F
FollowChrist34
Guest
The old static one or the new relative one?
Cardinal Wuerl: The Catholic Church is moving from legalism to mercy
- Status
P
pnewton
Guest
Canon Law is not a matter of error or orthodoxy. Can language translation be analogous? If we officially operate off Latin Canon Law, when the English does not translate well in a specific case, can’t a canon lawyer go back to the Latin to determine the precise nature of canon law? (dan?)*The frame of reference now is no longer the Code of Canon Law. The frame of reference is now going to be, “What does the Gospel really say here?” *
So, are we to believe that Canon Law does **not ** reflect the Gospel?
If that’s true, the Catholic Church has been in error for the past 2000 years.
So, Canon Law is not doctrine, but a working principle to put doctrine into practice. If there is a time it does not seem to work, meaning the Gospel is losing something in translation, can a bishop like Cardinal Wuerl exercise his office to follow the Gospel? I do not think the Catholic Church has ever held Canon Law to any sort of level of infallibility or unquestionable obedience.
J
J_Peterson
Guest
All of them. It’s a nice phrase but I’m not sure what it means. Even Jesus didn’t want to answer the question: What is truth?
This wasn’t directed at you personally by the way; your post simply reminded me of it.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
Edward Pentin is a hatemonger. He claims the pope doesn’t care about canon law. What does Edward Pentns post make you feel about Pope Francis? Think about how Edward Pentin affects your faith.
I know that nothing on Gods earth will convince some people of how really corrosive EdwardPentins rubbish is but to those who long to see pope francis fulfill his calling as bringing Gods truth to our daily practice instead of trying to shut God up… please read Edward Pentin for what it really is. The work of a secular ideologue playing politics with your precious faith.
P
ProVobis
Guest
That’s a good way of putting it.
In the documents of Trent, for example, anathemas were used to underscore the doctrines expressed. In fact these anathemas were labelled as “canons.” While it is true that most of these anathemas have been abrogated if not replaced, the underlying doctrine still remains, though it gets quite tricky in expressing the exact doctrine in the vernacular.
E
Ender
Guest
Who can be against mercy? It all sounds quite reasonable if the choice is between mercy and legalistic rigidity. If one investigates the nature and applicability of mercy, however - that is if one actually understands what is being suggested - things appear in a different light.
First of all, mercy is not always appropriate. That may seem strange, but even God’s mercy is conditional: it depends on repentance. *On the part of man only a lack of good will can limit {mercy}, a lack of readiness to be converted and to repent, in other words persistence in obstinacy, opposing grace and truth… *(JPII)
This is the same problem the divorced and remarried face with regard to communion. They cannot receive the Eucharist until their grave sins are absolved, and they cannot be absolved until they repent of them…which includes the intention not to repeat them.
The point is, if they cannot receive absolution for their sins because they do not repent of them, neither can they (properly) receive mercy.
*In no passage of the Gospel message does forgiveness, or mercy as its source, mean indulgence towards evil, towards scandals, towards injury or insult. *(JPII)
Indulgence towards evil is just what it would mean to offer mercy to the unrepentant.
Ender
Mark121359
Well-known member
Really? A hate monger? I’ve seen him interviewed by Raymond Arroyo on EWTN with Robert Royal and Fr. Gerald Murray and I saw no such hate. I’d call it concern. They (Fr. Murray and Mr. Royal) raised some serious questions as well. Are Mr. Royal and Fr. Murray hate mongers too? You need to open your post with* “In my opinion” *instead of saying with a blanket statement; “so and so is a hate monger.” You recently put down Mr. Arroyo in one of your posts as well if my memory serves me. You know, you can disagree with cardinals and even the pope and still be a good and faithful Catholic.
Peace, Mark
P
pnewton
Guest
Mercy remains central to the Gospel. The father has no limit on mercy when his son returns from ruinous life, even before the son can utter one word. The return itself was enough to begin with. This is something the older son could not yet fathom, not yet being a father himself.
The nest liturgical year will be a special jubilee of mercy. I pray it will be an year of education and conversion, for both the prodigal brother, and the older brother, in our midst.
The nest liturgical year will be a special jubilee of mercy. I pray it will be an year of education and conversion, for both the prodigal brother, and the older brother, in our midst.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
I disagree. An intrinsic aspect of being catholic is constantly reorienting youself to the guidance of the pope whoever he may be. If you don’t free your soul to that purpose you are just ‘playing’ catholic. One of the rules here is not to badmouth clergy or Pope Francis. Even very few lay theologians will do such a thing and yet these self righteous American journalists and commentators feel above the church itself in their cowardly attacks on the church. I’d love to see them silenced.
F
FollowChrist34
Guest
Dante put popes in hell in his Inferno. Should he be available to the public or his books removed from public libraries and destroyed?
E
Ender
Guest
In this case the son had repented of his misdeeds so the father’s mercy was appropriate. The question before us is whether mercy is appropriate for those who do not repent. (That question has already been answered by the church despite our unwillingness to admit it.)
Ender
P
pnewton
Guest
I know this, and he was returning, which was a sign of some change. Yet Scripture does not link the mercy of the father to the confession of the son, but says, “But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him.” Yes, we must have a repentant heart, but God’s mercy does not depend on us first reaching a state of perfection and freedom from sin. But yes, a person must have that sense of sin and a repentant heart. This must be applied to someone with same sex attraction or who is in a second marriage as well. How this works out practically depends on the circumstances, but the repentance must be real.
J
JimG
Guest
I’m not even sure what it means to move from legalism to mercy. If by “legalism,” we mean following the moral law, of course everyone is expected to follow the moral law. If by mercy we mean that we can simply disregard the moral law because it suits us to do so, none of us has that right.
And what does mercy have to do with an invalid marriage? Can mercy make an invalid marriage into a valid one? Can mercy declare a first marriage null?
And what does mercy have to do with an invalid marriage? Can mercy make an invalid marriage into a valid one? Can mercy declare a first marriage null?
P
pnewton
Guest
Here are two good definitions:
strict adherence, or the principle of strict adherence, to law or prescription, especially to the letter rather than the spirit. 2. Theology. the doctrine that salvation is gained through good works. the judging of conduct in terms of adherence to precise laws.
No, it is not abandoning moral law.
J
JimG
Guest
Personally, I’m using “law” in the sense of divine law or moral law, not canon law or legal prescription. It has nothing to do with good works.
And when Jesus said that anyone who divorces a spouse and marries another commits adultery, are we to interpolate his words as including “unless of course, mercy would be more compassionate–then divorce and remarriage is okay.”? I don’t think that is what he said. I don’t think we have the authority to change it.
I
irishpatrick
Guest
I believe the important question is: why has the Church placed such a significant emphasis on God’s Mercy over the last 15 years?
Mark121359
Well-known member
Of course one can disagree with him. He’s a man just like me. His opinions on the environment for example. Just because he believes in manmade global warming, doesn’t mean I’m obliged to. I should respect and listen to what the pope has to say about global warming, but I’m free to disagree with some of his scientific and political statements.
Peace, Mark
P
pnewton
Guest
No one has said otherwise. One thing that has come out of this synod is the insolubility of marriage. Cardinal Wuerl said nothing to challenge this particular verse or principle.
O
OraLabora
Guest
No, but mercy can give the penitent hope and strength to get right with God, and eventually correct their irregular situation which for most cannot be done instantaneously (it took me years, for example, to convince my wife to have our marriage convalidated).
Strict legalism on such matters destroys hope. Destroying hope also destroys souls. Destroying hope and driving someone away from God’s mercy gives one lots to answer for on judgement day. What that is, is simply trying to put human limits on God’s mercy. God won’t be fooled that easily!
E
Ender
Guest
If the repentance was real the sins could be absolved, and they could receive communion. Until there is true repentance - which includes the intent not to repeat the sin - there can be neither communion nor mercy. What prevents communion also prevents mercy.
Ender
- Status