Thankfully there are so many wise people today who will save the Church from withering and dying. They will be able to change the obvious errors God has made and prevent the Church from dying, which God is incapable of protecting.
Though your reply is hardly a fair interpretation of my comment, you might want to take a look at Die verbum. No one has said God has, could or would make any errors, and to say I might have suggested it is really not to add to the discussion in any positive way.Thankfully there are so many wise people today who will save the Church from withering and dying. They will be able to change the obvious errors God has made and prevent the Church from dying, which God is incapable of protecting.
Despite the sarcasm, I note that we do have a wise pope that believes marriage issues do need to be examined in an attempt to be more ministerial. Why denigrate people for being in union with the Holy Father in this desire?Thankfully there are so many wise people today who will save the Church from withering and dying. They will be able to change the obvious errors God has made and prevent the Church from dying, which God is incapable of protecting.
probably because we’re seeing an attempt to polarize Catholics again. It appears to be the kind of strategy that, despite its having been pointed out over and over, still seems to ‘work’. Back when Pope Benedict was Pope, the strategy was to paint him as being against everything that liberal-minded people held dear. . .to twist and distort his words and actions in every possible way to make it seem that he and any who agreed with those ‘distortions’ --and make no mistake, any person who identified as ‘conservative’ was assumed to hold all these distorted pseudo-conservative ideas and to be hell-bent on forcing them onto 'normal people-- and hey, that worked beautifully. You had conservatives constantly on the defensive when supposedly ‘their’ leader was on their side.
I would think the solution would be to opt out of playing the game, since we know it is rigged. We must accept that many will use selective quotes and spin to make it appear the Pope as a political ally. It will happen and we can do nothing about it.
It is the understanding of “those conditions which must be fullfilled for a marriage to be considered indissoluble according to the sense of Jesus’ teaching” that can change. One is not free to proclaim that any particular teaching cannot change. This is dogma.
Yes, but this is a different issue. We have exceptions today; this is why some marriages can be annulled, and no one has suggested that the conditions could not be altered is some ways. The issue of primary concern, however, is whether those whose first marriages have not been annulled should be allowed to receive communion.
It is in fact dogma that some teachings cannot change; that’s what an infallible teaching is.
That point was decided at Nicea; it had nothing to do with the Liturgical change which simply incorporated an English term that was felt to more closely express the original concept. The concept was in no way changed. But this is all beside the point. The ban on the reception of communion by those in irregular marriages cannot be altered without a doctrinal change. You’ve already said you don’t expect doctrine to change, so why are you arguing for that possibility?
The relevant verses are those the church has issued on the subject. Our personal interpretations are meaningless.
Yes, so? What conclusion are we to draw from this? Are you arguing for a specific position or simply making a random, irrelevant observation?
This is certainly one issue. Basically this is the “Catholic divorce” option.
What it would come down to is a question of whether there is a standard set of criteria governing all cases (as it is today) or whether it would be left to the personal discretion of individual clergy. The latter case would take clergy-shopping to a whole other level.
You can’t judge things you cannot know. On the other hand if it is known that a person is in an irregular marriage that fact cannot simply be ignored because there is no photographic evidence of what goes on in the bedroom.
The church does not share that view. The minister of communion has a responsibility not to give communion to someone “obstinately persevering in manifest, grave, sin.”
You have shown no such thing. An invalid premise in no way invalidates the logic of a conclusion. Yes, it is a presumption, and it is the presumption the church makes.
The church has already decided this. Are you arguing that she is wrong to do so? The individual has the right and the obligation to clear up the understanding if it is wrong, but until he does that, he is presumptively banned from communion.
It is neither arbitrary nor is it a judgment of a person’s soul. It is a judgment based on the public actions of the people involved.
Whatever, it has nothing to do with his (or Cardinal Dulles’) comments on doctrinal development.
At the infallible Ecumenical Council of Florence - Ferrara a reunion was proclaimed between the Roman Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. I don’t believe that as part of the agreement, there was any declaration that the Orthodox had to stop giving Church sponsored divorces?
(sigh)
Hey, no need to bring cats into this. Don’t make me bring my cat back out.
No, it is not true. It is, however, a logical conclusion. You may accurately say the conclusion is nonsense, but you cannot claim it is illogical. A premise is flawed, but the conclusion is not.
You should read this entire document; it isn’t that long and addresses the Eastern church.On doctrinal grounds, the praxis of the Eastern churches separated from Rome cannot be taken up by the Catholic Church, as it is the result of a complex historical process, an increasingly liberal – and thus more and more removed from the words of the Lord – interpretation of several obscure patristic texts which were significantly influenced by civil law. Furthermore, the claim is incorrect that the Church simply tolerated such a praxis. Admittedly, the Council of Trent did not pronounce any explicit condemnation. The medieval canonists, however, consistently spoke of the praxis as improper. Furthermore, there is evidence that groups of Orthodox believers who became Catholic had to sign a profession of faith with an explicit reference to the impossibility of a second marriage. (Cardinal Ratzinger)
It is the understanding of dogma that can and does change.
The original concept was the Greek word for ‘Being’, which is ‘ouisa’. Latin lacks a present participle for the word “to be”. ‘Ouisa’ was translated to Latin as ‘consubstantialis’, which connotes both Being and substance. It translates from Latin to English as “consubstantial”. I only mentioned it as an example.
There was no personal interpretation. The verses speak for themselves.
If it is believed that it is an irrelevant observation that the teachings of Christ concern mercy, forgiveness of sin, and salvation when the question concerns the salvation of souls, then it would seem futile to try to explain.
It would seem fair to say you are opposed to any change with respect to this question, or at least believe change is impossible. When I noted it was a question before the Synod of Bishops you dismissed it out of hand, saying the question was already answered when Church teaching is followed.
If you can’t judge things you cannot know, then you can’t judge what is unknown and occurs in the privacy of a bedroom. With all due respect, this is not difficult. However, it is the thing, central to your argument, that you either cannot see or won’t acknowledge.
I agree when this is known. It conceivably could apply in instances where a Catholic obstinately persists in manifest grave violation of the papal encyclical Laudato Si.
All horses are male.
Presumptively indeed, but not a fact. Yes, the person is presumptively banned, so why say so and then once again argue it isn’t the case in the next sentence. Am I arguing that the Church is wrong? What I initially said is that to address this question in some ways doctrine would not have to be changed. What I do disagree with is your assertion that this isn’t even a question when doctrine is followed. The question was put before the Synod of Bishops by the Supreme Pontiff. Are you arguing that he is wrong?
Au contraire. Cardinal Newman strongly questioned the way papal infallibility came about during Vatican I. I will not go into the issue here, but suffice it to say Die verbum was in part a response.
God is good. Jesus loves you. These truisms are also irrelevant to the particular topic. Like your comments, there is nothing I can conclude from them regarding the question of whether communion ought to be given to those in irregular marriages. If you would like to try applying those concepts by suggesting something concrete, I’ll be sure to respond.
This is incorrect. My comments are specific, not generic. I have never said *no *change is possible; what I have said is that in order for someone in an irregular situation to receive communion a major tenet of the church’s teaching would have to be reversed.
Yes, there are some bishops who would support just such a doctrinal change. That doesn’t mean such change is actually possible.
Yes there are. It’s just that those “other” questions have not generated anything like the concern raised by communion for the divorced and remarried.
Again, what is the relevance of this statistic, whatever it is? Should doctrine be determined by the church or public opinion in the US?
Not at all, but this comparison demonstrates the distinction between the two cases, and it has to do with what is publicly known and what is privately known.
The appearance, however, can be judged since it is public, and it is the appearance of sin that is the problem.
This is more than a little vague. What violation of the encyclical did you have in mind?
I didn’t. You have put too broad an interpretation on my comments.
I think the only way to permit communion in these cases without specifically changing doctrine would be to expand the grounds for annulment to the extent that they become basically meaningless. This is the “Catholic divorce” option.
I don’t believe it was. Can you cite where Francis asked the synod to re-examine the question of giving communion to divorced and remarried Catholics?
I would assume that anyone giving the appearance of persevering in manifest, grave sin would also be excluded.
It is a judgment of a person’s public actions. That part isn’t presumptive, and it is done to protect others from scandal.*A thing is said to be less right…because it has some lack of rectitude, either through being evil in itself, such as sin, or through having an appearance of evil. Thus, for instance, if a man were to “sit at meat in the idol’s temple” (1 Cor. 8:10), though this is not sinful in itself, provided it be done with no evil intention, yet, since it has a certain appearance of evil, and a semblance of worshipping the idol, it might occasion another man’s spiritual downfall. Hence the Apostle says (1 Thess. 5:22): “From all appearance of evil refrain yourselves.” Scandal is therefore fittingly described as something done “less rightly,” so as to comprise both whatever is sinful in itself, and all that has an appearance of evil. *(Aquinas ST II-II 43, 1 ad 2)
The act is the marriage outside of the church. We have already stipulated that this is known.
An action is not sinless simply because the conscience approves it. The conscience can err, and the individual may be held accountable for his fault. The conscience is not a get-out-of-jail-free card.
And the Council of Florence-Ferrara which effected the reunion between Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics? I don’t see where the Orthodox were required to give up their teaching on divorce as part of the reunion agreement?
Here are four such citations. There are literally hundreds and more likely thousands more.
