Pope Francis 'tells sinner she should be allowed Communion' [Phony news story ?]

[mgoforth]

The Catholic Church. They are very clear on what was brought about under infallible situations.

I guess what’s confusing is that the USCCB has this to say about the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
USCCB:

What is the doctrinal or teaching authority of the Catechism?

The Catechism is part of the Church’s official teaching in the sense that it was suggested by a Synod of Bishops, requested by the Holy Father, prepared and revised by bishops and promulgated by the Holy Father as part of his ordinary Magisterium. Pope John Paul II ordered the publication of the Catechism by the Apostolic Constitution, Fidei Depositum, on October 11, 1992. An apostolic constitution is a most solemn form by which popes promulgate official Church documents. The new Code of Canon Law, for example, was promulgated by the Apostolic Constitution, Sacrae Disciplinae Leges. In Fidei Depositum, Pope John Paul II said, “The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved June 25th last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition, and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion.” John Paul II also stated that the Catechism “is given as a sure and authentic reference text for teaching Catholic doctrine.”

And then the CCC has this to say about the Sacrament of Marriage:

CCC:

1601 “The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.”

1614 In his preaching Jesus unequivocally taught the original meaning of the union of man and woman as the Creator willed it from the beginning permission given by Moses to divorce one’s wife was a concession to the hardness of hearts. The matrimonial union of man and woman is indissoluble: God himself has determined it “what therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder.”

1615 This unequivocal insistence on the indissolubility of the marriage bond may have left some perplexed and could seem to be a demand impossible to realize. However, Jesus has not placed on spouses a burden impossible to bear, or too heavy - heavier than the Law of Moses. By coming to restore the original order of creation disturbed by sin, he himself gives the strength and grace to live marriage in the new dimension of the Reign of God. It is by following Christ, renouncing themselves, and taking up their crosses that spouses will be able to “receive” the original meaning of marriage and live it with the help of Christ. This grace of Christian marriage is a fruit of Christ’s cross, the source of all Christian life.

So I’d need some help understanding where the Church has specifically said the opposite of what’s in the Catechism

 

[mgoforth]

There are only two and they are both about Mary. People like to believe there are many more.

Here is a link…www.uscathloic.org/church/2011/05/there-list-infallible-teachings

Hmmm…I’m afraid you didn’t read that article very carefully.
the link above:

Even though only two doctrines have been declared ex cathedra, there are many others that the church professes must be believed. Some of these are laid out in the 1998 “Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio fidei” issued by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

According to this document, many teachings are “irreformable” and “definitive” and as such can be seen as possessing the binding quality of an infallible doctrine, although not necessarily proclaimed ex cathedra. That is, they aren’t promulgated by the pope himself but by the larger magisterium of the church. The lineup of “irreformable” teachings—ones divinely revealed—include those regarding Jesus, Mary, sin and grace, the sacraments, the primacy of the pope, and the doctrinal formulations of the ancient creeds.

 

[Thorns]

This wouldn’t be the first time the media has taken things out of proportion. I hope they did not change the Church teaching on divorce, anyone who receives Our Lord in the state of mortal sin commits sacrilege.

It wouldnt be a mortal sin anymore though, for God has given His mystical body on earth the power to bind and to loose.

It would.not be a matter of man changing Gods laws, but God changing Gods laws.

I think we all know that Jesus was anti legalism.

 

[shelby_sun]

I guess what’s confusing is that the USCCB has this to say about the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

And then the CCC has this to say about the Sacrament of Marriage:

So I’d need some help understanding where the Church has specifically said the opposite of what’s in the Catechism

It hasn’t. I was just clarify that those two teachings about Mary can NEVER be reconsidered or changed by the Church by any tribunal.

I have no ideas what could be reevaluated by a tribunal or why, or how it would take place. Like I said I do not spend my time learning the very detailed ins and outs of the Catholic Church. I am a very limited person still trying very hard to get the mere basics down and follow the Commandment, treat other right, and live Christ like as I can.

 

[mgoforth]

It wouldnt be a mortal sin anymore though, for God has given His mystical body on earth the power to bind and to loose.

It would.not be a matter of man changing Gods laws, but God changing Gods laws.

I think we all know that Jesus was anti legalism.

By the same logic, should we change all the laws that are hard to follow? Why not make abortion, gay marriage and all the other controversies go away by turning them into venial sins? And if we’re going down that road, why have sin at all? Let’s just say anything goes. Is that really a good idea?

 

[mgoforth]

It hasn’t. I was just clarify that those two teachings about Mary can NEVER be reconsidered or changed by the Church by any tribunal.

I have no ideas what could be reevaluated by a tribunal or why, or how it would take place. Like I said I do not spend my time learning the very detailed ins and outs of the Catholic Church. I am a very limited person still trying very hard to get the mere basics down and follow the Commandment, treat other right, and live Christ like as I can.

I respect that. It seemed earlier as if you were saying something quite different. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[TimothyH]

Nothing changed. The sun still rose this morning. The Eucharist is still Jesus. The bills will still be due on the first of the month. Divorce is still bad. Nothing has changed.

kpeople: There is nothing to see here. Move along.

-Tim-

 

[Thorns]

By the same logic, should we change all the laws that are hard to follow? Why not make abortion, gay marriage and all the other controversies go away by turning them into venial sins? And if we’re going down that road, why have sin at all? Let’s just say anything goes. Is that really a good idea?

I am not agreeing to it or saying that anything should go. I am just stating that it could, in fact, be done.

 

[mgoforth]

I am not agreeing to it or saying that anything should go. I am just stating that it could, in fact, be done.

If you mean declaring grave matter - one of the conditions for mortal sin - to suddenly not be grave matter…how exactly could that be done? Sins are sinful because they conflict with the nature of God. They are grave when they represent a complete departure from God’s inherent goodness. The only way the Church could say this was only a venial sin would be to change the very nature of God.

That’s not what “binding and loosing” means. It means that the Church has the power to forgive sins through the Sacrament of Confession. Read the verses just before that to get the context of the statement:

“If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.” Matthew 18:15-17

What Christ was saying is that the Church has the authority to grant or refuse absolution for sins, depending on whether people repent. He didn’t say for the Church to change the rules if the rules became unpopular.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

If you mean declaring grave matter - one of the conditions for mortal sin - to suddenly not be grave matter…how exactly could that be done? Sins are sinful because they conflict with the nature of God. They are grave when they represent a complete departure from God’s inherent goodness. The only way the Church could say this was only a venial sin would be to change the very nature of God.

mgoforth,

Do you agree that the Church’s minister may make a mistake about whether a certain action is gravely sinful?

 

[mgoforth]

mgoforth,

Do you agree that the Church’s minister may make a mistake about whether a certain action is gravely sinful?

I agree that an individual can make lots of mistakes. And I agree that each case is unique and perhaps doesn’t fit the definition of a mortal sin. What I don’t agree with is that the Church as a whole has made, or will make mistakes in doctrinal teaching. I don’t agree that the Church can change the definition of what constitutes grave matter because that has to do with the nature of God, which does not change. The indissolubility of marriage is absolutely a doctrinal teaching, and therefore it can’t be altered or watered down.

 

[Thorns]

If you mean declaring grave matter - one of the conditions for mortal sin - to suddenly not be grave matter…how exactly could that be done? Sins are sinful because they conflict with the nature of God. They are grave when they represent a complete departure from God’s inherent goodness. The only way the Church could say this was only a venial sin would be to change the very nature of God.

That’s not what “binding and loosing” means. It means that the Church has the power to forgive sins through the Sacrament of Confession. Read the verses just before that to get the context of the statement:

“If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.” Matthew 18:15-17

What Christ was saying is that the Church has the authority to grant or refuse absolution for sins, depending on whether people repent. He didn’t say for the Church to change the rules if the rules became unpopular.

If binding and loosing only applies to forgiveness or retention of sins, how then, could the Pope have added to doctrine regarding the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary, as well as the canonization of saints? This is beyond just forgiving sins.

 

[mgoforth]

If binding and loosing only applies to forgiveness or retention of sins, how then, could the Pope have added to doctrine regarding the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary, as well as the canonization of saints? This is beyond just forgiving sins.

When the Pope or a Church Council makes an infallible declaration, they’re actually stating that whatever they’re defining has always been the Truth. It’s not that yesterday believing in the Immaculate Conception was wrong, and today it’s right. They’re saying it has always been true, and they’re laying it out officially. Catholics were celebrating the Immaculate Conception and Assumption long before those doctrines came out. It’s just the Church putting the “Official” stamp on something that’s already known to be true.

What I would ask you is, if that’s what binding and loosing means…where’s the history of loosing in the Church? I see only binding. When has the Church ever gone back and said that one of Her former doctrines is being removed? If the Church had the power to make it easy as pie to waltz right into Heaven, then why wouldn’t She choose to do so?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I agree that an individual can make lots of mistakes. And I agree that each case is unique and perhaps doesn’t fit the definition of a mortal sin. What I don’t agree with is that the Church as a whole has made, or will make mistakes in doctrinal teaching. I don’t agree that the Church can change the definition of what constitutes grave matter because that has to do with the nature of God, which does not change. The indissolubility of marriage is absolutely a doctrinal teaching, and therefore it can’t be altered or watered down.

I don’t think anyone’s considering altering Church teaching on divorce. The thing it may be considering is lessening the power of the Church’s fallible ministers to separate a person from the love of Christ in the Eucharist. When the minister interprets the situation wrongly – suppose, by failing to grant an annulment that is valid – this causes harm. If the Church were to leave the decision as to whether to receive communion up to the remarried individual’s conscience, it would lessen this harm significantly.

Since the annulment is, in the imagined case, valid according to God’s law, there never was a first marriage, and the person is not committing adultery. However, according to the mistaken interpretation of a minister of the Church, the person is committing adultery. You do not need to say that “sin is not sin” to claim that such a person ought to be allowed to receive communion, if their conscience affirms that their first marriage is in fact invalid.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

If binding and loosing only applies to forgiveness or retention of sins, how then, could the Pope have added to doctrine regarding the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary, as well as the canonization of saints? This is beyond just forgiving sins.

I’m inclined to agree with mgoforth that binding and loosing only applies to the forgiveness of sins. That’s what Jesus said, after all.

 

[mgoforth]

I don’t think anyone’s considering altering Church teaching on divorce. The thing it may be considering is lessening the power of the Church’s fallible ministers to separate a person from the love of Christ in the Eucharist. When the minister interprets the situation wrongly – suppose, by failing to grant an annulment that is valid – this causes harm. If the Church were to leave the decision as to whether to receive communion up to the remarried individual’s conscience, it would lessen this harm significantly.

Since the annulment is, in the imagined case, valid according to God’s law, there never was a first marriage, and the person is not committing adultery. However, according to the mistaken interpretation of a minister of the Church, the person is committing adultery. You do not need to say that “sin is not sin” to claim that such a person ought to be allowed to receive communion, if their conscience affirms that their first marriage is in fact invalid.

That’s certainly possible. But does the Church really believe most people have well-formed consciences to make a decision like that? I would really be surprised if they changed the current practice - ie getting approval from a marriage tribunal, bishop, etc - much at all.

 

[Thorns]

When the Pope or a Church Council makes an infallible declaration, they’re actually stating that whatever they’re defining has always been the Truth. It’s not that yesterday believing in the Immaculate Conception was wrong, and today it’s right. They’re saying it has always been true, and they’re laying it out officially. Catholics were celebrating the Immaculate Conception and Assumption long before those doctrines came out. It’s just the Church putting the “Official” stamp on something that’s already known to be true.

What I would ask you is, if that’s what binding and loosing means…where’s the history of loosing in the Church? I see only binding. When has the Church ever gone back and said that one of Her former doctrines is being removed? If the Church had the power to make it easy as pie to waltz right into Heaven, then why wouldn’t She choose to do so?

I have no clue. Why hasnt the Church always had such an outgoing, visually merciful Pope like Pope Francis?

Although not exactly doctrine, but we are bound by it all the same, the Church has made.modifications to a lot of Disciplines to make things easier for its faithful.

I also see a “loophole” as to how this can change without changing doctrine. If the Church said its original doctrine of no divorce and remarriage still stands (for those who can accept it), but for those who it is hard for, theres this thing called Gods Mercy which can be applied. Much like how Jesus gave the example of those being a eunuch for God, if they can accept it…

 

[shelby_sun]

Hmmm…I’m afraid you didn’t read that article very carefully.

Yes I actually did. I was specific when I said infallible and there are only two teachings that fall under that classification. I understand your point, but those are not seen as infallible teachings according to the Catholic Church. Maybe you should look at the Vatican website for further explanation of what they are stated as such.

Must believe as true and infallible are not the same thing.

 

[mgoforth]

Yes I actually did. I was specific when I said infallible and there are only two teachings that fall under that classification. I understand your point, but those are not seen as infallible teachings according to the Catholic Church. Maybe you should look at the Vatican website for further explanation of what they are stated as such.

Must believe as true and infallible are not the same thing.

I’m sorry, but that’s not correct. There are many infallible teachings. Ex Cathedra declarations are just one example of the Church’s infallibility. There are also decisions put forth by Councils over the past 2000 years, as well as documents like the Catechism. All of those are infallible.

 

[shelby_sun]

I don’t think anyone’s considering altering Church teaching on divorce. The thing it may be considering is lessening the power of the Church’s fallible ministers to separate a person from the love of Christ in the Eucharist. When the minister interprets the situation wrongly – suppose, by failing to grant an annulment that is valid – this causes harm. If the Church were to leave the decision as to whether to receive communion up to the remarried individual’s conscience, it would lessen this harm significantly.

Since the annulment is, in the imagined case, valid according to God’s law, there never was a first marriage, and the person is not committing adultery. However, according to the mistaken interpretation of a minister of the Church, the person is committing adultery. You do not need to say that “sin is not sin” to claim that such a person ought to be allowed to receive communion, if their conscience affirms that their first marriage is in fact invalid.

I tend to agree with you here and have actually had priest tell me something like this an another issue. God knows what is in our heart and in our conscious, not priests.

For example, sorry if I am repeating myself here, not sure if I gave this example of this post or another. Growing up my mother was very opposed to have to confess her sins to a priest because she felt those were personal issues between herself and God. After she became outraged finding out I had gone to face to face confession with a priest she knew very well, I have never gone back to confession in 32 years. I have always felt I must not deserve to be forgiven. Anyway the priest I work with tell me to get communion anyway because they know I am truly sorry for all my wrong doing on a daily basis and believe God is forgiving me. I only go at Christmas and Easter if I feel God guiding me to go. I am ready to face God with my decisions and know according to the Catholic Church I my not be saved.

I do not recommend this to others.