Leading theologian: change canon law to correct papal errors

[commenter]

There is current confusion over **pastoral **implementation of a papal document, issued at a lower level of authority by Pope Francis. German bishops seem to be responding one way, while Polish bishops seem to be holding to another document of the same lower level of authority issued by St. JP II. This division is wrong.

The only resolution I can see would be a future pope, or possibly Pope Francis, to issue a document at a higher level of authority - such as an encyclical.

 

[PluniaZ]

The solution is to pray. Jesus Christ is King and is watching over His body with greater love and wisdom than anyone on this forum.

Offer up your concerns to the Lord, and trust that He is working through those whom He has put in authority over the Church.

 

[twf]

Three kinds of law:
Divine law
Natural Law
Positive Law (i. e. man-made)

To my unprofessional mind, the problem seems to be this: suppose a pope changes something, or initiates something controversial (and just about everything popes have done for the past 50 years has been labelled controversial by some people).

Who determines whether the Topic was under Divine Law, Natural Law, or Positive Law?
Theologians often disagree themselves. You might argue, **we **can judge from Scripture or Tradition…but the **CURRENT **pope is always the ultimate interpreter of both of those. This means **he **determines what is Divine Law (unchangeable), what is Natural Law (unchangeable) and what is Positive Law (changeable).

In other words, you can’t use Pope Pius XII to refute Pope Francis. But a future pope, who is then the current pope, can identify some limits in the pastoral application of this or that past papal decree. But no future pope can change the Divine Law, or Natural Law.

The confusion is that some things relate to all 3 of the kinds of law. The topic of homosexuality might relate in some aspects to divine law, in other aspects to Natural Law, (both unchangeable) and in other aspects to Positive Law - pastoral practice, which may be changeable.

The alternative would be a nightmare. You could have one group of cardinals backed by CNN slamming the papacy one way, with another group of cardinals backed by Fox News pushing the other way; every month, every year. You migt say, this is a special time only during this special crisis…but the media would make every issue a crisis. This would greatly limit all future popes.

You have a point… but the bishops are also collectively infallible when joined to the Pope… past and present. So the constant witness of the entire episcopate also has a significant bearing on what is “divine law”.

 

[otjm]

Perhaps Fr Aidan has a future Pope in mind. It’s extremely likely that one of his successors will have to address the problems raised by his aeroplane statements and Amoris Laetitia.

Perhaps I was a bit too sere in that comment.

The Pope has ultimate authority over the laws of the Church. What Fr. Aidan is proposing is giving someone else that power. It is easy to say “Well, it will be used responsibly”/

Really?

So we get a conservative Pope and a liberal whomever wielding the law…

And the reverse is easily the opposite. Traditionalists might applaud that, but we had that going well before Vatican 2 when the Office was silencing theologians it didn’t like - a number of whom were subsequently reinstated. And the bishops of the world, as opposed to several in the Curia, had a lot to do with that.

It is not that I was suggesting that his pope would not do so - I don’t suspect any Pope would loose the reigns judicially.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

In his paper Fr Nichols mentioned some of the same concerns as the letter: he noted, for instance, that **Amoris Laetitia could seem to imply that the monastic life was not a higher state than marriage **– a view condemned as heretical by the Council of Trent.

…

Fr Nichols said that this interpretation, which Pope Francis has reportedly approved, would introduce into the Church “a previously unheard-of state of life. Put bluntly, this state of life is one of tolerated concubinage.”

…

He quoted the exhortation’s description of a conscience which “recognizes that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the demands of the Gospel” but sees “with a certain moral security…what for now is the most generous response.” Fr Nichols said this seemed to say “that actions condemned by the law of Christ can sometimes be morally right or even, indeed, requested by God.”

…

He also drew attention to the statement – presumably referring to attempts to live continently – that someone “may know full well the rule yet…be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin”. Fr Nichols noted that the Council of Trent had solemnly condemned the idea that “the commandments of God are impossible to observe even for a man who is justified and established in grace.”** Amoris Laetitia seemed to say that it is not always possible or even advisable to follow the moral law.
**
…

He said that it would be preferable to think that the Pope had been merely “negligent” in his language, rather than actively teaching error.

Who is negligent in their language?

I have heard of this. People have one finger pointed to another person and three fingers pointed back at themselves.

 

[PluniaZ]

The Pope has always been supreme in the Church and always will be until Jesus Christ returns.

No one can take that power away from the Pope.

Even if every human being on Earth abandoned the Pope, the Pope alone would still constitute the one true Church of Jesus Christ.

 

[ProdigalSun]

The Pope is supreme and answers to Jesus Christ alone. There are no limits to his authority. Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote that all the kings of the earth are subject to the Holy Roman Pontiff.

It seems that many Catholics today think their 1st Amendment political rights in the US Constitution apply in the Church as well. They are wrong. The Church is not a democracy. It is a kingdom. Jesus Christ is our King, and the Pope is His Vicar. People need to hold their tongue and obey the King’s Vicar.

The Pope once said that the divorced and remarried can not recieve communion.

The popes have said women can not be ordained.

 

[commenter]

You have a point… but the bishops are also collectively infallible when joined to the Pope… past and present. So the constant witness of the entire episcopate also has a significant bearing on what is “divine law”.

True. But are the bishops of the world united on Issue X or Issue Y today? Or are the bishops of 2017 united to the bishops of 1957, for a “constant witness” on this or that issue? Well, some say yes, some say no.

So you need one respected authority to interpret if the episcopal college is united in the present, and if it is united to its past episcopal heritage. Who would be the likely authority who could determine that? Not the college of cardinals, they have been divided for decades, and in any event they don’t have authority to vote on anything other than electing the pope. If you leave it up to a “body” of people, you essentially leave it up the media influence.

So that authority would be the current pope.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The Pope once said that the divorced and remarried can not recieve communion.

The popes have said women can not be ordained.

The OT, the NT and the Doctors and Fathers of the Church vehemently affirmed the evil of charging ANY interest on loans up until the Church went capitalist in late medieval times .

Then, under lobbying from the new and rising Catholic merchant class, we finally realised there actually was wiggle room and the Bible didn’t really mean we couldn’t charge interest, even though the OT is VERY clear on that by a plain reading of the text.

What a pity we Christians couldn’t have worked that out 1000 years earlier and saved the Jews centuries of persecution and death for their evil usury.

But the point is, tradition and plain meaning are not guarantees that we actually understand the true doctrine.

 

[dans0622]

I, for one, am not going to hold my breath in anticipation of such a change in canon law. Besides that, I’m not convinced that it’s a good idea.

Dan

 

[ProdigalSun]

The OT, the NT and the Doctors and Fathers of the Church vehemently affirmed the evil of charging ANY interest on loans up until the Church went capitalist in late medieval times .

Then, under lobbying from the new and rising Catholic merchant class, we finally realised there actually was wiggle room and the Bible didn’t really mean we couldn’t charge interest, even though the OT is VERY clear on that by a plain reading of the text.

What a pity we Christians couldn’t have worked that out 1000 years earlier and saved the Jews centuries of persecution and death for their evil usury.

But the point is, tradition and plain meaning are not guarantees that we actually understand the true doctrine.

So you do think that man can put asunder what God has made… Good luck with that!

 

[Blue_Horizon]

So you do think that man can put asunder what God has made… Good luck with that!

1. First you have to know whether God actually made the putative first marriage in the first place.
2. Its a long bow to draw asserting that inviting some irregulars in unusuals conditions to Communion is somehow a substantial personal rejection of Jesus’s teaching on the indissolubility of marriage .

Should we blanket ban all divorcees from Communion too…arent they also rejecting Jesus’s teaching on the indissolubility of marriage? Obviously that is not the case…even though their lives do materially contradict that teaching to some degree.

 

[ProdigalSun]

1. First you have to know whether God actually made the putative first marriage in the first place.
2. Its a long bow to draw asserting that inviting some irregulars in unusuals conditions to Communion is somehow a substantial personal rejection of Jesus’s teaching on the indissolubility of marriage .

Should we blanket ban all divorcees from Communion too…arent they also rejecting Jesus’s teaching on the indissolubility of marriage? Obviously that is not the case…even though their lives do materially contradict that teaching to some degree.

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.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

So you do think that man can put asunder what God has made… Good luck with that!

The Gospel of Mark doesn’t say, “that man can put asunder”. It says, *“Therefore what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” * The distinction I’m referring to is between your use of the word “man” in the sense of referring to mankind. The scripture indicates a “human being”, which is not the same as “man”. The important distinction is that of an individual vs. mankind.

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.

 

[Rau]

So you do think that man can put asunder what God has made… Good luck with that!

Does a Tribunal do that when declaring invalidity?

Who does?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Civil divorce is not necessarily sin or even a separation of spouse for certain instances. where the problem comes from is adultery.

Clearly even divorce is a separation which, you just indignantly reminded us, is against Christ’s allegedly “clear” words re not separating what he has joined. Therefore you yourself to be consistent must conclude that the Church is wrong in allowing Catholics to do so for any reason - let alone receive Communion .
Yet you agree with the Church on this face value contradiction of Christ’s teaching.

Having sex with some one other than your spouse is adultery.

You are sadly mistaken if you think this is a good definition of adultery.
It may well be fornication not adultery. The Church defines what constitutes a true marriage. And if conditions are such that the Church is not able to allow marriage to those who in fact never actually had a marriage bond before…then the fornication is purely technical and hardly the fornication that the NT condemns.

Pretending to be married while married to someone else is also a sin.

You really are too theologically illiterate and pastorally inexperienced to be so dogmatic on Catholic forum.

1. As above they may in fact be free to marry if it is later proven that they never were truly married before.
2. Such persons may well be able to apply for a Radical Sanation which is a technical affirmation that their current marriage started, in the eyes of God, from the moment they made what you call their pretend public civil vows to each other. Their children therefore are not bastards before God or under Canon Law (it used to be important once).
3. Even if 2 was not applied they would not be adulters in truth would they…only pretend adulters to use your own terminology back on you. They would technicallly have only been fornicators. Not would any Priest in his right mind by default consider such persons malicious “fornicators” in the pejorative sense meant by the NT… even if just for the obvious reason the Church (for good reason in an imperfect world) was the one who stopped them from marrying properly in the first place.
4. Pretend marriages do not bar couples from going to Communion anyways. They are not so intrinsically evil or grave that Communion must be off the table. It is well known that civilly married and cohabiting irregulars (a “pretend marriage”) who abstain may receive pribate Communion.
   JPII was responsible for that tradition breaking innovation … or do you reject that as against Christ too .

Basically if you have a mortal sin on your soul you should not present oneself for communion.

You really should count to 10 before you place your silly theology on this forum, you just don’t have the basic Catholic education to dogmatically assert such foolish statements.

Irregulars, by that fact alone, are not guilty of personal mortal sin as you assume.
The correct exprerssion is “they engage in grave matter” - and that matter is not just the sex, it is the objective disorder of the 2nd marriage/cohabitation (even when they abstain).

And as all mature, educated Catholics agree, living in an objective state of disorder is NOT the same as being in personal mortal sin…but in fact same may be growing in God’s grace despite the objective disorder.
Just as Pope Francis stated so well in AL.

 

[richardwy]

Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.

Can. 332 §1. The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church by his acceptance of legitimate election together with episcopal consecration. Therefore, a person elected to the supreme pontificate who is marked with episcopal character obtains this power from the moment of acceptance.

Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power offer all particular churches and groups of them. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care.

§2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church. He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.

§3. No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

Can. 334 Bishops assist the Roman Pontiff in exercising his office. They are able to render him cooperative assistance in various ways, among which is the synod of bishops. The cardinals also assist him, as do other persons and various institutes according to the needs of the times. In his name and by his authority, all these persons and institutes fulfill the function entrusted to them for the good of all the churches, according to the norms defined by law.

 

[richardwy]

869 CCC The Church is apostolic. She is built on a lasting foundation: “the twelve apostles of the Lamb” (⇒ Rev 21:14). She is indestructible (cf ⇒ Mt 16:18). She is upheld infallibly in the truth: Christ governs her through Peter and the other apostles, who are present in their successors, the Pope and the college of bishops.

Lumen Gentium ¶ 22 But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head. This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church, and made him shepherd of the whole flock; it is evident, however, that the power of binding and loosing, which was given to Peter, was granted also to the college of apostles, joined with their head.

 

[TheDoctor]

The OT, the NT and the Doctors and Fathers of the Church vehemently affirmed the evil of charging ANY interest on loans up until the Church went capitalist in late medieval times .

Then, under lobbying from the new and rising Catholic merchant class, we finally realised there actually was wiggle room and the Bible didn’t really mean we couldn’t charge interest, even though the OT is VERY clear on that by a plain reading of the text.

What a pity we Christians couldn’t have worked that out 1000 years earlier and saved the Jews centuries of persecution and death for their evil usury.

But the point is, tradition and plain meaning are not guarantees that we actually understand the true doctrine.

Your understanding of Usary does not seem to me to be what the Church understands and teaches. This provides a good overview of the development of this doctrine:
catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/did-the-church-change-its-stance-on-usury

I have never heard that “under lobbying from the Catholic merchant class” argument - what is the source you are using for that please?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Your understanding of Usary does not seem to me to be what the Church understands and teaches.

My small and tangential point was that a personal plain reading of Bible text and even “tradition” is no guarantee we have understood what God or Christ meant. It is the living Magisterium that relates such principles to current conditions that may not have been operating in Biblical times or even the times of previous Popes.

What exactly did you think I was saying?

Re Usury the Bible is absolutely clear, all interest is to be shunned:

Dt 23:30
…19"You shall not charge interest to your countrymen: interest on money, food, or anything that may be loaned at interest. 20"You may charge interest to a foreigner, but to your countrymen you shall not charge interest…

Exodus 22:25
"If you lend money to My people, to the poor among you, you are not to act as a creditor to him; you shall not charge him interest.

Psalm 15:5
He does not put out his money at interest, Nor does he take a bribe against the innocent. He who does these things will never be shaken.

Ezekiel 18:8
if he does not lend money on interest or take increase, if he keeps his hand from iniquity and executes true justice between man and man,