K
KSU
Guest
Sorry, I’m through digging. There is no pony in the box; just relativism and subjectivism.
- Status
C
CrossofChrist
Guest
The key is though that the unmarried couple cannot be having sexual relations before receiving Communion. If a civilly (but not sacramentally) married couple is fornicating, they still may not receive Communion even if subjectively they are innocent.
Regarding what the Holy Father said, ISTM he’s saying God gives some people who aren’t married graces that are given in a sacramental marriage (who are we to put limits on God?), rather than him saying cohabitating couples are actually married (a contradiction of terms). I’m not sure this really serves your point though since they can’t receive Communion unless they have abstained from sexual relations. If they have abstained then they can receive the sacraments (cohabitation is after all an objective situation of sin).
V
Vico
Guest
As was stated throughout, those in a state of mortal sin are not to receive the Eucharist. There are situations where those that are objectively sinning are not culpable so are not in a state of mortal sin. This applies to any sin.
C
CrossofChrist
Guest
I know. But isn’t Cardinal Muller saying that even if they are not in a state of mortal sin they can’t receive Communion?
C
CrossofChrist
Guest
By “they” I mean those committing adultery or fornication.
V
Vico
Guest
FC 84 is about the Divorced that Remarried, which has remained as before.
The footnote [Amoris Laetitia 351], the cardinal [Muller] went on, “does not apply to the previous discipline.” Referring to the teaching of John Paul and Benedict, he added: “The standard of FC 84 and SC 29 and their application in all cases is still valid.”
catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/05/04/cardinal-muller-amoris-laetitia-is-in-line-with-previous-teaching-on-communion/
There is a canon 915 that pertains to the obstinate sinner:
Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.
Also reported from Cardinal Muller: “It is not possible to live in God’s grace while living in a sinful situation,” he [Müller] said, and continued by saying that people living in sin “can not receive Holy Communion unless they have received absolution in the sacrament of penance.” Müller importantly added that the “Church has no power to change the Divine Law” and that “Not even a pope or council can change that.”
onepeterfive.com/cardinal-muller-reminds-church-marriage-doctrine/
This is all consistent with not receiving Communion in a state of mortal sin. Also one is not to give scandal. Of course, if a Catholic is in a state of invincible ignorance, there is no intention to sin or give scandal.
C
CrossofChrist
Guest
But what about this?
Whoever lives in a way that contradicts the marital bond opposes the visible sign of the Sacrament of Marriage. With regard to his carnal existence, he turns himself into a “counter-sign” of the indissolubility, even if he is not subjectively guilty. Exactly because his carnal life is in opposition to the sign, he cannot be part of the higher Eucharistic sign – in which the incarnate Love of Christ is manifest – by thus receiving Holy Communion. If the Church were to admit such a person to Holy Communion, she would be then committing that act which Thomas Aquinas calls “a falseness in the sacred sacramental signs.”
V
Vico
Guest
It refers to the Catholic that shows a “counter-sign” of the indissolubility or marriage, which applies to the divorced and remarried, not the category of civilly married Catholic that were not married before.
Yes, it derives from Familaris Consortio 54, which also states how Communion can be received, for certain of the divorced and reamarried, when all these conditions are satisfied:
- repentent
- cannot satisfy the obligation to separate
- live in complete continence (no carnal life)
- avoid scandal in reception.
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.
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]
More revealing is F.C. 82 which applies to a different category of civilly married Catholic that are not breaking fidelity.
82. There are increasing cases of Catholics who for ideological or practical reasons, prefer to contract a merely civil marriage, and who reject or at least defer religious marriage. Their situation cannot of course be likened to that of people simply living together without any bond at all, because in the present case there is at least a certain commitment to a properly-defined and probably stable state of life, even though the possibility of a future divorce is often present in the minds of those entering a civil marriage. By seeking public recognition of their bond on the part of the State, such couples show that they are ready to accept not only its advantages but also its obligations. Nevertheless, not even this situation is acceptable to the Church.
The aim of pastoral action will be to make these people understand the need for consistency between their choice of life and the faith that they profess, and to try to do everything possible to induce them to regularize their situation in the light of Christian principle. While treating them with great charity and bringing them into the life of the respective communities, the pastors of the Church will regrettably not be able to admit them to the sacraments.
K
KSU
Guest
Still digging for the pony in the box, CrossofChrist?
C
CrossofChrist
Guest
It is true that Cardinal Muller is speaking in the context of the divorced/remarried, and his comment about contradicting the marital bond can only go so far. I don’t think a priest is going to deny Communion to a person who is not culpable for impure thoughts or masturbation. Perhaps one can take “contradict” or “counter-sign” in a very strict sense since it is possible for a fornicating couple to marry, whereas two people committing adultery can’t possibly marry. I guess the question becomes to what degree do we take the word “contrary”, “contradict”, etc.?
C
CrossofChrist
Guest
If Catholics are lacking full knowledge regarding fornication, the state of society and the Church is far worse than some Catholics sometimes try to make it seem. In that case we definitely need to take Pope Francis’ advise to “make a mess”, because if that’s what the status quo is, it’s awful.
K
KSU
Guest
Yes, but there probably are such ignorant Catholics. They marry outside the Church, live as man and wife, and receive the sacraments.
I have been trying for days, without success, to get Vico to articulate clearly what it is he says AL changed or discovered for the benefit of such Catholics. The closest I can get to what he thinks is what I posted in #171:
" You are saying that Father [Thomas Michelet] is saying this:
"Pope Francis has refused to say what specifically he changed by means of the infamous footnote in AL, but, because the Pope says something is now different, by process of elimination the change has to be in regard to F.C. 82’s civilly married Catholics who don’t know they are sinning gravely when they receive Communion.
“Father is saying, according to you, that the Pope must have meant in Al that for the length of time it takes said Catholics to become convinced that their confessor is correct about their living in grave sin, said Catholics now have the permission of the Church to continue to receive Communion while they decide whether or not to believe their confessor’s advice to get married in the Church.”
But he says, no, that’s not it.
So, I can’t continue to play indefatigable optimist. The truth is that what ever has changed because of AL will remain a mystery until such time as the Pope–and only the Pope–decides to tell us. Some Catholics have started the ball rolling to persuade Francis to do so.
C
CrossofChrist
Guest
I am having a difficult time understanding the following from AL 301 (and it seems you may be too):
Hence it is can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values”
That’s basically a restatement from Familiaris Consortio 33:
As Mother, the Church…knows that many couples encounter difficulties not only in the concrete fulfillment of the moral norm but even in understanding its inherent values.
I started a new thread here regarding the above. Hopefully some people chime in!
Well the Pope told us to discern what could change. I suppose it was a summons for us to become more informed and to form our consciences.
V
Vico
Guest
Those that were free to marry that civilly married are not going contrary to marital fidelity such as one sees in remarriage after divorce.
C
CrossofChrist
Guest
Not going contrary to marital fidelity in the sense that they are cheating on their spouse, but contrary to the nature of the human person which is ordered to marital fidelity.
K
KSU
Guest
I don’t think he put the Church through a long period of upheaval and open division, and then end it all by issuing the controversial AL merely to summon us to become more informed and to form our consciences. I think he is very disappointed in the outcome of the Synod, and wants to make what he likes to term a “mess” in order to bring more “merciful” resolutions to irregular marriage issues than did the Synod.
To that end, I think he intends AL to be the authorizing guide book for a process whereby individual bishops and their proxies simply discern “solutions” on a case by case basis in the internal forum.
We pretty much know how the “merciful”, dwindling German Church will use (is using?) the new discernment authority, and how the orthodox, thriving African Church will use it. Don’t be surprised when the latter Church has to send missionaries to the former.
V
Vico
Guest
FC 84 states that Communion is not available for divorced and remarried without:
*]“repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ”
*]“sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage”
Item 2 is not an issue for that were free to marry. So in FC 82 we read “The aim of pastoral action will be to make these people understand the need for consistency between their choice of life and the faith that they profess, and to try to do everything possible to induce them to regularize their situation in the light of Christian principle.”
And this is still true today, yet FC 82 is not what the various commentaries are usually about. Earlier in the thread I posted about the idea that those couples that have state marriages, but lack form, may in narrowly defined cases, actually have valid marriages. The validity is based on proper consent. Canon law allows for marriage with only two witnesses and for dispensation from the Catholic form of marriage. As was in post #150
Finalis Relatio contained item 54 regarding leading that kind of public bond to the Sacrament of Matrimony:
54. When a couple in an irregular union reaches a noteworthy stability through a public bond — and is characterized by deep affection, responsibility towards the children and the ability to overcome trials — this can be seen as an opportunity, where possible, to lead the couple to celebrating the Sacrament of Matrimony.
In the following “ab initio” must refer to a first marriage attempt:
Quote:
Formerly it was thought that "either every attack on the fidelity of the marriage was necessarily culpable, or if the person had truly acted unknowingly, this meant without fail that his sacramental marriage was null “ab initio,” that it had never existed,
C
CrossofChrist
Guest
Without much time to participate further in this thread I think you ought to reevaluate how you talk about the Holy Father and what you think he is insinuating. There’s no need to read further into his statements, and on a related note it is precisely that and a simple manner of speaking (among a few other things) which caused St. Ignatius to be investigated by the Inquisition.
C
CrossofChrist
Guest
Like I mentioned above I won’t have much time to contribute to this thread in an in-depth way but I have two points. First, wouldn’t they need a dispensation in the first place, not after the fact? Second, if they can be led into the Sacrament of Matrimony then the civil marriage wasn’t valid initially, or else there would be no need for that.
K
KSU
Guest
My friend, that is totally unfair. If you don’t have time for this thread, then please don’t say something with terrible implications like that and then just disappear.
Nothing in my post deserved that; nor did I say he was insinuating anything. I gave you a thread-long, reasoned interpretation of what I and people much theologically smarter than I think. The fact that you insinuated it was something unjust is more than disappointing.
Anyway, God bless you for joining the Church and being protective of the Pope. May your tribe increase.
- Status