B
R
rcwitness
Guest
“All from Francis” isn’t that the heart of the matter? Can he Confirm these can justify remaining in a second marriage with magisterial authority (ex-cathedra)?
If he cannot, there will continue to be ligitimate doubts to its orthodoxy.
P
pnewton
Guest
If you are going to put something in quotes, then by rules of grammar it must be exactly the same. You cannot omit the word “Pope” because you find it distasteful or do not believe it.
B
BlackFriar
Guest
No I did not say that.
Pope Francis has developed JPII who has developed those before him.
Do you believe Communion for abstentors was possible before 1983?
Do you believe that was in tradition?
Popes stand on the shoulders of those who went before them.
Nothing drops from a clear blue sky in things Magisterial from my observations.
But new things do rise to the surface from old things
You didn’t respond whether you have closely read AL?
Last edited:
G
Ghosty1981
Guest
No worries. I don’t find any passages in AL particularly vague or hard to grasp, so I have nothing to cite in answer to you. My difficulty is with the lack of clarification regarding how AL is to be applied given that it doesn’t address one of the major barriers to the remarried receiving the Sacraments, and with some of the varying guidelines that are supposedly derived from AL yet come to different conclusions about the reception of the Sacraments by the remarried.
The Maltese Bishops claim that they received Pope Francis’ blessing for their guidelines, but so do the Argentine Bishops. The Argentine Bishops do address “manifest grave sin”, at least implicitly, in their saying that the Sacraments may have to be received privately, and the Argentine guidelines do not appear to take discretion away from the Pastor (though perhaps this is a matter of translation). Some Bishops have said that the practice of the Church has not changed at all, and that the remarried are still denied Communion. All of this is met with official silence and a lack of clarity, and I find this troubling.
I am not bothered by the divorced and remarried receiving Communion just because it hasn’t been allowed in the past, but I am concerned about the reasoning (or lack thereof) for such a change in practice. Amoris Laetitia in itself does not really bother me, though it is challenging in some respects; it is the cloud that has arisen because of Amoris Laetitia, and the apparent failure to address legitimate concerns arising from it.
Peace and God bless!
The Maltese Bishops claim that they received Pope Francis’ blessing for their guidelines, but so do the Argentine Bishops. The Argentine Bishops do address “manifest grave sin”, at least implicitly, in their saying that the Sacraments may have to be received privately, and the Argentine guidelines do not appear to take discretion away from the Pastor (though perhaps this is a matter of translation). Some Bishops have said that the practice of the Church has not changed at all, and that the remarried are still denied Communion. All of this is met with official silence and a lack of clarity, and I find this troubling.
I am not bothered by the divorced and remarried receiving Communion just because it hasn’t been allowed in the past, but I am concerned about the reasoning (or lack thereof) for such a change in practice. Amoris Laetitia in itself does not really bother me, though it is challenging in some respects; it is the cloud that has arisen because of Amoris Laetitia, and the apparent failure to address legitimate concerns arising from it.
Peace and God bless!
Last edited:
R
rcwitness
Guest
The point that you are neglecting, is that people are seeking Apostolic confirmation regarding whether he is “developing” or contradicting.rcwitness:
No I did not say that.
Pope Francis has developed JPII who has developed those before him.
Do you believe Communion for abstentors was possible before 1983?
Do you believe that was in tradition?
Popes stand on the shoulders of those who went before them.
Nothing drops from a clear blue sky in things Magisterial from my observations.
But new things do rise to the surface from old things
You didn’t respond whether you have closely read AL?
And no, I haven’t read all of it. I’ve listened to the arguements. But I’m not saying that I’d sign this petition either. I have always expressed a desire for POPE Francis to use Magisterial authority to declare what he is proposing. It is obviously a ligitimate appeal.
I, personally, think clergy should be left to sort it out.
B
BlackFriar
Guest
It isn’t “my” list.
It is what the last three Popes have stated or imply.
I have no reason to believe the Maltese Bishops deny them simply because they may not have clearly articulated all of them.
The CCC always translates the 5thC as “You shall not kill.” That doesn’t mean lethal self defence is unlawful. Everything has an implied context. Viewing statements in imposed isolation is never helpful in a discussion.
It is what the last three Popes have stated or imply.
I have no reason to believe the Maltese Bishops deny them simply because they may not have clearly articulated all of them.
The CCC always translates the 5thC as “You shall not kill.” That doesn’t mean lethal self defence is unlawful. Everything has an implied context. Viewing statements in imposed isolation is never helpful in a discussion.
Last edited:
B
BlackFriar
Guest
I was actually saying your points are hard to relate to AL if you cannot ground them in against actual quotes.
I don’t follow you. Which barrier? Do you mean Canon 915?
If so why do you say that exactly? What part of 915 unequivocally prohibits all sexually active irregulars from receiving?
R
rcwitness
Guest
Obviously, because of the way JPII and Benedict VI have spoken about invalidly remarried receiving Communion, Pope Francis is going to have to rely on Magisterial authority, if he expects his proposal to not cause a lot of division and rejection. It’s a reasonable concern and request.
B
BlackFriar
Guest
You will have to excuse me for bowing out then.
It is hard to take discussion with you seriously if you are unwilling to take your protagonist seriously and read him for yourself and form your own judgements when debating with others who have.
Last edited:
R
rcwitness
Guest
I will make the time to read it. But it’s the principle I’m addressing, not the details. It’s either morally acceptable in some cases, or its not. You are trying to talk your way out of that dilemma.rcwitness:
You will have to excuse me for bowing out then.
It is hard to take discussion with you seriously if you are unwilling to take your protagonist seriously and read him for yourself and form your own judgements when debating with others who have.
You are neglecting the fact that JPII and Benedict VI have addressed the solutions, and rejected them. No amount of “complicated situations” will change that, unless Francis is able to rely on Magisterial authority to support his theology.
G
Ghosty1981
Guest
If that is your approach then perhaps you don’t believe that error or heresy actually exists. We can always assume some unstated principles that make apparently erroneous statements correct, but this can be just as much a disservice as assuming nefarious motives. I will not assume reasoning that is not presented just because I expect that solid reasoning is there, nor out of some false sense of charity. People make mistakes, even Bishops, and mistakes on matters such as this can have dangerous (if unintended) consequences.
I want to make it clear that I am not accusing anyone of heresy, merely pointing out that in delicate matters such as this it behooves us to carefully lay out our reasoning and answer objections. I haven’t seen the Pope do this, and it troubles me. I don’t believe it is from malice, and I don’t believe he has some hidden agenda, but his approach does bother me and I believe it is leading to trouble. I will be very happy if I’m wrong, and I likely am, but that won’t stop me from voicing my concerns.
And I’m saying that my problem isn’t with what AL says, but with what it doesn’t. How am I supposed to quote something that isn’t there? When it comes to the Maltese guidelines I readily quote what bothers me because it isn’t just the absence of reasoning, but the actual reasoning the Maltese Bishops present.
G
Ghosty1981
Guest
I will simply present the moral reasoning that informs Canon 915, as presented by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:
If this is no longer the stance of the Church, it bears open and direct explanation. If it is still the stance of the Church, then I believe we deserve an explanation as to how the proposed change in practice follows this directive.
Peace and God bless!
Last edited:
R
rcwitness
Guest
I agree. And I believe its going to take an infallible decision to satisfy the issue, because of the historical conclusions already reached. This may be why Pope Francis is unable to address it. Because he is unable to speak with Magisterial authority.
But if he does, I will accept it. As it is, I have doubts because of the sharp contrast with his predecessors.
B
BlackFriar
Guest
Lets stay grounded with AL: Malta Guidelines.
I am defending the common sense observation it is in accord with AL even if it doesn’t spell everything out.
I take its opening paragraphs at face value:
"Therefore, in line with the directions given by Pope Francis, we, the Bishops of Malta and Gozo, are offering these guidelines… It is important that the following guidelines be read in the light of the
indicated references."
And those references all come from AL.
Therefore I have no reason to believe the Maltese Bishops deny the criteria more clearly spelt out or referenced in AL simply because they may not have re- articulated all of them.
R
Rau
Guest
If you mean “ex cathedra”, they are so few and far between, the chance is very low.
If you mean something else…elaborate…
G
Ghosty1981
Guest
I agree that they do not deny any criteria set forth by Amoris Laetitia, but the criteria are not all spelled out in Amoris Laetitia, and we can not simply assume that Amoris Laetitia follows on previous teachings because the previous teachings left no room for Communion in circumstances that Amoris Laetitia allows. It can’t be argued that the rulings of the Congregation simply didn’t address the nuances that Amoris Laetitia illuminates, as they explicitly discuss the internal forum, culpability, difficult circumstances, and so on, and they also address matters left untouched by Amoris Laetitia such as manifest grave sin.
Again, if Amoris Laetitia does indeed follow from the previous tradition and rulings, then it warrants explaining how “some cases for Communion” arises from “no exceptions for individual circumstances”. If Amoris Laetitia does not follow from the previous tradition and rulings, then it warrants explaining how this shift is justified given the extensive and precise reasoning applied previously.
I’m not saying things can’t be rectified, I’m saying that they haven’t been.
Peace and God bless!
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
AL is loosely worded and ranges over many (if not all) of the criteria you listed in your bullet list, hypothesizing about the various circumstances that might pertain in various cases. But - AL does not express definitive criteria. The best that can be said is that these bullet points are presented as matters to consider and weigh. From memory, no set of criteria are numerated that allow Communion (though I recall one or two criteria identified with the clear implication that they rule it out).
If it was expected that Bishops would enumerate well defined formulae - that hasn’t happened (not in public documents anyway). In fact AL stated that no rule could fairly address the full range of circumstances.
Last edited:
B
BlackFriar
Guest
In other words we simply go back to JPII and FC which above is based on.
So then the usual difficulties face your view also :
(a) If you believe in the doctrine of Magisterial harmony as normative (rather than assume heresy just because something develops) then JPII can be reconciled if FC is seen as essentially prudential or
disciplinary regardless.
(b) If Pope Francis’s development is allegedly breaking traditional Communion doctrine then you need to explain JPII’s innovation which also broke tradition (Communion OK for those in 2nd marriages if needed for the good of the children. And this holds even if they are in fact regularly failing to abstain).
So then the usual difficulties face your view also :
(a) If you believe in the doctrine of Magisterial harmony as normative (rather than assume heresy just because something develops) then JPII can be reconciled if FC is seen as essentially prudential or
disciplinary regardless.
(b) If Pope Francis’s development is allegedly breaking traditional Communion doctrine then you need to explain JPII’s innovation which also broke tradition (Communion OK for those in 2nd marriages if needed for the good of the children. And this holds even if they are in fact regularly failing to abstain).