Cardinal Schonborn on 'Amoris Laetitia'

  • Thread starter Thread starter godisgood77
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

godisgood77

Guest
cnsblog.wordpress.com/2016/07/07/the-teaching-authority-of-amoris-laetitia/

Really great interview with Cardinal Schonborn. Starkly different than that of Archbishop Chaput.

“Just as we read the Council of Nicaea in the light of the Council of Constantinople, and Vatican I in the light of Vatican II, so now we must read the previous statements of the magisterium about the family in the light of the contribution made by AL. We are led in a living manner to draw a distinction between the continuity of the doctrinal principles and the discontinuity of perspectives or of historically conditioned expressions. This is the function that belongs to the living magisterium: to interpret authentically the Word of God, whether written or handed down.”
 
godisgood77 said:
cnsblog.wordpress.com/2016/07/07/the-teaching-authority-of-amoris-laetitia/

Really great interview with Cardinal Schonborn. Starkly different than that of Archbishop Chaput.

“Just as we read the Council of Nicaea in the light of the Council of Constantinople, and Vatican I in the light of Vatican II, so now we must read the previous statements of the magisterium about the family in the light of the contribution made by AL. We are led in a living manner to draw a distinction between the continuity of the doctrinal principles and the discontinuity of perspectives or of historically conditioned expressions. This is the function that belongs to the living magisterium: to interpret authentically the Word of God, whether written or handed down.”
Click to expand...
With all due respect to the Cardinal, AL is not an Ecumenical Council
 
godisgood77 said:
cnsblog.wordpress.com/2016/07/07/the-teaching-authority-of-amoris-laetitia/

Really great interview with Cardinal Schonborn. Starkly different than that of Archbishop Chaput.
Click to expand...
Could you point out where it disagrees with the statements of +Chaput

I did not see where they differed.

+Schonborn, at no, point, stated that those who have divorced and attempted remarriage can receive Holy Communion.

I myself was present for a briefing of bishops by a Papal Nuncio, the day that this document was issued. He had received instructions from Pope Frances on how to handle the cases +Chaput discussed. The specific quote from the Papal Nunico “Nothing has changed”
 
I don’t think he is suggesting that it is an Ecumenical Council… He is simply stating that magisterial teaching is clarified, deepened and better explained over time which is of course 100% true.
 
godisgood77 said:
I don’t think he is suggesting that it is… He is simply stating that magisterial teaching is clarified, deepened and better explained over time which is of course 100% true.
Click to expand...
Then, why are You waving punches at Chaput?
 
Chaput writes as if the synods never happened. Cardinal Schonborn writes as if the synods did happen. The Cardinal clearly acknowledges that Pope Francis has developed the Church’s magisterial teaching further. If you read Chaput’s guidelines and contrast that with Schonborn’s interview and don’t see the differences, you are being intellectually dishonest.
 
godisgood77 said:
Chaput writes as if the synods never happened. Cardinal Schonborn writes as if the synods did happen. The Cardinal clearly acknowledges that Pope Francis has developed the Church’s magisterial teaching further. If you read Chaput’s guidelines and contrast that with Schonborn’s interview and don’t see the differences, you are being intellectually dishonest.
Click to expand...
Yes, AL developed the teachings on the requirement for deeper marital preparation.

In regards to Communion for the divorced and remarried, AL made no changes in magisterial teaching. That was a question that I specifically asked the Papal Nuncio during the briefing. The response back was “Nothing has changed”

Remember that the teachings of Familiaris Consortio did not center on mortal sin, which is why we know that +Schonborn was not referring to those teachings being changed.

Here is the reasoning given in F.C
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. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage
Click to expand...
The couple could be sinless, and that STILL would not allow them to receive Holy Communion. It is their state in life, which objectively contradicts the "union of love between Christ and the Church "

Note the key word, ‘objectively’, that means that it is an undeniable truth, always and forever more. It is not subjective to time and place.

There is NOTHING in A.L. that changed that, and +Schonborn made no claims that it did.

Thus everything that +Schonborn spoke of, and everything that +Chaput instructed, is correct.
 
godisgood77 said:
Chaput writes as if the synods never happened. Cardinal Schonborn writes as if the synods did happen. The Cardinal clearly acknowledges that Pope Francis has developed the Church’s magisterial teaching further. If you read Chaput’s guidelines and contrast that with Schonborn’s interview and don’t see the differences, you are being intellectually dishonest.
Click to expand...
I guess I’m being honestly intellectually dishonest. 🤷

It even draws on Cardinal Schonborn’s presentation of AL. Perhaps one disagrees with some of the (prudential) judgments involved, but it certainly appears Archbishop Chaput kept AL in his thoughts when coming up with the statement.
 
Brendan said:
The couple could be sinless, and that STILL would not allow them to receive Holy Communion.
Click to expand...
Not under all circumstances, such as situations where it is possible to avoid scandal. Then they would be able to receive.
 
Here is an interesting article that brings out the differences between how Chaput’s views differ from a few Cardinals relative to the Pope’s intentions for AL.

I still hold that Chaput’s view is that nothing has changed and that more of the same is the best course of action.
 
Why doesn’t Schonborn simply just say it instead of all the muddled double-speak? Just clearly state that what he and Pope Francis are advocating is that a divorced and civilly remarried couple can, after some discernment with a priest (which I assume would mean an attempt to clarify what and why the Church teaches what it does in regards to marriage; after discovering what Jesus, St. Paul, the Church Fathers and councils taught), with Church approval and encouragement, receive Holy Communion even when all parties now know (after all, they have now gone through reflection and discernment) they are in an objective adulterous situation.
 
irenaeus1 said:
Why doesn’t Schonborn simply just say it instead of all the muddled double-speak? Just clearly state that what he and Pope Francis are advocating is that a divorced and civilly remarried couple can, after some discernment with a priest (which I assume would mean an attempt to clarify what and why the Church teaches what it does in regards to marriage; after discovering what Jesus, St. Paul, the Church Fathers and councils taught), with Church approval and encouragement, receive Holy Communion even when all parties now know (after all, they have now gone through reflection and discernment) they are in an objective adulterous situation.
Click to expand...
Because there is no change in the teaching of the Church on the reception of the sacraments in a state of mortal sin. The issue that has always been difficult to express it the difference between objective sin and the scandal it causes and the responsibility of the clergy to avoid that, and it an objective sin can be imputed to someone (since it cannot be determined by the objective state). In famaliaris consortio, reception of the Eucharist is conditional on not giving scandal and upon repentance. It is possible to be repentant and not be freely able to change the situation.
 
Vico said:
Because there is no change in the teaching of the Church on the reception of the sacraments in a state of mortal sin. The issue that has always been difficult to express it the difference between objective sin and the scandal it causes and the responsibility of the clergy to avoid that, and it an objective sin can be imputed to someone (since it cannot be determined by the objective state). In famaliaris consortio, reception of the Eucharist is conditional on not giving scandal and upon repentance. It is possible to be repentant and not be freely able to change the situation.
Click to expand...
Which is precisely why St. John Paul II did not present Church teaching on this matter in FC based upon mortal sin. He clearly states that the objective sin is the criterion for precluding a divorced and remarried couple from receiving Holy Communion.
 
Vico said:
It is possible to be repentant and not be freely able to change the situation.
Click to expand...
In the immediate context, is one of the divorced and re-married individuals being forced to have adulterous sex within the second union? What do you mean by not able to change the situation?
 
irenaeus1 said:
In the immediate context, is one of the divorced and re-married individuals being forced to have adulterous sex within the second union? What do you mean by not able to change the situation?
Click to expand...
The post was about an objective adulterous situation, without stipulating that there was coitus. Familiaris Consortio stipulates continence and also that scandal be avoided,

Pastors must know that, for the sake of truth, they are obliged to exercise careful discernment of situations. There is in fact a difference between those who have sincerely tried to save their first marriage and have been unjustly abandoned, and those who through their own grave fault have destroyed a canonically valid marriage. Finally, there are those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children’s upbringing, and who are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably destroyed marriage had never been valid.

And

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.”[180]
 
godisgood77 said:
cnsblog.wordpress.com/2016/07/07/the-teaching-authority-of-amoris-laetitia/

Really great interview with Cardinal Schonborn. Starkly different than that of Archbishop Chaput.

“Just as we read the Council of Nicaea in the light of the Council of Constantinople, and Vatican I in the light of Vatican II, so now we must read the previous statements of the magisterium about the family in the light of the contribution made by AL. We are led in a living manner to draw a distinction between the continuity of the doctrinal principles and the discontinuity of perspectives or of historically conditioned expressions. This is the function that belongs to the living magisterium: to interpret authentically the Word of God, whether written or handed down.”
Click to expand...
That’s a lot of words that don’t say much.
 
godisgood77 said:
I don’t think he is suggesting that it is an Ecumenical Council… He is simply stating that magisterial teaching is clarified, deepened and better explained over time which is of course 100% true.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that the teaching on the family is clearer, deeper, and better explained!?
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
Are you saying that the teaching on the family is clearer, deeper, and better explained!?
Click to expand...
Seems to be a lot of confusion on even the answer to your question. There seems to be four categories of CAtholics right now:
  1. Those traditionalist who interpret everything the Pope says and does as a break with tradition and call foul.
  2. Those liberals who interpret everything the Pope says and does as a break with tradition and hail him the great reformer.
  3. Those faithful Catholics who bend over backwards to prove to us that Pope Francis is in every single way a cookie cutter of St JPII and Benedict and that everyone just doesn’t “understand” the Holy Father’s words.
  4. Those faithful Catholics who want to believe the holy father is well meaning but are confused by much of what he says.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top