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

[ProVobis]

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.

I’d be more inclined to run out the door.

 

[Phemie]

I’d be more inclined to run out the door.

I saw our former pastors give Communion to the pastors of the various churches in our town and I’ve seen a former Pastor receive at the Anglican parish (no, not Anglican Catholic). I’ll believe anything.

 

[Ender]

Semantics are a poor refuge.

Not where words actually matter.

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.

It is simply untrue that the church can teach what she wants. She has to teach what she believes is true, not what believes ought to be true. She has no authority whatever to change her mind about doctrines as settled as this one.

Ender

 

[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.

Since the pope himself has no authority to change this “rule”, what you witnessed was a priest violating church doctrine, not changing it.

Ender

 

[Tomdstone]

Not where words actually matter.
It is simply untrue that the church can teach what she wants. She has to teach what she believes is true, not what believes ought to be true. She has no authority whatever to change her mind about doctrines as settled as this one.

Ender

How do you know that this is doctrine and not a disciplinary matter?

 

[zz912]

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.

So those letters to Timothy and Titus about ordaining men to the priesthood and episcopacy? Totally made up and forgeries?

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.

Since St. Augustine explicitly said that Jesus held Himself in His hands when He said “this is My Body”, your claim simply doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. St. Augustine was clear in his belief in 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.

Yeah, other than 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Acts, Titus and others…

 

[ProVobis]

How do you know that this is doctrine and not a disciplinary matter?

It becomes disciplinary when you desire to change it.

After reading the doctrines issued by Trent, one is inclined to ask today why did they bother to list them in the first place.

 

[pnewton]

It becomes disciplinary when you desire to change it.

After reading the doctrines issued by Trent, one is inclined to ask today why did they bother to list them in the first place.

The administration of the Sacraments have always been a matter of discipline, though they are disciplines that are based on doctrines that cannot be changed, like the permanence of marriage. “Remarried cannot receive communion” is not a doctrine. It is a conclusion from doctrine. For example, we now allow this to happen by a determination that the person is not in a state of mortal sin (actual or objective, I have never gotten a straight answer on that), because the first marriage is not valid, as determined by a hearing on the diocesan level. There is a more discipline involved with this than anything. Since the Church does not make the first marriage invalid, but only says it is, is there another way this can be handled?

 

[Thomas_White]

It becomes disciplinary when you desire to change it.

After reading the doctrines issued by Trent, one is inclined to ask today why did they bother to list them in the first place.

The Council of Trent, held in 1545-63, was, at least in part, a response to the start of the Reformation that had begun in 1517.

 

[ProVobis]

The administration of the Sacraments have always been a matter of discipline, though they are disciplines that are based on doctrines that cannot be changed, like the permanence of marriage. “Remarried cannot receive communion” is not a doctrine. It is a conclusion from doctrine.

Good point. For it to be dogma or doctrine, it has to be defined in such a way as to be unchanging. FInding the right terminology isn’t often easy.

 

[ProVobis]

The Council of Trent, held in 1545-63, was, at least in part, a response to the start of the Reformation that had begun in 1517.

I understand that. And Protestantism hasn’t gone away that we can now safely dump the Trent doctrines.

 

[Thomas_White]

I understand that. And Protestantism hasn’t gone away that we can now safely dump the Trent doctrines.

Yes, I know. My point was these doctrines originated fifteen-hundred years after the time of the early Christians. A millennium and a half later, there was still no consensus about these questions. The Council of Trent was meant to provide this unity, and of course also included the Tridentine Mass. In historical terms, the Coucil of Trent was much closer to our own era than to early Christianity.

 

[ProVobis]

Yes, I know. My point was these doctrines originated fifteen-hundred years after the time of the early Christians.

DId these actually originate with Trent or were they clarified by Trent? What we know as the Tridentine Mass was certainly said as early as the 7th century if not earlier.

 

[Brendan]

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.

Just because someone ignores a rule does not mean that the rule has been changed.

 

[Brendan]

Yes, I know. My point was these doctrines originated fifteen-hundred years after the time of the early Christians…

No, those doctrines originated with St. Paul, and, by your own admission, were articulated again via St John Chrysostom ( who was clearly before the 16th Century). Trent merely restated what the Church held to be True. This was done because there were those, under the guise of Reformation, who had questioned the nature of the Eucharist, and therefore it’s effect on those who receive it in error.

 

[Ender]

Yes, I know. My point was these doctrines originated fifteen-hundred years after the time of the early Christians. A millennium and a half later, there was still no consensus about these questions. The Council of Trent was meant to provide this unity, and of course also included the Tridentine Mass. In historical terms, the Council of Trent was much closer to our own era than to early Christianity.

This is just a guess on your part, and isn’t actually correct. Aquinas addressed this specific point 300 years before Trent.And therefore it is manifest that whoever receives this sacrament while in mortal sin, is guilty of lying to this sacrament, and consequently of sacrilege, because he profanes the sacrament: and therefore he sins mortally. (ST III, 80-4)
It was also taken up in the Didache which dates back to the first century.On the Lord’s Day of the Lord come together, break bread and hold Eucharist, after confessing your transgressions that your offering may be pure; (XIV, 1)
There assuredly was a consensus on this issue, and it has not changed in 20 centuries.

Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

This is just a guess on your part, and isn’t actually correct. Aquinas addressed this specific point 300 years before Trent.And therefore it is manifest that whoever receives this sacrament while in mortal sin, is guilty of lying to this sacrament, and consequently of sacrilege, because he profanes the sacrament: and therefore he sins mortally. (ST III, 80-4)
It was also taken up in the Didache which dates back to the first century.On the Lord’s Day of the Lord come together, break breakd and hold Eucharist, after confessing your transgressions that your offering may be pure; (XIV, 1)
There assuredly was a consensus on this issue, and it has not changed in 20 centuries.

Ender

And why would St. Thomas Aquinas address this specific point around the year 1270 A.D, more than a thousand years after the time of the early Christians?

Neither I nor anyone I have quoted has said it is acceptable to take communion while in a state of mortal sin. I would note that the question we were discussing concerned whether divorced and remarried Catholic should be permitted to receive communion and that in the year 2015 the question remains an issue among Catholics and is before the Synod of Bishops.

That divorced and remarried Catholics who have not obtained an annulment are in the state of mortal sin as a result of their first marriage is a presumption. Matthew 7.1 tells us that Christ said we should not judge others lest we be so judged.

 

[zz912]

And why would St. Thomas Aquinas address this specific point around the year 1270 A.D, more than a thousand years after the time of the early Christians?

Neither I nor anyone I have quoted has said it is acceptable to take communion while in a state of mortal sin. I would note that the question we were discussing concerned whether divorced and remarried Catholic should be permitted to receive communion and that in the year 2015 the question remains an issue among Catholics and is before the Synod of Bishops.

That divorced and remarried Catholics who have not obtained an annulment are in the state of mortal sin as a result of their first marriage is a presumption. Matthew 7.1 tells us that Christ said we should not judge others lest we be so judged.

No it’s not. They are objectively living in adultery. Only if they have gone to Confession, confessed their sin, and are living as brother and sister would they not be mortal sin.

 

[Tomdstone]

This is just a guess on your part, and isn’t actually correct. Aquinas addressed this specific point 300 years before Trent.And therefore it is manifest that whoever receives this sacrament while in mortal sin, is guilty of lying to this sacrament, and consequently of sacrilege, because he profanes the sacrament: and therefore he sins mortally. (ST III, 80-4)
It was also taken up in the Didache which dates back to the first century.On the Lord’s Day of the Lord come together, break bread and hold Eucharist, after confessing your transgressions that your offering may be pure; (XIV, 1)
There assuredly was a consensus on this issue, and it has not changed in 20 centuries.

Ender

It seems to be changing now with almost everyone going to Holy Communion.

 

[Tomdstone]

No it’s not. They are objectively living in adultery. Only if they have gone to Confession, confessed their sin, and are living as brother and sister would they not be mortal sin.

But have they met all the requirements for mortal sin? I thought that only God would know that?