A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Contradictions Between Maltese Directive and CDF’s 1994 Letter on Divorced-Remarried
m.ncregister.com/52141/b
- Status
K
Kliska
Guest
Matthew 5: 32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
B
billy15
Guest
I don’t have an ax to grind with you either, Blue. I’m simply seeking Truth, and this seems to be a good forum to do so. I was not and am not offended by your polite observations, and I don’t think you’re calling me less than intelligent. Instead, I’m disappointed that you make many assumptions of myself, as well as others whom you have ended conversations with. That’s your prerogative to end conversations, and if you don’t wish to respond to my posts(s), you’re free to do so. Thankfully, your judgement of moral theology is not absolute.
However, you assumed many things of me. You assumed I don’t know the difference between the evil of sin and the evil of punishment. You assumed I have no “formal training”, when all I said is that I don’t have a Master’s in theology. You assumed I cracked “open the Summa cold”. Some of those books I quoted in my posts 457 and 458 have been on my bookshelf and desk for several years. You assumed I am confused, saying that I have “confusions”, yet you don’t tell me where my confusions are found.
I’m here to learn and grow in my faith, and I have. I still have much to learn, though, of course. I interact with the points you make, while you have out of hand dismissed the points I (and others) have made, because we don’t “grasp” certain things, in your judgement. You obviously have a different view on moral theology than the four cardinals, Archbishop Sample, Archbishop Chaput, Bishop Lopes, and others. I share their analysis and understanding of this issue regarding the divorced and civilly remarried, and believe it is the Truth, that what they say is orthodox. You, apparently, do not. Your view more closely matches Cardinal Kasper, Bishop Elbs, the Maltese bishops, and others. I think it’s unfortunate you haven’t responded to my questions, but again, that’s your prerogative.
My last two posts showed my understanding of what the evil of sin and the evil of punishment are. You dismissed it, but didn’t tell me where I was supposedly wrong. If I’m wrong, show me my error, so that I might grow in understanding. You were the first to bring up malum culpae and malum poenae explicitly in this conversation, yet you never elaborated on how, in your understanding, it specifically pertains to this situation. Of course, you don’t owe me anything, but there’s nothing saying I cannot honestly ask you to show me where I’m wrong, and what my “confusions” are that keep a “fruitful discussion” from happening. So my question from post 457 still stands, and my question from post 99 still stands:
The crux of all this discussion, in my opinion, comes down to this: In the case of those who are divorced and civilly remarried (and are living together more uxorio after being unable to attain a decree of nullity) and who wish to receive the Eucharist without resolving to live in continence, can it be said that these people may receive the Eucharist in some cases? Blue, as well as some bishops, say yes. I, as well as some bishops, say no. As Bishop Steven Lopes said, “The prohibition against adultery admits of no exceptions, and discernment with respect to individual culpability and growth does not permit us to “look on the law as merely an ideal to be achieved in the future: [We] must consider it as a command of Christ the Lord to overcome difficulties with constancy” (Familiaris Consortio, 34). There are not ‘different degrees or forms of precept in God’s law for different individuals and situations.’”
B
billy15
Guest
I think it’s worthy to note, as I haven’t seen this selection posted from the guidelines the guidelines Bishop Lopes gave for the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter here yet, that the bishop clearly states the latter opinion, and why he has this opinion, emphases mine:
And thanks for posting that link on the contradictions between the Maltese Directive and CDF’s 1994 Letter on Divorced-Remarried, Abyssinia. You’ve been on top of things.
These contradictions are going to have to be addressed sooner rather than later. Again, they can’t both be right. This may really cause a lot of scandal in the Church; with those wavering in their faith in the Church, as well as with those outside the Church.
Perhaps one can interact with just the bishop here. My question for anyone is this: Why is Bishop Lopes wrong in saying that “sacramental discipline does not allow for the reception of the Eucharist” for the divorced and civilly remarried who do not “honestly intend to refrain from sexual relations entirely”?
And thanks for posting that link on the contradictions between the Maltese Directive and CDF’s 1994 Letter on Divorced-Remarried, Abyssinia. You’ve been on top of things.
These contradictions are going to have to be addressed sooner rather than later. Again, they can’t both be right. This may really cause a lot of scandal in the Church; with those wavering in their faith in the Church, as well as with those outside the Church.
P
Pulvis
Guest
Ed Pentin at NCRegister:
ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/contradictions-between-maltese-directive-and-cdfs-1994-letter-on-divorced-r
"To see just how much this is true, it’s perhaps helpful to put the controversial passages of the directive beside these documents.
The most striking contrast is with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s 1994 Letter to bishops “Concerning the Reception of Holy Communion by the Divorced and Remarried Members of the Faithful.”
Of particular note is how both diverge when it comes to the matter of individual conscience in allowing, or not allowing, remarried divorcees to receive Holy Communion (in bold)."
Go to link to see comparison.
I am not a theologian, would never claim to be. But i do not see this circle getting squared.
Also just read this from the Bishops of Kazakhstan:
catholicworldreport.com/Blog/5356/bishops_of_kazakhstan_issue_appeal_to_prayer_with_concerns_about_misuses_of_al.aspx
Powerful plea here for prayer by the Faithful. Sound advice for us all.
ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/contradictions-between-maltese-directive-and-cdfs-1994-letter-on-divorced-r
"To see just how much this is true, it’s perhaps helpful to put the controversial passages of the directive beside these documents.
The most striking contrast is with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s 1994 Letter to bishops “Concerning the Reception of Holy Communion by the Divorced and Remarried Members of the Faithful.”
Of particular note is how both diverge when it comes to the matter of individual conscience in allowing, or not allowing, remarried divorcees to receive Holy Communion (in bold)."
Go to link to see comparison.
I am not a theologian, would never claim to be. But i do not see this circle getting squared.
Also just read this from the Bishops of Kazakhstan:
catholicworldreport.com/Blog/5356/bishops_of_kazakhstan_issue_appeal_to_prayer_with_concerns_about_misuses_of_al.aspx
Powerful plea here for prayer by the Faithful. Sound advice for us all.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
Yes, causes her to commit adultery.
And here is the Douay-Rheims translation of the verse from the Latin: “But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting for the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery…” (Matthew: 5:32) emphasis added
“And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery” (Matthew: 19,9).
"In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ - “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery” (CCC 1650).
The Gospels of Mark and Luke use only the wording of CCC 1650.
The above is mentioned only In view of the controversy surrounding the implementation of AL (where it may be applicable). The verses from the Gospels as well as CCC 1650 are there to see, and I find their meaning clear enough.
G
Ginny89
Guest
Why would it matter though? The fact he calls it adultery as opposed to just sinful would preclude any notion that the innocent spouse could remarry without committing adultery. If he said, if any man…then he commits sin against her…then we would worry that this may not bind the innocent spouse. Yet he said adultery. What does that tell you? Adultery is only possible if someone is married. The Lord doesn’t say that the divorce is the adultery but the subsequent marriage. By saying so he declares the divorce unreal or impossible. He also declares polygamy impossible.
The divorce being unreal or impossible, it means the innocent spouse, though innocent is still the spouse of the guilty spouse in the Lord’s eyes which is why the guilty divorcer cannot marry again. Not as a punishment for divorcing his spouse but simply because he is not free to marry: he is already married. Meaning the innocent is also married. If the divorced innocent is someone’s wife, then she also cannot marry without committing adultery herself however innocent she may be of the breakdown of relations with her spouse. Because the adultery depends on whether a person is free to marry, not being already someone’s spouse. Not on whether someone was responsible for the divorce which is a separate sin.
It could not be possible that she would be his spouse, preventing him from validly marrying, but still not be his spouse and therefore free to marry herself. She is either married or not, whether she is responsible for the divorce or not. The law of non-contradiction is in play here yet again.
A
Abba
Guest
“The Holy Father is capturing the work of two synods, so if four cardinals say that two synods were wrong, or that somehow the Holy Father didn’t reflect what was said in those synods, I think that should be questioned. … just to simply reduce it to a ‘dubium,’ I think it is at best naive.” onepeterfive.com/head-greek-bishops-accuses-four-cardinals-heresy-apostasy-schism/
Cardinal Carlo Caffarra, emeritus Archbishop of Bologna… is among the four cardinals who authored a letter with five dubia, or doubts, about the interpretation of Amoris laetitia, requesting that Pope Francis “resolve the uncertainties and bring clarity.” catholicnewsagency.com/news/cardinal-caffarra-explains-the-reasons-behind-the-dubia-40937/
Cardinal Carlo Caffarra, emeritus Archbishop of Bologna… is among the four cardinals who authored a letter with five dubia, or doubts, about the interpretation of Amoris laetitia, requesting that Pope Francis “resolve the uncertainties and bring clarity.” catholicnewsagency.com/news/cardinal-caffarra-explains-the-reasons-behind-the-dubia-40937/
P
Pulvis
Guest
Um…Is not the Orthodox Church still in Schism from Rome?
J
JRS_88
Guest
Bishop Emeritus Fragkiskos Papamanolis, is Roman rite. He is head of the Greek Bishops Conference. He is not of the Orthodox.Um…Is not the Orthodox Church still in Schism from Rome?
A
Abba
Guest
The Catholic Church is present in Greece and has parishes, parishioners, priests, bishops etc…Um…Is not the Orthodox Church still in Schism from Rome?
. Bishop Frangiskos Papamanolis, serves as President of the Bishops’ Conference of Greece.onepeterfive.com/head-greek-bishops-accuses-four-cardinals-heresy-apostasy-schism/
T
tseleehw
Guest
He also accused the Cardinals of heresy and schism. It is interesting how the defenders of the more “liberal” interpretations of AL from within the clergy rarely offer any substantial arguments to back up their point of view, but rather rely solely on authority to defend their position (even though the bishops at the synod said nothing about the sacraments with respect to married and divorced couples in the final document). That will work for a little while, but at some point it is going to be necessary to explain the reasoning behind the change, especially since it is highly likely that many bishops will probably be pushing for more concessions for communion for divorced and remarried couples in 5-10 years…The Catholic Church is present in Greece and has parishes, parishioners, priests, bishops etc…
onepeterfive.com/head-greek-bishops-accuses-four-cardinals-heresy-apostasy-schism/
K
kyrie03
Guest
Completely agree. It’s confusing enough attempting to follow the various nuances left in the wake of AL. Leaving threads separated was helpful in understanding others’ points of view.Moderator: Merging the threads made these an absolute mess to try and read.
E
edwayne
Guest
Even if she is the one who was divorced, the bond of marriage between her and the husband who separated from her still exists… which is why she is not free to remarry either. If she does, she is an adulterous. Doesn’t seem fair, I know.
Council of Trent - Session 24
CANON VlI - If any one says, that the Church has erred, in that she has taught, and does teach, in accordance with the evangelical and apostolical doctrine, that the bond of matrimony cannot be dissolved on account of the adultery of one of the married parties; and that both, or even the innocent one who gave not occasion to the adultery, cannot contract another marriage, during the life-time of the other; and, that he is guilty of adultery, who, having put away the adulteress, shall take another wife, as also she, who, having put away the adulterer, shall take another husband; let him be anathema.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
That the bond of matrimony cannot be absolved on account of adultery of one of the parties is not disputed. The wording is deliberate and–even here–adultery is ascribed to the one who puts away (i.e., divorces) the spouse and remarries.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
First of all, a single person, never married, can certainly commit adultery.
What is important here is Matthew 5.1: “But I say to you that whosoever shall put away his wife…maketh [or causes] her to commit adultery.” This concerns culpability (complete consent), one of the conditions for a sin to be a mortal sin. And there is this from Matthew 19,9: “And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, commits adultery against her; and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.” What does that tell you?
Where does it say that she that is put away commits adultery? Isn’t it said she is made or caused to commit adultery? Where then is culpability? If someone holds a gun to a person’s head and makes or causes them to jaywalk, they may be technically guilty of jaywalking but are they culpable?
If Jesus says “whoever divorces his wife” how then is divorce unreal or impossible? What is it the guilty spouse–in your first sentence above–is guilty of if it isn’t divorcing his spouse? How would the fact that “the guilty divorcer cannot marry again” support you argument re the innocent spouse? And there is in your last sentence: “Not on whether someone was responsible for the divorce…” What divorce? The impossible one?
And what might this mean: "In fidelity to the words of Christ - “Whoever divorceshis wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery” (CCC 1650). The law of contradiction is certainly in play here. Divorce is a reality, and it is a reality the Church recognizes. So is a second marriage. These are facts, not impossibilities. It is why the divorced and remarried, absent an annulment, are not permitted to receive communion (absent the exception of living as brother and sister). That the first marriage would remain valid in the eyes of the Church is also a fact. Is this what you mean by “contradiction”? It is the teaching of the Church.
E
edwayne
Guest
Yes, but the fact that the marriage cannot be dissolved (i.e., the marriage bond stands) precludes her, even if she is the innocent party, from contracting another marriage. Why?
A
Abba
Guest
Well, all the posts on the link I provided ( onepeterfive.com/head-gre…ostasy-schism/ ) are against the Greek Bishop’s position and condemn Pope Francis and hail the four cardinals and present the same argument you do. Basically, that the Bishop did not methodically and intellectually respond directly to the dubia.
My position, which I thank God Almighty for blessing me with, is that I am with Pope Francis and the Head of the Bishop Conference in Greece. I am also with all the bishops, cardinals and priests that are silent yet uphold the same position,
Indeed, the dubia have caused much scandal and read like ‘we gotcha now’ statements to the Holy Father of the Roman Catholic Church Pope Francis. In ‘traditional’ Catholic forums they are having a ball criticizing the Pope and there is even a priest on a Catholic website that goes on tearing the Pope and the Greek bishop apart. It breaks my heart.
It’s true what the Greek Bishop said as far as the cardinals thinking much of themselves. Those dubia were written as to push Pope Francis against a wall and make him answer - like traps.
They would more suitably be called the:** Quinque Insidias** for the** Five Traps**.
The Quinque Insidias:
- It is asked whether, following the affirmations of “Amoris Laetitia” (nn. 300-305), it has now become possible to grant absolution in the Sacrament of Penance and thus to admit to Holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person “more uxorio” (in a marital way) without fulfilling the conditions provided for by “Familiaris Consortio” n. 84 and subsequently reaffirmed by “Reconciliatio et Paenitentia” n. 34 and “Sacramentum Caritatis” n. 29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in note 351 (n. 305) of the exhortation “Amoris Laetitia” be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live “more uxorio”?
- After the publication of the Post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation “Amoris Laetitia” (cf. n. 304), does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s Encyclical “Veritatis Splendor” n. 79, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, on the existence of absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts and that are binding without exceptions?
- After “Amoris Laetitia” (n. 301) is it still possible to affirm that a person who habitually lives in contradiction to a commandment of God’s law, as for instance the one that prohibits adultery (cf. Mt 19:3-9), finds him or herself in an objective situation of grave habitual sin (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Declaration, June 24, 2000)?
- After the affirmations of “Amoris Laetitia” (n. 302) on “circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility,” does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s Encyclical “Veritatis Splendor” n. 81, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, according to which “circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice”?
- After “Amoris Laetitia” (n. 303) does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical “Veritatis Splendor” n. 56, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, that excludes a creative interpretation of the role of conscience and that emphasizes that conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object?
+++
Bishop Scheinder attack the Greek Bishop and basically sentences him to hell yet, claims that is what the Greek Bishop is doing. I see the arguments against the Pope and Amoris Laetitia as a lot of rhetoric and people taking opportunity to attacK the Pope and the Church. This Cardinals have their loyal followers as well and that is sad. We need to put Jesus and His Church first above all and keep in mind that our behavior and actions affect the salvation of souls which one day we will be held accountable for.
catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/11/24/attacks-on-four-cardinals-aim-to-silence-the-truth-says-bishop-schneider/
Keep in mind the Church has been aware of the problem for decades upon decades and has been looking into how best to offer pastoral services to the people who find themselves outside of the Church. Pope Francis did not come up with this from out of the blue and was it this letter or another that he said Pope Benedict helped him with?
A
Abba
Guest
Me too. Such an extraordinary title deserves its own thread: Head of Greek Bishops Accuses Four Cardinals of Heresy, Apostasy, & Schism. The focus is not on Cardinal Muller. Who knows, maybe we can get the threads separated, but, I don’t know how much time I personally would be able to dedicate to it.
V
Vico
Guest
The is no other case where communion is acceptable beyond those already mentioned except the case with invincible ignorance.
- Status