Pope endorses Argentine bishops' document on Amoris Laetitia

[pnewton]

Really? Are we Sola Scripture now?

Of course not! Did you follow the conversation? If you so, you will note I was responding to question of how a practice based in Scripture can change.

It is a good question, as Scripture is pretty darned important, being infallible and all. If Scripture does clearly say something, it cannot be denied.

 

[rcwitness]

Of course not! Did you follow the conversation? If you so, you will note I was responding to question of how a practice based in Scripture can change.

Sorry, I should have put a by that comment. It was meant to be lighthearted.

It is a good question, as Scripture is pretty darned important, being infallible and all. If Scripture does clearly say something, it cannot be denied.

Yes, absolutely. I am not one to refute the importance even Sola Scripturists place on Scripture. I only acknowledge that I lack the gift to look at many Scriptures and am able to interpret. Even the rest of Romans 7, that I quoted! Paul is all over the place there! The Law is not over us, then we cannot walk according to the flesh…

 

[irenaeus1]

I did not miss your point. You asked how it can change. Simple. Practice can change. Practice based on Scripture can change. How? Because more than one practice can be based in Scripture.

Come on, pnewton… to be based on Scripture or founded upon Scripture does not necessarily mean chapter and verse verbatim, but rather the principle derived from Scripture to support a particular teaching. For example, abortion is not explicitly prohibited in Scripture, but that does not mean that the Church’s teaching on abortion is not based on Scripture.

And yes, a practice can change if it is not tied directly to doctrine… so eating fish on Fridays, priests wearing green during Ordinary Time in the Latin rite, etc. can change. The practice of baptizing with water or consecrating wheat bread for the Eucharist is connected with doctrine, so one cannot change the practice to baptizing with sand and consecrating potato chips to confect the Eucharist. What’s more, the exhortation I cited from Pope John Paul II (note that I am not even referring to FC) and the document from the CDF issued by Ratzinger under the instruction and permission of Pope John Paul II state that the practice in discussion regarding no Communion for the divorced and remarried here is binding and cannot be modified. This is what I’m wrestling with as this now proves that either Pope John Paul II was then mistaken or that Pope Francis is presently mistaken.

APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION
RECONCILIATION AND PENANCE
the church can only invite her children who find themselves in these painful situations to approach the divine mercy by other ways, not however through the sacraments of penance and the Eucharist until such time as they have attained the required dispositions.

CONCERNING THE RECEPTION OF HOLY COMMUNION BY DIVORCED AND REMARRIED MEMBERS OF THE FAITHFUL
Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

“… constant and universal practice, founded on sacred Scripture, of not admitting the divorced and remarried to holy communion.” The structure of the exhortation and the tenor of its words give clearly to understand that this practice, which is presented as binding, cannot be modified because of different situations.

This norm is not at all a punishment or a discrimination against the divorced and remarried, but rather expresses an objective situation that of itself renders impossible the reception of holy communion.

How can one pope state that a change in discipline would be “impossible”, that this is a “constant and universal practice”, which is “binding” and “cannot be modified because of different situations” and another pope say that it is possible, it will now no longer be constant and universal, no longer binding, and can indeed be modified because of different situation?

 

[irenaeus1]

pnewton:
Below are the ones I cited plus a couple others:

POST-SYNODAL
APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION
RECONCILIATION AND PENANCE
w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_02121984_reconciliatio-et-paenitentia.html

POST-SYNODAL
APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION
SACRAMENTUM CARITATIS
w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20070222_sacramentum-caritatis.html

LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
CONCERNING THE RECEPTION OF HOLY COMMUNION
BY THE DIVORCED AND REMARRIED MEMBERS OF THE FAITHFUL
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_14091994_rec-holy-comm-by-divorced_en.html

CONCERNING SOME OBJECTIONS TO THE CHURCH’S TEACHING
ON THE RECEPTION OF HOLY COMMUNION
BY DIVORCED AND REMARRIED MEMBERS OF THE FAITHFUL
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19980101_ratzinger-comm-divorced_en.html

 

[irenaeus1]

I only object when no tolerance of opinion is allowed, even to the Holy Father.

I’m willing to ‘tolerate’ another opinion. I’m simply asking how a particular opinion advocating a change is not a breach with past official teaching, especially if the teaching itself says that it cannot be changed?

 

[pnewton]

“… constant and universal practice, founded on sacred Scripture, of not admitting the divorced and remarried to holy communion.” The structure of the exhortation and the tenor of its words give clearly to understand that this practice, which is presented as binding, cannot be modified because of different situations.

Okay this was hard to find. It is in the third document. For convenience, I will link it here.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_14091994_rec-holy-comm-by-divorced_en.html
I think the answer as to what Pope Francis might understand that is being missed is the nature this type of exhortation. It is a letter to the bishops, making it instructional. Therefore, they are directed not to modify what they are being told. It is binding. They were not to modify it. It was issued in 1994 and would remain in affect until changed, only by the Pope.

Honestly, when I read letters written to the bishops, I have to understand I am reading someone else’s mail, in a manner of speaking.

I’m simply asking how a particular opinion advocating a change is not a breach with past official teaching, especially if the teaching itself says that it cannot be changed?

Simple. This begs the question. An opinion cannot advocate an official teaching that cannot be changed. Pope Francis clearly does not believe that we are dealing with an official teaching that cannot be changed. A few of the bishops and some people here think he is. So the answer is that you are phrasing the question with an assertion that you are trying to show.

By the way, in case I have not said this in a while, my own opinion is that the whole issue is beyond my pay grade. If I was concerned about this issue as some are, I simply would follow my conscience on the matter and not receive communion. If my concern was about what others do, I would take the advice of Jesus to Peter and not concern myself when God takes others on a spiritual journey different than mine. I will say that I have always had an issue understanding the Church’s position on the subject, where “objective” is not always “objective”, and where “disposition” really is not** interior **“disposition.”

 

[irenaeus1]

Honestly, when I read letters written to the bishops, I have to understand I am reading someone else’s mail, in a manner of speaking.

Yeah, but this letter from the CDF to the bishops was intentionally made public and not ‘leaked’, so there should not be any reservations as if reading someone else’s mail - and certainly not any more than when reading Paul’s letter to Timothy.

 

[pnewton]

Yeah, but this letter from the CDF to the bishops was intentionally made public and not ‘leaked’, so there should not be any reservations as if reading someone else’s mail - and certainly not any more than when reading Paul’s letter to Timothy.

I did not say I had reservations, but it is critical to understand the importance is the universe of discourse. Interestingly enough, this is also a consideration in the Pauline epistles.

 

[irenaeus1]

I think the answer as to what Pope Francis might understand that is being missed is the nature this type of exhortation. It is a letter to the bishops, making it instructional. Therefore, they are directed not to modify what they are being told. It is binding. They were not to modify it. It was issued in 1994 and would remain in affect until changed, only by the Pope.

But the letter to the bishops is presenting how the apostolic exhortation FC is to be interpreted; namely, “[t]he structure of the exhortation and the tenor of its words give clearly to understand that this practice, which is presented as binding, cannot be modified because of different situations.” And of course, this is a reference to FC 84 which the letter had just quoted. I don’t know how this can be interpreted as binding and cannot be modified… well, that is until further notice.

 

[irenaeus1]

Holy Communion for the divorced and remarried was asked in the late 70’s and early 80’s prior to JPII’s synod on the family. FC was the response and said, “No.” It was asked again, JPII said “No” in RECONCILIATION AND PENANCE. It was asked again in the early 90’s, this time the CDF responded in LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH CONCERNING THE RECEPTION OF HOLY COMMUNION BY THE DIVORCED AND REMARRIED MEMBERS OF THE FAITHFUL saying, “No.” And a follow-up shortly after *CONCERNING SOME OBJECTIONS TO THE CHURCH’S TEACHING ON THE RECEPTION OF HOLY COMMUNION BY DIVORCED AND REMARRIED MEMBERS OF THE FAITHFUL * – again, “No.” I don’t know that it was asked again once Ratzinger became pope, but regardless in SACRAMENTUM CARITATIS, Pope Benedict XVI said, “No.” Now another pope is in office, so let’s ask once again, and the answer is, “No, well maybe, sort of, kind of under certain circumstances, so maybe yes really.” Now see the reason for the confusion?

 

[pnewton]

And of course, this is a reference to FC 84 which the letter had just quoted. I don’t know how this can be interpreted as binding and cannot be modified… well, that is until further notice.

That’s okay. You and I do not have to understand. I was reading over the education of the Holy Father. He spent twelve years being educated at the university level, in different seminaries. Personally, I can only approach from the standpoint of language, that is, basic English. For example, if the action under debate was removed and something else substituted, does the language mandate that no change happen? If the Pope wrote of kneeling for communion and said, “… constant and universal practice, founded on sacred Scripture, of kneeling for holy communion. This is binding and is cannot be modified” Would it not make sense that he was simply instructing the bishops that they had to follow this practice without modification? In a literal sense, the present tense of the verb speaks only of the present and does not address any future action.

If the English allows for this understanding, then I am not going to argue with my theological betters on something they are educated on for years, while I am a shade-tree theologian.

Well, I have about done this to death. I only wanted to answer why I see possibility here and no contradiction. The language does not literally mandate that this cannot be changed.

 

[irenaeus1]

That’s okay. You and I do not have to understand. I was reading over the education of the Holy Father. He spent twelve years being educated at the university level, in different seminaries. Personally, I can only approach from the standpoint of language, that is, basic English. For example, if the action under debate was removed and something else substituted, does the language mandate that no change happen? If the Pope wrote of kneeling for communion and said, “… constant and universal practice, founded on sacred Scripture, of kneeling for holy communion. This is binding and is cannot be modified” Would it not make sense that he was simply instructing the bishops that they had to follow this practice without modification? In a literal sense, the present tense of the verb speaks only of the present and does not address any future action.

If the English allows for this understanding, then I am not going to argue with my theological betters on something they are educated on for years, while I am a shade-tree theologian.

Well, I have about done this to death. I only wanted to answer why I see possibility here and no contradiction. The language does not literally mandate that this cannot be changed.

But you and I both know that kneeling for communion is not and has not been a constant and universal practice that is binding and cannot be modified. And the education of the pope does not preclude him from coming to erroneous positions. There are many bishops and theologians who disagree with certain aspects AL that have decades of education at the university level at various seminaries. What of their education and credentials?

 

[rcwitness]

I did not say I had reservations, but it is critical to understand the importance is the universe of discourse. Interestingly enough, this is also a consideration in the Pauline epistles.

The Pauline epistles were deemed Scripture, and Paul was an Apostle given new revelation from Christ personally (along with Peter’s affirmation that Paul’s letters were Scripture).

These aspects make the consideration closed when the Church fixed them into the canon.

 

[TMC]

The Pauline epistles were deemed Scripture, and Paul was an Apostle given new revelation from Christ personally (along with Peter’s affirmation that Paul’s letters were Scripture).

These aspects make the consideration closed when the Church fixed them into the canon.

I certainly accept Paul as an apostle and the Pauline letters as Scripture, but I don’t think you can base that on 2 Peter. Given the authorship of 2 Peter and its history, its seems like a kind of bootstrapping to use 2 Peter to authenticate the Pauline letters.

 

[rcwitness]

I certainly accept Paul as an apostle and the Pauline letters as Scripture, but I don’t think you can base that on 2 Peter. Given the authorship of 2 Peter and its history, its seems like a kind of bootstrapping to use 2 Peter to authenticate the Pauline letters.

Yes, that’s why I said “along with”. I think Peter Confirmed their authority as Scripture, while giving a warning to be careful how to interpret them.

 

[TMC]

Yes, that’s why I said “along with”. I think Peter Confirmed their authority as Scripture, while giving a warning to be careful how to interpret them.

Perhaps you misunderstand me. I was referring to the fact that Peter is probably not the author of 2 Peter, and that 2 Peter was not accepted as Scripture until much later than the Pauline letters. By the time 2 Peter was accepted as Scripture, pretty much everyone accepted the Pauline letters, so we don’t really base our acceptance of Paul on the author of 2 Peter.

 

[rcwitness]

Perhaps you misunderstand me. I was referring to the fact that Peter is probably not the author of 2 Peter, and that 2 Peter was not accepted as Scripture until much later than the Pauline letters. By the time 2 Peter was accepted as Scripture, pretty much everyone accepted the Pauline letters, so we don’t really base our acceptance of Paul on the author of 2 Peter.

I understand, but the immediate recipients most likely did. And who knows how far that influence expanded? But I realize in the days of Canonizing, it was not such a base.

I guess I’ve heard there was doubt about the author. Was that ever settled?

 

[TMC]

I understand, but the immediate recipients most likely did. And who knows how far that influence expanded? But I realize in the days of Canonizing, it was not such a base.

I guess I’ve heard there was doubt about the author. Was that ever settled?

No, I don’t think it can be definitively settled, although most scholars believe it was written by a later disciple of Peter. Here is a link to a discussion of the matter from the intro to 2 Peter in the New American Bible (from the Vatican website): vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__P126.HTM

 

[pnewton]

The Pauline epistles were deemed Scripture, and Paul was an Apostle given new revelation from Christ personally (along with Peter’s affirmation that Paul’s letters were Scripture).

These aspects make the consideration closed when the Church fixed them into the canon.

Yes, the canon is closed. I am completely lost though as to what that has to do with anything.

You couldn’t have thrown me more than if you mentioned that Mary was immaculately conceived. Yes, but what does that have to do with this?

 

[CrossofChrist]

The only reason I could see this as an issue for all times is if the unchaste but subjectively innocent divorced/remarried could not receive Communion in principle, somewhat similar to how a subjectively innocent but unbaptized person may not receive any sacrament before Baptism. If a subjectively innocent but unchaste divorced/remarried person may receive Communion at least in theory, even if not in recent practice, then I don’t see why a change would be an issue.

My question is how is this all to be understood? I got the impression from what Cardinal Muller has said (see the bottom of this post) that the unchaste divorced/remarried can’t receive in principle. Does this endorsement by the Pope mean that Cardinal Muller is wrong? Also, while not necessarily contradictory in principle (but ISTM in practice/discipline), Cardinal Ratzinger as Prefect of the CDF clearly rejected the proposal from bishops Kasper, Lehmann, and Saier concerning complex individual cases by saying there can’t be modifications. Is this discipline no longer in effect because of the Pope’s comments (“no other interpretation”)?

If this means Cardinal Muller is wrong and current discipline has changed I gladly accept that, but I would appreciate answers to these questions if anyone has them because I am confused.

Here’s the quote from Cardinal Muller I mention earlier (bold mine):

The principle is that no one can really want to receive a Sacrament – the Eucharist – without having at the same time the will to live according to the other Sacraments, among them the Sacrament of Marriage. Whoever lives in a way that contradicts the marital bond opposes the visible sign of the Sacrament of Marriage. With regard to his existence in the flesh, he turns himself into a “counter-sign” of the indissolubility, even if he subjectively is not guilty. Exactly because his life in the flesh is in opposition to the sign, he cannot be part of the higher Eucharistic sign – in which the incarnate Love of Christ is manifest – by receiving Holy Communion. If the Church were to admit such a person to Holy Communion, she would be then committing that act which Thomas Aquinas calls “a falseness in the sacred sacramental signs.”