"Filial correction"

[BlackFriar]

You do seem to be countering just for the sake of countering as you have gone off on a tangent.

You originally appeared to suggest the Maltese bishops did not adhere to the list of 17 criteria I provided (which shows that the numbers of receiving irregulars that people are worrying about is going to be very small indeed).

If you haven’t already, please read the Maltese guidelines (they are quite brief), and see how your list compares to the standards they present.

I think my point is made well enough.

 

[BlackFriar]

Agreed.
Discernment is not about ticking off a checklist of requirements.
My original point was that these are clearly present as obvious starting eligibility criteria.
Those who fall outside are unlikely to get off the blocks.

It also means the number of irregulars people are concerned about receiving Communion is likely a very very small percentage of the available pool.

Yes abuses are likely to happen as things bed in - which is the case for any tectonic shift in anything.

 

[rcwitness]

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).

Where did JPII teach this?

 

[BlackFriar]

If you are not aware of this then, coupled with your admission above you have not really read AL, I think you have been wading into waters for some time now that are too deep for you.

 

[rcwitness]

That difficult to reference, huh?

 

[Ghosty1981]

You originally appeared to suggest the Maltese bishops did not adhere to the list of 17 criteria I provided (which shows that the numbers of receiving irregulars that people are worrying about is going to be very small indeed).

Let me make it very plain then: there is no list of criteria presented in AL. There is an exhortation to discern individual cases carefully and mercifully, but no criteria as such.

If I am wrong then please cite them, because having read the document I found nothing like the list you presented.

 

[Rau]

Those who fall outside are unlikely to get off the blocks.

I dunno. The accompanying priest will do as he considers best and I pity him the task.

 

[Rau]

That difficult to reference, huh?

After reading Ch 8 of AL, look at FC again. If one repents (sincerely) and can undertake to live as brother and sister (genuinely), that is enough, even if one despite best efforts fails. This latter point need not even be said - it’s forgiveness.

 

[Rau]

If I am wrong then please cite them, because having read the document I found nothing like the list you presented.

I addressed just that earlier. You won’t find a consolidated list.

 

[Ghosty1981]

(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.

Perhaps, but it does not present itself as such. To relegate it to this status would require some explanation that is lacking so far.

(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).

Familiaris Consortio broke with traditional practice, but not with doctrine, and not even necessarily with existing Canon Law. The condition placed on reception of the Eucharist was that both formal and material sin be removed; living with someone that is not your spouse is neither grave matter nor formal sin, and sexual relations were to be given up. While this change might make some uncomfortable, it can’t be denied that both material and formal sin are removed if the remarried couple attempts to live as brother and sister; people might assume sin, but neither material nor formal sin are present.

In the case of some of the guidelines that follow from AL the grave matter is not removed, as the couple is not required to pursue continence, so grave matter remains at the very least. Indeed, this is where the argument becomes almost entirely about culpability, yet previous rulings held that mitigated culpability was not grounds for admission to the Sacraments in cases of remarriage, and these rulings stated they were based on doctrine and not discipline. Perhaps those rulings were made in error, but an explanation is needed.

 

[Ghosty1981]

I addressed just that earlier. You won’t find a consolidated list.

I figure as much, but BlackFriar seems intent to hold up that list as being based on tradition or practice. He appeals to this list as though it can be “assumed” even when not mentioned, as if it carries the weight of previous practice and rulings. In reality I can find only one standing criteria for reception of Communion, and that is that an irregular couple that can’t separate seek to live in continence. There was nothing about being civilly divorced, civilly remarried, seeking an annulment and receiving a judgement, ect.

The one criteria that can be reasonably assumed to have standing without explicit mention is denied by the guidelines, so I question how we can assume any of the criteria in the list, especially since they were not established previously.

Honestly though, I’m not concerned about the number of cases that would fall under the new directives, but only with the soundness and clarity of the reasoning. I don’t believe we can fairly assume criteria that are not present in order to cover an absence of clarity and direction.

 

[BlackFriar]

You may be overthinking this.
These are the obvious criteria that can easily be gleaned from Magisterial comment from AL to FC and Canon Law re even the possibility of Communion for those in 2nd marriages.

That would mean only a very small fraction of irregulars would ever get off the starting blocks with discernment priests/Dioceses who actually follow Pope Francis on this.

If these are enunciated criteria are not self evident to you from the named documents then there is nothing more to be said. I am confident most who have read these documents in an unbiased fashion can make up their own minds correctly on this point.

 

[BlackFriar]

The condition placed on reception of the Eucharist was that **both formal and material sin be removed; living with someone that is not your spouse is neither grave matter nor formal sin, and sexual relations were to be given up

Can you quote a Magisterial or CDF document that agrees with you on this?
In fact you will find the opposite methinks.

Clearly you are mistaken by the boldened section where you attempt to speak of irregulars.
We are clearly speaking of those civilly remarried with common children not best friends who happen to have separate rooms in the same house and don’t share their lives.

It is very clear that 2nd civil marriages (and even just a civil divorce) are gravely objectively disordered and such acts result in enduring gravely disordered states. Jesus clearly spoke against such.
And many such instances may well be formal grave sin also - sex or no sex.

You are the first person I have come across in these sorts of discussions who attempts to deny this.
Its a significant misunderstanding of what is going on and how the Church views these aberrations.

 

[BlackFriar]

They would be quite obvious to most experienced priests.
Sure, like any innovation, refresher courses will be needed.

Presumably the same happened when JPII introduced the abstention innovation.
Did we see a plethora of unworthy communicants break ranks in the 1980s?
I don’t recall any PPs being dragged through the coals by lay watchdogs or bishops or the CDF.

 

[rcwitness]

rcwitness:

That difficult to reference, huh?

After reading Ch 8 of AL, look at FC again. If one repents (sincerely) and can undertake to live as brother and sister (genuinely), that is enough, even if one despite best efforts fails. This latter point need not even be said - it’s forgiveness.

Thank you. I will look into those.

Forgiveness is always the good choice. If Jesus forgave those who were crucify in Him, then what should not be forgiven?

 

[1Lord1Faith]

I figure as much, but BlackFriar seems intent to hold up that list as being based on tradition or practice. He appeals to this list as though it can be “assumed” even when not mentioned, as if it carries the weight of previous practice and rulings.

Enumerating rules would be a huge step backwards in the Church. Pope Francis is trying to implement a more mature spirituality in the Church, not one based on so many objective assumptions.

I think the reasoning you are looking for, in regards to a list of criteria, can be found in n.304 of AL - the quote of Aquinas, which is as follows:

1. It is reductive simply to consider whether or not an individual’s actions correspond to a general law or rule, because that is not enough to discern and ensure full fidelity to God in the concrete life of a human being. I earnestly ask that we always recall a teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas and learn to incorporate it in our pastoral discernment: “Although there is necessity in the general principles, the more we descend to matters of detail, the more frequently we encounter defects… In matters of action, truth or practical rectitude is not the same for all, as to matters of detail, but only as to the general principles; and where there is the same rectitude in matters of detail, it is not equally known to all… The principle will be found to fail, according as we descend further into detail”. It is true that general rules set forth a good which can never be disregarded or neglected, but in their formulation they cannot provide absolutely for all particular situations. At the same time, it must be said that, precisely for that reason, what is part of a practical discernment in particular circumstanc- es cannot be elevated to the level of a rule. That would not only lead to an intolerable casuistry, but would endanger the very values which must be preserved with special care.

AL is about addressing the details that the general principles cannot address without wrecking the rectitude of the details. Hopefully I said that right.

 

[pnewton]

If you mean “ex cathedra”, they are so few and far between, the chance is very low.

If you mean something else…elaborate…

I have answered this a dozen times with nary a response. If what is demanded is a definitive ex cathedra answer, then I like to ask where it has ever been defined that they can’t receive under any circumstance. Don’t get me wrong. I know the principle is old, yet I also know that St. John Paul, who always chose his words carefully, referred to it as a practice.

And it is a very practical practice. Practically the most practical practice possible.

But saying there might be rare exceptions does not invalidate a practice or principle. Probably.

 

[BlackFriar]

Archbishop Paglia recently emphasised that JPII was an innovator, likely more so than Pope Francis re Communion for “adulterers”.
And Pope Francis is his best interpreter in carrying forward the innovations of FC.

Paglia: "What I think is that Pope Francis has interpreted, more deeply than others, the significance of Familiaris Consortio. I’m beyond convinced of that. I’ll tell you why: Pope Francis has carried forward, lifted up, certain intuitions present in Familiaris Consortio that weren’t really made explicit in a terribly high-profile way.

I can give you a clear example, which is the divorced and remarried. The real revolution there happened under John Paul II, not Francis, which hasn’t really yet been understood. You have to remember that before [Familiaris Consortio], it wasn’t that the divorced and remarried just couldn’t get Communion, it was they were practically excommunicated and expelled. They were outsiders. After John Paul, everybody was inside the house … I can’t just send them out on the terrace!

In that sense, I want to insist that the best interpreter of John Paul II is Pope Francis."

https://cruxnow.com/interviews/2017/09/23/paglia-pope-not-backing-pro-life-cause-hes-doubling/

 

[Ghosty1981]

Enumerating rules would be a huge step backwards in the Church. Pope Francis is trying to implement a more mature spirituality in the Church, not one based on so many objective assumptions.

Believe it or not I agree with you. Don’t mistake me for someone that wants a perfect checklist for reception of the Sacraments; I am only pursuing this issue because BlackFriar brought up such criteria as a bulwark against potential errors, but I’ve seen no such criteria. I would rather see general principles and more directed Pastoral guidance become the norm as much as possible. I would just like these general principles to be clear, reasonable, and grounded in Scripture and Tradition.

The difficulty in our current situation is that it is not immediately clear to many:
a) how the current proposed practice is in keeping with the traditional moral teaching of the Church, and
b) what the general principles actually are.

I hope and pray that this period confusion is brought to an amicable conclusion.

 

[Ghosty1981]

Can you quote a Magisterial or CDF document that agrees with you on this?

In fact you will find the opposite methinks.

Clearly you are mistaken by the boldened section where you attempt to speak of irregulars.

We are clearly speaking of those civilly remarried with common children not best friends who happen to have separate rooms in the same house and don’t share their lives.

At the moment I can only cite Familiaris Consortio, which states:

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.”

Sharing a home, raising children, and sharing lives do not constitute a way of life that contradicts the indissolubility of marriage. If you know of documents that indicate something different I am happy to read them.