin, either in general of itself or specifically before receiving Communion, it’s not simply a change in practical application of the Gospel, but a refutation of the very idea that there is even a problem in people’s lives that they need to work on. Why did Christ agree to go through the terrible pain and suffering of the Cross, when he could have apparently just “clicked His fingers” and make everyone automatically “saved” from then on? Certain protestant theologies state that “once saved, always saved”, or a type of “predestination” that some people are chosen to be saved or damned from the beginning and one can not change from one to the other. Catholic theology does not support this perspective, and states instead that although Baptism removes our original sin (and any mortal sin at that time), we can still err after Baptism due to our fallible human natures, and must work at it for the rest of our lives, relying not only on our faith, but that our faith must yield good fruits, or good works.

If we were to look at the quote from 1 Corinthians again, it isn’t simply stating something superficial about Church practice like “Easter will should be calculated in this way” or “the vestments of a Priest at Mass should look like this”, instead St Paul is exhorting us to understand the fundamental importance of “getting right with God” and not presuming on our salvation. In effect, the difference between “receiving” Communion, and “taking” Communion". It’s a beautiful thing to want to receive the Eucharist, and something which we should encourage, but receiving Communion is not a “participation trophy”.

Instead it is a full and living sign that we recognise and accept God and ask His mercy for our salvation, knowing our human unworthiness, made worthy only by His grace, trying even though we fail, but continuing to try nonetheless against seemingly impossible odds. Not thinking that righteousness is an impossible “ideal”, but confident to continue to try because of His words of hope and encouragement and the example of His Saints.

To state that suddenly the Church’s constant teaching and practice has suddenly changed because of a footnote, whose wording can be used to support both interpretations and for which no infallible interpretation has been stated, is only possible if AL is considered in isolation and ignoring the entirety of Catholic teaching on the subject for the preceding 2,000 years.

 

[billy15]

But the issue is that the Church is saying, through the Pope and the bishops, that there are circumstances where the remarried may be admitted to the sacraments.

Exactly, I totally agree with you. St. John Paul explained explicitly what those circumstances are:

However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist.

Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they "take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.

AL has not abrogated or changed this restriction. As Cardinal Muller said, FC and other magisterial documents such as Sacramentum Caritatis and the CDF’s 1994 letter concerning the reception of Holy Communion by the divorced and civilly remarried remain in force. So to say (as some interpretations of AL do) that one can receive absolution and the Eucharist without firmly resolving not to commit sin (that is, sexual relations/fornication with someone who is not their true spouse) contradicts the above teaching of the Church.

But I believe that AL is a completely orthodox document, and can certainly be read as such. However, it has changed nothing regarding this “practice of the Church” that St. John Paul speaks of in FC 84. Pope Francis is a “son of the Church”, as he has often said, and I take him at his word. I do not believe our Holy Father has contradicted anything his predecessors have said. However, interpretations such as the Maltese directive, and the statements of Bishop McElroy in San Diego, among others, do seem to contradict what was said in FC 84, SC 29, and the CDF’s 1994 letter. If you believe AL has changed Church teaching, and maybe you’ll find this redundant, can you spell out specifically what has changed?

And some are here claiming that the Pope lacks the authority to teach in that way, or at least is wrong in doing so.

Maybe some are (I don’t know who you’re referring to though), but I am not claiming this.

So I don’t understand your appeal to the authority of the Church…

I’m sorry if this wasn’t clear. You said, “And in none of those passages [posted by JP] does Jesus say that the remarried must be excluded from the Sacraments. Those are words that a few are putting in the Lord’s mouth to advance their own agenda against the Pope.”

I asked you who you think those “few” are. Do you believe the four cardinals, Archbishops Sample and Chaput, Bishop Lopes, the bishops of Kazakhstan, and others are among those “few”? That’s what I was assuming, so my appeal to the authority of the Church is the same appeal that these bishops have made. These bishops have made clear that the teaching regarding the divorced and civilly remarried receiving the Eucharist is based on the teaching handed down by the Church throughout the ages.

You, and a few others, talk of how certain Scripture passages pointing to this constant practice of the Church never came from Jesus’ lips. And my response to that is “So what?” If the Apostle or someone else other than Jesus said something explicitly regarding adultery in the New Testament,we should realize this is the word of our God, Jesus Christ. “When the Sacred Scriptures are read… Christ, present in his word, proclaims the Gospel.” This applies to the letters of Paul and the other books of the New Testament.

Furthermore, the Church has been sent the Holy Spirit so that He may guide the Church into all truth. If the Church has made the declaration that the divorced and civilly remarried who did not receive a decree of nullity cannot, in any circumstance, receive the Eucharist while living more uxorio, then we accept that that teaching comes from Jesus Himself, even though he never spoke those explicit words before He ascended into Heaven. And the Church has made that declaration throughout the centuries, most recently in FC 84, SC 29, and was reaffirmed in AL since it must be read in continuity with past magisterial teaching. Again, as Cardinal Muller pointed out, AL has changed nothing, and I agree.

The bishops of Kazakhstan made a good point in their letter regarding those interpretations of AL that differ from their own and the four cardinals, emphasis mine:

The Church, and specifically the minister of the sacrament of Penance, does not have the faculty to judge on the state of conscience of an individual member of the faithful or on the rectitude of the intention of the conscience, since “ecclesia de occultis non iudicat” (Council of Trent, session 24, chapter 1)…

The confessor cannot arrogate to himself the responsibility before God and before the penitent, of implicitly dispensing him from the observance of the Sixth Commandment and of the indissolubility of the matrimonial bond by admitting him to Holy Communion. The Church does not have the faculty to derive consequences for the external forum of sacramental discipline on the basis of a presumed conviction of conscience of the invalidity of one’s own marriage in the internal forum.

 

[Thomas_White]

Since there are something on the order of 3000 Catholic jurisdictions in the world, there could be that number of guidelines established by the ordinaries, all with reference to Amoris Laetitia without additional clarification.

Come on. “There can be no other interpretations.” It may not be what you want to hear and it may not be what I want to hear, but it is what it is. I think it is time to attempt to understand how AL is “a development of doctrine and not a change in teaching”, as Cardinal Schoenborn said.

 

[Stat_Crux]

Pardon me if I am being blunt, but you are saying that you can read Matthew and Corinthians and use your reading of those passages to countermand the Pope and resist his teaching. That is your right, certainly. But how is that different than any Protestant? Do you reject the authority of the Church to teach today? At what date in history did the Church lose her authority?

Pardon granted, an absolutely reasonable question and one I’m happy to try and clarify.

I do not deny the authority of the Pope, Pope Francis is my Pope. I also do not deny the Dogma of Papal Infallibility as we have been taught it and as it has been defined in precise terms. I have enormous respect for the Pope. Given the bad image the Church had after the sex abuse scandals he has done enormous good in re-engaging both Catholics and non-Catholics alike in the central message of mercy contained in the Gospels. However, that does not mean that everything said is infallible. I say that not as an insult or criticism, but as a stated fact which he has said he agrees with on several occasions. It is also why he has asked and continues to ask us to pray for him, which we gladly do at every Mass we attend, that he may be strengthened in his teaching ministry. If I am wrong to think that, I pray for God’s correction and the wisdom to see that correction for what it is.

With AL, no formal clarification has yet been offered, and nothing meeting the criteria of the Dogma of Papal Infallibility as understood when it was defined. However, Cardinals have asked for a formal clarification on what is being taught and how we must interpret it, to which no response (supporting one way or the other) has been given, instead there is in effect an “abstention” from a response. Yes, AL has some Magisterial weight, that is undeniable given that it comes from two Synods and bears the Pope’s name, but the wording is such that a number of interpretations may be made, including an interpretation entirely in harmony with the Church’s teaching on sexual morality and the Sacraments of Marriage, Eucharist and Confession.

Is it a troubling situation? Of course, I’m sure it is on both “sides”. Am I “sure” of my reasoning? Not at all absolutely. But it’s for that very reason that I follow the Church’s constant and consistent teaching, not only on the specific question of Communion for the divorced and remarried, but moral theology and practice in general. The difference with the protestant argument used by Martin Luther wasn’t simply that he thought “the Pope was wrong”, but that he thought “the Catholic Church was not given authority by Christ, and had departed from the “true” Christian teaching as expressed in the Bible and introduced error into its teachings”. My position is the other way around, I hold that the Church has been right on this issue of moral teaching since the beginning because I firmly believe it was instituted by Christ himself as the Ark of Salvation to teach the means of our salvation. Is the situation in this current moment confusing for all involved? Yes. However, looked at against the teaching for 2,000 years it’s clearer what God wanted from us when he revealed his teaching to us.

It is critical that we do not allow this situation to cause harm to the Church or divide us. Today’s Epistle (Sunday 22 January 2017) was especially pertinent to the present situation (funny how the readings are always the right thing at the right time…). I pray that this is all eventually resolved in a manner which is to God’s greater glory

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Come on. “There can be no other interpretations.” It may not be what you want to hear and it may not be what I want to hear, but it is what it is. I think it is time to attempt to understand how AL is “a development of doctrine and not a change in teaching”, as Cardinal Schoenborn said.

I would like to understand it. I really would.

Teaching A: Those who live in an invalid second union without decree of nullity are not to receive communion.
Teaching B Those in an invalid second union without decree of nullity are not to receive communion unless they live in continence.

Ok, I can see how the doctrine developed from A to B (B being Familiaris Consortio). If the reason for the inability to receive is based upon adultery, and those involved cease adulterous actions, then the ‘bar’ is removed.

What I cannot get is proposed teaching C: Those in an invalid second union without decree of nullity are not to receive communion, unless they EITHER live in continence (that still lines up with B) OR they are absolved, so to speak, by some representative authority, like a priest, who can somehow be just as capable to discern validity as a tribunal (this is very, very, very iffy, because let’s face it, if Father X can discern validity then why can’t this go to a tribunal?). . .OR they 'have peace in their conscience, having determined by themselves and for themselves that their present union is thus a valid one.

Nope. Can’t do it. I mean, I can see the logic, “If the problem is adultery, then let’s just make the people NOT be committing adultery, either by declaring that we can fix it by making the present union OK upon priestly say-so, OR by declaring that IF the person’s CONSCIENCE says they aren’t sinning, then by golly, since we have ‘developed’ the idea that mortal sin must require knowledge, and that since the people don’t accept that knowledge, OR if they are somehow so ‘coerced’ by fear that they can’t give free consent, then we don’t ‘meet the criteria for mortal sin’, ergo no mortal sin means no need to ‘give up’ on communion.”

This situation has my 87 year old mother in tears and anguish, thank you SO much bishops of Malta et al. Not because she’s doing a facepalm, "why on EARTH did I stay away from the sacraments all those years when I was obeying the teaching about not being able to receive since I married a divorced man’, but because she still accepts that teaching as correct, cannot understand how it could change in this way, and grieves for the souls she feels are being led astray. As do I.

There have been many times in Church history where members, even very ‘important’ members like bishops and even Popes, have believed and promulgated (or in the case of the Popes, NOT stood firm) actions which they firmly believed were true, and which. . .weren’t. Plenty of heresies down the pike won many distinguished theologians etc over because they seemed so much easier, more just, more sensible, more, dare I say it, LOVING. . .

Sometimes it took many, many years to sort itself out. I’m sure that absent the Second Coming (which I sometimes think is closer than we might like to believe) and/or a real and blinding enlightenment, on the order of Fatima’s miracle of the Sun, but in this case being a real miracle of ‘seeing the light’, so to speak, the Church will, after a bitter time, ‘right itself’.

I’m reminded of Joan of Arc’s words. “Dear Lord, if I am in a state of grace now, let me remain so. If I am not in a state of grace, please put me in one.”

Dear Lord, if what is happening now is truly Your will and is truly a sign of grace, let it be made manifest. If it is not, let that be made manifest as well. For it is THY will we wish to be done.

 

[Vico]

Come on. “There can be no other interpretations.” It may not be what you want to hear and it may not be what I want to hear, but it is what it is. I think it is time to attempt to understand how AL is “a development of doctrine and not a change in teaching”, as Cardinal Schoenborn said.

Please explain the basis of “Come on” because your remark does not seem to me to follow logically upon what I posted.

 

[edwayne]

Two examples of the sort of active irregulars the new initiatives in AL are aimed at.
Pretty much exactly what some of us have been discussing here:

Written by Dominical theologian Jean-Miguel Garrigues, Professor of Patristics and Dogmatics at the Institut Supérieur Thomas d’Aquin, at the Dominican House of Studies in Toulouse. He and his confrère, Cardinal Cristoph Schönborn, the current Archbishop of Vienna, composed the Catechism of the Catholic Church prepared under the supervision of the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.

I can see where the first scenario could potentially be a plausible one where the benefit of the doubt, rather than presuming the first marriage to be valid - but rather as invalid, is given to the couple outside a formal tribunal. In other words, rather than presuming the marriage to be valid unless evidence to the contrary can demonstrate that the marriage never existed and is declared null, with lack of evidence to prove one way or the other, the marriage is presumed invalid instead. I’m not sure I agree, but I certainly can understand the approach.

However, the second example given is problematic in that, if the divorced and remarried couple believed their first marriage was indeed valid (and sacramental) but now find themselves in a second union with children and cannot thereby separate, and they find living in continence too difficult, holy communion is still not to be permitted, and the Church should not positively sanction otherwise. The question is asked “should continence be demanded of them, a continence that would be rash without a special charisma from the Holy Spirit?” Of course it should demanded of them… just as continence is demanded of a single person, or a person whose spouse is away for long durations for a job, or a person whose spouse is gravely ill and cannot engage in conjugal relations, etc. Is this rash? Difficulty in complying with God’s will regarding the moral demands of the gospel is not an excuse or license to disobey them.

The document of the Maltese bishops provides guidance much along the lines of this second example where, regardless of the accompaniment and discernment of the priest and/or the result thereof, ultimately it is the couple who determines that being ‘at peace with God’ decides their legitimate admission to holy communion.

 

[TMC]

So do you support Gay marriage? After all, Christ never literally said it was a bad thing. In fact he never even commented on homosexuality, one of the principle arguments used by those Christians who support “gay rights”. Or what about nuclear weapons? Or communism? Or fascism? Again, not a word mentioned. Along the same lines, Amoris Laetitia never says “those sexually active divorced and remarried Catholics can/should receive Communion”.

The Catholic Church does not believe in the idea of “sola scriptura” for this very reason. It’s the constant teaching and tradition which guides our understanding of how to interpret Scripture. The Church, being the Body of Christ and the “Ark of Salvation” teaches the path to salvation infallibly and is guided by the Holy Spirit, and communicates the truth of how we are to be saved in an uncorrupted form. If we’re now stating that the Church was wrong since the beginning to say that it’s important to confess mortal sin, either in general of itself or specifically before receiving Communion, it’s not simply a change in practical application of the Gospel, but a refutation of the very idea that there is even a problem in people’s lives that they need to work on. Why did Christ agree to go through the terrible pain and suffering of the Cross, when he could have apparently just “clicked His fingers” and make everyone automatically “saved” from then on? Certain protestant theologies state that “once saved, always saved”, or a type of “predestination” that some people are chosen to be saved or damned from the beginning and one can not change from one to the other. Catholic theology does not support this perspective, and states instead that although Baptism removes our original sin (and any mortal sin at that time), we can still err after Baptism due to our fallible human natures, and must work at it for the rest of our lives, relying not only on our faith, but that our faith must yield good fruits, or good works.

If we were to look at the quote from 1 Corinthians again, it isn’t simply stating something superficial about Church practice like “Easter will should be calculated in this way” or “the vestments of a Priest at Mass should look like this”, instead St Paul is exhorting us to understand the fundamental importance of “getting right with God” and not presuming on our salvation. In effect, the difference between “receiving” Communion, and “taking” Communion". It’s a beautiful thing to want to receive the Eucharist, and something which we should encourage, but receiving Communion is not a “participation trophy”.

Instead it is a full and living sign that we recognise and accept God and ask His mercy for our salvation, knowing our human unworthiness, made worthy only by His grace, trying even though we fail, but continuing to try nonetheless against seemingly impossible odds. Not thinking that righteousness is an impossible “ideal”, but confident to continue to try because of His words of hope and encouragement and the example of His Saints.

To state that suddenly the Church’s constant teaching and practice has suddenly changed because of a footnote, whose wording can be used to support both interpretations and for which no infallible interpretation has been stated, is only possible if AL is considered in isolation and ignoring the entirety of Catholic teaching on the subject for the preceding 2,000 years.

Again, you are either misunderstanding me or deliberately misconstruing my point. I am not saying the Church is constrained to only teaching things explicated in Scripture. Others here are saying something like that, but not me. I am also not saying that the Church is changing the way some Sacraments are administered. The Pope has said that, and the bishops are implementing that change. You are either disputing that the Pope has that authority, or you are denying that is what is happening. If you are saying the first, I would like to know what you base that on. If the second, how do you square that with what is currently being taught in the Church?