Concerning changes to the sacrament of marriage (communion for divorced and remarried)

  • Thread starter Thread starter 1newcatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
1

1newcatholic

Guest
I came across an article today that strongly suggests Pope Francis would like to see the church make significant changes to the church’s teachings/rules about who can receive communion, but the impression I get when I listen to lay Catholics (and some clergy) is that there is no way that this could ever happen in a million years–but isn’t that in the hands of Pope Francis?

This brings up the question: up to what point is it plausible to assign Francis to the camp of the innovators, on the question of communion for the remarried? And if this convergence exists, is it just superficial or of substance?

This question is answered by a theologian who has already spoken out on this website to illustrate the innovations of method in the most representative document of pope Bergoglio, “Evangelii Gaudium”: Paul-Anthony McGavin of Australia (in the photo), age 70, a priest of the archdiocese of Canberra and Goulburn and an ecclesiastical assistant at the University of Canberra.

McGavin leans toward a change and does not conceal his agreement with Kasper’s positions. But this is not what he has written about. He instead dedicates his essay to demonstrating the affinity between the proposals of innovation and the “methodology” of Francis, intolerant of any “closed system,” whether pastoral or doctrinal.

According to McGavin, Ratzinger also had an equally “open” methodology. And in the initial part of his essay he amply develops this affinity between the two most recent popes. To the point that the reader is induced to think that Francis is preparing to realize what Benedict XVI had also been predisposed to do.

But it is on the reigning pope that expectations are focused. Because in the end, after the two synods,** it will be he who decides the path to take, on marriage in general and on communion for the remarried in particular.**

A path of pastoral innovation, if not also doctrinal, that - according to McGavin’s arguments - Francis already has in mind. (emphasis added)​

The entire article: chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350864?eng=y

My question as a Catholic is: what is the appropriate reaction among ‘true’ or ‘faithful’ Catholics if the Pope makes an unpopular (in certain circles) change to a substantial practice? Is it acceptable to gripe about it, or to form a schismatic group, or abandon the church? Or do we just suck it up and go with it?
 
Indeed, that’s a good question and I will wait for another more knowledgeable person to answer but I think schism is the worst option. By schism, we cut ourselves from our canonical superiors and worse, we rend the Body of Christ apart.
 
1newcatholic said:
My question as a Catholic is: what is the appropriate reaction among ‘true’ or ‘faithful’ Catholics if the Pope makes an unpopular (in certain circles) change to a substantial practice? Is it acceptable to gripe about it, or to form a schismatic group, or abandon the church? Or do we just suck it up and go with it?
Click to expand...
I think the “appropriate reaction” is to wait and see what actually happens, before talking about abandoning the Church. 😦
 
1newcatholic said:
I came across an article today that strongly suggests Pope Francis would like to see the church make significant changes to the church’s teachings/rules about who can receive communion, but the impression I get when I listen to lay Catholics (and some clergy) is that there is no way that this could ever happen in a million years–but isn’t that in the hands of Pope Francis?

This brings up the question: up to what point is it plausible to assign Francis to the camp of the innovators, on the question of communion for the remarried? And if this convergence exists, is it just superficial or of substance?

This question is answered by a theologian who has already spoken out on this website to illustrate the innovations of method in the most representative document of pope Bergoglio, “Evangelii Gaudium”: Paul-Anthony McGavin of Australia (in the photo), age 70, a priest of the archdiocese of Canberra and Goulburn and an ecclesiastical assistant at the University of Canberra.

McGavin leans toward a change and does not conceal his agreement with Kasper’s positions. But this is not what he has written about. He instead dedicates his essay to demonstrating the affinity between the proposals of innovation and the “methodology” of Francis, intolerant of any “closed system,” whether pastoral or doctrinal.

According to McGavin, Ratzinger also had an equally “open” methodology. And in the initial part of his essay he amply develops this affinity between the two most recent popes. To the point that the reader is induced to think that Francis is preparing to realize what Benedict XVI had also been predisposed to do.

But it is on the reigning pope that expectations are focused. Because in the end, after the two synods,** it will be he who decides the path to take, on marriage in general and on communion for the remarried in particular.**

A path of pastoral innovation, if not also doctrinal, that - according to McGavin’s arguments - Francis already has in mind. (emphasis added)​

The entire article: chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350864?eng=y

My question as a Catholic is: what is the appropriate reaction among ‘true’ or ‘faithful’ Catholics if the Pope makes an unpopular (in certain circles) change to a substantial practice? Is it acceptable to gripe about it, or to form a schismatic group, or abandon the church? Or do we just suck it up and go with it?
Click to expand...
Christ promised that His Church would NEVER teach error and it hasn’t for over 2,000 years, so I wouldn’t worry about it.The media may run our country, but it will never run the Catholic Church.Have faith, TRUST GOD! God Bless, Memaw
 
1newcatholic said:
I came across an article today that strongly suggests Pope Francis would like to see the church make significant changes to the church’s teachings/rules about who can receive communion, but the impression I get when I listen to lay Catholics (and some clergy) is that there is no way that this could ever happen in a million years–but isn’t that in the hands of Pope Francis?

This brings up the question: up to what point is it plausible to assign Francis to the camp of the innovators, on the question of communion for the remarried? And if this convergence exists, is it just superficial or of substance?

This question is answered by a theologian who has already spoken out on this website to illustrate the innovations of method in the most representative document of pope Bergoglio, “Evangelii Gaudium”: Paul-Anthony McGavin of Australia (in the photo), age 70, a priest of the archdiocese of Canberra and Goulburn and an ecclesiastical assistant at the University of Canberra.

McGavin leans toward a change and does not conceal his agreement with Kasper’s positions. But this is not what he has written about. He instead dedicates his essay to demonstrating the affinity between the proposals of innovation and the “methodology” of Francis, intolerant of any “closed system,” whether pastoral or doctrinal.

According to McGavin, Ratzinger also had an equally “open” methodology. And in the initial part of his essay he amply develops this affinity between the two most recent popes. To the point that the reader is induced to think that Francis is preparing to realize what Benedict XVI had also been predisposed to do.

But it is on the reigning pope that expectations are focused. Because in the end, after the two synods,** it will be he who decides the path to take, on marriage in general and on communion for the remarried in particular.**

A path of pastoral innovation, if not also doctrinal, that - according to McGavin’s arguments - Francis already has in mind. (emphasis added)​

The entire article: chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350864?eng=y

My question as a Catholic is: what is the appropriate reaction among ‘true’ or ‘faithful’ Catholics if the Pope makes an unpopular (in certain circles) change to a substantial practice? Is it acceptable to gripe about it, or to form a schismatic group, or abandon the church? Or do we just suck it up and go with it?
Click to expand...
Thanks for the thread & link. Pax.
 
About the synod, I know it will be in October this year but how many sessions will this be?
 
1newcatholic said:
I came across an article today that strongly suggests Pope Francis would like to see the church make significant changes to the church’s teachings/rules about who can receive communion, but the impression I get when I listen to lay Catholics (and some clergy) is that there is no way that this could ever happen in a million years–but isn’t that in the hands of Pope Francis?
Click to expand...
I would say never look to the media for information about church teaching. They’re always wrong. If you read anything that makes you think “that doesn’t sound right” you’re probably right.
 
seagal said:
I would say never look to the media for information about church teaching. They’re always wrong. If you read anything that makes you think “that doesn’t sound right” you’re probably right.
Click to expand...
Quoted for accuracy.

The US Media’s lack of understanding of Catholic theology is only equaled by the number of [edited] they don’t give about unbiased reporting.

Christ promised his protection to the Church, and seeing as how he’s God, I wouldn’t be too worried. We do, of course, still need to pray for a successful synod, and for those misguided Bishops, priests and lay people who think that rejecting revealed truth is a good idea. We also need to pray for Pope Francis and the other members of the synod, that they have the strength to reject the lies of our world and embrace the reality of God’s creation, no matter how difficult that Truth may be to proclaim in this modern era of paganism.
 
RaphaelJ said:
About the synod, I know it will be in October this year but how many sessions will this be?
Click to expand...
There are two main parts - one this fall and one next year. This year’s session is to form the main topics and to build a framework for further discussion. Next year’s session* may *result in recommendations for changes in discipline or approaches.
 
Powdered_Sugar said:
Quoted for accuracy.

The US Media’s lack of understanding of Catholic theology is only equaled by the number of [edited] they don’t give about unbiased reporting.
Click to expand...
In this case, that doesn’t explain the article away. Sandro Magister is the author, and he’s one of the best in Church reporting. He’s a practicing-Catholic Milanese who lives in Rome, has a passible knowledge of five languages, has more contacts in the Vatican and hierarchy than Fort Knox has bullion, holds an advanced degree in theology, and spent decades as the religion-coorespondant for the Italian newspaper La Stampa. He had predicted Cardinal Bergoglio would be elected Pope all the way back in 2002 - long before anyone outside of South America knew who he was.

Magister knows what he’s talking about, and that he calls the ‘‘Kasper Proposal’’ the ‘‘Kasper-Bergoglio Proposal’’ is interesting. In this case, though, it’s not just Magister’s expert opinion (both as a scholar of theology and a journalist), he’s also citing the Australian theologian Paul-Anthony McGavin to suggest the convergence between the two. You can disagree with him, but don’t treat Magister like he doesn’t know what he’s talking about - he’s about the best you can get.
 
Nightwolf said:
In this case, that doesn’t explain the article away. Sandro Magister is the author, and he’s one of the best in Church reporting. He’s a practicing-Catholic Milanese who lives in Rome, has a passible knowledge of five languages, has more contacts in the Vatican and hierarchy than Fort Knox has bullion, holds an advanced degree in theology, and spent decades as the religion-coorespondant for the Italian newspaper La Stampa. He had predicted Cardinal Bergoglio would be elected Pope all the way back in 2002 - long before anyone outside of South America knew who he was.

Magister knows what he’s talking about, and that he calls the ‘‘Kasper Proposal’’ the ‘‘Kasper-Bergoglio Proposal’’ is interesting. In this case, though, it’s not just Magister’s expert opinion (both as a scholar of theology and a journalist), he’s also citing the Australian theologian Paul-Anthony McGavin to suggest the convergence between the two. You can disagree with him, but don’t treat Magister like he doesn’t know what he’s talking about - he’s about the best you can get.
Click to expand...
My position isn’t that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, it’s that the media is misrepresenting what he’s said.

On the other hand, if he really is asserting that Catholic doctrine on the matter can change, then I am going to call him out on it, because that stands in the face of everything the Church preaches. If he’s so learned in the faith, he should recognize that fact and give his assent to Her, rather than try to find loopholes around established doctrine.
 
Powdered_Sugar said:
My position isn’t that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, it’s that the media is misrepresenting what he’s said.
Click to expand...
The media can’t have misrepresented what he said - he wrote the article that the OP cited.
On the other hand, if he really is asserting that Catholic doctrine on the matter can change, then I am going to call him out on it, because that stands in the face of everything the Church preaches. If he’s so learned in the faith, he should recognize that fact and give his assent to Her, rather than try to find loopholes around established doctrine.
Click to expand...
Magister - unlike McGavin, the other theologian he cited - does not want the Synod to change the current practice regarding communion for the divorced-and-remarried. As a general rule, I highly suggest that you read the article before you post about it, or insinuate what ‘‘so learned’’ people think.

That aside, there are plenty of bishops who are going to be pushing for the change - and Magister argues that there is a good chance that Papa Francesco is one of them. That should not be anathema to you - not unless, of course, you think that the Pope cannot believe an error, which I doubt.
 
ServusHumilis said:
See this article…
Click to expand...
The Rumor Mill will NOT stop until the final document issued in 2015. Because, you see, this is the best chance the progressives have of hoping to destroy the Church. Several cardinals, not just Burke, have spoken out against the radical and innovative proposal that was discussed in the Feb consistory. What worries me is that it was proposed at all! I believe in the doctrine of infallibility, but even that has become a little rough around the edges with more controversy surrounding LG P 25. Who can possibly be capable of understanding it all unless a canon lawyer and casuistry has been employed more than once in the past.

I am not going to speculate on the question in the OP, but I do know one thing for certain. If any change is made to Divine Law, it will come from the human element and that “church” will no longer be the one in which I was baptized.
 
Nightwolf said:
That aside, there are plenty of bishops who are going to be pushing for the change - and Magister argues that there is a good chance that Papa Francesco is one of them. That should not be anathema to you - not unless, of course, you think that the Pope cannot believe an error, which I doubt.
Click to expand...
History should speak to us of Pope John XXII. And the Spirit did prevail.
 
otjm said:
OK, I must have missed something - What is LG P 25?
Click to expand...
I am thinking Lumen Gentium, paragraph 25
  1. Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place.(39*) For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old,(164) making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock.(165) Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.
Click to expand...
Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.(40*) This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.(41*)
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top