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

[BlackFriar]

I don’t find this vague at all.

Well we must agree to disagree then.
Having read through the actual material of Card Ratz and the links you have supplied I see a variety of very different issues re Communion. Apart from the non-specific generalisations that he has changed his position I see no evidence that he has reversed all his views. Some arguments he has dropped, others he simply believes “FS has spoken” so there is nothing more to say and others he says more research needs to be done because they are very complex.

not at the expense of dispensing “a norm of divine law”; that is, having those divorced and remarried members of the faithful receiving the Eucharist.

Yet here FS and AL are in contradiction. If you take the view that FS definitively settles the issue then you must hold AL is fallible (or being read wrongly). Which you clearly do.

Yet if you take this position surely you must accept others can do the same and find AL definitively says otherwise and FS is being read wrongly (or is fallible).

Logic suggests you are mistaken re AL, I am mistaken re FS or…neither is infallible on this point because in fact Communion practise is not strongly linked to doctrine at all and is a discipline where wise Popes may validly differ. I observe Card Ratzinger on numerous occasions himself refers to the problem using the word “practice.”

I also believe that those couples who keep “slipping up” (i.e., they resolve to live as brother and sister and practice continence, but fall into sin) can still receive the Eucharist after receiving the sacrament of Reconciliation.

That’s a relief, many call this implicit refusal to abstain. Which then begs the question as to whether or not those who explicitly say they are unable to make a commitment to abstain (because they know they are not strong enough and would fall into worse evils trying to do so) are not implicitly repentant.

 

[BlackFriar]

Are you saying that AL contradicts FC 84’s interpretation when you say “this interpretation”? FC is not a “silver bullet”. As I mentioned, it simply reaffirmed Church teaching, as did the CDF’s 1998 letter, so I reject your view that it could be in error.

Well forgive me then if I reject your reading of AL!

First, we have to realize that the Church recognizes all marriages as being valid until proved otherwise. An internal and subjective determination of “conscience” does not and cannot determine if a marriage was valid or not. If a tribunal finds that the marriage is valid, then the marriage is deemed valid. In the case of a couple that hasn’t gone before a tribunal to determine the marriage’s validity, then the first marriage must be assumed valid until the tribunal can make a decision, no matter how long that may take.

This is an extremely weak position. Card Ratzinger and other Popes clearly take it for granted (and have stated) the Tribunal requires a high level of evidential proof and therefore can be informally known to make mistaken decisions quite often accordingly. This reality is the very basis of PFI’s informal discernment process which may allow Communion access in some cases.

I believe the Argentinian Bishops’ Letter can be read in an orthodox way.

Of course you do. Your position would fail if you didn’t. However it seems wishful thinking on your part as you seem to have a vested interest in a particular view. Me I don’t really care either way re Communion access. Being neutral I have always understood AL’s position from the moment I read it on the day it was published. It is nuanced but clear. The Arg Guidelines and the Pope’s letter of approval (which many detractors said was informal and somehow doesn’t count) recently being formally recorded in Magisterial archives all adds to the point.

 

[BlackFriar]

But here’s the thing. We’ve been told again and again that there is no change in the Church’s teaching, that Pope Francis has changed nothing

Of course. What do you expect Vatican diplomats to say - papal infallibility is a myth?
We are toid there was no change in God’s teaching re Usury in the Middle Ages when the growing class of merchants pressured the Church to “re-assess” its restrictive views. And behold, this teaching that had been consistent since 2000BC or so suddenly changed. Sorry, was re-assessed more deeply and it was found that in changing times Usury, in some regards, was not really usery.

But seriously, of course the doctrine hasn’t changed. Just call it a practice (like eating fish on Fridays) that has changed. Like the Galileo affair, the Church was mistaken. The doctrine of Biblical inerrancy wasn’t as closely linked to Biblical accounts of the sun going around the earth afterall.

Remember if anyone is infallible it is Pope Francis, not Fr Harrison’s far from cetain interpretations.

 

[billy15]

Yet if you take this position surely you must accept others can do the same and find AL definitively says otherwise and FS is being read wrongly (or is fallible).

Of course, as I realize this is your view and the view of others. I obviously disagree in your reading, but I acknowledge what you’re saying above. At least you’re being honest in saying there is a break with what was reaffirmed by FC. (And I assume by “FS” you actually meant Familiaris Consortio)

Logic suggests you are mistaken re AL, I am mistaken re FS or…neither is infallible on this point because in fact Communion practise is not strongly linked to doctrine at all and is a discipline where wise Popes may validly differ.

I agree. These are the only logical conclusions

That’s a relief, many call this implicit refusal to abstain.

Yea, I think it’s ridiculous for others to call this an implicit refusal. If it is “implicit refusal”, only God can know that as he can read the person’s heart in the confessional. If a person says he is contrite and sorry for his sins, then the priest has to take his word and absolve him, unless he has a gift like St. Padre Pio!

However it seems wishful thinking on your part as you seem to have a vested interest in a particular view.

I simply have a vested interest in truth. I have not been shown anything convincing enough to change my mind on the matter. I’m open to being convinced otherwise, just as in conversations with Protestants on various topics I tell them to give me a convincing argument so that I might change my mind.

We are toid there was no change in God’s teaching re Usury in the Middle Ages

Of course, and there hasn’t been a change. I can say with a straight face that it was “re-assessed”, as doctrine cannot change. I don’t want to get into a discussion on usury though. That is legitimate development of doctrine. But presently, I don’t think we can both even agree that the exclusion of the divorced and remarried living more uxorio from the Eucharist is doctrine. Keep in mind a practice can in fact be doctrinal.

 

[billy15]

Remember if anyone is infallible it is Pope Francis, not Fr Harrison’s far from cetain interpretations.

Him and the bishops in communion with him. I don’t rely only on Fr. Harrison’s interpretations, though… not to mention his essay is more of a synthesis on past magisterial documents regarding this issue. Before calling his conclusions less than certain, I encourage you to take a look at his treatment of the subject, regardless of whatever opinion you may or may not have of him. Interacting with his arguments and not his person is the most important thing. Again, my offer to send it to you is still on the table since you earlier said you’d like to look at some of my sources.

But yea, I also take into account on what other men and theologians like Cardinal Muller, Cardinal Chaput and others have said on the issue. Those also include the Bishops of Costa Rica and the Bishops of Alberta and the Northwest Territories, and others. But then, there are other bishop’s conferences and other bishops that have said otherwise. The very best we can do is pray during this time, both for our leaders and for the people that find themselves in this situation.

 

[BlackFriar]

Do you accept that the doctrine received from God was simple and clear from the time of Moses up until the Church changed it in medieval times?
Namely, ANY interest on a loan to fellow believers was immoral.

 

[BlackFriar]

Keep in mind a practice can in fact be doctrinal.

And you the reverse also.
The difficulty with your position is that you must assert one of the Popes at face reading, is in error. You have gone for the soft option…PFI isnt really saying what he seems to be saying.
Thats ostrich mode … its no longer a credible objective position. Your self knowledge may not be as clear as you believe. You do seem to be invested in non Communion outcome despite your protestations of non bias .
I dont expect you to agree. The invincably igorant by definition cannot. Me, perhaps I am too.

 

[Imdaman]

I don’t know a lot about usury or the context in which it was defined. I do know that “Christ” said that a man or woman that divorces and remarries is committing adultery.

I think you could learn a thing or two about Usury. YOu can start with this…
“The Red Herring of Usury”
David J. Palm

The Red Herring of Usury

When the subject of an infallible magisterium comes up, someone always raises the question of usury. Non-Catholics and certain Catholics claim that the Church h...

www.catholic.com

 

[BlackFriar]

Thats really helpful .

 

[Imdaman]

Thats really helpful .

Your welcome!

 

[Imdaman]

Black Friar I noticed you never explained to me what you think of the friend have whom believes he is A sexual. that is his excuse for being able to masturbate without sinning. Can you answer this question. Should this guy be allowed to receive?

How about my sister who does not believe in the real presence. She was raised Catholic like the rest of us but does not believe. She goes up because she does not want to be th only one sitting! Should she receive?

 

[Imdaman]

The Church teaching on Usury is that it is still a sin. borrowing money in this economy and the way money works is not Usury.

 

[Imdaman]

Do you accept that the doctrine received from God was simple and clear from the time of Moses up until the Church changed it in medieval times?
Namely, ANY interest on a loan to fellow believers was immoral.

Yes it is accepted and no the church did not change it in medevil times. Please show where the church changed it’s veiw on Usury?

 

[billy15]

The difficulty with your position is that you must assert one of the Popes at face reading, is in error. You have gone for the soft option…PFI isnt really saying what he seems to be saying.

No, I mustn’t. The Magisterium of one Pope must be in continuity with the other. If I’ve gone for the “soft option”, then so have many other prelates including Cardinal Muller, Bishop Olmsted, Archbishop Chaput, et al.

You do seem to be invested in non Communion outcome despite your protestations of non bias

As you pointed out with your invincible ignorance comment, turnabout is fair play in this case as well. If I’m invested in anything, again, it’s the truth, as well as the souls of my brothers and sisters in Christ. So sure, call me “invested”. As we’ve reached an impasse, I’m bowing out.

 

[Rau]

Those who divorce and remarry and do not abstain from sex cannot receive Communion.

Just to clarify, is it your understanding the present Pope fully endorses that position?

 

[Rau]

Pope Francis has zero authority to allow Communion for adulterers; he cannot change perennial Church teaching.

For clarification, is it your view that in AL he has attempted to do so?

 

[Rau]

You’ve referenced only the public reception of communion. JP 2’s position was that private reception was not possible unless living as brother and sister. He saw more at stake than scandal.

 

[Rau]

One would expect that the discernment process ought to lead to fuller knowledge and understanding of the wrongs attendant to a second marriage (in the majority of 2nd marriages). But I wonder whether this is going to be the actual outcome? The point is probably null though, as I imagine few would embark on the process.

 

[Rau]

You can’t be having sex outside a valid marriage and somehow twist conscience and “discernment” into justifying receiving Communion.

The validity of a (first) marriage is at best presumed. Might not the mind and conscience of the participant(s) know (or sincerely believe) otherwise, at lesst as well as outsiders can divine? While FC stood, the mind probably could not give the self a free pass. Since AL, I guess it can?

 

[Rau]

So considering all this, especially that Pope Francis and AL are in continuity with the Church’s Magisterium on this issue, I do agree with some of Cardinal Mueller’s past observations:

“It is not Amoris laetitia that has provoked a confused interpretation, but some confused interpreters of it.”

"Unfortunately there are individual bishops and whole episcopal conferences that are proposing interpretations that contradict the previous Magisterium, admitting to the sacraments persons who persist in objective situations of grave sin. But this is not the criterion for applying Amoris laetitia. …Amoris laetitia can and must be interpreted in an orthodox way in the unity of Catholic tradition.

Has not the pope clearly confirmed some of the wayward episcopal conferences referred to in the above?