"Filial correction"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vadne
  • Start date Start date
FYI - I noticed two threads have been merged, and about that time, someone started a third. We need to check an see if there is already a discussion before we open a parallel on.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
If memory serves me correctly, I respect most of your posts, though I do recall we don’t always agree. But really this is common sense to me. If you get a letter, email, correcting you for some action, you won’t care nearly as much if they are not a major stakeholder in the situation being discussed. Depending on who it is, you might even throw it in the trash.

This should be self evident. Am I missing something here?
 
Last edited:
Saint John Paul II wrote:

"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.”"

Cardinal Ratzinger wrote:

"3.In recent years, in various regions, different pastoral solutions in this area have been suggested according to which, to be sure, a general admission of divorced and remarried to Eucharistic communion would not be possible, but the divorced and remarried members of the faithful could approach Holy Communion in specific cases when they consider themselves authorised according to a judgement of conscience to do so. This would be the case, for example, when they had been abandoned completely unjustly, although they sincerely tried to save the previous marriage, or when they are convinced of the nullity of their previous marriage, although unable to demonstrate it in the external forum or when they have gone through a long period of reflexion and penance, or also when for morally valid reasons they cannot satisfy the obligation to separate…

With respect to the aforementioned new pastoral proposals, this Congregation deems itself obliged therefore to recall the doctrine and discipline of the Church in this matter. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ(5), the Church affirms that a new union cannot be recognised as valid if the preceding marriage was valid. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Holy Communion as long as this situation persists(6). "

It is hard to understand how what Pope Francis wrote in AL does not contradict the teachings of our last two popes. I understand the rationale that some people in irregular situations may not be fully culpable or guilty of mortal sin. Was it not true that Saint JPII and Pope Benedict must also have realized this yet still believed communion for those in irregular marriages to be impossible?
 
nodito said:
Cardinal Ratzinger wrote:

"3.In recent years, in various regions, different pastoral solutions in this area have been suggested according to which, to be sure, a general admission of divorced and remarried to Eucharistic communion would not be possible, but the divorced and remarried members of the faithful could approach Holy Communion in specific cases when they consider themselves authorised according to a judgement of conscience to do so. This would be the case, for example, when they had been abandoned completely unjustly, although they sincerely tried to save the previous marriage, or when they are convinced of the nullity of their previous marriage, although unable to demonstrate it in the external forum or when they have gone through a long period of reflexion and penance, or also when for morally valid reasons they cannot satisfy the obligation to separate…

With respect to the aforementioned new pastoral proposals, this Congregation deems itself obliged therefore to recall the doctrine and discipline of the Church in this matter. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ(5), the Church affirms that a new union cannot be recognised as valid if the preceding marriage was valid. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Holy Communion as long as this situation persists(6). "

It is hard to understand how what Pope Francis wrote in AL does not contradict the teachings of our last two popes. I understand the rationale that some people in irregular situations may not be fully culpable or guilty of mortal sin. Was it not true that Saint JPII and Pope Benedict must also have realized this yet still believed communion for those in irregular marriages to be impossible?
Click to expand...
Did you not read: “but the divorced and remarried members of the faithful could approach Holy Communion in specific cases when they consider themselves authorised according to a judgement of conscience to do so.”

This is exactly what AL reiterates! This is not directed at you personally, but, I seriously wonder if people actually read what the text is saying, or do they read with the lens of attempting to determine what they think the text is saying.
 
I hope the Pope does not dignify this with a response. Using pressure tactics and the mass media to coerce the Pope is a low brow, cheap move by this tiny group.

I hope a letter of support is drafted… the number of signatures would be overwhelming
 
They used even mistranslations as darts against him…also in this letter…Some that have been carefully explained.
This also speaks of the lack of interest to look into even the simplest of things .
What can one say?
 
Last edited:
It is nothing new that lay people are hearing increased ambiguity in favor of sinners.
During the Year of Mercy, any women who had an abortion only needed to seek out a parish priest to confess rather than see her local bishop for absolution.
Popes Frances and Benedict are echoing what parish priests have allowed for decades.
Emphasis is on mercy rather than judgement and punishment.
Personally, I prefer focus on the four last things.
Death, Judgement, Heaven and Hell
Without these four last things in focus we skirt with relativism.
 
Last edited:
Donkey said:
It is nothing new that lay people are hearing increased ambiguity in favor of sinners.
During the Year of Mercy, any women who had an abortion only needed to seek out a parish priest to confess rather than see her local bishop for absolution.
Popes Frances and Benedict are echoing what parish priests have allowed for decades.
Emphasis is on mercy rather than judgement and punishment.
Personally, I prefer focus on the four last things.
Death, Judgement, Heaven and Hell
Without these four last things in focus we skirt with relativism.
Click to expand...
"Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have come to call not the righteous but sinners.” - Matthew 9:13
 
This one is my go to, especially in the context of those wanting to live by the law.
He has shown you, O mortal, what is good.
And what does the Lord require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God. - Micah 6
Click to expand...
Justice, mercy and humility.
 
Last edited:
pnewton said:
This one is my go to, especially in the context of those wanting to live by the law.

He has shown you, O mortal, what is good.
And what does the Lord require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God. - Micah 6
Click to expand...
Excellent. Is it just to engage in homosexual activity? If two men (or two women) raise children together as a couple, are they acting justly? If the answer is yes, by all means, please say so.
 
AugustTherese said:
Did you not read: “but the divorced and remarried members of the faithful could approach Holy Communion in specific cases when they consider themselves authorised according to a judgement of conscience to do so.”

This is exactly what AL reiterates!
Click to expand...
Yes, Ratzinger is describing what some were proposing. He then goes on to reject it.
 
godisgood77 said:
I hope the Pope does not dignify this with a response. Using pressure tactics and the mass media to coerce the Pope is a low brow, cheap move by this tiny group.
Click to expand...
By the same token, I am disappointed he refuses to dialogue with those of his brother bishops and others who raise sincere concerns with him.
 
Last edited:
Okay, folks on the pro-Correction and anti-Correction sides, please make sure that you both have read the document in its entirety. I would also suggest that if you’re going to cite anything cited in the Filial Correction, then you at least look at that portion of the original document.

These theologians felt compelled to do this. I have no doubt that their hearts are in the right place, and that they merely yearn for the truth. Pope Francis is the Vicar of Christ; he’s matched no criteria that calls his election to the Holy See into legitimate doubt (at least none that has been shown). Therefore, people on both sides of this debate should feel obliged to show him the proper respect due to his office. Eventually Pope Francis will either have to respond to the mounting pressure to defend his teachings, and I don’t think that he should have any reason not to, or risk the pressure causing other forms of schism.

If the pope is not at fault, if he is correct, or is being shown in a false light, then his response will not do anything but help the Church and reiterate his message. If he is at fault, then he should not act in fear of being reoriented towards the truth. I just wish that he’d get it over with.

Thoughts?

~Pax
 
Last edited:
You may talk about respect all you like.

The fact is it would be scandalous to allow this to devolve into an appeal to authority argument when such inconsistencies were glaring.

And the Vatican, which quite honestly doesn’t seem to do much these days, had fair warning. Before this happened, one theologian noted it was possible for a church in Poland to have different rules for Communion than one in Germany.

The outreach by Pope Francis has been stellar, and a much missing element that folks like myself have been clamouring for. But at the end of the day if people are confused, they’ll leave. And people looking for solid answers won’t come to the Catholic Church.
 
I admire the diplomacy here but Pope Francis has been very dismissive (figuratively and literally) of many in the Church who have expressed these kinds of concerns for a couple of years now. The dismantling of the old regime is actually picking up steam. I will be surprised if there is any response whatsoever to this. At least we’re past calling all this ‘dialogue.’
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top