D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
No. They are not in contradiction.
- Status
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
This succinct statement deserves to be underscored.
(Blue Horizon: You will forgive, I trust, an old professor who supplied in square brackets a few helpful words inadvertently left out or misspelled.)
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
They are not in contradiction. Changes in discipline are never in contradiction as it is at the perogative of the church.
In fact FC was a precursor for AL. AL is a natural conclusion from FC.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
This statement, out of more than 150 posts, also should be particularly underscored.
Blue Horizon: You will forgive me, one more time, if I made two slight reductions in your text. The Pope, technically, is without peer, although the other members of the College of Bishops are certainly his brothers…but they are not his equals. And although he was a Cardinal, now he is more…much much more.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Is the current teaching that it is permissable to eat meat on Fridays outside of Lent “in contradiction” with how things were before Vat II.
There is your solution.
If you are yet unable to see the parallel then I suggest that of the three persons involved in this contradiction (JPII, Pope Francis and your good self) the one more likely to be mistaken is the one without the long theological education and pastoral experience. Why would you not humbly accept this?
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
All good.
K
KSU
Guest
Don Ruggero, regarding your post 152, it would be fruitless to debate the matter with you any further.
I suppose that if the Pope does not clarify for the benefit of the whole Church what he means in his ambiguous footnote 351, the bishops of Poland, Alberta and the Northwest Territories in Canada, at least a couple in both America and Italy thus far, the Archdiocese of Maria Santissima in Astana, Kazakhstan, probably most bishops in Africa, and I am certain, many others, will continue to confirm the traditional pastoral practice of insisting on complete continence for persons in irregular marriages before receiving Communion. Doing otherwise, according to American Cardinal Raymond Burke, would make the Church “hypocritical in its praxis.”
In Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia, the Holy Father merely says that the Church’s pastors are to accompany divorced and remarried with a “discernment filled with merciful love, which is ever ready to understand, forgive, accompany, hope, and above all integrate.” The aforesaid prelates, I suspect, have no problem doing just that (because the Pope requested it, and because it’s not really a change except perhaps in emphasis) while being true to the traditional pastoral practice.
Meanwhile, your argument is not with me, it’s with the group of Catholic scholars, prelates and clergy who have appealed to the College of Cardinals asking the Cardinals to petition Pope Francis to “repudiate” what they see as “erroneous propositions” contained in Amoris Laetitia. ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/catholic-scholars-appeal-to-pope-francis-to-repudiate-errors-in-amoris-laet
I suppose that if the Pope does not clarify for the benefit of the whole Church what he means in his ambiguous footnote 351, the bishops of Poland, Alberta and the Northwest Territories in Canada, at least a couple in both America and Italy thus far, the Archdiocese of Maria Santissima in Astana, Kazakhstan, probably most bishops in Africa, and I am certain, many others, will continue to confirm the traditional pastoral practice of insisting on complete continence for persons in irregular marriages before receiving Communion. Doing otherwise, according to American Cardinal Raymond Burke, would make the Church “hypocritical in its praxis.”
In Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia, the Holy Father merely says that the Church’s pastors are to accompany divorced and remarried with a “discernment filled with merciful love, which is ever ready to understand, forgive, accompany, hope, and above all integrate.” The aforesaid prelates, I suspect, have no problem doing just that (because the Pope requested it, and because it’s not really a change except perhaps in emphasis) while being true to the traditional pastoral practice.
Meanwhile, your argument is not with me, it’s with the group of Catholic scholars, prelates and clergy who have appealed to the College of Cardinals asking the Cardinals to petition Pope Francis to “repudiate” what they see as “erroneous propositions” contained in Amoris Laetitia. ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/catholic-scholars-appeal-to-pope-francis-to-repudiate-errors-in-amoris-laet
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
Argument with scholars, prelates and clergy? “Argument”? Again, I must protest this methodology of your formulations which involve such language. I have absolutely no argument with these persons placing a petition before the Pope. They are perfectly free to make an appeal to the Holy Father, under the provisions of Canon 331:
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.
Indeed anyone may appeal to him directly and without recourse to intervening levels since his power is supreme, full, immediate and universal.
As the petitioners note:
“We are not accusing the Pope of heresy,” said Joseph Shaw, a signatory of the appeal who is also acting as spokesman for the authors, “but we consider that numerous propositions in Amoris laetitia can be construed as heretical upon a natural reading of the text…"
They are free to lay at the feet of His Holiness their rather remarkable concerns. If, however, the Holy Father returns their petition as being wrong and without merit, the petitioners will have accept the Holy Father’s decision, in light of Canon 333
§3. No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.
The only proper response, which they know, would be to accept the superior judgment of the Vicar of Christ upon earth, as articulated above in Can. 331. One trusts that grace will help these persons having some difficulty to resolve their difficulty…as everyone else acts according to the thought and the will of His Holiness.
K
KSU
Guest
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
Why do you think I would have an aim of persuading these scholars, prelates, and clergy? That is not remotely my task. It does not concern me. I would trust that they are the object of the concern of those to whom they owe obedience and submission.
They have petitioned the Pope. He is quite capable of telling them what they are to do with their concerns. There is nothing for me to concern myself about in the issue of these persons. It is their obligation, pure and simple, to obey.
Besides, they are largely unknown. They have not sought my counsel. If they did, I would certainly not argue with them…as there is really nothing to argue about.
I have no argument with them period…their right to appeal, their thoughts, anything.
They have to answer to Almighty God and to their superior in the Church for the decisions they undertake and for any want of submission…not to me. They have no argument to make to me and I have no argument to make to them. In fact, I have nothing to say to them at all.
If, on the other hand, I were dean of the faculty and found a faculty member had signed this document, they would have no more classes to teach, so I well understand why many did not wish their names published and expressed fear of consequence. Yes, that fear would be properly placed.
There again, it is not a matter of argument. It is a matter of one in authority informing one under authority that their services had been found no longer needed or appropriate.
Far from “arguing with scholars, prelates and clergy,” on the other hand, I am actually working with my bishop, my theological colleagues, and the presbyterate to execute the will of the Pope in reaching out to those in exceptional situations who are in need of some form of particularised pastoral accompaniment.
I am glad to pray for those who are not complying with glad and generous heart but, beyond that, it does not concern me in the least.
What concerns me is my own response to a document I have studied and to guidelines being developed with appropriate guidance through channels. Full compliance with Pope Francis, who is the Vicar of Christ, and to obeyed above all…full cooperation with my own bishop…assistance to my presbyterate as they integrate Amoris Laetitia into pastoral practice…there is my complete concern…and, of course, those souls whom Pope Francis is sending us to help.
It is you who seem to evidence seeing everything through a paradigm of arguing.
R
rcwitness
Guest
Well I think it’s obvious that this matter deserves clarification. And we don’t need to jump to conclusions, since the objective seems to be for divorced and remarried to seek Spiritual Direction from their pastors. It seems the concern is what constitutes Reconciliation in these situations and what repentance entails. Repentance is turning away from sin. It’s not just asking for forgiveness.
Sirach 10
A wise magistrate will educate his people,
and the rule of an understanding man will be well ordered.
Like the magistrate of the people, so are his officials;
and like the ruler of the city, so are all its inhabitants.
An undisciplined king will ruin his people,
but a city will grow through the understanding of its rulers.
I think the track record of our hierarchy does not lend a lot of confidence that Magisterial Teaching will be applied well, and understanding given to us. But we are not without the Holy Spirit to always be available for this also.
Sirach 10
A wise magistrate will educate his people,
and the rule of an understanding man will be well ordered.
Like the magistrate of the people, so are his officials;
and like the ruler of the city, so are all its inhabitants.
An undisciplined king will ruin his people,
but a city will grow through the understanding of its rulers.
I think the track record of our hierarchy does not lend a lot of confidence that Magisterial Teaching will be applied well, and understanding given to us. But we are not without the Holy Spirit to always be available for this also.
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
“Though art Peter and on this Rock I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. WHATEVER you bind on earth WILL be bound in heaven and WHATEVER you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven”
Our Lord left the authority with the church. They could say “for remarried couples to receive the sacraments, they must dress as a clown when they attend mass to show the error of their choices”. And it would be so.
Jesus did not qualify the authority left with them. He left it completely to them.
Thus such discussions regarding if they are wrong or in error regarding discipline matters, reflect merely OUR own individual insecurities and prejudices.
R
rcwitness
Guest
Yep… but we are debating interpretations of interpretations here, instead of having a clear understanding. I understand that repentance means turning away from sin, and no longer remaining in a sinful activity.
O
OraLabora
Guest
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
When people view the sin as what it really is it is much simpler.
The sin is the one time act of remarrying.
The idea of continuous adultery is an idea that was put forth from trying to discuss why remarriage is sinful.
Whether someone is committing adultery every time they have sex with their invalidly contracted spouse is extremely suspect and up for debate.
One would find no such teaching in the first probably 1300 or more years of the church.
It is the result of “defining too much”. A critique often leveled on us by the orthodox that is probably with some merit.
So turning away from sin can really mean realizing contracting a second marriage was wrong, repenting of it, and vowing to never do that again.
K
kyrie03
Guest
I guess illustrating the contradictions between 2,000 years of Church teaching and current teaching is fruitless (see post #138 quoting FM and contrast with AL)…no attempt to assist in reconciling FM with AL…just deny there is any contradiction, or claim it’s a development of doctrine.
It’s okay to re-interpret or gloss over what past popes and continual practice of Church has been, just don’t question how current teaching agrees with past teaching because it means you are not accepting current teaching… Besides, you are only a lay person, not theologically trained, couldn’t possibly understand the complexities, are voicing personal views, are self-righteously interfering, ignoring the fact that the Holy Spirit directly guides the current Pope, etc…
I received the message loud and clear.
May the good Lord forgive us our trespasses, whether voluntary or involuntary, and may we all meet again in the Blessed Kingdom where the sound of festive rejoicing never ceases!
It’s okay to re-interpret or gloss over what past popes and continual practice of Church has been, just don’t question how current teaching agrees with past teaching because it means you are not accepting current teaching… Besides, you are only a lay person, not theologically trained, couldn’t possibly understand the complexities, are voicing personal views, are self-righteously interfering, ignoring the fact that the Holy Spirit directly guides the current Pope, etc…
I received the message loud and clear.
May the good Lord forgive us our trespasses, whether voluntary or involuntary, and may we all meet again in the Blessed Kingdom where the sound of festive rejoicing never ceases!
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
Can you please show me one piece of evidence from the first 1000 years of the church that demonstrates those who are remarried could not receive the Eucharist.
Also, I have posted twice a link to a first things article that describes in detail how FC and AL are not just reconciled but completely unified.
firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2016/09/crime-punishment-and-amoris-laetitia
I think you do not understand clearly the difference between doctrine and discipline.
R
rcwitness
Guest
What?
An invalid marriage IS committing adultery. You can’t repent from a sin, and remain in it.
That’s a silly debate.
Only if the marriage can be reglarized or valid would they be able to remain together, right?
R
rcwitness
Guest
Jon, it’s about an invalid remarriage, which becomes adultery. Do you think there is no excommunication for evident and unrepentant adultery?
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
I think you should not take for granted your premises.
But if it is so cut and dry, you should be able to provide countless sources to support it.
Should you actually choose to do this exercise and search through church history you will find a church that relegated marriage to the civil authority completely.
A church that when it did speak of marriage it was merely to say it was an obstacle to Christian virtue.
A church that slowly over time developed a theology of marriage.
A church that did not perform marriages for the first 1000 years.
And you will not find the church saying there is zero way a person in a second marriage can receive the sacraments.
Will they say remarriage is a sin. Yes
Will they say it is adultery. Yes (although some like Augustine allow for divorce and remarriage for certain reasons).
Will they say one is never allowed again to receive the sacraments no matter what the circumstance of the situation? No.
- Status