Pope Francis: Divorced Catholics who remarry are not 'excommunicated.'

[Ender]

The phrase “in an unworthy manner” is the question. Can the Church decide what is an “unworthy manner”?

I think Chrysostom answered that question: There is no small punishment for you, if* being conscious of any wickedness in any man**, you allow him to partake of this table.*
It is being in a state of unrepentant, grave sin that is the problem.

For example, is it true that many women are on the birth control pill and yet receive Holy Communion?

What people should do is not determined by what some others may do. I have no doubt that what you allege is quite common.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

I also was ‘gung ho’ for the 2011 changes but those were not changes to Scripture or the Church’s interpretation of the Bible.

And I’m curious --wouldn’t the point of the word be what Jesus meant, and not the 'literal meaning"?

For understanding, yes what Jesus meant matters, but for translating, any attempt to put “what Jesus really meant” when it is not what he said is exactly how interpretation is injected into what is supposed to be translation. Isn’t that what someone accused the lexicon in Strong’s of doing?

No, I guess I will have to disagree, but will admit it is a personal preference. I believe a more precise translation is even more important in Sacred Scripture than it is liturgy. I appreciate that some of you like it to be more dynamic and loose, and it does serve a purpose. Heck, we use such a translation for Mass. But it remains true that what Jesus said (as opposed to what we may argue he meant), was something akin to fornication, or more broadly, improper sexual activity. At least I have not found one source that says otherwise. I again would ask if someone knows of such a lexicon, please speak up, or link it if it is online.

 

[pnewton]

For understanding, yes what Jesus meant matters, but for translating, any attempt to put “what Jesus really meant” when it is not what he said is exactly how interpretation is injected into what is supposed to be translation. Isn’t that what someone accused the lexicon in Strong’s of doing?

I guess a better question is why does this even matter, if the Church has spoken? My answer is because we have bishops that have some areas of disagreement. There is advantage to peeling back the layers of doctrine, looking a more than the “what” of doctrine, and going into the “why” in an attempt to reconcile these opinions, and perhaps open up other avenues of grace that are legitimate within the doctrine of the Church. I understand this idea of “nuancing” has a bad rap, but as long as no falsehoods enter into a more liberal understanding of doctrine, then it is legitimate, and separates more clearly that which we do because we must (doctrine), from that which is prudent, and might need to be changed because it is no longer prudent(discipline).

 

[Thomas_White]

Cases like this to my mind and sensibilities, seem to typify why the pastoral treatment of divorce/remarriage cases, is critical to the Catholic understanding of the sacrament of marriage in general. Part of this mans difficulty is his overconfidence that no marriage performed as a Catholic ceremony could be invalid or ‘not take’ so to speak. He seems not to be factoring into the equation the nature of Gods grace and the need for mans cooperation in the reception of that grace.

Please forgive me for it would be difficult to explain the whole situation in a forum comment. He very much did not want a divorce, and the couple had a young child. He thought the marriage was valid, and he would not have sought an annulment. His marriage had ended, and in his mind that was it for him. A second marriage would not be a part of his life. His wife relocated 2,000 miles distant and took the child with her. But he had a deep intuition that he and his former wife would reconcile. At that time, he knew both her and the dynamics of their marriage far better than any other person, and he was correct. He did not want a marriage annullment, and they were reconcilled.

As a lifelong close friend, I did talk to him often during his separation and civil divorce and later after the annullment. As a traditional Catholic, it was not that he really did not believe in marriage annullment but more that he thought the 1917 code of Canon law addressed the issue quite soundly. It is no secret that the number of annulments granted in the U.S. skyrocketed from very few in number in a short period of time. He would often ask how could the rules for an invalid marriage evolve like this? Was not marriage a sacrament? How could this happen? But at the same time, he understood very well what had happened. So perhaps this was a defense mechanism. I don’t know. He was having a rough time and was extremely distressed. He needed some solid ground, just almost anything to hold onto. It was better not to try to dissuade him about this. I was concerned and so was nearly everyone who knew him.

 

[dans0622]

Yes, she had that right. This really isn’t off-topic and hopefully won’t be viewed that way. It is a bit technical. …

I have never heard of any dispute on the meaning of c. 1673.3, and who is supposed to give consent. Even if there was once some controversy, after the issuance of “Dignitas connubii” in 2005, there is no question about this.

Besides, even without the consent, the Tribunal of the Petitioner could only be “relatively incompetent.” This kind of incompetence is not an issue once the Respondent is cited (as he apparently was).

Beyond these comments, I don’t think I want to get much further into the technicalities…

Dan

 

[TMC]

It depends on how you interpret St. Paul’s caution against receiving unworthily. How can the Church suddenly change someone living in an adulterous state to now be worthy of receiving? If you are arguing it can, then prepare for some adverse reaction. Not threatening but just sayin…

I wouldn’t put it in those terms, but yes the Church can determine that remarried persons can receive. There will be adverse reactions either way; but the Church should not refrain from making the right decision out of fear that some people won’t like it.

 

[TMC]

*Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. *For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves. (I Cor 11:27-29)

So nowhere.

This is not a practice. Not eating fish on Friday was a practice instituted by the church and changeable by the church. The prohibition against receiving communion while in a state of grave sin is a doctrine that has been enforced from the very beginning of her existence. Although not declared as infallible it has surely been taught infallibly, and can never be changed.*These things I say to you that receive, and to you that minister. For it is necessary to address myself to you also, that you may with much care distribute the gifts there. There is no small punishment for you, if being conscious of any wickedness in any man, you allow him to partake of this table. “His blood shall be required at your hands.” *(St. John Chrysostom, c 400)
Ender

Semantics are a poor refuge. Simply calling it a “doctrine” does not change the reality that the Church has the power to change its teachings on the administration of the sacraments.

 

[Thomas_White]

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup.

For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves. (I Cor 11:27-29)

Ender

The verse says to examine yourselves.

“Examine yourselves…for those who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgement against themselves.”

The Douay-Rheims version translates Corinthians 11:28-33 this way:

“But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice.” Corinthians 11:28

“But if we should judge ourselves, we should not be judged.” Corinthians 11:31

“Wherefore, my brethren, when you come to eat, wait for one another.” Corinthians 11:33

Corinthians 11:28-31 is Paul’s admonished of Peter in Antioch, who had come from Jerusalem. When the Gentiles arrived, Peter separated himself from the Christian community and ate and drank “with those of the circumcision”. For those of the Law, eating and drinking with the Gentiles was against custom. For this, Paul chastised Peter in front of the entire community. A fuller explanation is found in Galatians 2:11-16.

 

[Thomas_White]

I have never heard of any dispute on the meaning of c. 1673.3, and who is supposed to give consent. Even if there was once some controversy, after the issuance of “Dignitas connubii” in 2005, there is no question about this.

Besides, even without the consent, the Tribunal of the Petitioner could only be “relatively incompetent.” This kind of incompetence is not an issue once the Respondent is cited (as he apparently was).

Beyond these comments, I don’t think I want to get much further into the technicalities…

Dan

I understand. No reply is necessary. But I did make it clear in my comment that the respondent was not cited. It was the basis of his appeal to the Roman Rota. The events occurred prior to 2005, but even if they had occurred later I don’t believe the provisions of Dignatas Connubii would have applied given that the respondent was not cited.

But thanks again for your response. It was informative.

 

[Ender]

The verse says to examine yourselves…

Yes, that is the obligation outlined in Canon 916. We are to examine ourselves and not partake if aware of a grave, unconfessed sin.*The Apostle Paul appeals to this duty when he warns: “Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup” (1 Cor 11:28). Saint John Chrysostom, with his stirring eloquence, exhorted the faithful: “I too raise my voice, I beseech, beg and implore that no one draw near to this sacred table with a sullied and corrupt conscience. Such an act, in fact, can never be called ‘communion’, not even were we to touch the Lord’s body a thousand times over, but ‘condemnation’, ‘torment’ and ‘increase of punishment’”.

*Along these same lines, the Catechism of the Catholic Church rightly stipulates that “anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to communion”. I therefore desire to reaffirm that in the Church there remains in force, now and in the future, the rule by which the Council of Trent gave concrete expression to the Apostle Paul’s stern warning when it affirmed that, in order to receive the Eucharist in a worthy manner, “one must first confess one’s sins, when one is aware of mortal sin”. (JPII,Ecclesia de Eucharistia #36)
There really is no possibility that this understanding will suddenly change. It is not changeable; the church has no authority to reverse this position.

Ender

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Ender

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup.

For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves. (I Cor 11:27-29)

This had to do with the people In Corinth who were treating the Eucharists as a dinner party with drinking and celebration. Some people in attendance were not even Christians, but they received the Eucharist out of pure ignorance.

It is this St Paul addresses.

A simple solution for the Church to be sure everyone is without mortal sin before receiving would be to return to “General Absolution,” at the beginning of the Mass, as was done before private confession became the norm centuries later.

Jim

 

[Thomas_White]

Yes, that is the obligation outlined in Canon 916. We are to examine ourselves and not partake if aware of a grave, unconfessed sin.*The Apostle Paul appeals to this duty when he warns: “Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup” (1 Cor 11:28). Saint John Chrysostom, with his stirring eloquence, exhorted the faithful: “I too raise my voice, I beseech, beg and implore that no one draw near to this sacred table with a sullied and corrupt conscience. Such an act, in fact, can never be called ‘communion’, not even were we to touch the Lord’s body a thousand times over, but ‘condemnation’, ‘torment’ and ‘increase of punishment’”.

*Along these same lines, the Catechism of the Catholic Church rightly stipulates that “anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to communion”. I therefore desire to reaffirm that in the Church there remains in force, now and in the future, the rule by which the Council of Trent gave concrete expression to the Apostle Paul’s stern warning when it affirmed that, in order to receive the Eucharist in a worthy manner, “one must first confess one’s sins, when one is aware of mortal sin”. (JPII,Ecclesia de Eucharistia #36)
There really is no possibility that this understanding will suddenly change. It is not changeable; the church has no authority to reverse this position.

Ender

Thanks for the reply. I will try to explain my comment. But first, as I’ve said, I don’t believe Pope Francis will change Church doctrine. But of course I don’t know it. It is only my opinion.

Early Christianity had by no means evolved into its later form. At the time of the Apostle Paul, the Church did not yet even have a priesthood. Paul was opposed to a priesthood, believing that Christians should remain a community of equal believers, his position often interpreted in light of the fact the historical Jesus was very much opposed to the existing priesthood. Christians met in private homes and ate bread and drank wine in rememberance of Christ. But there were no priests nor a Consecration as we know them. And neither were there at the time St. Paul was quoted in Corinthians.

By the time of St. Augustine, in the Fourth Century A.D., there was a priesthood, but St. Augustine, a Father of the Church, did not believe that transubstantiation of the Eucharist occurred, though this is disputed. It is plausible he meant only that the bread and wine did not change in a physical way that a scientist could observe (which would be in accord with the later teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas). However, this is absolutely not to say that when Christ said at the Last Supper “this is my body and this is my blood” it was disputed. My guess is that the early Christians did not see how they could accomplish this transubstantiation. In any event, that transubstantiation occurred was not a belief of early Christianity. Hebrews, the last book of the Bible and written in elegant Greek around 80-90 A.D., argues for formal recognition of a priesthood (which would later occur and involve a recognized ordination). The language is scholarly and philosophical unlike any other book of the Bible and would not be accepted into the canon for some time. I don’t think a priesthood is otherwise mentioned in the New Testament.

By the time of St. Augustine, the Church did not yet perform marriage ceremonies. In fact, St. Augustine had a concubine for seventeen years, in effect a common law wife since such a relationship was recognized as a legal union under Roman law. He fathered a son during the relationship only to abandon his concubine after he converted to Christianity and became a priest and bishop. He reveals all of this in his Confessions. To interpret scripture, I think it is better to remember that much had not yet occurred, and that it cannot be heresy to note historical facts. It is rather to consider things with an adequate generality, I think. I don’t see how history can be correctly understood in a retroactive way. I know many will argue the point, saying this or that fact really meant something else,

What St. John Chrysostom says is important, though it is not scripture. But note that he says no person should take communion “with a sullied and corrupt conscience”. I agree, but this too should be understood as meaning only what it plainly and clearly says.

 

[Abynissa]

Thanks for the reply. I will try to explain my comment. But first, as I’ve said, I don’t believe Pope Francis will change Church doctrine. But of course I don’t know it. It is only my opinion.

Early Christianity … time of the Apostle Paul, the Church did not yet even have a priesthood. Paul was opposed to a priesthood, believing that Christians should remain a community of equal believers, his position often interpreted in light of the fact the historical Jesus was very much opposed to the existing priesthood. Christians met in private homes and ate bread and drank wine in rememberance of Christ. But there were no priests nor a Consecration as we know them. And neither were there at the time St. Paul was quoted in Corinthians

Your statement above can easily be refuted by writings of the early church fathers. Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius (companion to the apostles) Justin Martyr, Ireneus etc. The Eucharists and the priesthood runs throughout the writings of the early church fathers who were taught and appointed to their positions by the apostles and far too many to even quote.

[a.d. 30–100.] Clement was probably a Gentile and a Roman. He seems to have been at Philippi with St. Paul (a.d. 57) A co-presbyter with Linus and Cletus, he succeeded them in the government of the RomanChurch. Clement was the natural representative of St. Paul, and even of his companion, the “apostle of the circumcision;” and naturally he wrote the Epistle in the name of the local church, when brethren looked to them for advice. St. John, no doubt, was still surviving at Patmos or in Ephesus

"the apostles, that there might be no contention respecting the priestly office. Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gaveinstructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry.

We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we** eject from the episcopate** those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties.

Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that ye have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour.

Polycarp, disciple of St. John, Bishop of Symrna
and the** presbyters with him**, to the Church of God sojourning at Philippi: Mercy
to you, and peace from God Almighty, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, our Saviour, be multiplied.

If Do ye, beloved, be careful to be subject to the bishop, and the presbyters and the deacons. For he that is subject to these is obedient to Christ, who has appointed them; but he that is disobedient to these is disobedient to Christ Jesus. And “he that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.” For he that yields not obedience to his superiors is self-confident, quarrelsome, and proud. But “God,” says [the Scripture] “resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble;” and, “The proud have greatly transgressed.” The Lord also says to the priests, “He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that heareth Me, heareth the Father that sent Me. He that despiseth you, despiseth Me; and he that despiseth Me, despiseth Him that sent Me.”

He, therefore, that separates himself from such, and does not meet in the society where sacrifices are offered, and with “the Church of the first-born whose names are written in heaven,” is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, while he presents a mild outward appearance. Do ye, beloved, be careful to be subject to the bishop, and the presbyters and the deacons. For he that is subject to these is obedient to Christ, who has appointed them; but he that is disobedient to these is disobedient to Christ Jesus.

Now the more any one sees the bishop keeping silence, the more ought he to revere him. For we ought to receive every one whom the Master of the house sends to be over His household, as we would do Him that sent him. It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself.

Ignatious
That he and Polycarp were fellow-disciples under St. John, is a tradition by no means inconsistent with anything in the Epistles of either.

"I received, therefore, your whole multitude in the name of God, through Onesimus, a man of inexpressible love, and your bishop in the flesh, whomI pray you by Jesus Christ to love, and that you would all seek to be like him. And blessed be He who has granted unto you, being worthy, to obtain such an excellent bishop.

” and that, being subject to the bishop and the presbytery, ye may in all respects be sanctifie

Wherefore it is fitting that ye also should run together in accordance with the will of the bishop who by God’s appointment rules over you. Which thing ye indeed of yourselves do, being instructed by the Spirit. For your justly-renowned presbytery, being worthy of God, is fitted as exactly to the bishop as the strings are to the harp.

 

[graciew]

I just want to say that many of the issues people say he hasn t spoken about ,well , he has.
If we can really stop and read ,it is there.
No changing doctrine , man and woman marriage and pastoral care.
Please ,peace. Let us help each other feel sheltered beneath the same Mantle. We ve all got our faults to confess and mistakes to overcome and improve. Without autojustification ,just as we are for the Good Lord to heal us. I am queueing too… with my own list.

m.vatican.va/content/francescomobile/en/homilies/2014/documents/papa-francesco_20141005_omelia-apertura-sinodo-vescovi.html

catholicherald.co.uk/news/2014/01/30/pope-francis-we-cannot-use-church-doctrine-as-we-please/

news.va/en/news/pope-francis-at-daily-mass-on-monday-2

And as far as his explanation about excommunication , many persons need to know what many already know.
To some extent ,please be patient. Not everybody has it as clear as you do.
God bless you.

 

[Thomas_White]

I don’t believe I’ll care to comment further, but I was referring to the formal establishment of an ordained priesthood and not to the presbyters of early Christianity. Presbyters are not recognized as priests outside of a hierarchical church, but this will be explained below. The NAB recognizes that Paul was not the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews and that its author is unknown. It was likely written after Paul’s death. It was not until the Fourth Century A.D. that Saints Augustine and Jerome attributed the epistle to Paul and that is when it was largely recognized as part of the canon by the Church. It provides the only reference in the New Testament to Christ as “a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek”. (See also Psalm 109.) That the priesthood of men began with St. Peter and the Apostles wasn’t even disputed in the comment. What was questioned was that a priesthood “on the order of Melchizedek” would have been the perspective of early Christians.

The point was that the epistle was not accepted as scripture by the Church until the Fourth Century. It would thus seem likely a priesthood on the order of Melchizedek was not the perspective of early Christians. In certain instances, such as this one, if early texts are to be quoted as proof then this ought to be considered. That was the point. What I was saying was not that Church dogma or doctrine were incorrect, but that it is questionable to assume that early Christians would have a perspective that only later became dogma and doctrine. In other words, what later was recognized–specifically, a priesthood on the order of Melchizedek–was not likely the mindset or perspective of the early Christians before the epistle was even written and before it would be accepted by the Church three centuries later. That’s all. I will let it go. Pax.

 

[dans0622]

I understand. No reply is necessary. But I did make it clear in my comment that the respondent was not cited. It was the basis of his appeal to the Roman Rota. The events occurred prior to 2005, but even if they had occurred later I don’t believe the provisions of Dignatas Connubii would have applied given that the respondent was not cited. …

“Citation” is what the Petitioner’s tribunal did when it contacted the Respondent and asked if he wanted to participate. I should have defined that term.

Dan

 

[Ender]

To interpret scripture, I think it is better to remember that much had not yet occurred, and that it cannot be heresy to note historical facts.

I don’t generally try to interpret scripture; rather, I rely on the church’s interpretation. That’s why I supplied the comment from JPII, who was explaining the comments of St. Paul and St. Chrysostom.

What St. John Chrysostom says is important, though it is not scripture.

The church has never limited herself solely to scripture. The fact that something is not directly mentioned in the Bible does not limit its significance.…sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others. (Dei Verbum #10)

But note that he says no person should take communion “with a sullied and corrupt conscience”. I agree, but this too should be understood as meaning only what it plainly and clearly says.

No, it should be understood as the church plainly and clearly explains it.* The Council of Trent has defined that no one conscious of mortal sin and having an opportunity of going to confession, however contrite he may deem himself, is to approach the Holy Eucharist until he has been purified by sacramental confession. *(Catechism of Trent)
Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

“Citation” is what the Petitioner’s tribunal did when it contacted the Respondent and asked if he wanted to participate. I should have defined that term.

Dan

Thanks for the reply. I guess what was originally meant as illustrative of the sort of difficulties divorced and remarried Catholics might experience is not such a simple matter and might not directly concern Church doctrine either. As a result, an explanation quickly become complex. That a respondent’s right to object to a marriage case being heard in the petitioner’s distant diocese, as is provided in plain and clear language in Can. 1673.1 of the 1983 code of Canon Law, becomes of only relative importance in 2005 when the respondent has not been so notified and heard but later learns of the marriage case after the time period for him/her to object has expired, speaks for itself. That a provision of Canon law that ultimately concerns the Sacrament of Marriages becomes relative is beyond where I want to go. However, I would think that any reasonable person could see there is indeed a problem once it is realized what is occurring.

The situation was even more complex than described, and I really didn’t care to fully explain it. It is lengthy, and the events occurred long ago. My friends marriage occurred in 1975 when the 1917 code of Canon Law was canon law. His divorce occurred some years later but prior to 1983. His marriage case occured after 1983 and was heard under the 1983 code. Can. 6 of the 1983 code of Canon law originally provided that acts occuring prior to the promulgation of the 1983 code would be subject to the 1917 code. This was only later modified (in 1999 I believe) and years after my friend’s Decree of Nullity. The difference is substantial. The modification made an annulment far easier to obtain for those affected and has been explained by some observers as being in the spirit of Vatican II. Maybe so, but it did not work so well for my friend, who never wanted an annullment, or in the end for his wife either. After years of civil remarriage, his wife deeply regrets the mistake of ever having petitioned for an annulment. I’ll just say that since the husband did not participate in the marriage case, she knows the direct testimony the marriage tribunal heard was her side only and was hardly the full truth of it. This she regrets.

It is even more complex. What was changed was Canon 1964 of the 1917 code of Canon Law. It had specifically provided that the respondent, and no other person, must consent to the marriage case being heard in the petitioner’s distant diocese. Canon 1673.3 of the revised 1983 code gives this right to the petitioner. But this revision was earlier accomplished by a modification in the early 1980’s that applied to the U.S. only. There is (or was) an article on the Canon Law Society of America’s website that explained the modification, which applied in the U.S. only, was the result of pressure applied by special interest groups on U.S. bishops. The bishops conference in return asked the Vatican to modify the canon, and this occurred. The modification was, in a gender specific way, favorable to the petitioner. It also left the respondent without any effective right concerning where such a marriage case could be heard no matter how distant it might be. A question later arose as to whether the approved Latin text of the 1983 code actually incorporates this moification, though the English translation does. This also involves the modification of Canon 6 of the 1983 code.

It is surely complex. And it involves the salvation of souls. It is my opinion that a Pandora’s Box was opened and that the process is now at least questionable. I also believe that Pope Francis knows it and that it has much to do with why the question is before the synod.

Anyway, I’ve come to realize that some complex issues are really not suitable for a forum discussion. So I will let this one go too. Thanks again.

 

[Thomas_White]

No, it should be understood as the church plainly and clearly explains it.* The Council of Trent has defined that no one conscious of mortal sin and having an opportunity of going to confession, however contrite he may deem himself, is to approach the Holy Eucharist until he has been purified by sacramental confession. *(Catechism of Trent)
Ender

Ender–

I had wished to just let this discussion go. But would it not make for a pretty dull forum if everyone agreed on everything? It wouldn’t work at all. The forum has also encouraged discussion of the issue.

So, with all due respect, I have tried to make it very clear I do not question Church doctrine. I’ve also said I agree with what St. John Chrysostom said. What I believe is the early history of the Church is important and that there could not be a more traditional way of understanding. Of course scripture is sometimes only later explained and understood as doctrine. That you say the question here “should be understood as the church plainly and clearly explains it” in the 16th Century ‘Catechism of Trent’ only illustrates it. This was my point, and I cannot state it more clearly than I already have.

What seems misunderstood is that what I have said does not question whether a later explanation or doctrine was correct from the beginning. It is rather that it might have not earlier been so clear, and, indeed, is perhaps why the the later explanation is thought necessary. To understand what I have said this is very important.

 

[Tomdstone]

[/INDENT]No, it should be understood as the church plainly and clearly explains it.* The Council of Trent has defined that no one conscious of mortal sin and having an opportunity of going to confession, however contrite he may deem himself, is to approach the Holy Eucharist until he has been purified by sacramental confession. *(Catechism of Trent)
Ender

Apparently this rule has been changed, because at a Mass I went to, the priest announced that he saw no reason why everyone there should not receive Holly Communion.