"Filial correction"

[SuperLuigi]

Maybe, but if the Church a serious about leading and not letting other philosophies set the agenda for humanity, it had better get going and get its act together.

That, I suspect, was the chief reason Pope Francis was elected.

Do your job, RCC!

 

[po18guy]

Ah, yes, but what is our position of authority within the Church? To obey or disobey. What does Saint Paul say?

1 Corinthians 10:23 “All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up.

 

[Vadne]

The pope is a servant of tradition, not an absolute monarch.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Well said…Amen

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Amen to this too.

Jesus is Mercy, God is Mercy

 

[po18guy]

Not to shut down discussion per se, but just one caution.

Matthew 12:35-36 The good man out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil man out of his evil treasure brings forth evil. I tell you, on the day of judgment men will render account for every careless word they utter;

How much better; how much more efficacious to simply pray over this situation. Doesn’t seem as immediately satisfying, but is the right thing to do.

 

[nodito]

AugustTherese, I’m still figuring how to quote you, but with regards to the point you highlighted, Cardinal Ratzinger mentions that people do approach for Holy Communion after discerning personal responsibility and then reiterates that even in these cases “the doctrine and discipline of the Church in this matter” in “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).” In other words, he recognizes the existence of the very situation that Pope Francis is using as justification and still deems it impossible for those in irregular marriages to receive Communion.

I have read the entire text of AL, thank you, as well as Familiarios Consortio.

 

[godisgood77]

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.

That’s fair enough.

I think he will eventually answer these questions. However, it appears he will not submit to pressure tactics and the use of the mass media as a weapon against the Church. Let’s not forget that St Pope John Paul II took better than 18 months to respond to the dubia submitted by Archbishop Lefebvre in the 1980. However the Archbishop had the decency, respect and self awareness to not publicize his questions and use pressure tactics to get him to respond. The dubia cardinals waited a mere 8 weeks. These lower level theologians waited a mere 6 weeks…

The Church has a norm for how to address these types of situations…please refer to Donut Veritatis where it says:
In cases like these, the theologian should avoid turning to the “mass media”, but have recourse to the responsible authority, for it is not by seeking to exert the pressure of public opinion that one contributes to the clarification of doctrinal issues and renders service to the truth.

 

[Saxum]

In cases like these, the theologian should avoid turning to the “mass media”, but have recourse to the responsible authority, for it is not by seeking to exert the pressure of public opinion that one contributes to the clarification of doctrinal issues and renders service to the truth.

This is all well and good when the authorities are not using the mass media to further their agenda. Leaked letters and interviews are not appropriate ways to communicate to the flock.

 

[commenter]

I have concerns over doctrinal ambiguity and confusion from the Vatican.

But this document does more harm than good. Some people who signed this document have opposed Vatican II and/or most papal teaching since Vatican II. A few defy the Catholic Church sacramentally, incredibly, even ordaining without permission of the Church. (I realize Bishop Gracida also signed this document, and I don’t intend any disrespect for him, as he was and is a good bishop). I don’t intend to label all the others on the document as irresponsible, though I wish those good guys had found a better vehicle to express their (well founded!) frustration.

In the prolife movement, we always have to be on our watch against a few who hand out tracts at our rallies demanding that promiscuous women deserve the pains of childbirth, or that legal abortion is the fruit of evangelical Protestantism, or who protest everything, every day, because they have nothing else to do. We had one prolife protester outside the clinic who was found to be so neglectful in general she had her child removed by CPS. The Pro Aborts loved it.

I am a social worker, not a theologian. I find the problem with the Vatican is not teaching heresy, but allowing ambiguity, playing out in the secular media, misleadingly taken out of context, disagreements that once were discussed privately. The current Reign of Ambiguity has dampened evangelism, weakened apologetics, sent misleading signals to orthodox Protestants who had been looking more to Rome during the previous pontificates.

But the current “correction” document, gleefully over-reported by the media, does more harm than good. It was not feared, but welcomed, by those who want to water down Catholic doctrine. They benefit from opponents like this - “See, this is what we progressives have to face!”

 

[StarMapp]

“WE” ?

Mat 18,15
15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone:

The world just doesn’t get it. The Hollywood apology just wasn’t in vogue back then. Due process, due process,…

Case closed.

 

[rcwitness]

AugustTherese:

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!

Yes, Ratzinger is describing what some were proposing. He then goes on to reject it.

Exactly! It’s a ridiculous attempt to misrepresent Pope Benedict VI!

Popes JPII and Benedict VI wrote very directly without any ambiguity. Their affirmations were clear and without possible misunderstanding. There could not have been a more straight foreword acknowledgment of “suggested pastoral solutions” and it’s subsequent rejection.

This is why Pope Francis owes the faithful a clear explanation of his pastoral direction.

 

[AugustTherese]

AugustTherese:

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!

Yes, Ratzinger is describing what some were proposing. He then goes on to reject it.

No, he wasn’t. Where do you get that from?

 

[AugustTherese]

Rau:

AugustTherese:

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!

Yes, Ratzinger is describing what some were proposing. He then goes on to reject it.

Exactly! It’s a ridiculous attempt to misrepresent Pope Benedict VI!

Popes JPII and Benedict VI wrote very directly without any ambiguity. Their affirmations were clear and without possible misunderstanding. There could not have been a more straight foreword acknowledgment of “suggested pastoral solutions” and it’s subsequent rejection.

This is why Pope Francis owes the faithful a clear explanation of his pastoral direction.

“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.” Reread this again: “BUT THE DIVORCED AND REMARRIED MEMBERS OF THE FAITHFUL COULD APPROACH HOLY COMMUNION IN SPECIFIC CASES”.

The only thing that needs clarity is the hardness of heart radical traditionalists very seemingly have towards the current successor of Saint Peter. This “ambiguity” does not rest in Pope Francis’ writings and/or words, but in the very hearts of the faithful that are trying to protest and contend the current Pontiff.

 

[rcwitness]

No AugustTherese, I have read and it is very simple to understand. Benedict was raising to attention the pastoral solution being proposed, and then rejects it. Pope JPII did the same thing.

**"3.In1 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 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 LONG AS THIS SITUATION PERSISTS(6). "

**

It does not get any clearer this!

 

[AugustTherese]

No AugustTherese, I have read and it is very simple to understand. Benedict was raising to attention the pastoral solution being proposed, and then rejects it. Pope JPII did the same thing.

**"3.In1 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 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 does not get any clearer this!

You’re absolutely right! My mistake, I misread it.

 

[rcwitness]

You’re absolutely right! My mistake, I misread it.

Oh, I am very relieved to hear you say that.

I don’t think that I would be jumping into signing this petition, because of some points that others have mentioned, however I strongly believe Pope Francis owes it to Pope’s JPII, Benedict and the Whole Catholic Church to formally acknowledge the contradiction of what he has proposed and encouraged and what has been Confirmed Catholic doctrine regarding this issue.

To not do so is contributing to a growing scandal.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

So a handful of cranks write a letter and its news? The only Bishop who signed it is from the SSPX, not exactly a credible judge of Church teaching. I’m sure it wouldn’t be that hard to find 62 signatures from the “other side” on this. This isn’t anything the Holy Father should feel compelled to respond to.

 

[rcwitness]

So a handful of cranks write a letter and its news? The only Bishop who signed it is from the SSPX, not exactly a credible judge of Church teaching. I’m sure it wouldn’t be that hard to find 62 signatures from the “other side” on this. This isn’t anything the Holy Father should feel compelled to respond to.

Who cares who is asking… it’s about the issue.

Obviously, this has caused great concern from laity to Cardinals.

Why ignore it, if many people are confused over it, or are understandably concerned he is advising something that goes against Church Doctrine???

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

I don’t think that many people are confused about it.