Something I don't understand

[ProVobis]

So in other words, not only would such a proposed change in our current practice of prohibiting the reception of Holy Communion be imprudent and make little sense from a practical standpoint, but it would be completely incompatible with the very existence of the Catholic Church as the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church started by Jesus Christ, as it would see a Pope contradict another Pope when both were talking about faith or morals, in the exact same manner and circumstance.

Right?

Yes, because receiving worthily falls within our Deposit of Faith, or however it’s worded IMO.

 

[dmar198]

So in other words, not only would such a proposed change in our current practice of prohibiting the reception of Holy Communion be imprudent and make little sense from a practical standpoint, but it would be completely incompatible with the very existence of the Catholic Church as the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church started by Jesus Christ, as it would see a Pope contradict another Pope when both were talking about faith or morals, in the exact same manner and circumstance.

Right?

I think there is one sense in which the answer is yes and one sense in which the answer is no. Re: the “no” sense, my understanding is that it’s happened before that some popes have urged people to do things that contradict Catholic doctrine. A pope who urges people to contradict Catholic doctrine is not automatically changing Church doctrine. That would take a dogmatic communication, and it would be impossible because of Jesus’ protection of His Church. In the past, several popes who have tried to institute false doctrine have either miraculously converted, or died, or been prevented through other means.) Re: the “yes” sense, this is a (theoretical) example of a sin, and sinning is incompatible with the Church in a moral sense. So no, it is not impossible for a pope to urge people to contradict Catholic doctrine, it’s merely a sin, and yes, sinning is incompatible with the Church’s raison d’etre.

Is that helpful?

 

[ae22]

I think there is one sense in which the answer is yes and one sense in which the answer is no. Re: the “no” sense, my understanding is that it’s happened before that some popes have urged people to do things that contradict Catholic doctrine. A pope who urges people to contradict Catholic doctrine is not automatically changing Church doctrine. That would take a dogmatic communication, and it would be impossible because of Jesus’ protection of His Church. In the past, several popes who have tried to institute false doctrine have either miraculously converted, or died, or been prevented through other means.) Re: the “yes” sense, this is a (theoretical) example of a sin, and sinning is incompatible with the Church in a moral sense. So no, it is not impossible for a pope to urge people to contradict Catholic doctrine, it’s merely a sin, and yes, sinning is incompatible with the Church’s raison d’etre.

Is that helpful?

I guess it would depend on whether it would be urging in spite of Catholic doctrine while still acknowledging that the doctrine itself is unchanged and unchangeable, or whether it actually changed the doctrine.

 

[ProVobis]

I guess it would depend on whether it would be urging in spite of Catholic doctrine while still acknowledging that the doctrine itself is unchanged and unchangeable, or whether it actually changed the doctrine.

Even if it happens that one would claim the doctrine has been unchanged, it doesn’t mean it wasn’t undermined. The Council of Trent documented many doctrines (ie pages were clearly marked “doctrina”) which no one speaks of anymore.

 

[dmar198]

Even if it happens that one would claim the doctrine has been unchanged, it doesn’t mean it wasn’t undermined. The Council of Trent documented many doctrines (ie pages were clearly marked “doctrina”) which no one speaks of anymore.

You say no one speaks of them. I say we 86 or so CAFers speak of them occasionally. And they are still reflected in the Church’s Canon Law, unless we’re thinking of different things.

 

[DavidFilmer]

It looks to me like you are saying you can establish the premises, but not draw the conclusion.

Premise 1: Any papal communication that fulfills the conditions of V1 is infallible.

I never said that. Any papal communication that is infallibly promulgated must (?) meet the conditions stipulated by V1 (but V1 is an Ecumenical Council, and we don’t know the criteria for infallibility of a Council, so maybe this teaching is incomplete).

That’s not the same as saying that any Papal teaching that fulfills the criteria of V1 is automatically infallible. It might be infallible. We can speculate that it is probably infallible. But we cannot say that it is infallible

Premise 2: “Humanae Vitae…clearly fulfills the conditions of V1.”
Conclusion: Oh, I can’t say this part…

The conclusion and the second premise are correct. The first premise is wrong.

Consider the book…

Theologians discuss and debate the nature of Church teaching all the time. Ludwig Ott formulated an elaborate “hierarchy of truth” to categorize various doctrines. It does not matter to the guy in the pew. If Pope Francis told us that Humanae Vitae was infallible, the only thing that would change is that theologians would quit speculating about it.

FWIW, Ott was named a Cardinal, but died a couple of days before being created. He would have been the first person in centuries to be created Cardinal without first being a Bishop (he was a priest).

 

[dmar198]

I never said that. Any papal communication that is infallibly promulgated must (?) meet the conditions stipulated by V1 (but V1 is an Ecumenical Council, and we don’t know the criteria for infallibility of a Council, so maybe this teaching is incomplete).

Ah, but we Do have to believe it anyway. And it Does say that “when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.”

So we Can say without fearing that we have fallen into error that any papal communication is infallible so long as it fulfills the conditions set by Vatican 1.

That’s not the same as saying that any Papal teaching that fulfills the criteria of V1 is automatically infallible.

That’s what Vatican 1 says, and we would have to believe it even if it Didn’t meet the precise criteria of infallible definitions.

The conclusion and the second premise are correct. The first premise is wrong.

Not according to Vatican 1.

FWIW, Ott was named a Cardinal, but died a couple of days before being created. He would have been the first person in centuries to be created Cardinal without first being a Bishop (he was a priest).

I like Ott.

 

[ProVobis]

You say no one speaks of them. I say we 86 or so CAFers speak of them occasionally. And they are still reflected in the Church’s Canon Law, unless we’re thinking of different things.

Canon Law substitutes somewhat for the anathemas expressed, but some of the underlying doctrines behind Session XXII, for example, like submissa voce and non-vernacular, while technically not changed, nevertheless have been severely undermined IMO. I have a feeling after this synod, there will be more undermining of existing doctrines.

 

[DavidFilmer]

And [V1] Does say that “when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.”

So we Can say without fearing that we have fallen into error that any papal communication is infallible so long as it fulfills the conditions set by Vatican-1.

No. We don’t know if a Pope is actually speaking ex Cathedra unless he (or the Magesterium) tells us so. Just because he (apparently) meets the criteria for V1 does not “automatically” make it ex Cathedra.

Consider St. John Paul the Great’s Evangelium Vitae. More than two-thirds of its Wikipedia article is devoted to examining its “Authoritative Status,” citing the opinions of many diverse theologians (who seem to mostly agree that its core teachings are infallible). Those are all personal opinions (which are probably correct). But none of these discussions would be taking place if there were a simple litmus test.

And, to the guy in the pew, it makes no difference.

 

[Brendan_64]

Second, even if the pope did change the discipline, that would not automatically imply a change in teaching. We would be faced with a discipline that seems to contradict a Church teaching. In such a case, I think we ought to pray that the discipline change in order to comply with the Church’s doctrine, but the doctrine itself would not be changed by merely instituting a contrary discipline – not unless I’ve misunderstood something, which is always possible.

Disciplines (or pastoral practice) cannot contradict Church doctrine. To do so would be to actively encourage people to act against the teachings of the Church. Our Church is not a man-made institution with man-made ‘rules’, surely having discipline (or pastoral practice) contradicting Church doctrine is to put man above God?

Pastoral practice and Church disciplines should represent doctrine lived out in reality, discipline can never contradict doctrine. To do so is to encourage people to act against Church doctrine.

 

[dmar198]

Disciplines (or pastoral practice) cannot contradict Church doctrine. … Pastoral practice and Church disciplines should represent doctrine lived out in reality, discipline can never contradict doctrine. To do so is to encourage people to act against Church doctrine.

You use two terms here: “cannot” and “should.” Now I honestly think you and I are probably in agreement, but I think we are using different terms to mean the same things, so let me clarify what I mean and ask you for clarification as well.

I do not think there ever Should be a discipline which contradicts Church doctrine. In fact, I think that if any pope tried to command or urge anyone to violate Church doctrine, that command would be invalid, and the person would have an obligation to disobey it. Therefore, in a sense, I think it is true to say that no discipline Can contradict Church doctrine, because an invalid law is no law at all. I think that is likely what you are trying to say too.

But I Do think it is Possible for a pope to command or urge someone to violate Church doctrine. I don’t think they are prevented by God either from doing evil or from telling others to do evil. And in that sense, if a bad command went out from a pope, I think we could say that a discipline was instituted that was contrary to Church doctrine. (An example would be if a pope commanded someone to torture someone, which I think has happened in the past.) I think it would be an invalid command, and therefore in a sense it wouldn’t be a discipline at all, but colloquially I think one could say a discipline contrary to Church doctrine was instituted, resulting in a moral obligation to disobey (and to pray for a change).

Does that all make sense? I hope so. Please let me know your thoughts.

 

[Brendan_64]

It would indeed be a shocking thing if actual official Church discipline or ‘pastoral practice’ contradicted Church doctrine as it would be the Church telling people to disobey Church doctrine. Yes, there have been examples from the past of the Church asking people to do some terrible things, but has there ever been a case where actual official Church discipline actually ran contrary to Church doctrine? It would seem to raise all sorts of dreadful questions that don’t bear thinking about.

 

[chimo]

Are apostolic exhortations infallible?

In Familiaris Consortio, Pope Saint John Paul II stated that the divorced and remarried could not receive Holy Communion. If, in the Holy Father’s upcoming apostolic exhortation, this is even partially contradicted (meaning that those who are divorced and remarried can receive Holy Communion without living as brother and sister, even in limited circumstances), what would that mean for papal infallibility and the infallibility of the Magisterium?

The way I understand it, the indissolubility of marriage is not negotiable. Adultery being grave matter is not negotiable. Persons who are in a state of mortal sin being excluded from the sacraments other than Baptism and Penance, and priests being unable to give absolution to those in irregular unions until their situation is regularized, is not negotiable.

This has caused me great anxiety over the past month or so. I am hopeful that someone with a greater understanding of theology than I have can explain this to me.

Just a question for my Catholic bother to better understand the policy of the Catholic Church in regards in not admitting people to Holy Communion when they are divorced. Will not a confession in the Sacrament of Holy Confession enable those who were divorced be able to help them to return to the Sacrament of Holy Communion?

 

[ProVobis]

Just a question for my Catholic bother to better understand the policy of the Catholic Church in regards in not admitting people to Holy Communion when they are divorced. Will not a confession in the Sacrament of Holy Confession enable those who were divorced be able to help them to return to the Sacrament of Holy Communion?

As I understand it, divorce in itself is not (or no longer) a barrier to confession. It’s when you go outside the church and civilly remarry that creates the big problem. This of course presumes a permanent state of adulterous conduct, if not adultery altogether.

 

[Vico]

Just a question for my Catholic bother to better understand the policy of the Catholic Church in regards in not admitting people to Holy Communion when they are divorced. Will not a confession in the Sacrament of Holy Confession enable those who were divorced be able to help them to return to the Sacrament of Holy Communion?

It does, but one has to have proper disposition of sorrow and to avoid the near occasions of sin.

 

[chimo]

As I understand it, divorce in itself is not (or no longer) a barrier to confession. It’s when you go outside the church and civilly remarry that creates the big problem. This of course presumes a permanent state of adulterous conduct, if not adultery altogether.

Thank you for this clarification. This is probably true for any Eastern Orthodox that follows through this as well.

 

[chimo]

It does, but one has to have proper disposition of sorrow and to avoid the near occasions of sin.

It would seem that the priest has this important decision to make such a judgment on each particular case. Thank you for your response.

 

[dmar198]

It would indeed be a shocking thing if actual official Church discipline or ‘pastoral practice’ contradicted Church doctrine as it would be the Church telling people to disobey Church doctrine.

Yes, that would be shocking. And in certain circumstances I think it would be impossible, because it would seem to contradict the Church’s holiness.

Yes, there have been examples from the past of the Church asking people to do some terrible things, but has there ever been a case where actual official Church discipline actually ran contrary to Church doctrine? It would seem to raise all sorts of dreadful questions that don’t bear thinking about.

The closest example I can think of is the torture example I alluded to earlier. Pope St. Nicholas the Great had condemned torture as contrary to the law of God in 866 A.D. Several centuries later, in the early 1300s, Pope Clement V ordered the kingdoms of Europe to torture the Templars, and insisted upon it even after those kingdoms objected to the practice. Here’s how Philip Hughes describes it in his History of the Church: [The pope] ordered all the princes of Christendom to arrest the Templars and to place their property under sequestration… No torture was used in England until the pope insisted on it…this was in reply to the English king’s explanation that the use of torture had no place in English law. In Castile the pontifical commission had found the order not guilty of the charges, but here also the pope now intervened and ordered a new enquiry, with torture of the Templars… The like thing happened in the neighbouring kingdom of Aragon; an acquittal by the pontifical commission, the pope’s refusal to ratify and his order that the case should be tried anew and this time torture be used… It also happened in Italy.

“If the like torture is now used on me again,” said one [Templar], “I will deny all that I am now affirming: I will say anything you want me to say.”

The speech of [another]…has [also] come down to us. “I admitted several charges because of the tortures inflicted on me by the king’s knights, Guillaume de Marcilly and Hugues de la Celle. But they were all false. Yesterday, when I saw fifty-four of my brethren going in the tumbrils to the stake because they refused to admit our so-called errors, I thought I can never resist the terror of the fire. I would, I feel, admit anything. I would admit that I had killed God if I were asked to admit it.”

Source: Philip Hughes’ History of the Church Volume 3 Chapter 1 Section 5 and Footnote 471. It is my understanding that the order to torture the Templars was both contrary to a papal letter of Pope St. Nicholas the Great and also seemingly an official act of the Church, being promulgated by papal bull. (I’m not Certain that it was a papal bull.) It is my understanding that the receivers of the order had a duty not to obey it, and in fact some Didn’t obey. This seems to fit several criteria we are discussing: an official act of the Church (I think) that repeatedly and insistently ordered people to do something which (I think) was directly contrary to the divine and moral law. If it could happen then, I think it could conceivably happen now.

Earlier in this post I said that under certain circumstances I think it would impossible for a discipline to go out that was both as an official act of the Church and also ordered people to do evil. The reason is that I have seen evidence that the Church’s holiness includes the disciplines promulgated For The Whole Church. If the Church ordered only Some parts of the Church to do evil, I think that would be possible, though sinful. (That’s what I think happened in the Templar case mentioned above.) But if the Church orders something to be done by the Whole Church, I do not think such a discipline could command evil, because the Church’s holiness would prevent such a thing from happening.

Some part of the Church has to maintain the holiness that is a characteristic of the Catholic Church, if my understanding is correct, and therefore if a pope ever (theoretically) wanted to propose an evil discipline for the whole Church, I think some act of divine providence would stop that from happening. Either the pope would have a sudden change of heart, or he would die, or something else would prevent the publication of the order instituting the new discipline, or else I’ve misunderstood something.

That being said, I want to reiterate that I don’t think Pope Francis will issue a document permitting the divorced and remarried to do something evil. But if he did, I think the document would Not command the whole Church to permit this. It might command only a part of the Church, or it might not contain a command at all, just an exhortation, and in either case I think it would be invalid. And if he Tried to institute a new discipline that required the whole Church to do something evil, I think some act of divine providence would prevent the order from going out. In my records I have a list of examples where an act of (seemingly) divine providence prevented popes from doing something that would prove the Church fallible. If you like, I can post some of those examples.

Anyway, I hope all this stuff has something helpful in it.

 

[Brendan_64]

The closest example I can think of is the torture example I alluded to earlier. Pope St. Nicholas the Great had condemned torture as contrary to the law of God in 866 A.D. Several centuries later, in the early 1300s, Pope Clement V ordered the kingdoms of Europe to torture the Templars, and insisted upon it even after those kingdoms objected to the practice.

But was that request formalised as official Church practice through a document promulgated across the Church applicable to all the faithful? Or is that example simply a case of the Pope, as a sinful man, abusing his position of authority to get others to act in a sinful manner?