Top Vatican Legal Expert: Pope Francis opens the door to Communion for Catholics in irregular marriages

[Blue_Horizon]

What was the significance of noting that sequence of events? I dont understand why you felt it mattered unless you thought it meant the woman’s conversion did not precede the absolution. It certainly does not say that Jesus removed someone’s sin contrary to their own will to have it removed. As Jesus reads hearts, as the woman’s conversion and “YES” did not need her spoken words to be noticeable to God himself, and as we know that it is a heresy to claim that God ever overode the will of even one person in History even once and that the church teaches that God would not save man “without his consent”, I dont understand how anyone can read that verse as Jesus not caring if the woman did not actually want to be free of the forgiven sin before removing it. Given that, I don’t understand the significance of the sequence you highlighted for this discussion.

What an unusual understanding of forgiveness.
If I decide not to punish you as you deserve what has your “will” got to do with it?

 

[Ginny89]

What an unusual understanding of forgiveness.
If I decide not to punish you as you deserve what has your “will” got to do with it?

I have not spoken of punishment but sin which is removed by absolution. Perhaps to you the two are similar. I also have made a firm resolution not to engage you until you demonstrate a smidgeon of respect to other posters, which I am already violating in this post. So I will not comment on anything you have to say hereonout anywhere on this thread going further. Respectfully.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I have not spoken of punishment but sin which is removed by absolution.

You don’t seem to realise that sin can be defined as that which identifies who is liable for punishment .

Strange that anyone would think the incident with the woman was about a relatively modern concept such as absolution. It’s a bit like thinking that the shot with Ben Hur on the chariot with the Rolex was historical when in fact an anachronism .

I am more interested in the actual reality and words used in the Gospel…which is forgiveness.
To be forgiven by Jesus for one’s sins cannot be trumped. And forgiveness of sin is remission of punishment both temporal and eternal…which doesn’t require my positive will to succeed at all. That is why Catholics believe in infant baptism and Protestants don’t. Are you or your parents recent converts by any chance?

Of course the woman could reverse the situation back to what it was quite easily by repeating the sin 5 minutes later expressly thinking dark and spiteful thoughts about God and Jesus. But given that wasn’t the reason for the sin in the first place that seems rather a silly scenario.

Looks like lack of explicit denial of forgiveness means consent to forgiveness here to me.
Obviously current Church regulations require explicit expressions of sorrow and intent to ammendment for absolution…which is not the same as forgiveness. Indeed, it is often likely the objective grave sin we go to confession for may well have been forgiven by God before we got there. Absolution simply gives us certainty in those cases…as well as fulfilling all that the law demands.

 

[pnewton]

What was the significance of noting that sequence of events?

I am not arguing what is plainly written. I will just reference it:
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+8%3A1-11&version=NLTJohn 8:1-11

Jesus returned to the Mount of Olives, but early the next morning he was back again at the Temple. A crowd soon gathered, and he sat down and taught them. As he was speaking, the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in the act of adultery. They put her in front of the crowd.

“Teacher,” they said to Jesus, “this woman was caught in the act of adultery. The law of Moses says to stone her. What do you say?”

They were trying to trap him into saying something they could use against him, but Jesus stooped down and wrote in the dust with his finger. They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said, “All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!” Then he stooped down again and wrote in the dust.

When the accusers heard this, they slipped away one by one, beginning with the oldest, until only Jesus was left in the middle of the crowd with the woman. Then Jesus stood up again and said to the woman, “Where are your accusers? Didn’t even one of them condemn you?”

“No, Lord,” she said.

And Jesus said, “Neither do I. Go and sin no more.”

I used to argue over whether we should only forgive those who asked for forgiveness. Just something to think about.

 

[Teelynn]

But I don’t think Cardinal Muller, who is the prefect of the Congregation For The Doctrine Of The Faith thinks this, based on his past comments about Amoris Laetitia?

Different Bishops and Priests seem to have come to very different conclusions regarding Amoris Laetitia?

That’s the problem with this encyclical. And it’s the very REASON the Pope needs to answer the Dubia, which asks him to CLARIFY. But…we hear nothing from him.

 

[goout]

What an unusual understanding of forgiveness.
If I decide not to punish you as you deserve what has your “will” got to do with it?

Seriously?
God does not violate free will. Christianity is about a relationship, not a one-sided transaction. God’s offer of forgiveness must be accepted. That asks for our free will response.

The Word became flesh that we might have intimate relationship with God.

It’s very odd that your position seeking radical mercy would so misunderstand relationship, which is at the heart of mercy. Mercy is embodied in A Person, and we experience mercy to the degree that we conform ourselves with that Person. Mercy is not a quantity for an individual to claim by his own assertion.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Seriously?
God does not violate free will. Christianity is about a relationship, not a one-sided transaction. God’s offer of forgiveness must be accepted. That asks for our free will response.

The Word became flesh that we might have intimate relationship with God.

It’s very odd that your position seeking radical mercy would so misunderstand relationship, which is at the heart of mercy. Mercy is embodied in A Person, and we experience mercy to the degree that we conform ourselves with that Person. Mercy is not a quantity for an individual to claim by his own assertion.

So focus and rebutt my assertion.
Let’s start with sin as punishment.
If I remit your well deserved punishment where exactly does your free will come into that forgiveness?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I am not arguing what is plainly written. I will just reference it:
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+8%3A1-11&version=NLTJohn 8:1-11

I used to argue over whether we should only forgive those who asked for forgiveness. Just something to think about.

Another excellent observation.
Forgive them for they know not what they do suggests same, as well as indicating that people can be forgiven without their explicit will or understanding currently being involved.
Of course such are always free to later confirm an explicit rejection of forgiveness (or confirm acceptance thereof which we call repentance).

 

[goout]

So focus and rebutt my assertion.
Let’s start with sin as punishment.
If I remit your well deserved punishment where exactly does your free will come into that forgiveness?

Geez.
What do you think is the motivation for forgiveness?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Geez.
What do you think is the motivation for forgiveness?

When you are prepared to engage in rational converse perhaps you will be able to resurrect your seeming Protestant views on forgiveness.

 

[Mongo]

When you are prepared to engage in rational converse perhaps you will be able to resurrect your seeming Protestant views on forgiveness.

That is impossible, because only you are rational and knowledgeable on the subjects being discussed.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

That is impossible, because only you are rational and knowledgeable on the subjects being discussed.

Mongo this is a polite but firm warning that your uncontrolled negative emotion is crossing a line…more so with your post in similar vein in my regards on another topic today.

 

[Ginny89]

I used to argue over whether we should only forgive those who asked for forgiveness. Just something to think about.

But you dont know that she did not “ask for forgiveness”. You are presuming it simply because it is not recorded that she said to Jesus “I am sorry. Forgive me.” She wouldnt even know that Jesus was God, why would she direct her pleas for forgiveness to him directly so that they would be recorded for us to read? As she was getting roughed up you dont know how much or how strongly she may have pleaded with God directly for mercy in her own heart. As a Jew, she would know she had sinned against him and would repent to HIM directly. Also, it is not recorded that she DID NOT ask for forgiveness verbally, so this is likewise presumed. She may have been pleading with her would be stoners to let her go, that she would not repeat it, the whole time for all we know.

There are two issues getting mixed up here which I think is causing a great deal of confusion. We are commanded to forgive those who wrong US whether or not they deserve it or ask for it. Jesus himself forgiving his torturers and St. Steven his murderes and the apostles their persecuters are all our perfect examples on the matter and this on top of their explicit teaching to us that we must. It has never been in question here on this thread or in catholic circles that we are to forgive our brother 70 +77 times. Whether they ask for forgiveness is irrelevant to whether we have a duty to forgive them. Christ tells us that if we are his followers we do indeed have such a duty always whatever harm they cause us. St. Maria Goretti and her mother come to mind.

But this has nothing to do with a person’s standing before God, however. God cannot impose a relationship on anyone that they do not want. The will that does not turn TO God (from mortal sin which is an orientation AWAY from God) of its own accord cannot be forcefully brought into that orientation by God. He has the power to but never will for that violates the dignity he himself has bestowed upon every person, which is the freedom to determine one’s relationship with God. Which is why the church teaches that even though God created man without his consent, he would not save man without man’s consent.

So again, the significance of your highlight to the debate here is unclear. Jesus was not forgiving this woman as a person personally injured by her (say her partner’s wife or her own husband might forgive her) but as her Lord and saviour. To suggest he forgave her without an interior conversion on her part would be to suggest that he imposed a relationship on her with himself that she did not choose. But God is a gentleman. He would never do that.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

But you dont know that she did not “ask for forgiveness”. You are presuming it simply because it is not recorded that she said to Jesus “I am sorry. Forgive me.” She wouldnt even know that Jesus was God, why would she direct her pleas for forgiveness to him directly so that they would be recorded for us to read? As she was getting roughed up you dont know how much or how strongly she may have pleaded with God directly for mercy in her own heart. As a Jew, she would know she had sinned against him and would repent to HIM directly. Also, it is not recorded that she DID NOT ask for forgiveness verbally, so this is likewise presumed. She may have been pleading with her would be stoners to let her go, that she would not repeat it, the whole time for all we know.

There are two issues getting mixed up here which I think is causing a great deal of confusion. We are commanded to forgive those who wrong US whether or not they deserve it or ask for it. Jesus himself forgiving his torturers and St. Steven his murderes and the apostles their persecuters are all our perfect examples on the matter and this on top of their explicit teaching to us that we must. It has never been in question here on this thread or in catholic circles that we are to forgive our brother 70 +77 times. Whether they ask for forgiveness is irrelevant to whether we have a duty to forgive them. Christ tells us that if we are his followers we do indeed have such a duty always whatever harm they cause us. St. Maria Goretti and her mother come to mind.

But this has nothing to do with a person’s standing before God, however. God cannot impose a relationship on anyone that they do not want. The will that does not turn TO God (from mortal sin which is an orientation AWAY from God) of its own accord cannot be forcefully brought into that orientation by God. He has the power to but never will for that violates the dignity he himself has bestowed upon every person, which is the freedom to determine one’s relationship with God. Which is why the church teaches that even though God created man without his consent, he would not save man without man’s consent.

So again, the significance of your highlight to the debate here is unclear. Jesus was not forgiving this woman as a person personally injured by her (say her partner’s wife or her own husband might forgive her) but as her Lord and saviour. To suggest he forgave her without an interior conversion on her part would be to suggest that he imposed a relationship on her with himself that she did not choose. But God is a gentleman. He would never do that.

Does not the Catholic Church (as opposed to many Protestant Churches) do exactly this with infant baptisms?

 

[Ginny89]

Babies have not oriented themselves away from God of their own accord by even a single choice to sin venially let alone mortally. The grace of baptism does not take away their freedom to make that choice away from God when they come of age however. And when they do, that choice will not be ignored and the previous orientation imposed on them externally whether by the church or even God himself.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Babies have not oriented themselves away from God of their own accord by even a single choice to sin venially let alone mortally. The grace of baptism does not take away their freedom to make that choice away from God when they come of age however. And when they do, that choice will not be ignored and the previous orientation imposed on them externally whether by the church or even God himself.

I have no idea how the above relates to the issue of forgiveness and relationship here.
Unbaptised babies are clearly in a poor relationship with God, regardless of the cause.
As is the fallen woman, she broke the Commandments regardless of her level of culpability.

Before baptism we were taught for generations that babies are in a state of mortal sin, without sanctifying grace, without original justice, without any right to heaven, without relationship with God, without any ability to change the situation of themselves.

Without their will (though obviously not against their will) baptism restores them to justice and a graced relationship with God and and the punishment due them is removed…all without their personal consent…just as the state they were born in was also contracted without their personal consent.

What could be a clearer example of forgiveness that does not require the expressed (or even implicit) consent of the forgiven person - apart from the woman caught in adultery of course.

And some see this as God “imposing a relationship” on babies and sinners .
Yes, I suppose could be said in some sort of distorted view of salvation history, is that dreadful?
Was the Incarnation an imposition on sinful mankind also? .
This view borders on a sort of passive passive Pelagianism methinks.

 

[Ginny89]

I dont remember ever in my life reading that a baby was in a state of mortal sin. I think it is helpful to acquaint ourselves with the distinction between original sin which is the privation of grace and mortal sin, which is an act of the human will. Babies are absolutely incapable of mortal or even venieal sin and the church has never taught otherwise. God is not going to force a relationship on anyone who does not want it. The grace of justification is a free gift available to all that are open to it. It is not an excuse to force a relationship on a soul that has willfully turned away from God. If God was in that business, one would think he would have done it in Eden long ago and avoided all this business of salvation. Indeed, if anyone needed his will forcefully returned to the proper orientation, for all our sakes, it would be the devil. Yet, God has such respect for free will that here we are.

 

[pnewton]

We are commanded to forgive those who wrong US whether or not they deserve it or ask for it. Jesus himself forgiving his torturers and St. Steven his murderes and the apostles their persecuters are all our perfect examples on the matter and this on top of their explicit teaching to us that we must… But this has nothing to do with a person’s standing before God, however. God cannot impose a relationship on anyone that they do not want.

The one thing that reverberates with me is that we simply are not called to be more compassionate and merciful that God. We emulate Jesus, not one-up him. Amoris Laetitia deals with a situation where one is wanting an intimate relationship with Jesus, not where God is forcing it.

…why would she direct her pleas for forgiveness to him directly so that they would be recorded for us to read?

She did not.

As he was speaking, the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in the act of adultery. They put her in front of the crowd.

“Teacher,”** they said to Jesus**, “this woman was caught in the act of adultery. The law of Moses says to stone her. What do you say?”

 

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR NOTICE

Please charitably discuss the issues, not each other

 

[RCinMT]

I don’t believe so.
I think you meant to say engaging in a relationship when at least one of the two is married to another … is adultery.

No, I said exactly what I meant in line with Church teaching.