Pope endorses Argentine bishops' document on Amoris Laetitia

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What is a sacrament? What is magic? Are the two synonymous?

What is the nature of marriage?

Where do Christ’s mercy and justice meet?

What is the relationship between free-will and environment? (Nature and nurture?) How can one possibly plumb the depths of that question?

This discussion raises a lot of deep considerations for me.
 
TCEL said:
What is a sacrament? What is magic? Are the two synonymous?

What is the nature of marriage?

Where do Christ’s mercy and justice meet?

What is the relationship between free-will and environment? (Nature and nurture?) How can one possibly plumb the depths of that question?

This discussion raises a lot of deep considerations for me.
Click to expand...
A Sacrament is not magic…

I would refer you to the Catechism -it can help you in your considerations

scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2.htm

scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c3a7.htm

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a3.htm
 
Bookcat said:
“the pontiff appears to have endorsed their main conclusion, which is that Amoris Laetitia opened the door to Communion for the divorced and remarried.”

That certainly would be a misreading and a misstatement.

The document notes that such is not to be said.

Certain* particular complex cases* with serious discernment by a Priest - does *not *open the door to Communion for the divorced and remarried.

Such would be a false reading.
Click to expand...
The Pope wrote it. He is reading his own exhortation incorrectly? How can that be?
 
TMC said:
The Pope wrote it. He is reading his own exhortation incorrectly? How can that be?
Click to expand...
Huh?

I am not talking about what the Pope wrote - or read. But what others have mis-read mis-understood, mis-written.
 
Bookcat said:
Huh?

I am not talking about what the Pope wrote - or read. But what others have mis-read mis-understood, mis-written.
Click to expand...
The Argentinian bishops wrote a document interpreting AL. The Pope agreed that their interpretation was correct. That is what I was referring to. I thought you were saying the Argentinian bishops were wrong. Are you saying that the interpretation of the Argentinian interpretation is incorrect? I thought the Argentinian bishops’ document was pretty clear. There are instances where the divorced and remarried can be administered the Sacraments. That is what they are saying, and that seems consistent with AL.
 
Bookcat said:
In some very particular complex cases lacking culpability etc - there can be possibility of further discernment -but such wound not be the norm but only certain very particular cases.
Click to expand...
Bookcat, no matter how you slice it, what you are telling us is this: Priests in certain cases now have the authority after very careful discernment, etc. to override a tribunal, and without any further ado find that the first marriage was invalid.

That, if true, would be an earthshaking development of Church teaching in a footnote the Pope refuses to explain.
 
KSU said:
Bookcat, no matter how you slice it, what you are telling us is this: Priests in certain cases now have the authority after very careful discernment, etc. to override a tribunal, and without any further ado find that the first marriage was invalid.

That, if true, would be an earthshaking development of Church teaching in a footnote the Pope refuses to explain.
Click to expand...
That’s actually not at all what would occur.
 
Bookcat said:
A Sacrament is not magic…

I would refer you to the Catechism -it can help you in your considerations

scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2.htm

scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c3a7.htm

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a3.htm
Click to expand...
I know it isn’t. But it seems some are treating it as such, which simply raises the interesting point of what the heck is going on? Does the Eucharist confer grace by mere reception of it? If infant Baptism confers grace despite the state of the baby’s cognizance, then how does the Eucharist differ? There are far deeper underlying issues here, it seems.

PS-thanks for the links.
 
Jon_S said:
That’s actually not at all what would occur.
Click to expand...
What would occur? If a person who is divorced and remarried can not receive Communion there are presumably three scenarios why this could be:
  1. They haven’t gone through a tribunal process
  2. A tribunal process has been sought and it was decided that a declaration of nulity could not be given
  3. They are not living as brother and sister
Scenario 1 is not really relevant here because they have to go through that process for a decision to be made about the validity of their prior marriage, it’s 2 and 3. Could those who are divorced and remarried, who went through a tribunal and who were not given a declaration of nullity and who are not living as brother and sister, now be given Communion despite a tribunal not having provided a declaration of nulity?
 
Jon_S said:
Yes exactly! This is why I think this is good.

An example I use, a person gets sterilized. They later learn it was wrong and are forgiven and reconciled through the sacrament of reconciliation.

We do not say they are in a state of sin perpetually because of this. We do not say, well you are forever sterile and this not open to life and thus every marital act is a sin.

I believe there is a parallel for the remarriage issue. It doesn’t mean that one can be married multiple times, but it is meeting people where they are at and helping them convert to Christ.

In my limited study of church history on this issue. I believe the first Christians…in fact the first 1,000 years of Christans, would find this conversation very very strange.
Click to expand...
Actually it can be argued that just like a 2nd marriage, those who continue to remain sterilised remain in an objective state of sin.

The question then becomes what is the risk involved with reversing the state.
If greater damage is likely then it is not required and repentance may be considered sincere.
 
_Abyssinia said:
What would occur? If a person who is divorced and remarried can not receive Communion there are presumably three scenarios why this could be:
  1. They haven’t gone through a tribunal process
  2. A tribunal process has been sought and it was decided that a declaration of nulity could not be given
  3. They are not living as brother and sister
Scenario 1 is not really relevant here because they have to go through that process for a decision to be made about the validity of their prior marriage, it’s 2 and 3. Could those who are divorced and remarried, who went through a tribunal and who were not given a declaration of nullity and who are not living as brother and sister, now be given Communion despite a tribunal not having provided a declaration of nulity?
Click to expand...
Clearly the answer is yes.
This has been crystal since chapt8 of AL was published, why do some people kid themselves it hasnt been clear until now.

The problem is that those who, until now, have not been able to see this seem to suffer from an “all or nothing” principled way of thinking.

Bookcat rightly states that a floodgate has not in principle been opened.
The cases you’ve outlined above are already fairly limited…and even with these cases individual discernment on a case by case basis with a priest is also required as a matter of principle to take into account additional particular circumstances which would include sincerity and reality and account for still existing immaturities or ongoing evils being done.

So this is NOT an open slather floodgate principle.
But yes, in principle some remarried couples without a decree of nullity and still in a sexual relationship may be allowed to come forward for Communion.

The inability of a Tribunal to currently issue a decree of nullity does not mean such may not be possible in the future. The Popes have always well recognised Tribunals not rarely let down innocent persons for technical reasons.
Therefore such persons may in truth be free before God to marry as they never were truly married in the first place. Such innocent remarried couples are therefore only committing adultery before Man/Church (technical adultery) but not before God. Maybe its better to call this fornication…but even then its not the same. At least fornicators are free before Man/Church to marry…these innocent couples currently do not have that choice even if they wanted to.

People are barred from Communion for a variety of reasons:
(a) personally recognised grave sin (this does not hold for the above)
(b) as a matter of Church discipline by Church authority when objectively grave public disorders are in question.

The latter is a matter of prudent decisions by Church authority - and may change as times and the maturity of congregations on certain issues advances.
(Soldiers were once banned from Communion because of their objective status as killers. Now we are mature enough to realise not all killers are malicious and offernsive to God…though killing is still a grave disorder).

That is what Pope Francis is trying to bring about it seems.
 
Blue_Horizon said:
Clearly the answer is yes.
This has been crystal since chapt8 of AL was published, why do some people kid themselves it hasnt been clear until now.

The problem is that those who, until now, have not been able to see this seem to suffer from an “all or nothing” principled way of thinking.

Bookcat rightly states that a floodgate has not in principle been opened.
The cases you’ve outlined above are already fairly limited…and even with these cases individual discernment on a case by case basis with a priest is also required as a matter of principle to take into account additional particular circumstances which would include sincerity and reality and account for still existing immaturities or ongoing evils being done.

So this is NOT an open slather floodgate principle.
But yes, in principle some remarried couples without a decree of nullity and still in a sexual relationship may be allowed to come forward for Communion.

The inability of a Tribunal to currently issue a decree of nullity does not mean such may not be possible in the future. The Popes have always well recognised Tribunals not rarely let down innocent persons for technical reasons.
Therefore such persons may in truth be free before God to marry as they never were truly married in the first place. Such innocent remarried couples are therefore only committing adultery before Man/Church (technical adultery) but not before God. Maybe its better to call this fornication…but even then its not the same. At least fornicators are free before Man/Church to marry…these innocent couples currently do not have that choice even if they wanted to.

People are barred from Communion for a variety of reasons:
(a) personally recognised grave sin (this does not hold for the above)
(b) as a matter of Church discipline by Church authority when objectively grave public disorders are in question.

The latter is a matter of prudent decisions by Church authority - and may change as times and the maturity of congregations on certain issues advances.
(Soldiers were once banned from Communion because of their objective status as killers. Now we are mature enough to realise not all killers are malicious and offernsive to God…though killing is still a grave disorder).

That is what Pope Francis is trying to bring about it seems.
Click to expand...
That is an excellent illustration of how Protestantism works. Everything is simply “a matter of prudent decisions by Church authority - and may change as times and the maturity of congregations on certain issues advances.”
 
From Edward Peters analysis of the Buenos Aires document:

“Basically, the Argentine draft (assuming it is still a ‘draft’) directs ministers of holy Communion (chiefly parish priests) to work through concrete cases impacting access to at least three sacraments (Matrimony, Penance, and the Eucharist), guided not by the Church’s accumulated pastoral wisdom as summed up in norms like Canon 915 (which seem not even not to be mentioned!), but instead by a line of endlessly malleable considerations phrased in verbiage redolent of the 1970s. If some pastors after the publication Amoris were already being told by irate parishioners that ‘Pope Francis says you have to give me Communion’, what might they expect in the wake of his sweeping approval of this Argentine interpretation of Amoris?”

His full analysis can be found here. I am still confused.
 
Blue_Horizon said:
The problem is that those who, until now, have not been able to see this seem to suffer from an “all or nothing” principled way of thinking.

But yes, in principle some remarried couples without a decree of nullity and still in a sexual relationship may be allowed to come forward for Communion.

.
Click to expand...
Familiaris Consortio 84 written by a saint.
 
Jon_S said:
No it is not infallible.

If they are wrong though, the person whose marriage was declared null does not have culpability although the situation may in fact be grave matter still.

I think that’s important to know because the new proposal operates under similar parameters.
Click to expand...
I noticed that. Grave matter does not translate to mortal sin.
 
Hope it’s ok I post it here, but I saw this comment on the following article by Fr Sotelo:
Fr. Z is absolutely correct. Nothing in Catholic teaching has changed. Those who were previously in valid marriages, and have since remarried without a declaration of nullity, cannot receive Holy Communion. Period.
Click to expand...
The Pope is trying to direct clergy in those cases where previous validity of a marriage, and subsequent declaration of nullity, are murky, complicated and confusing to sort out.
Click to expand...
These are the cases that even the best, most orthodox seminary professors could never have prepared us for. Everyone: please quit acting, talking, and writing as if every married couple’s history and their cases can be so easily figured out by the rules of canon law. The Pope’s comment of “discernment” is quite orthodox because it refers, not to dispensing with rules, but trying to understand how they apply. There really are examples when we know not whether there is actual adultery and sin, or the invalid, previous non-marriage case, which was the tribunal says cannot be processed for a declaration of nullity.
Click to expand...
Kudos to Fr. Z for trying to explain that the Church has ever toiled in a minefield when we look at love and marriage, and when it was real/valid, and when it wasn’t. Canon law and tribunals do their best, but with some
cases, even they are stumped–thus, the need for the internal forum, which is what Francis is dealing with.
Click to expand...
wdtprs.com/blog/2016/09/did-pope-francis-really-write-that-letter/

I really hope to see this soon be further clarified.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top