Why? Do you believe this will change the outcome of Pope Francis’ decision?
Yet there is a chance that he may not do anything and just let the bishops deal with it with perhaps some general guidelines. After all he wants to decentralize much of the Vatican undertakings. Just sayin…
I think that the emphasis has to be toward mercy and compassion, which unfortunately hasn’t always been present. This is similar to issues like co-habitation or baptizing and caring for the children of couples in “irregular situations.” Just like I don’t think you can have a dioceses that bans children of gay couples from attending school and the dioceses a few hours away allowing these couples, I don’t think that allowing a wide divergence in annulment practices would be wise. I could see a Burke-type bishop designing a process that is long and complex and discourages people from seeking annulments while a Cupich-type bishop might have a much easier and more streamlined process.
It was put under penalty of anethema. Anyone who is declared anethema is declared a heretic. Saying Pope Francis can just overrule that is like saying he can over rule women can not be priests.[Sigh]
For now, your pontifical assertions are correct at face value, but in the end, Pope Francis may overrule you, if such means many be determined by the Synod.
That very well could be but the Church is worldwide. I’ll bet in many dioceses around the world they don’t have any tribunals at all. He also has to consider the fact that bishops are replaceable and he himself may be overridden in the future by another Pope. I can’t see any discussions over sacramental marriages and annulments to be over and done with this time next year; it’s a divergent -]problem/-] challenge.
What is your issue with cohabitation? You think it’s okay for a couple to live together before they are married? Why?
I know its easier to just personally attack other posters, but given that one of the most prominent Catholic writers in the country disagrees with you on essentially everything, you could try answering some of the things he said
You reveal your lack of understanding. There were other matters, all of which contained the anathema clause declared by Trent, that successor popes subsequently changed. . But hey, if you want to pound the table here and call folks a heretic, I suppose that is your right to post misinformation.
What did popes change later? I was going to read more into it, but if stuff has been changed then I should read the newer ones. What parts were changed?
At an early date the Church adopted the word anathema to signify the exclusion of a sinner from the society of the faithful; but the anathema was pronounced chiefly against heretics. All the councils, from the Council of Nicæa to that of the Vatican, have worded their dogmatic canons: “If any one says . . . let him be anathema”. Nevertheless, although during the first centuries the anathema did not seem to differ from the sentence of excommunication, beginning with the sixth century a distinction was made between the two
The 1917 Code of Canon Law did remove some of the anathemas implicitly if not directly and the 1984 Code of Canon Law abrogated the 1917 Code but many anathemas have not been effectively removed so you do have legitimate concerns there. But even with the anathemas removed (and I’m uncertain if they have here) there is still underlying doctrina expressed in the Council of Trent documents.
Whoa, whoa, whoa! How the heck did that happen? My post was addressing the reality that Pope Francis invited a discussion on the nature of this unique situation happening in some relationships and whether there is any theological merit to a legitimacy to receive Communion. All along the Pope has said this is not about changing the rules “divorced and remarried should receive communion”. I do wish people would stop claiming that this is what is going to happen. It’s not.
I misinterpreted what you said sorry.
Abyssinia, I ask you this and I’d love to ask others of your stance the same question. Why do you think Pope Francis invited the issue into Church discussion. Please don’t say “I don’t know” because your opposition to the question is so strong that you must have formed a belief about the Popes actions in order not to take the position of lets wait and see what the Cardinals, Bishops and Pope arrive at in Communion.
Did Pope Francis raise the issue? What Pope Francis has allowed is those paragraphs that didn’t get 2/3rds majority to be included in the document, including those that have nothing to with Communion specifically. Does Pope Francis doing this explicitly tell us what his view on it?
Perhaps for many of the same reasons Pope Paul brought in moral theologians to determine the fate of ABC? (Twice they voted in favor of ABC.) In the end the Pope was very heavily criticized for having had done that. I know it wasn’t quite the same thing but you asked for reasons for Church discussions.
Most people, unless they travel to Europe regularly or have relatives/friends there, are essentially clueless as to what is going on. It would appear that (at least) the
Bet? You can take that one to the bank.
