Leading theologian: change canon law to correct papal errors

  • Thread starter Thread starter utunumsint
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
1Lord1Faith said:
T

The Church has the authority to declare a union invalid. Why would it also not have the authority to grant the Eucharist to anyone it sees fit to receive it.
Click to expand...
Re: your first sentence, it would be more accurate to say the Church, under certain very narrow conditions referring to the time of the original wedding (not conditions now), has authority to determine that a valid marriage never existed. It does not take into account recent developments in the marriage that make it less desirable for the partners. It really is a decision regarding the origin of this “marriage”. The Church’s authority is far more limited than your first sentence implies.

Re: your second sentence, the Church is bound by God’s law, not its own discretion over what it sees fit, both in terms of the marriage, and in terms of the Eucharist.
 
ProdigalSun said:
Civil divorce is not necessarily sin or even a separation of spouse for certain instances. where the problem comes from is adultery. Having sex with some one other than your spouse is adultery. Pretending to be married while married to someone else is also a sin.

Basically if you have a mortal sin on your soul you should not present oneself for communion.
Click to expand...
  1. Divorce, like remarriage, is certainly an objective disorder.
  2. Pretending not to be married is not always personally sinful which is why JPII innovated and allowed same to receive Communion privately.
    Some “pretenders” are later found not to have been pretending at all which is another reason why you are sadly mistaken on you naiive and extreme view here.
  3. “Mortal sin on your soul” is how children talk and is not helpful in theologically mature and more complex discussion.
    The correct expression is surely that those “conscious of grave sin” should Confess before going to Communion. Not all irregulars who engage in grave objective matter are sinning mortally…just as Pope Francis and most theologians and priests agree. Therefore Communion is not intrinsically ruled out. It then becomes a matter of Canon 915 not Cannon 916 and you are completely mistaken on this point.
 
commenter said:
…Re: your second sentence, the Church is bound by God’s law, not its own discretion over what it sees fit, both in terms of the marriage, and in terms of the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
But Gods law does not state “no Eucharist for the D&R” in such black and white terms. Both JP II (in FC) and Francis (in AL) expressed a basis for determining the right to receive. Both agree the objective state of the D&R is sinful. FC was an objective standard. AL is a subjective standard to be judged by a priest - who essentially judges the degree of culpability and responsibility of the person concerned, and if sufficiently low, may waive the usual discipline.
 
Aidan Nichols:
  1. "An interpretation of Amoris Laetitia permitting the divorced and remarried to receive communion without living together chastely as “brother and sister” would introduce “a previously unheard of state of life” into the Church. “Put bluntly,” Nichols said, “this state of life is one of tolerated concubinage.”
  2. “Nichols said Amoris Laetitia seemed to imply that “actions condemned by the law of Christ can sometimes be morally right or even, indeed, requested by God,” which contracts church teaching that some acts are always wrong.”
  3. "Nichols observed that the idea that “the commandments of God are impossible to observe even for a man who is justified and established in grace” was solemnly condemned by the Council of Trent, but Amoris Laetitia seems to say that it is not always possible — or even advisable — to follow the moral law. It this were correct, “then no area of Christian morality can remain unscathed.”
Regarding Paras 1 and 3 above these would appear to fade away if we assume the D&R Catholic does not willingly consent to sexual relations, but participates in the manner in which the non-contracepting party may tolerate the use of contraception by the other party.

I don’t know what in AL led him to point 2.
 
Rau said:
But Gods law does not state “no Eucharist for the D&R” in such black and white terms. Both JP II (in FC) and Francis (in AL) expressed a basis for determining the right to receive. Both agree the objective state of the D&R is sinful. ** FC was an objective standard. AL is a subjective standard** to be judged by a priest - who essentially judges the degree of culpability and responsibility of the person concerned, and if sufficiently low, may waive the usual discipline.
Click to expand...
You used “is” for AL, and “was” for FC.

If I could make a suggestion, it would be refer to FC in the present tense - it still is (authoritative) rather than “was”. Both it, and AL, are in the past, in writing timeline, but both are currently effective.
 
Rau said:
But Gods law does not state “no Eucharist for the D&R” in such black and white terms. Both JP II (in FC) and Francis (in AL) expressed a basis for determining the right to receive. Both agree the objective state of the D&R is sinful. FC was an objective standard. AL is a subjective standard to be judged by a priest - who essentially judges the degree of culpability and responsibility of the person concerned, and if sufficiently low, may waive the usual discipline.
Click to expand...
Now that’s not fair, you put this so well it should have been me first.

BTW I understood your was/is was simply contrasting the different approaches at different times - clearly they are not opposed and both stand as an abiding “is”.
 
commenter said:
You used “is” for AL, and “was” for FC.

If I could make a suggestion, it would be refer to FC in the present tense - it still is (authoritative) rather than “was”. Both it, and AL, are in the past, in writing timeline, but both are currently effective.
Click to expand...
If you were a priest, not aware of the timeline, could you simultaneously comply with FC and AL on the question of communion for the remarried in all cases? AL says communion can be possible in cases where FC says it is not.

The tense referred to writing timeline. I could have written both in present tense. A sentence or so earlier, I put both in the past tense when I said “expressed”.
 
Blue_Horizon said:
…BTW I understood your was/is was simply contrasting the different approaches at different times - clearly they are not opposed and both stand as an abiding “is”.
Click to expand...
If you mean they are not opposed because one specifies a rule then, and one specifies a greater flexibility in a rule now - I kind of agree.

Whether their underlying theology is “opposed” or not is open to debate, or may not even require debate. It is to be determined whether there is an issue or not.
 
Rau said:
If you mean they are not opposed because one specifies a rule then, and one specifies a greater flexibility in a rule now - I kind of agree.

Whether their underlying theology is “opposed” or not is open to debate, or may not even require debate. It is to be determined whether there is an issue or not.
Click to expand...
What is not opposed is “the objective state of the D&R is sinful” and “AL is a subjective standard to be judged by a priest …culpability”.

Now whether a yes for the first and a no for the second allows access to Communion…that is where only one can hold at a given time.

As far as I know non culpably engaging in grave matter (FS) has never been a criterion for absolutely banning access to Communion. It isn’t for masturbation or killing (which admittedly is not always grave matter though soldiers do literally break the 5thC as do irregulars the 6th).

The criterion is stubbornly and publicly doing so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top