It means that at least some Catholics in an irregular marriage will be permitted to receive Holy Communion…period. In practice, this will likely greatly expand to include nearly all Catholics in an irregular marriage…period.The contradictions would be removed if someone just explained 1. What is meant (I’m not sure that my thinking is correct); 2. What will happen criteria and oversight, definitions!) and 3. Why now?
In 1968, 87 theologians made a public statement opposing Pope Paul VI on Humanae Vitae. Both that group, and the 2016 group, could have forwarded a confidential statement to their current pope, or directly to bishops. But both groups chose to adopt the secular political method, and went public.This is major! Excerpt from following article:
‘A gravely critical moment’: Catholic scholars call on bishops to support the four cardinals
The 23 scholars include members of pontifical institutions and major universities
Twenty-three Catholic scholars and pastors, three of them Oxford University academics, have given their names to a statement in support of the “four cardinals”, after the cardinals’ request to Pope Francis to clarify his apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia.
The scholars include Dr Robert Beddard, the former Vice-Provost of Oriel College, Oxford; Professor Luke Gormally, a member of the Pontifical Academy for Life; Dr Nicholas Richardson, Sub-Warden of Merton College, Oxford; and the philosophy professors Carlos A Guerra, Paolo Pasqualucci and Claudio Pierantoni.
Most of the 23 signatories also signed a previous letter to the College of Cardinals, asking them to request clarification of Amoris Laetitia.
The statement says that the four cardinals raise “pertinent and searching questions” about whether Church teaching on the sacraments and the moral law is to be upheld. They say that if the Pope fails to reaffirm Church teaching, it may be necessary for the cardinals to “collectively approach him with some form of fraternal correction, in the spirit of Paul’s admonition to his fellow apostle Peter at Antioch”. Cardinal Burke, one of the four cardinals, has indicated that such a move might be necessary.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/12/08/a-gravely-critical-moment-catholic-scholars-call-on-bishops-to-support-the-four-cardinals/
If scandal is the reason for not allowing the D&R to receive the Eucharist, how can the current annulment system not be equally as scandalous? Until the Holy Father’s intervention it was costly ($2500 in my diocese according to a couple I know that looked into it, so it would have been $5000 for them as each had prior bonds), varied from diocese to diocese and the sheer numbers of annulments in the Western world would be damning for the Church either way you slice it: either it proves that the Church’s marriage prep is gravely deficient, or it proves the critics right, that it really is “Divorce, Catholic-style”.Perhaps the cardinals are using this process to drive more discussion on the underlying issue which is, I think, not whether the remarried can participate fully in the Eucharist (they cannot for reasons of scandal; not subjective culpability)
Going to have to be pedantic here and point out that the doctrine of Papal Infallibility is very specific when it is, and when it is not, applicable according to its formal definition in the documents of Vatican I and its later reiteration at Vatican II. It’s not correct to simply say that “the Pope is kept free of doctrinal error” as if it applies in all situations and circumstances as we know this not to be true from historical examples, namely Honorius I, John XXII (who recanted before death).Indeed, in fact we are promised that the Church and the Pope are kept free of doctrinal error by the Holy Spirit.
If we don’t believe that, then the whole edifice in which our faith is nourished would be a hoax. I prefer to put my trust in Christ’s promise.
I’m just a humble lay penitent trying to shuffle along this mortal coil. I will say “all of it” when stating it is free from error.So I ask again, please let me in on what development of doctrine the Pope has given us in A.L. that is free of error?
Yes but, I will refer you to my immediately preceding post.Going to have to be pedantic here and point out that the doctrine of Papal Infallibility is very specific when it is, and when it is not, applicable according to its formal definition in the documents of Vatican I and its later reiteration at Vatican II. It’s not correct to simply say that “the Pope is kept free of doctrinal error” as if it applies in all situations and circumstances as we know this not to be true from historical examples, namely Honorius I, John XXII (who recanted before death).
I think the ambiguity and confusion are like allowing the Trojan horse to enter the main gate. Further explanation is put forth by Thomas White via post #816 of this thread.Yes but, I will refer you to my immediately preceding post.
I am (and almost all of us here) are not qualified to state categorically that the Holy Father is committing doctrinal error.
I’m just a humble lay penitent trying to shuffle along this mortal coil. I will say “all of it” when stating it is free from error.
**That’s not an answer. Please tell me what development of doctrine the Pope has given us in A.L. that the Holy Spirit guaranties to be free of error? **
Who am I, as a humble lay penitent, to call the Holy Father on any possible error?
You know no one would ask that of you; it’s a straw man.
No, there is nothing changed here. The Church in the CCC clearly spells out what makes mortal sin, mortal sin and even the old Baltimore Catechism spelled it out. Culpability always have extenuating factors. We cannot continue to ignore this in the debate.Now suddenly some are saying that AL shows that what was once taught as being deadly to the soul, is not mortal sin in some cases.
Francis ought to answer the five dubia for the good of the Catholic Church. It is indisputable that AL has caused confusion among segments of the Faithful; consequently, Pope Francis has good reason to clarify the meaning of the text. The silence of Pope Francis leaves him open to accusations that he has failed in his ‘most sacred duty;’ and that he is the author of confusion and contention. Francis’s continued silence enables one to infer that the Holy Father does not believe in the doctrinal statements of his immediate predecessors - most notably Pope St. John Paul II.The office divinely committed to Us of feeding the Lord’s flock has especially this duty assigned to it by Christ, namely, to guard with the greatest vigilance the deposit of the faith delivered to the saints, rejecting the profane novelties of words and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called. There has never been a time when this watchfulness of the supreme pastor was not necessary to the Catholic body; for, owing to the efforts of the enemy of the human race, there have never been lacking “men speaking perverse things” (Acts xx. 30), “vain talkers and seducers” (Tit. i. 10), “erring and driving into error” (2 Tim. iii. 13). Still it must be confessed that the number of the enemies of the cross of Christ has in these last days increased exceedingly, who are striving, by arts, entirely new and full of subtlety, to destroy the vital energy of the Church, and, if they can, to overthrow utterly Christ’s kingdom itself.** Wherefore We may no longer be silent, lest We should seem to fail in Our most sacred duty, and lest the kindness that, in the hope of wiser counsels, We have hitherto shown them, should be attributed to forgetfulness of Our office.**
There is a lot more to Church doctrine regarding reception of Holy Communion than mortal sin.I’m siding with the Church’s well-established doctrine on mortal sin, and on the Holy Father (including in Amoris Laetitia) to have this figured out.
The reception of Holy Communion is a statement that we fully accept the doctrines of the Church and agree to abide by them, not directly oppose them. One who is divorced and remarried is in a state, not necessarily of mortal sin, but a state that is objectively opposed to the union of Christ and His Church. St Paul specifically told us of the direct correlation between marriage and the relationship between Christ and His Church. ( Eph 5) That is violated in adultery.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.
The CCC also explicitly states that adultery is an objectively sinful action (CCC1756). Being in a sacramental marriage is also an objective state of being. It’s not that adultery in the case of the civilly divorced and remarried is “simply” the private (but mortal) sin of sex outside of marriage. It’s sex with someone else whilst in a marriage to another. In so doing it’s a fundamental rejection of the Sacrament of Marriage and the indissoluble covenant between two persons, and gives a public scandal. Reduced culpability for accidental lapses in chastity in a couple who are divorced and civilly remarried, but who strive to live the Church’s teachings and have a firm purpose of amendment, is a very different issue to the couple who have no intention to amend their ways, no intention to regularise themselves with God, and no intention to convert from a lifestyle of sin. To enable the latter is tantamount to legitimising a lifestyle of objectively sinful actions.No, there is nothing changed here. The Church in the CCC clearly spells out what makes mortal sin, mortal sin and even the old Baltimore Catechism spelled it out. Culpability always have extenuating factors. We cannot continue to ignore this in the debate.
The real argument is not whether culpability can be reduced in any kind of sin (it can; this is Church doctrine), it is whether the extenuating factors must be severe and obvious to reduce culpability, or whether less outwardly obvious psychological issues may reduce culpability.
Some here have suggested one practically must be raped for culpability to be reduced in the case of sexual sin.
Others (like myself and in fact, Amoris Laetitia) refer to the Church’s own example for the grave sin of masturbation where numerous psychological factors such as immaturity and addiction may act on reducing culpability.
I’m siding with the Church’s well-established doctrine on mortal sin, and on the Holy Father (including in Amoris Laetitia) to have this figured out.
Because math. I quoted earlier in this discussion the number of bishops. Now if we consider how many theologians live in each diocese, it is hard to consider 23 a “huge” number.Why so?
This assumes (or deducts) that this is a doctrine of the Church. Is there documentation where this doctrine was pronounced as doctrine? So far the answer has not come forth. Some Cardinals believe this is true. Some do not. It the synod is any indication of the Church, it is not a doctrine. Also, has been pointed out many times, St. John Paul used the word “practice” in describing what was needed for one to receive communion. Did he teach it? Well, he taught that it was a practice and that was enough.So the choice seems to be either: a) The Church has always been right and Communion for the sexually active D&R is impossible.
Seriously, what is an “accidental” lapse in chastity? How often would these “accidental” lapses be permitted?Reduced culpability for accidental lapses in chastity in a couple who are divorced and civilly remarried, but who strive to live the Church’s teachings and have a firm purpose of amendment, is a very different issue to the couple who have no intention to amend their ways, no intention to regularise themselves with God, and no intention to convert from a lifestyle of sin. To enable the latter is tantamount to legitimising a lifestyle of objectively sinful actions.
I’m assuming by “this” in your first sentence you’re referring to the argument that Holy Communion cannot be received by those in states of objective mortal sin. Whether that’s in the specific case of adultery or another sin the answer is the same.This assumes (or deducts) that this is a doctrine of the Church. Is there documentation where this doctrine was pronounced as doctrine? So far the answer has not come forth. Some Cardinals believe this is true. Some do not. It the synod is any indication of the Church, it is not a doctrine. Also, has been pointed out many times, St. John Paul used the word “practice” in describing what was needed for one to receive communion. Did he teach it? Well, he taught that it was a practice and that was enough.
“Accidental” is a poor choice on words on my behalf. Mea culpa, it’s 1am here and I’m trying to type quickly…Seriously, what are “accidental” lapses in chastity? How often would these “accidental” lapses be permitted?