"Filial correction"

[Ghosty1981]

I guess that is the point. Some very competent people have ruled it out. Some very competent people have not. This might end up being defined, one way or another. The last Family Synod kind of kicked this can down the road.

Some very competent people have not ruled it out, but there hasn’t been any act of Magisterial authority that has overruled the previous decisions. Unfortunately we now find ourselves in a situation in which clear determinations of the CDF and PCLT are disregarded on the basis of a footnote that could mean a number of different things (it could be used to support either of your proposals), and we have a Pope that seems intent on not clearing the air.

I find our current situation troublesome, and I hope we regain solid footing, wherever it may be.

 

[BlackFriar]

I believe you are referring to FC, not FI, and I’ll continue based on that assumption.

If JPII is a Pope then FI is …
Yes I am aware of the 1973 document.

1. What past approved Communion access for the remarried practice is being referred to?
2. Which Pope authorised that ancient practice (as opposed to a Cardinal just saying so).

 

[BlackFriar]

I see two possibilities that might be addressed. The first is based on the nature of the annulment that does not actually annul a marriage, but rather determines if a marriage was valid.

Interesting. What does this mean.
If a marriage is formally judged not valid isnt that intrinsically the same?

Second, it might be that the Church decides to allow those who are in an objective state of grave sin, while not incurring the guilt of actual mortal sin to receive communion

Isnt this already happening?
Those in a 2nd marriage, regardless of sex, are objectively in a state of grave sin. They are publicly unworthy which is why they may receive, but not publicly.

So AL may be saying this principle can be applied to those whose sex is also tolerated if it is judged they are not objectively sinning? But is this sex publicly unworthy or privately unworthy? It likely makes no difference if the couple also believe their original marriages were invalid on reasonable grounds.

Which means such couples still cannot receive publicly. Though AL nor Argentina speak to this point

Just to be clear, contrary to tradition does not by necessity mean contrary to doctrine

Nicely put.

 

[Ghosty1981]

If JPII is a Pope then FI is …

Thanks for the clarification. I haven’t accused FI of changing doctrine. I’m merely pointing put that the situation remains ambiguous with many different interpretations and a Pope that isn’t given to firm clarifications.

What past approved Communion access for the remarried practice is being referred to?
Which Pope authorised that ancient practice (as opposed to a Cardinal just saying so).

I already addressed these questions in my post. My point is simply that these practices did not originate with JPII.

If you have an answer to your own questions I’m interested in hearing them.

 

[BlackFriar]

I simply observe the inconsistency of the position of those who maintain FI has broken with doctrine/tradition yet do not level the same charge at JPII.

As I have demonstrated on other threads JPII was really the innovator here who broke the ice. AL is but further logical playing out of that innovation.
I have further discovered, that really both Popes have simply applied the originating observations of one Cardinal Ratzinger.

In fact all of this is unified by BXVI!
He was the architect who drew up the plans even if the other two fired the bullets.

Unless of course you can find the ancient “practice” referred to in the above 1973 document.

 

[Ghosty1981]

I simply observe the inconsistency of the position of those who maintain FI has broken with doctrine/tradition yet do not level the same charge at JPII.

Fair enough. I’m not one of those people.

As I have demonstrated on other threads JPII was really the innovator here who broke the ice.

But you haven’t demonstrated this, you’ve asserted it. The 1973 and 1975 statements from the CDF show that this approach predates JPII. Where it came from I don’t know, but it was clearly around before his tenure.

 

[BlackFriar]

As I say I have sourced this on other threads if you are interested enough to have a look.

Nor has the CDF substantiated its own assertions of history!

 

[Ghosty1981]

I’ve read your posts on other threads, but I didn’t see anything that explained how the CDF was making rulings in 1975 based on the theological developments of a Pope that hadn’t been elected yet. You claim that JPII was an innovator, but history shows that any innovation occured before he became Pope.

As for what the CDF was basing its decisions on in the 1970s, I plead ignorance. I feel comfortable saying that it wasn’t based on Familiaris Consortio, however.

 

[pnewton]

Interesting. What does this mean.

If a marriage is formally judged not valid isnt that intrinsically the same?

The judgment of a tribunal does not change the intrinsic nature of a relationship. It is only a judgment of whether a situation is a valid marriage. A marriage this is ruled invalid, therefore, was invalid from the beginning of the marriage. Likewise if a tribunal rules a invalid marriage as valid, it is still invalid.

 

[BlackFriar]

You claim that JPII was an innovator, but history shows that any innovation occured before he became Pope.

Only if you can source that preceding innovative “practice” allegedly evidenced by the CDF.

I did not mean the CDF was basing its statement on Professor Ratzinger’s research…though who knows given it is not clear what they were referring to exactly.

 

[Ghosty1981]

Only if you can source that preceding innovative “practice” allegedly evidenced by the CDF.

I only need to show the dates of the CDF documents to prove that they existed before 1978. The fact that the CDF was supporting the practice prior to the tenure of John Paul II is sufficient to show that he was not the innovator of it. I have no idea what the basis of the CDF’s direction was, but it is irrational to claim that John Paul II is the originator.

Was the CDF breaking with tradition? Perhaps. I haven’t studied the history of Communion practices for the divorced and remarried throughout Church history. If you have any Magisterial sources, or links to studies on the subject, I would be interested in seeing them sometime. I’m afraid that “I remember the day” won’t suffice, however.

Peace and God bless!

 

[BlackFriar]

The small observation I am making is that the CDF has no independent claim to infallibility so their possibly erroneous new views/directives do not constitute anything significant…unless of course explicitly following direction of the Pope of that time…PVI or JPI which of course seems unlikely.

My point is that failing identification of the alleged prior practise they refer to we must assume there is actually nothing truly legit until JPII formally legitimised the practise with FC.

And, as I say, both JPII and FI (and the CDF) seem to be reading chunks straight out of a German article by Professor Ratzinger published 1972.

 

[Ghosty1981]

So far as I understand, neither JPII nor FI were exercising their infallible authority in these respective documents, so I don’t see how the lack of infallibility on the part of the CDF has any relevance.

The fact is that the practice of admitting divorced and remarried Catholics to Communion predates John Paul II, so he can’t be cited as an innovator. If your claim is that the CDF was breaking with tradition in its recommendations then please demonstrate this, otherwise it’s merely your assertion. I wouldn’t be surprised if your assertion is true, but I haven’t seen any evidence yet.

It could be that JPII was merely firmly proclaiming something that had been a long-standing practice; I don’t know. What I do know is that the relevant authorities have understood his writings, as well as tradition and doctrine, as precluding some of the interpretations of AL that have come out. I’m not claiming that these determinations are infallible and irreformable, though they may well speak to an infallible doctrine. I’m saying that a footnote and a shrug don’t seem to be solid grounds for overturning well-established Magisterial precedent.

If you’re claim is that the CDF’s position in the 1970s was novel then my mind is open, I just want to see some evidence of it. It’s credible claim, it just requires some support.

Peace and God bless!

 

[BlackFriar]

I think this is a side issue re the CDF’s internal forum non-public allowances on this question (whether accurately reflecting tradition or not).

Pope’s are ultimately responsible for formal changes in traditional public practice/teaching.

Everybody knows that the invalidly remarried from ancient times were never mainstream formally or publicly allowed to be admitted to Communion. I have no idea what mainstream internal forum “tradition” the CDF refers to.
It doesn’t really matter re the small point I observe.

That teaching/practice was publicly and formally reversed by JPII making it mainstream public teaching.

I think there is a qualitative difference between his normative, official and public decision and that of the CDF re Confessional internal forum privately granted exceptions.
(Cf the same public/private distinction re use of contraception in the Encyclical versus the Confessor’s Vademecum).

Why is JPII not lambasted for the innovator he is re formal, public teaching is my question?
(You may be right to add the same re the CDF and its pastoral innovations in the private, internal forum if historic antecedents cannot in fact be found. The CDF may be referring to ancient confessional principles that have been newly applied to the issue of remarriage. That would also count as a pastoral innovation in the internal forum I would think even if the principles used to justify it are ancient.)

 

[Vadne]

Assertion that John Paul II was somehow an “innovator” doesn’t make it so. Even obsessive assertion.

 

[Thomas_White]

Tell me how this ends…

 

[BlackFriar]

Then show where a prior Pope formally and publicly
changed and taught against the ancient tradition of never allowing the remarried access to Communion?
That is exactly what JPII did in 1981 in FC.
And in 1983 removed the excommunication canons in current Canon Law as well.

Have I missed something?

 

[Thomas_White]

I believe so. The issue is and always has been adultery and not marriage.

 

[Ghosty1981]

You keep asserting without evidence, and when people call you on it you move the goal posts from “it was never taught” to “it was never publicly taught by a Pope”.

Saying “everyone knows” is an extremely weak argument. Clearly people on this thread don’t all know that your assertions are true. I certainly don’t. What I do know is that the CDF was ruling in favor of Communion for some people in irregular marriages prior to the Pontificate of John Paul II, and that in all of the arguments that I’ve read by radical traditionalists and sedevacantists against the “innovations” of John Paul II this particular issue has never appeared. They call his praying with Jews and Protestants an example of heresy, but not his extending Coommunion to the divorced and remarried.

This is an important matter because you seem to be claiming that innovations on the part of Pope Francis are equal to, or justified by, innovations by John Paul II. If you can’t demonstrate that John Paul II was innovating, or that the CDF was innovating for that matter, then this argument is baseless.

This is of course secondary to the question of whether or not Pope Francis is innovating at all, which isn’t settled because the text of AL is ambiguous and given to contradictory interpretations (as evidenced by the vastly different guidelines that have emerged since its publication), and Pope Francis refuses to actually engage the Bishops, priests, and the laity in a clear and direct way. This may be an argument over nothing, but we won’t know until the Pope actually addresses the controversy he has created.

In my view this controversy, and the refusal to engage it, is the real problem. I’m much less concerned about the possibility of heresy on the part of the Pope, and I still have Faith in the infallibility of the Church. I have less and less confidence in the notion that we have an effective Pope, but the Pope is the Pope, and I’m loyal to the See of Peter.

Peace and God bless!

 

[BlackFriar]

You keep asserting without evidence, and when people call you on it you move the goal posts from “it was never taught” to “it was never publicly taught by a Pope”.

I am clarifying what I always meant - I am speaking of Popes who formally and publicly teach or change a clear tradition. The somewhat unclear and unsubstantiated interpretations of tradition issued by a Vatican Congregation is not the same.
I understand you disagree.

If you do not agree that Magisterial Roman teaching for centuries has strongly and publicly denied Communion to the remarried there doesn’t seem anything left to debate.

This is of course secondary to the question of whether or not Pope Francis is innovating at all, which isn’t settled because the text of AL is ambiguous

Well there is nothing further to discuss on this point either if it is not clear to you that Pope has clarified the point in question by affirming the Argentinian understanding. It does not of course mean this allowance is set in concrete. it seems to be a prudential experiment. It could well be withdrawn in 10 years time if causing too much angst for large numbers of the faithful (just as the removal of the old Latin Mass has been relaxed somewhat in more recent times for the same reason).