Pope Francis: if you are in a state of mortal sin, you cannot receive Communion

[BlackFriar]

“Minor” and “fallible” meaning you are prepared to consider it interesting but are prepared to dismiss whatever it says that contradicts your assertions?

Not at all.
Large claims such as yours require large authority.
It isn’t there mate. I’ll stick with AL, Pope Francis and their preceding tradition even if it was once a minor tradition. Now it has become a major tradition.

Such happens a lot with Church teachings. They take time to crystallise into dogma. Many teachings still aren’t clear enough to be declared dogmatically yet. That doesn’t mean the current Magisterial status cannot be discerned.

For example did Mary die? The Magisterium refuses to pronounce dogmatically on this at the moment. However if it did so tomorrow it is clear which way it would go as the Magisterium’s own teaching on this is quite clear.

Are you suggesting that someone who privately “discerns” that his first marriage was invalid should therefore be given communion publicly?

Quite the opposite. Someone who has had their situation discerned by a priest who allows them to confession and forgiveness even while still active may now proceed to Communion. AL doesn’t restrict that only to a Church where they are not known. So one’s own PP’s Church certainly isn’t ruled out apriori.

And being allowed by the PP, who acts in accord with his bishop’s guidelines, is by that fact alone “public” I suggest. He represents the Church and certainly what is acceptable publicly in his own church.

If you were less sententious you might be more understandable.

Ah, the “Cardinal defence”.
If it doesn’t fit my nice, tight and black and white canon law view of the world then one is “confused”.

Look how well that gambit worked. Two down, only a matter of time until the other two disappear into the could-have-been but ultimately bypassed tracks, overlooked personages and lost footnotes of history.

Just like the close-calls of Arianism, Donatism and many other good looking and well meaning heresies that were widely accepted even by sincere Catholics until the Holy Spirit prevailed over time.

Within the next 50 years Amoris Laetitia will be seen as a watershed moment in the history of the modern Church unrivalled since Vatican II (except by HV of course). As a loyal Catholic I certainly desire to be on the right side of history. Which is always where the Pope is.

 

[Ender]

I’m sure there are a great many things about the church where my understanding is insufficient, and I am very wary of opposing my opinion to the positions those in authority have taken. When, however, those in authority are themselves taking opposing positions, and a side has to be taken, I have to make that decision based on my own understanding…aided by the arguments of those who cannot be merely dismissed as uninformed.

Where is the argument that I should accept Cardinal Cupich’s interpretation over that of Cardinal Burke? They cannot both be right.

 

[BlackFriar]

When, however, those in authority are themselves taking opposing positions, and a side has to be taken, I have to make that decision based on my own understanding…

I suggest that a loyal, untrained Catholic who doesn’t understand a situation (and those educated clergy he looks to to be informed by are themselves in disharmony) then he cannot go wrong if he defers to his Pope. Relying on your own uncertain understanding clearly cannot be a light in the darkness in this situation.

But if you rather mean that you must follow your own conscience, if it is certain after informing it as best you can, …then of course you must do that. But you admit yourself your conscience is not certain.

And even if it were you are still pitting yourself against a Pope so you may still be in objective error even if you do rightly follow your conscience.

So no, as a loyal Catholic I have little respect for your above approach based on “my own understanding”. If one is uncertain a loyal Catholic follows his leader not his leader’s divided lieutenants.

 

[graciew]

Church Teaching develops ,Ender.
Even Pope Benedict said that,and that there were things that they had to study further.
And he is a genius…
It is " chinese" for us,very difficult,even incomprehensible. If there are things that are complex for them and must study further,imagine for us…
Sometimes, it really sounds like they are stressing different things…or that they want to stress different things. Anyway,it is the stratosphere to grasp at least for me. And thanks God they understand which iswhat matters.
If you want to stay awake for hours deciphering,I can share some of those,related to the topic…undeciphered by me.

 

[KMG]

Cardinal Cupich and Cardinal Burke cannot both be right.

Archbishop Chaput and Archbishop Forte cannot both be right.

The bishops of Argentina and the bishops of Poland cannot both be right.

The bishops of Malta and the bishops of Sri Lanka cannot both be right.

Nor can we simply say, well today we believe something entirely different from yesterday, merely because it seems that is what Pope Francis believes.

“Seems” being the operative word here, since this pontificate has deliberately eschewed clear, direct statements on this issue coupled with clarification of doubtful points raised by legitimate questioners.

Doubtful laws do not bind.

 

[BlackFriar]

Cardinal Cupich and Cardinal Burke cannot both be right.
Archbishop Chaput and Archbishop Forte cannot both be right.
The bishops of Argentina and the bishops of Poland cannot both be right…

Usury is always and everywhere wrong. We all agree on that.
But what level of, say, home rate loan interest rates, indicates such malice?
5%, 10%, 20%?

Given that house prices, average wage rates and cost of living varies significantly between Poland and Argentina it would be ludicrous to say that we must all agree on an absolute percentage value as indicative of usury in all countries.

Yet those with set positions on the issue of irregulars somehow believe agreement over the standards of public unworthiness for Communion must magically be exactly the same in each country (or every age) lest the Catholic doctrinal firmament crack and crumble.

The strange view demonstrates a peculiar lack of moral consistency and imagination.

Doubtful laws do not bind.

By all means do not avail yourself of the new provisions under AL when your marriage fails and you get remarried.

But please leave others who have no doubt to avail themselves. Be without rancour or recrimination rather than foment like a dog in a manger. They may one day be your own Catholic brothers and sisters in the Communion line ahead of you.

 

[Ender]

I suggest that a loyal, untrained Catholic who doesn’t understand a situation (and those educated clergy he looks to to be informed by are themselves in disharmony) then he cannot go wrong if he defers to his Pope. Relying on your own uncertain understanding clearly cannot be a light in the darkness in this situation.

Actually, it is not a question of deferring to the pope, but of deferring to you. It is not the pope’s position I reject but your interpretation of it. It can hardly be said that I reject the pope when his position is manifestly unclear. That you think you understand it carries no more weight with me than my saying you are mistaken carries with you, and you are no more justified in claiming knowledge of the truth than I am.

We are equally justified in interpreting the situation as we think right, and until the document is resolved one way or the other we will not know. Our disagreement is no different than the disagreement between the bishops.

 

[Ender]

• Cardinal Cupich and Cardinal Burke cannot both be right.
• Archbishop Chaput and Archbishop Forte cannot both be right.
• The bishops of Argentina and the bishops of Poland cannot both be right.
• The bishops of Malta and the bishops of Sri Lanka cannot both be right.

If this doesn’t indicate the extent and seriousness of the division within the church it is hard to image what would. That this situation is being allowed to simply fester without clarification is a real tragedy.

 

[BlackFriar]

It can hardly be said that I reject the pope when his position is manifestly unclear.

You seem to be reinterpreting your own history on this matter as you go along.

I recall that last year you rejected the Argentinian Guidelines (which were clear enough to you back then and you could not accept) on the tortured legalistic basis that Pope Francis’s letter of approval was not Magisterial and therefore somehow the Holy Spirit had abandoned him or that somehow he didn’t know his own mind when he wrote AL and a later personal letter was somehow not clear evidence of this.

So now that this loophole for your fixed view on this matter has been denied you (we now know the letter is Magisterial as it has been recorded in his Pontifical Acts) you have reversed your position and now say even the Argentinian Draft is unclear.

Ender, as my wife would say to me, “now you are twisting because you have to be right.”

So sorry, a point comes when, as you have also often opined, people are often culpable for their own erroneously formed conscience.

 

[Ender]

You seem to be reinterpreting your own history on this matter as you go along.

I recall that last year you rejected the Argentinian Guidelines (which were clear enough to you back then and you could not accept) on the tortured legalistic basis that Pope Francis’s letter of approval was not Magisterial and therefore somehow the Holy Spirit had abandoned him or that somehow he didn’t know his own mind when he wrote AL and a later personal letter was somehow not clear evidence of this.

If you are right about this surely you can show where I made such claims, but if you cannot do so it is more reasonable to assume you simply invented this.

So now that this loophole for your fixed view on this matter has been denied you (we now know the letter is Magisterial as it has been recorded in his Pontifical Acts) you have reversed your position and now say even the Argentinian Draft is unclear.

Now you’re just inventing things wholesale. If you’re going to dispute what I say at least cite my comments. Although I do recognize that making stuff up is easier. Really, if you are so sure you can rebut my arguments you ought to be confident enough to cite my actual words, which are in general wildly different than your characterization of them.

 

[KMG]

Popes don’t offer binding teachings/interpretations by saying, yes the guidelines those other bishops wrote are my thinking.

Especially when plenty of other bishops have guidelines that say something completely different and the pope says nothing about the confusion.

 

[Ender]

Popes don’t offer binding teachings/interpretations by saying, yes the guidelines those other bishops wrote are my thinking.

Especially when plenty of other bishops have guidelines that say something completely different and the pope says nothing about the confusion.

This is pretty much what Cardinal Burke said:

My position is that “Amoris Laetitia” is not magisterial because it contains serious ambiguities that confuse people and can lead them into error and grave sin. A document with these defects cannot be part of the Church’s perennial teaching. Because that is the case, the Church needs absolute clarity regarding what Pope Francis is teaching and encouraging.

 

[BlackFriar]

If you are right about this surely you can show where I made such claims, but if you cannot do so it is more reasonable to assume you simply invented this.

By all means do simply state your past position re Argentina and Malta interpretations (approved by PFI) in your own words if I am grossly mistaken.

(If CAF hadn’t made such a mess of archiving the old website I would have quoted you.)

 

[KMG]

Again, the pope is free to say that other bishops’ interpretations are just fine and dandy, while ignoring the interpretations of plenty more bishops.

But that is not how popes offer binding teachings.

 

[Ender]

By all means do simply state your past position re Argentina and Malta interpretations (approved by PFI) in your own words if I am grossly mistaken.

If I took a position on their interpretation it would have been a more cautious one than simply stating they were wrong. I would, however, very likely have suggested that it is a mistake to take any position that contradicts past practice based on implications gleaned from an ambiguous document.

(If CAF hadn’t made such a mess of archiving the old website I would have quoted you.)

I doubt that my specific comments would support your contention. You read into my words than I put there.

 

[BlackFriar]

I would, however, very likely have suggested that it is a mistake to take any position that contradicts past practice based on implications gleaned from an ambiguous document.

I would very likely suggest that it is a mistake to take any position that contradicts a present practise of a living Pope (indicated well enough by his applauding both Malta and Argentine Guidelines) when one is an untrained layman with a doubtful conscience.

 

[BlackFriar]

If this doesn’t indicate the extent and seriousness of the division within the church it is hard to image what would. That this situation is being allowed to simply fester without clarification is a real tragedy.

By all means explain to us why the teaching on usury is contradicted if bishops in Poland say home loans at 6% would be usurious while in the US bishops might say it would be at 12%.

That differential practise is surely bring the doctrine on usury into disrepute?

 

[BlackFriar]

Again, the pope is free to say that other bishops’ interpretations are just fine and dandy, while ignoring the interpretations of plenty more bishops.

But that is not how popes offer binding teachings.

Clearly it isn’t a binding doctrinal teaching that is being offered then.
Its not rocket science…unless one has a set position of course.