B
Brendan
Guest
I personally would like to see the answer to this, especially in light of Veritatis Splendor, Chapter II, para 56 in particular.
- Status
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
I wanted to thank you for that link, Father, which I have now finished reading. They were helpful in that, while there was no absolute given link such as “In year X, the following Y were done by persons A, B, and C of the Church and are apologized for” or even, “regarding the event of, say, the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre in France (August 24, 1572), the actions of the Catholic nobility in France are to be repudiated in that such use of force even if touted to be in service of the truth was not right, and thus the Church apologizes on the behalf of those who not only did the deeds but on those who either by silence or otherwise tacitly approved such)”, etc., there was a definite description of the ‘lack of love’ that was noted on both sides**** and for which of course the individuals bear the responsibility as well as we who come later and are affected by it.
I especially found helpful the careful differentiation between the Church itself (which is Holy) and the individuals in the Church (who are, at times, not).
C
Convert_in_99
Guest
Isn’t St. JPII great?
K
kyrie03
Guest
Can you point to the disrespect and hostile environment? I hope and pray it is a misunderstanding due to inability to see and hear other posters. I couldn’t find what you are reporting. One should not disrespect any other poster, especially a prelate, living or not.
I, too, wish with all my heart to “side with Pope Francis,” as I desire to side with all of the Supreme Pontiffs when they teach what is necessary for eternal salvation. Instead, I’m in extremely uncomfortable position of requesting clarification on the confusion and even scandal we are witnessing today.
The Church is catholic or universal in belief -teaches same truths to all members, in all places, throughout all the ages. Submission to the successor to Peter isn’t limited to just the one living now, but to ALL prior pontiffs. Does it make sense that disregard for and disagreement with prior papal doctrinal teaching is every bit as hostile as what you perceive to be abusive towards our current Holy Father?
I don’t know if you read all the links provided by Havord in post #75. The disrespect seems to be coming from those wishing to dismiss and silence legitimate concerns.
Let us all commit to increased prayer and sacrifice for Holy Mother Church as she experiences the Passion, following in the painful footsteps of her Spouse. May God forgive us, for we know not what we do! After mercy…follows justice…
C
Convert_in_99
Guest
The seriously disrespectful posts have (Thanks be to God!) been deleted by a moderator and the posters in question accounts are being reviewed.
We are NOT trying to silence legitimate concerns. We are trying to silence those who wish to be disrepectful, rude or even downright cruel to our Holy Father, Bishops, Priests or each other.
H
Havard
Guest
Keep praying for His Holiness and all of the leaders of the Church. These are good and holy men.Oh wow… I was not aware of the recent statements by Cardinal-Designates Tobin and Farrell… or the tweets by Fr. Spadaro. I am truly troubled by all this. How could someone find something wrong in what Cardinal Chaput wrote in his guidelines? Archbishop Alexander Sample of Portland had a great pastoral letter in the same vein as Archbishop Chaput’s, and it really clarified things for me regarding AL. If Cardinal Farrell is critical of Archbishop Chaput’s writings, then what must he think of regarding Archbishop Sample’s pastoral letter?
PASTORAL LETTER ON THE
READING OF AMORIS LAETITIA IN LIGHT OF CHURCH TEACHING
“A TRUE AND LIVING ICON”
OF THE ARCHBISHOP OF PORTLAND, OREGON
MOST REVEREND ALEXANDER K. SAMPLE
When I read your links Havard, the first thing I thought about was the message Our Lady of Akita ggave back in 1973:
“The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against bishops.”
We keep seeing more and more, all these cardinals and bishops fighting amongst themselves. it’s truly disheartening to see this. I pray that nothing worse happens and that our shepherds will be unified.
Also, I see lots of reports being made in this thread, perhaps a bit flippantly. I hope free discussion is allowed to continue by the moderators.
C
CaptFun
Guest
Maybe upon reflection the Pope will reconsider these “rigid critics” more as “Luthers of our day” and praise them soon.Like you, I didn’t quite get the paradox of praise for Luther and the (maybe it’s just me but the, to my ears) scolding tone for (whom the article’s author thinks are) four present-day Catholic Cardinals.
Per ecumenism: I wonder if I could organize an ecumenical event. It’s true that I’m Catholic (or consider myself so) … but I can protest some stuff if need be. And rigid? Some days I’m about as theologically rigid as a soggy noodle.
Always considered those moments as episodes in lukewarmness … but perhaps I’m delusional or suffering from the dreaded spiritual malady of scruples.
Imagining an ecumenism so inclusive that not only Protestants are welcomed, but that agnostics, atheists, pantheists, non-Christians, and avante garde philosophies of every stripe are invited under the blanket (or “taken in” so to speak) – I’d consider opening the festivities with a secular hymn … that alludes to morality without particularly embracing it.
As an outreach to the Darwinists I’d suggest the Monkees version of it …
youtube.com/watch?v=vF9T4OpGNQY
but by conference’s end versions of the song could be available in Latin, Greek and every vernacular language the UN translation machines could make available to us.
Zeal, commitment and Jesus’ more exclusive teachings – we’d just leave for another
conference. The “Narrow Door …” conference. For the somewhat less ecumenical (“Generation of vipers” to “Fear not little flock”) side of the same theological coin.
I would not lead either conference. But I’d like to learn a thing or two.
And I’m also curious about how the Church is relating to some of the more proximate (in my estimation) groups like the Orthodox Christians and SSPX folks … since, any jocularity aside, Jesus DOES pray for us all to be one. < In truth as well as spirit I’ve always presumed.
I hope this is one controversy that … despite its divisive apparent beginnings … leads to a modern day epiphany, and a greater love of neighbor and understanding of the Lord … and His plans for US.
Thanks for your thoughtful take on this Tantum Ergo. As the Church’s history has often witnessed, unity and diversity are not necessarily contradictory - but can be harmonious.
J
JPUSC
Guest
P
pnewton
Guest
cruxnow.com/vatican/2016/11/18/pope-fires-back-critics-amoris-ecumenism/ I am remind of the Gospel a few weeks back that contrasted the penitent tax collector with the Pharisee. I can see how this can be applied to the whole of the Church that spends less time in sorrow for sin and more time patting ourselves for not being like, well, Lutherans, for example.
P
patricius79
Guest
The CCC says:
1650 Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ - "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery"160 the Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists. For the same reason, they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities. Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence.
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c3a7.htm
I’m not knowledgeable and am not able to read and understand a document like Amoris Laetitia. I know the Pope is infallible under certain circumstances, and that otherwise he can err. But he deserves our humble respect as the Vicar of Christ. Is the Pope suggesting that the Catechism is wrong on this issue?
C
Convert_in_99
Guest
Exactly.
1
1Lord1Faith
Guest
No, the pope is not suggesting the CCC is wrong. Pope Francis is suggesting that pastors work with the divorced and civilly remarried(within the framework of Jesus’, and thus the Church’s, teachings) to bring them back to the sacraments. Each case is individual and requires pastoral guidance on an individual level, thus pope Francis is trying to avoid a “one size fits all” mindset from pastors. Cardinal Burke is demanding answers to hypothetical questions, thus defeating the purpose of pastoral care in favor of a set of rules that can be given to individuals in lieu of individual pastoral care within the individuals parish, not sending them to another parish to receive the Eucharist in order to avoid scandal thus alienating the individual.
P
patricius79
Guest
I’m not sure I’m understanding. As I understand CCC 1650, civilly divorced an remarried couples may not receive Communion unless they are reconciled with Christ and the Church through the Sacrament of Penance, confessing their sin against the Sacrament of Matrimony (the sign of Christ’s Covenant with the Church), and are committed to living in complete continence (no intentional sexual stimulation of any kind).
As I understand it, they might do so, and then receive Communion; but then, let’s say, fail again to be completely continent. But then they could again sincerely repent and confess, and then receive Communion, with the renewed intention to live in complete continence.
As I’m hearing you, you’re saying that the Pope agrees with CCC 1650, but simply wants pastors to actually help people through this process of repentance and healing.
Is that right?
P
pnewton
Guest
Consider this. People do this all the time. When one receives an annulment, they are nonetheless civilly divorced and remarried.
P
patricius79
Guest
That’s true. I’m wondering if you agree with CCC 1650.
K
kyrie03
Guest
Perhaps you are unaware CAF rules are clear that respect and charity are due all prelates, regardless of whether or not the name be “Cardinal Burke”. Read the Dubai he and 3 other cardinals submitted. He asks if the rules have NOW changed from what Pope John Paul II taught in FC? We owe respect to Pope John Paul II, too.
Let us pray for all our prelates. God bless!
P
pnewton
Guest
I think it is not written with sufficient precision, but that might be a problem with translation for all I know. Like I said, even if an annulment is granted, they are still civilly divorced and we know the Church allows communion then. Another possible but allowable contradiction with the very last phrase, is that living in continence may not be necessary. If the spouse from the first marriage dies, then the person could then convalidate the current marriage and not have to live in continence. So there are two current situations that the passage does not permit, but are currently permitted, and that without much thinking.
Maybe it’s a language thing. Nonetheless, I still do not know if I would say the catechism is “wrong”, as much as it may not always apply.
I
irenaeus1
Guest
I’m not sure what you mean by “it may not always apply.” Of course it always applies. There are moral norms that are absolute - such as contracting a new union while being in a valid marriage being deemed adultery always and everywhere.
I believe that the Catechism is sufficiently precise in what it addresses here. You mention that “even if an annulment is granted, they are still civilly divorced and we know the Church allows communion then.” This is true, but CCC1650 does not preclude this from being the case precisely because it is addressing those who contract a new civil union while in a valid marriage, so an affirmative declaration of nullity is not in view in CCC1650. Your second ‘possibility’ that you provide stems from the first; namely, the issue of a first marriage being valid – of course, if the spouse dies, they are no longer bound by the marriage bond and are not in a valid marriage. So these ‘possibilities’ are not really exceptions so much as positions that do not meet the criteria put forth in CCC1650 to begin with. Declaration of nullity is handled in CCC1629 and elsewhere.
P
pnewton
Guest
Of course. That was never in question.
P
patricius79
Guest
But I mean, taking the case of someone who gets married in the Church, then is civilly divorced, with no determination from the Church that the marriage was never valid. And then they get civilly remarried. Do you agree that they may not receive Communion until they repent and sacramentally confess violating the sign of the Covenant, and are committed to living in complete continence?
- Status