Cardinal Schönborn on Amoris Laetitia

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

• We don’t know how receiving Communion intermeshes with the abounding of grace (for anyone in general).
• By its not being exactly unorthodox, and in view of the lack of procedures as Rau highlights, we aren’t any nearer understanding Pope Francis’ question, “is it orthodox”. Presumably he has his own views on that and we know he likes to quiz people just for the sake of showing them up (quite a good thing too).
• The document has nothing on what the Catholic Church life consists of other than the sacrament of communion and nothing on non-nuclear families such as me (as a family of one). That’s why I continue to not be interested in joining the queue.
• We ought to be wary of prelates in general, who make a show of earning brownie points from either the Holy Father or the public, let alone both.

 

[St_Francis]

If you do not get or agree with the point made thus far as a likely self evident truth of pastoral experience, like the likely happy fate of unbaptised babies, nothing further I say is likely to assist you.

I don’t know what the fate of unbaptized babies has to do with my question, which is about the ability of people still on earth to discern whether grace is abounding in other people, who are also still on earth.

Since most saints viewed themselves as miserable sinners, and because so many criminals are very charming, and because of the possibility of demonic manipulation, it seems like whether or not grace is abounding may be difficult to discern. That’s why I am curious to discover how priests, etc., are able to discern grace in other people.

So far as admission to Communion is concerned it isnt about identifying and confirming the presence of sanctifying grace.

I did not understand you to say that. What I understood you to say was that, because the priests, bishops, et al, were able to see grace “abounding” in the lives of those in irregular marriages, the priests, etc., believed that it would be all right to allow D&R to receive the Eucharist after a period of discernment.

I think we all know that deep down, though significant numbers do still conflate the two matters if not challenged. As the relevent Canon re the minister’s due make somewhat clear.

By “conflat[ing] the two matters,” I assume you mean that people think that sanctifying grace has to be discerned *before *admission to the sacraments, or *in order to *admit.

And I have to admit that here is where it all begins to go sideways for me. I would have thought that the presence of sanctifying grace in the soul would be impossible for us mere mortals to discern, and therefore an impossible criteria on which to base admission to the sacraments.

In fact, Christ has instituted “outward signs,” if that is not too old-fashioned a phrase for you, *precisely *in order for us to be able to roughly estimate whether a person is in a state which would justify admission to the sacraments.

If a stranger came into a church during Mass and shot a few people, I would assume that he was in a state unworthy of receiving the Eucharist, and would therefore be denied. The “outward” signs would so indicate, no?

Now you propose that members of the hierarchy have noted the presence of grace “abounding” in the lives of people in outwardly irregular marriages, and on the basis of that presence, have determined that allowing some admission to the sacraments would be all right.

So this is a matter of some importance! How is the abounding of grace in others discerned? How do these men know?

 

[Justin_Swanton]

Right. I’m going to throw down a challenge to all posters on this thread: continue the conversation without using the word ‘you’ or ‘your’ once.

In other words, avoid any reference to the qualities (or lack of them) of other posters and write uniquely on the issues.

C’mon, -]you/-] we can do it!

 

[pnewton]

C’mon, -]you/-] we can do it!

-]you/-] we can do it.

It is possible.
It can be done.

How about instead of responding to some of this posts, a revision be reposted without second person pronouns.

Good idea, by the way. It is best to never get too personal during a heated discussion and this was a stellar suggestion.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I don’t know what the fate of unbaptized babies has to do with my question, which is about the ability of people still on earth to discern whether grace is abounding in other people, who are also still on earth.

Since most saints viewed themselves as miserable sinners, and because so many criminals are very charming, and because of the possibility of demonic manipulation, it seems like whether or not grace is abounding may be difficult to discern. That’s why I am curious to discover how priests, etc., are able to discern grace in other people.

I did not understand you to say that. What I understood you to say was that, because the priests, bishops, et al, were able to see grace “abounding” in the lives of those in irregular marriages, the priests, etc., believed that it would be all right to allow D&R to receive the Eucharist after a period of discernment.

By “conflat[ing] the two matters,” I assume you mean that people think that sanctifying grace has to be discerned *before *admission to the sacraments, or *in order to *admit.

And I have to admit that here is where it all begins to go sideways for me. I would have thought that the presence of sanctifying grace in the soul would be impossible for us mere mortals to discern, and therefore an impossible criteria on which to base admission to the sacraments.

In fact, Christ has instituted “outward signs,” if that is not too old-fashioned a phrase for you, *precisely *in order for us to be able to roughly estimate whether a person is in a state which would justify admission to the sacraments.

If a stranger came into a church during Mass and shot a few people, I would assume that he was in a state unworthy of receiving the Eucharist, and would therefore be denied. The “outward” signs would so indicate, no?

Now you propose that members of the hierarchy have noted the presence of grace “abounding” in the lives of people in outwardly irregular marriages, and on the basis of that presence, have determined that allowing some admission to the sacraments would be all right.

So this is a matter of some importance! How is the abounding of grace in others discerned? How do these men know?

As I say, if it is not self evident to you that engaging in grave matter (adultery, sodomy, or cohabitations and civil unions that give that impression) and living and growing in grace are compatible as Pole Francis rightly affirms then I can understand why some are confused, cannot trust the current Papacy and feel our Church is faltering.
BTW a little OCD seems to be kicking in.

 

[_Abyssinia]

I find it really curious why Pope Francis won’t just answer the dubia. It’s been months now, and the issue is clearly not going away anytime soon. If he just answered the questions that have been presented in the dubia, it would hopefully provide clarity in regards to what Pope Francis thinks directly on these issues.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I find it really curious why Pope Francis won’t just answer the dubia. It’s been months now, and the issue is clearly not going away anytime soon. If he just answered the questions that have been presented in the dubia, it would hopefully provide clarity in regards to what Pope Francis thinks directly on these issues.

In a June post on Ncregister, Edward Pentin wrote about how in his view “statements” that had come out from Bishops from Belgium and Poland contradicted in regards to Amoris Latetia, in that from the Belgian Bishops there is some openness to Holy Communion for those who are divorced and remarried who do not have an annulled previous marriage in some circumstances, and for the Polish Bishops, those who are divorced and remarried without an annulment are still not allowed to be able to receive Holy Communion. How much longer can this go on? I think definitive clarity is needed.

This is only your opinion, your world view and your feelings A.
You confuse that with how the Church actually is.

Despite these CAF threads, 1Peter5 and other self confirming sites you likely frequent 95% of the laity and parishes likely dont care or positively back the Pope.

I find it difficult to understand that a CAF lurker like yourself is not aware that Dubia are regularly not answered even by successive Popes and it is completely polite and acceptable to ignore them.

Noone promised the laity, or even Cardinals, they would never be seriously confused on some Divine issues, perhaps for life. Its called faith for a reason. I really dont understand the modern compulsive desire for total clarity amongst even traditional Catholics. It has never been so.

Lets get a grip.

 

[pnewton]

I find it really curious why Pope Francis won’t just answer the dubia.

Why is that?

 

[St_Francis]

As I say, if it is not self evident to you that engaging in grave matter (adultery, sodomy, or cohabitations and civil unions that give that impression) and living and growing in grace are compatible as Pole Francis rightly affirms then I can understand why some are confused, cannot trust the current Papacy and feel our Church is faltering.
BTW a little OCD seems to be kicking in.

My question is: what are the signs that a person can see which show that grace is abounding in someone else’s life?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

My question is: what are the signs that a person can see which show that grace is abounding in someone else’s life?

Time to let go Francis, if you cannot find those answers in either the Gospels or AL it would seem you fundamentally disagree and this is not yet, for you, a self evident Christian truth.

 

[JimG]

“At stake here is something much greater than the question of Amoris Laetitia. At stake is the credibility of the Church. If we can just cancel the teaching of John Paul II and all the Popes up to him, all on the presumed word of the current Pope, then the teaching*of each and every Pope is only of any interest until such a time it is overturned. And if teachings can be so easily abolished, the concept of the magisterium crumbles to dust. Is this what the proponents of Communion for the remarried want?”

–Fr. Alexander Lucie Smith, writing in the Catholic Herald

 

[Rau]

–Fr. Alexander Lucie Smith, writing in the Catholic Herald

Interesting. It was suggested in earlier posts that the denial of communion for the divorced and remarried (not living a brother and sister) was mere “practice” or discipline. That seemed worth considering, but then I noticed that JP II said that the Church, in adopting its practices (on this issue) professes “her fidelity to Christ and to His truth” - which is to say therefore that such was at stake. That suggests he saw it as a deeper question. At the very least, one would thing that a change of practice might be accompanied by a rationale as to why the new practice maintains that fidelity.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

–Fr. Alexander Lucie Smith, writing in the Catholic Herald

"At stake here is something much greater than the question of Amoris Laetitia. At stake is the credibility of the Church. If we can just cancel the teaching of John Paul II and all the Popes up to him, all on the presumed word of the current Pope, then the teaching*of each and every Pope is only of any interest until such a time it is overturned. And if teachings can be so easily abolished, the concept of the magisterium crumbles to dust. Is this what the proponents of Communion for the remarried want?”

The only thing that crumbles to dust is the idealism of certain rigid Catholics who think they know better what constitutes Papal consistency than the living Pope and those in Communion with him.

If it affects certain people that much why not join SPPX or start your own chapel and so be relieved of such unbearable “confusion”.

Me, I will go with the Pope and those in Communion with him even if I don’t always understand the big boys. Hard to go wrong with God if one follows his appoionted leader in times of confusion and personal uncertainty

And in those rare times I disagree in certain conscience I will quietly and unobtrusively do what I have always done or not take advantage of those new aberrant leniencies. At the same time I will allow others who follow the Pope and these new leniencies to do so, and will do so with good grace.

Catholicism isn’t rocket science in personally stormy seas.

 

[St_Francis]

Time to let go Francis, if you cannot find those answers in either the Gospels or AL it would seem you fundamentally disagree and this is not yet, for you, a self evident Christian truth.

So you can’t answer the question?

I only ask because all too often when a priest is caught in a horrific scandal, people say he seemed so holy; it diesn’t seem that easy to tell.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

So you can’t answer the question?

Post #70 my OCD friend.
Lets see how long before you just have to respond with another last word.
Timing you frommm…now!

 

[_Abyssinia]

This is only your opinion, your world view and your feelings A.
You confuse that with how the Church actually is.

Despite these CAF threads, 1Peter5 and other self confirming sites you likely frequent 95% of the laity and parishes likely dont care or positively back the Pope.

I find it difficult to understand that a CAF lurker like yourself is not aware that Dubia are regularly not answered even by successive Popes and it is completely polite and acceptable to ignore them.

Noone promised the laity, or even Cardinals, they would never be seriously confused on some Divine issues, perhaps for life. Its called faith for a reason. I really dont understand the modern compulsive desire for total clarity amongst even traditional Catholics. It has never been so.

Lets get a grip.

Am I not understanding you correctly or do you really believe that I am only one that is curious why the dubia has not been answered, and I am the only one that would like to see clarity? If that is what what you believe, then I think you are mistaken.

Earlier this year, it was reported in the Catholic Herald that an organisation representing over 1000 priests, The Confraternities of Catholic Clergy, said that “Clarification is gravely needed”. If so many many of the clergy, which are the people that have to counsel and guide those who are divorced and remarried, want clarity, that speaks volumes.

I don’t agree with overly harsh rhetoric which is why I deleted part of my previous post because I saw that a website that was cited by Edward Pentin in his own post, I believe may have had overly harsh rhetoric on in the past and so I removed that part from my post.

The issue remains that there appear to be contradictory interpretations among the clergy in regards to interpretation of Amoris Laetita, it’s very concerning and clarity is needed in my view and I certainly don’t think I’m alone in thinking that. Pope Francis is not obligated to respond to the dubia but I would hope he does answer because I think these continued seemingly contradictory interpretations of Amoris Latetia are very worrying for the Church.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

Re the non-response to the dubia this is of interest.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Am I not understanding you correctly or do you really believe that I am only one that is curious why the dubia has not been answered, and I am the only one that would like to see clarity? If that is what what you believe, then I think you are mistaken.

Earlier this year, it was reported in the Catholic Herald that an organisation representing over 1000 priests, The Confraternities of Catholic Clergy, said that “Clarification is gravely needed”. If so many many of the clergy, which are the people that have to counsel and guide those who are divorced and remarried, want clarity, that speaks volumes.

I don’t agree with overly harsh rhetoric which is why I deleted part of my previous post because I saw that a website that was cited by Edward Pentin in his own post, I believe may have had overly harsh rhetoric on in the past and so I removed that part from my post.

The issue remains that there appear to be contradictory interpretations among the clergy in regards to interpretation of Amoris Laetita, it’s very concerning and clarity is needed in my view and I certainly don’t think I’m alone in thinking that. Pope Francis is not obligated to respond to the dubia but I would hope he does answer because I think these continued seemingly contradictory interpretations of Amoris Latetia are very worrying for the Church.

Noone said you were alone, just as those with gender disphoria are not alone. But they are a minority and the solution is not more but less, not sex changes but acceptance.
God never promised us sight in all major things and never confusion…lets get used to it, the majority of loyal Catholics have already learnt and live this difficult truth.

 

[BryantJ33]

Re the non-response to the dubia this is of interest.

Here’s the full translation of the interview with Cardinal Müller:

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2017/07/extensive-interview-with-cardinal.html?m=1

Some excerpts:

"Perhaps Cardinal Schònborn has a vision contrary to mine, but perhaps he has a position contrary also to what he had before, seeing as he has changed it. I think that the words of Jesus Christ must always be the foundation of the Church’s doctrine. And nobody - until yesterday - could say that this was not true. It is clear: we have the irreversible revelation of Christ. And the Church has been entrusted with the depositum fidei, i.e. the entire content of revealed truth. The Magisterium does not have the authority to correct Jesus Christ. It is He, if anyone, Who corrects us. And we are obliged to obey Him; we must be faithful to the doctrine of the apostles, clearly developed in the spirit of the Church.”

“The Synod said clearly that individual bishops are responsible for this path, to bring people to full Sacramental grace”, responds Cardinal Muller to Il Foglio. “This interpretation exists, without doubt, but I have never changed my private and subjective position. Yet as bishop and cardinal I represented the Church’s doctrine, which I know in its fundamental developments, from the Council of Trent to Gaudium et spes, the two guidelines. This is Catholic, the rest belongs to other beliefs. I don’t understand – he explains – how they can harmonize different theological and dogmatic positions with the clear words of Jesus and St. Paul. Both made clear that you cannot marry a second time if your legitimate spouse is still alive.”

“I don’t understand why a calm and serene discussion hasn’t [yet] begun. I don’t understand where the obstacles are. Why allow only tensions to emerge, even publically? Why not organize a meeting to talk openly about these themes, which are fundamental? Until now I’ve only heard invectives and insults against these cardinals. But this is not the manner nor tone to move forward. We are all brothers in the Faith and I cannot accept talk about categories like “a friend of the Pope” or “ an enemy of the Pope. For a cardinal it is absolutely impossible to be against the Pope. Nonetheless – the former Prefect of the Holy office continues – we bishops have the right, I would say the divine right, to discuss freely. I would like to bring to mind, that at the first Council, all of the disciples spoke frankly, even favoring controversies. In the end, Peter gave his dogmatic explanation, which was for the entire Church. But only afterwards, at the end of a long lively discussion. Councils have never been harmonious gatherings.”

“…And nobody can modify this sacramental order, which was fixed by Jesus Christ. If anything, we may change the external rites, but not this central nucleus. Ambiguity in Amoris laetitia? There may be and I don’t know whether it was intended. The ambiguities if they exist, are connected with the material complexity of the situation in which the men of today find themselves, the culture they are immersed in…”

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Here’s the full translation of the interview with Cardinal Müller:

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2017/07/extensive-interview-with-cardinal.html?m=1

Some excerpts:

"Perhaps Cardinal Schònborn has a vision contrary to mine, but perhaps he has a position contrary also to what he had before, seeing as he has changed it. I think that the words of Jesus Christ must always be the foundation of the Church’s doctrine. And nobody - until yesterday - could say that this was not true. It is clear: we have the irreversible revelation of Christ. And the Church has been entrusted with the depositum fidei, i.e. the entire content of revealed truth. The Magisterium does not have the authority to correct Jesus Christ. It is He, if anyone, Who corrects us. And we are obliged to obey Him; we must be faithful to the doctrine of the apostles, clearly developed in the spirit of the Church.”

“The Synod said clearly that individual bishops are responsible for this path, to bring people to full Sacramental grace”, responds Cardinal Muller to Il Foglio. “This interpretation exists, without doubt, but I have never changed my private and subjective position. Yet as bishop and cardinal I represented the Church’s doctrine, which I know in its fundamental developments, from the Council of Trent to Gaudium et spes, the two guidelines. This is Catholic, the rest belongs to other beliefs. I don’t understand – he explains – how they can harmonize different theological and dogmatic positions with the clear words of Jesus and St. Paul. Both made clear that you cannot marry a second time if your legitimate spouse is still alive.”

“I don’t understand why a calm and serene discussion hasn’t [yet] begun. I don’t understand where the obstacles are. Why allow only tensions to emerge, even publically? Why not organize a meeting to talk openly about these themes, which are fundamental? Until now I’ve only heard invectives and insults against these cardinals. But this is not the manner nor tone to move forward. We are all brothers in the Faith and I cannot accept talk about categories like “a friend of the Pope” or “ an enemy of the Pope. For a cardinal it is absolutely impossible to be against the Pope. Nonetheless – the former Prefect of the Holy office continues – we bishops have the right, I would say the divine right, to discuss freely. I would like to bring to mind, that at the first Council, all of the disciples spoke frankly, even favoring controversies. In the end, Peter gave his dogmatic explanation, which was for the entire Church. But only afterwards, at the end of a long lively discussion. Councils have never been harmonious gatherings.”

“…And nobody can modify this sacramental order, which was fixed by Jesus Christ. If anything, we may change the external rites, but not this central nucleus. Ambiguity in Amoris laetitia? There may be and I don’t know whether it was intended. The ambiguities if they exist, are connected with the material complexity of the situation in which the men of today find themselves, the culture they are immersed in…”

Who is stopping Cardinals speaking freely?