Jesuit general: all doctrine is subject to discernment [CWN]

[Pulvis]

Someone said this today:
“Do come back to us when you have serious references other than repetition of your own personal lay theology.”

I knew I wouldnt need to look far to find examples of the personal lay theology you have been filling these boards with. It is beyond absurb to state that any pope after St.Peter himself has been a source of revelation. Again, people need to aquaint themselves with the distinction between revelation and doctrine, and between the office of the apostles and the teaching office of the church in the Popes and the Bishops.

Now, let the adominems flow. The pattern I have picked up is when you are caught making an elementary error, they follow in a blessed flood.

 

[JPUSC]

More God the Father; less “Holy Father.”

 

[RCinMT]

LOL, back to the old CAF tactic of dismissing by charging ignorance instead of actually discussing. I assure you that I am well catechized, but thanks for your concern.

LOL; back to the old tactic of trying to quash discussion by accusing others of insults.

Discussion is for situations in which different interpretations are possible. In the case of divorce and remarriage, Church teaching–including the words of Christ as recorded in the NT–is not up for discussion. Even the pope admits that a valid marriage is a valid marriage so I don’t know what he wants to discuss (especially in light of his own tactics with regard to those who disagree with him).

No matter what happens, the Church is universal and there are certain aspects of the Church that do not vary from location to location. You seem to imply that there is room for different practices with regard to the Eucharist from place to place–I assure you, there is not. That is not part of the universality of the Church. I want you to think about the profundity of that statement: there are jurisdictional lines, if you will, that delineate diocesan boundaries. How would one describe, for instance, two towns that are five miles apart in which one town’s RC church provides communion for divorced people engaged in adulterous affairs while in the next town over the RC church does not?

 

[TMC]

LOL; back to the old tactic of trying to quash discussion by accusing others of insults.

Discussion is for situations in which different interpretations are possible. In the case of divorce and remarriage, Church teaching–including the words of Christ as recorded in the NT–is not up for discussion. Even the pope admits that a valid marriage is a valid marriage so I don’t know what he wants to discuss (especially in light of his own tactics with regard to those who disagree with him).

No matter what happens, the Church is universal and there are certain aspects of the Church that do not vary from location to location. You seem to imply that there is room for different practices with regard to the Eucharist from place to place–I assure you, there is not. That is not part of the universality of the Church. I want you to think about the profundity of that statement: there are jurisdictional lines, if you will, that delineate diocesan boundaries. How would one describe, for instance, two towns that are five miles apart in which one town’s RC church provides communion for divorced people engaged in adulterous affairs while in the next town over the RC church does not?

You may have concluded that your opinion is the only interpretation possible. Clearly the Pope feels differently, along with the majority of the bishops.

As for differing interpretations over dioceses, again, the Church has experienced growing pains in the interpretations of doctrine in the past, and will again in the future. The Church is working through it now, as it has in the past.

 

[Ghosty]

LOL; back to the old tactic of trying to quash discussion by accusing others of insults.

Discussion is for situations in which different interpretations are possible. In the case of divorce and remarriage, Church teaching–including the words of Christ as recorded in the NT–is not up for discussion. Even the pope admits that a valid marriage is a valid marriage so I don’t know what he wants to discuss (especially in light of his own tactics with regard to those who disagree with him).

No matter what happens, the Church is universal and there are certain aspects of the Church that do not vary from location to location. You seem to imply that there is room for different practices with regard to the Eucharist from place to place–I assure you, there is not. That is not part of the universality of the Church. I want you to think about the profundity of that statement: there are jurisdictional lines, if you will, that delineate diocesan boundaries. How would one describe, for instance, two towns that are five miles apart in which one town’s RC church provides communion for divorced people engaged in adulterous affairs while in the next town over the RC church does not?

I think the problem lies less with differences in practice between jurisdictions and more with the underlying moral and theological justifications for such differences.

In the Church we have both infant and adolescent first Communion, for example. The current practice of adolescent Communion in the Latin Church even varies somewhat between diocese. My young daughter is Melkite, and has been receiving Communion since before she had teeth, and we sometimes run into difficulty and confusion with her receiving Communion in Latin parishes. She is spiritually predisposed to receive, and it is beneficial to her so I try to encourage it when we attend a Roman Mass, but the difference in practice between the Melkites and Romans with regard to this Sacrament does present certain difficulties.

There is not a difference in the underlying moral and theological foundation of reception of Communion between these Churches and jurisdictions, however, and therefore such differences may seem stark, especially when Latin theology tends to emphasize “the age of reason” when encouraging later Communion, but they really come down to prudential judgement on the part of the Bishops.

With the current situation involving remarriage and Communion, however, we are seeing some apparently radical departures in moral theology with regard to the Sacraments. I can envision a circumstance in which two people appeared to be Sacramentally married, even to the point that. Marriage Tribunal would not grant a decree of nullity, but yet one or both parties may be morally certain that there was no Sacramental Marriage in fact. With proper discernment and spiritual guidance I have no difficulties with such people receiving Communion even if they are not able to formally reconcile their current mariage with the Church. Such situations may be rare, but they are worthy of consideration and accomodation. To my mind the Argentinean approach seems to have these type of situations at heart.

On the other hand we have a moral argument that appears to say that if these people simply feel at peace with God thrn they are sufficiently disposed to receive Communion, and this is what I have extreme difficulty with. Our feelings are subject to all kinds of influence, and are no substitute for the objective teachings of God. It is one thing to say that subjective circumstances change our consideration of a case, it is another to say that the feelings of the subject determine the objective circumstances.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

No. I refer you to the Catechism, paragraphs 66 and 67 in particular. I think most educated Catholics would be quite comfortable with this fact.

Most Christians don’t get themselves Crucified to expiate the sins of humanity. There is context for everything, and merely saying that Christ acted a certain way does not suffice to show that such an action is always appropriate in every circumstance, nor does it go without saying that the two situations are comparable.

If I am giving directions on how to perform surgery it is inappropriate to leave the instructions vague and open to debate. Obviously things can’t always be neatly layed out, and no rule can account for all contingencies, but to argue that vagueness is always an appropriate form of direction and leadership requires a stronger argument than merely pointing out that Christ sometimes let some followers fall away without clarifying His teachings.

Ghosty it is laughable to opine that a leader of a faith based community who chooses not to further clarify a difficult teaching for a time is “by definition” showing poor leadership.

Give it up, I and most of us here have already.

I leave you with Jesus’s own clear example of doing exactly this:

"Many of his disciples said, “This is very hard to understand. How can anyone accept it…From that time on, many of His disciples turned back”

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Originally Posted by Blue Horizon View Post
Can you quote from Trent where it anathematises any irregulars ever being able to receive Communion as a matter of doctrine?

Thanks for confirming you cannot find such in Trent.

(BTW the word was “any” not “all”.)

 

[Ghosty]

Ghosty it is laughable to opine that a leader of a faith based community who chooses not to further clarify a difficult teaching for a time is “by definition” showing poor leadership.

Give it up, I and most of us here have already.

I leave you with Jesus’s own clear example of doing exactly this:

Your example fails because the difficulty did not lie with the dsiciples not understanding, but rather not acceptibg what was plainly being taught. Those that turned away were no longer diaciples, and Christ made quite clear that the teaching was plain. At other times when there was confusion about a parable Christ would explain privately to his disciples, and this has come down to us in Tradition as well as Scripture in some cases. In this case there was no further explanation because there was no need, as borne out by the Eucharistic Tradition of the Apostolic Churches down to this very day. In short the initial statement was the explanation, and it was indeed a pronouncement; some rejected the pronouncement of Christ’s Flesh being food indeed and the source of Eternal Life, and they left.

In our current circumstance we have something different. We have some bishops saying that the Tradition remains unchanged, and others saying that the permanence of marriage comes down to what amounts to subjective feeling. At any rate the “new teaching” must be squared with the traditional understanding and approach, because on its face it is not apparent how, say, the Maltese and German interpretations and approaches fit within the traditional understanding of marriage, sexual relations, and conscience when approaching Confession and Communion. Since there is doubt on these aspects of Sacramental and Moral theology, with diametrically opposed interpretations standing firm within the Church, leadership would seem to require some form of pronouncement.

Christ did pronounce, and some fell away because they could not accept. The Pope has not publically made a pronouncement, at least not with regard to the increasingly divergent interpretations that are being embraced and enacted. One might argue that this is a kind of teaching, but it is hardly leadership.

 

[Ghosty]

Thanks for confirming you cannot find such in Trent.

(BTW the word was “any” not “all”.)

It’s a strawman, and also a search for a negative. I never said that all of those in irregular marriage are barred from Communion according to Trent.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Quote:Ghosty
A post-synodal exhortation on moral praxis is not Divine Revelation guided by the Holy Spirit.

It is clear you do not accept that Pope Francis has directed rightly in AL Ghosty.
You can play with words all you like but you are going to convince no Catholic here that an Apostolic Exhortation can never be any more than the fallible personal views of an ordinary man.

Indeed he may well be making explicit the hidden treasures of Divine Revelation under the HS which you seem unable to even countenance as possible from your better educated lay position?

 

[RCinMT]

You may have concluded that your opinion is the only interpretation possible. Clearly the Pope feels differently, along with the majority of the bishops.

The majority of the bishops? When was this put to a vote?

As for differing interpretations over dioceses, again, the Church has experienced growing pains in the interpretations of doctrine in the past, and will again in the future. The Church is working through it now, as it has in the past.

Working through and ramming through mean two different things. However, the words of Christ and all past doctrine up to this current apostolic exhortation have confirmed the indissolubly the of marriage. And doctrine has made quite clear that it is adulterous to engage in sexual relations other when there exists a living spouse from a valid marriage.

You’ll have to show me with full references-- no truncated snippets–in scripture or Church doctrine in which a valid marriage may be invalid if somebody feels it is so.

 

[RCinMT]

It is clear you do not accept that Pope Francis has directed rightly in AL Ghosty.

What past doctrine or the Bible leads you to say that he has?

You can play with words all you like but you are going to convince no Catholic here that an Apostolic Exhortation can never be any more than the fallible personal views of an ordinary man.

Perhaps not but then one might be convinced that Internet comments devoid of theology posted by an anonymous person can be invalid.

Indeed he may well be making explicit the hidden treasures of Divine Revelation under the HS which you seem unable to even countenance as possible from your better educated lay position?

The Holy Spirit is doing quite an about face based on past guidance. Though one most be open to the possibility that the Holy Spirit is quite deeply concerned with temporal opinion and sees no problem contradicting past guidance. To be holy, one must be able to understand that even the Holy Spirit can misread a map and take a wrong left at Albequrque, eh? Thankfully we have the Society of Jesus to set the Spirit back on the intended course. If only they had been there to talk Christ off the cross…

 

[Ghosty]

It is clear you do not accept that Pope Francis has directed rightly in AL Ghosty.
You can play with words all you like but you are going to convince no Catholic here that an Apostolic Exhortation can never be any more than the fallible personal views of an ordinary man.

Indeed he may well be making explicit the hidden treasures of Divine Revelation under the HS which you seem unable to even countenance as possible from your better educated lay position?

I’ve yet to see anything that elevates Pope Francis’ work in Amoris Laetitia above the work of St. John Paul II, and his work was fallible as well. The Pope can pronounce infallibly doctrine from the back of a napkin if he likes. There is nothing in Amoris Laetitia that steps into the realm of infallibility by any measure that I’m aware of, and If you’ve read what I’ve written you know that I don’t outright reject any portion of Amoris Laetitia at any rate.

 

[RCinMT]

I think the problem lies less with differences in practice between jurisdictions and more with the underlying moral and theological justifications for such differences.

I was simply addressing the comment, not treating on broader themes.

In the Church we have both infant and adolescent first Communion, for example. The current practice of adolescent Communion in the Latin Church even varies somewhat between diocese. My young daughter is Melkite, and has been receiving Communion since before she had teeth, and we sometimes run into difficulty and confusion with her receiving Communion in Latin parishes. She is spiritually predisposed to receive, and it is beneficial to her so I try to encourage it when we attend a Roman Mass, but the difference in practice between the Melkites and Romans with regard to this Sacrament does present certain difficulties.

There is not a difference in the underlying moral and theological foundation of reception of Communion between these Churches and jurisdictions, however, and therefore such differences may seem stark, especially when Latin theology tends to emphasize “the age of reason” when encouraging later Communion, but they really come down to prudential judgement on the part of the Bishops.

Are these kid knowingly seeking and being knowingly given communion while in a state of abject moral sin?

With the current situation involving remarriage and Communion, however, we are seeing some apparently radical departures in moral theology with regard to the Sacraments. I can envision a circumstance in which two people appeared to be Sacramentally married, even to the point that. Marriage Tribunal would not grant a decree of nullity, but yet one or both parties may be morally certain that there was no Sacramental Marriage in fact. With proper discernment and spiritual guidance I have no difficulties with such people receiving Communion even if they are not able to formally reconcile their current mariage with the Church. Such situations may be rare, but they are worthy of consideration and accomodation. To my mind the Argentinean approach seems to have these type of situations at heart.

When a tribunal recognizes a sacramental marriage, how are two members of the laity to contradict them on theological grounds? We’re starting to move quite far from the notion of submission and obedience which as principals are quite important in underpinning our professed beliefs.

On the other hand we have a moral argument that appears to say that if these people simply feel at peace with God thrn they are sufficiently disposed to receive Communion, and this is what I have extreme difficulty with. Our feelings are subject to all kinds of influence, and are no substitute for the objective teachings of God. It is one thing to say that subjective circumstances change our consideration of a case, it is another to say that the feelings of the subject determine the objective circumstances.

When coupled with the previous comment, the comment, above, loses all coherence unless one professes to be able to read the hearts and minds of their fellow men: who are you or I to say we feel comfortable with one couple deciding their marriage wasn’t sacramental versus another couple? Are potential divorced communicants to provide notice to a parish that they will be attending a mass, where they will be seated (to determine the EM) and then to submit arguments to the assigned EM ahead of mass for he/she to decide whether or not to give communion?

 

[ProdigalSun]

The superior general of the Society of Jesus has said that all Church doctrine must be subject to discernment.

More…

Well that is good news… I say there is no hell so I can go straight to heaven!

 

[Ghosty]

I was simply addressing the comment, not treating on broader themes.

I understand that. I was merely using your post as a jumping-off point, not trying to rebut you.

Are these kid knowingly seeking and being knowingly given communion while in a state of abject moral sin?

No, but they have been inappropriately denied Communion by those that don’t fully understand the circumstances. I bring this up only to highlight that differences in practice don’t automatically indicate divergence in Faith. Again, this is to underscore my point, not undercut yours.

When a tribunal recognizes a sacramental marriage, how are two members of the laity to contradict them on theological grounds? We’re starting to move quite far from the notion of submission and obedience which as principals are quite important in underpinning our professed beliefs.

Tribunals are not infallible, and there might even be circumstances in which presenting a case before a tribunal is impossible. This isn’t to say that tribunals should be casually cast aside and disregarded, merely pointing out that it is a possibility that an error can occur. A spiritual director working with the people in these very unique situations would have a better sense of how to proceed.

When coupled with the previous comment, the comment, above, loses all coherence unless one professes to be able to read the hearts and minds of their fellow men: who are you or I to say we feel comfortable with one couple deciding their marriage wasn’t sacramental versus another couple? Are potential divorced communicants to provide notice to a parish that they will be attending a mass, where they will be seated (to determine the EM) and then to submit arguments to the assigned EM ahead of mass for he/she to decide whether or not to give communion?

The truth is that none of us can read the hearts of others. I don’t know that the people at Mass with me are disposed to Receive, but then I am not tasked with sheparding them through their moral path. Instructions for a priest acting as an informed spiritual director may be more nuanced than what I may look at as a layman that is ignorant of the hidden moral struggles of others.

That said, there is a difference between “we have prayed and studied and evaluated their case together, and determined that this course of spiritual direction is appropriate given their unique circumstances”, and “they feel at peace with their choices so who am I to refuse Communion?” I believe there may be cause and moral justification for certain dispensations in the former case, but the latter flies in the face of Tradition as I understand it.

 

[TMC]

The majority of the bishops? When was this put to a vote?

It was certainly voted on in the Synod, but that is not what I am referring to. I am referring to the fact that the vast majority of the bishops are with the Pope on this, as are the vast majority of the faithful. Are you suggesting they are not? I realize that the support of the bishops and the faithful is not alone dispositive, but it is also not meaningless.

Working through and ramming through mean two different things. However, the words of Christ and all past doctrine up to this current apostolic exhortation have confirmed the indissolubly the of marriage. And doctrine has made quite clear that it is adulterous to engage in sexual relations other when there exists a living spouse from a valid marriage.

You’ll have to show me with full references-- no truncated snippets–in scripture or Church doctrine in which a valid marriage may be invalid if somebody feels it is so.

Yes, I understand that this is your position. I am also sure that you know by now that your description is grossly and unfairly twisting the Pope’s teaching. Nonetheless, my view remains the same. I think the Pope has this right, and the fact that you disagree with him is not particularly persuasive. Can you show me “with full references” where the Pope has said that a valid marriage may be invalid if somebody “feels it is so”?

 

[RCinMT]

It was certainly voted on in the Synod, but that is not what I am referring to. I am referring to the fact that the vast majority of the bishops are with the Pope on this, as are the vast majority of the faithful. Are you suggesting they are not? I realize that the support of the bishops and the faithful is not alone dispositive, but it is also not meaningless.

First, you’ll have to confirm how you know it’s a “fact that the vast majority of the bishops are with the pope on this”.

Also, the vast majority of the faithful where? Here, in the US? Even if that’s the case, one must be careful how one defines faithful. I mean, the vast majority of the faithful support abortion (more than the general public now, I understand), same sex marriage, euthanasia. When is the Catholic Church going to step up and recognize the demands of the faithful? One hopes time travel eventually becomes possible so that we can correct Christ and the men who wrote the Gospels as they got so much wrong.

Yes, I understand that this is your position. I am also sure that you know by now that your description is grossly and unfairly twisting the Pope’s teaching.

You’ll have to illustrate this point.

Nonetheless, my view remains the same. I think the Pope has this right, and the fact that you disagree with him is not particularly persuasive. Can you show me “with full references” where the Pope has said that a valid marriage may be invalid if somebody “feels it is so”?

Are you kidding me? LOL! You’re kidding me, right? Read what was put forth by the Bishops of Malta. Listen to the German Bishops. Read the document by the Argentinians.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

What past doctrine or the Bible leads you to say that he has?

Perhaps not but then one might be convinced that Internet comments devoid of theology posted by an anonymous person can be invalid.

The Holy Spirit is doing quite an about face based on past guidance. Though one most be open to the possibility that the Holy Spirit is quite deeply concerned with temporal opinion and sees no problem contradicting past guidance. To be holy, one must be able to understand that even the Holy Spirit can misread a map and take a wrong left at Albequrque, eh? Thankfully we have the Society of Jesus to set the Spirit back on the intended course. If only they had been there to talk Christ off the cross…

When your name is Ghosty I will respond, until then I feel no need to at all sorry .

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I’ve yet to see anything that elevates Pope Francis’ work in Amoris Laetitia above the work of St. John Paul II, and his work was fallible as well. The Pope can pronounce infallibly doctrine from the back of a napkin if he likes. There is nothing in Amoris Laetitia that steps into the realm of infallibility by any measure that I’m aware of, and If you’ve read what I’ve written you know that I don’t outright reject any portion of Amoris Laetitia at any rate.

You can play with words all you like but it is relatively clear you believe an Apostolic Exhortation can never be any more than the fallible personal views of an ordinary man.

No loyal Catholic would likely agree with this jaundiced view of Magisterial statements sorry Ghosty. And this to justify your vehement disagreement with your Pope.