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

[RCinMT]

You mean with the same guy accused by the “clean” of:
"…eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look at this glutton and drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and of adulters!’ But wisdom is vindicated by her actions.”

Then there is the other guy who answered “how many times shall I forgive my sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?” with “I tell you, not just seven times, but seventy-seven times!”

A difference between the sin you describe and the sitstuions being discussed here is that there is not intent to change on the part of the sinner. There is sin being committed with no repentance sought or, if sought, the position is evidently that either one wants to change but cannot which is okay (that puts to bed the argument for anybody trying to live a Christian life) or that the person recognizes the sin but is unrepentant and will not change.

There’s the difference. I await your reply.

 

[RCinMT]

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.

A person in a valid marriage is committing adultrey when he/she is involved sexually with somebody other than the valid spouse while he/she is alive. There’s no work around to that.

But I do appreciate you bringing up baptism because now you’re wading out into the deeper waters: in baptism we born anew. Our parents, God parents and parish families assent to be witnesses to Christ, to raise us in the ways of Chirst, to walk always in his footsteps. How does giving communion to adulterers witness to Christ? How does an ongoing adulterer renew his/her baptismal vows and witness to Christ?

Ultimately, I really don’t care what the pope says or does in this situation. The Church is just starting down a new path toward secularism: we don’t want hurt feelings in this life, we want equality of outcomes in this life, we want justice in this life, we want communion in this life. To be concerned about the soul’s of others or of one’s own soul for eternity is now anathema in the Church: rigidity, clericalism are what describes such prigs. Heaven is on earth, there is nothing after is the clear message coming to us from all sides now. Quite honestly, it’s becoming amusing to me: the pope says we all have to evangelize but then says you’re better off being an atheist then says he is upholding Church teaching then says anybody else who does so is rigid.

Frankly, Dan Dennet, Dawkins, Harris and their friends should be ashamed: none of them have ever offered me as compelling an argument to reject religious faith as the current magestirum of the Catholic Church.

 

[graciew]

Well, if adultery isn’t really a sin, why not torture if it’s for what the participants’ conscience deems a good enough reason?

It would make the jobs of folks I know so much easier.

Thank you.
Since you have specific people in mind,perhaps the best one can do is pray and tell them to see a priest with their difficulties.
Excuse my delay in saying thanks for answering. I am on holidays,and doing a lot of handwork.
Peace.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I dont remember ever in my life reading that a baby was in a state of mortal sin.

That is somewhat obvious from your erroneous position re grace, forgiveness and free will and why I pointed out this old teaching to you.
Is Catholic theology on CAF to be set to the limits of Ginny89s lay catechesis?

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.

Oh please, you really have no grasp at all of what I said. For a start I did not say babies had committed mortal sin but rather unbaptized babies are validly said to be in a state of mortal sin. ie a very poor relationship with God, a punishment, an impairment, loss of the possibility of heaven if left unaided. Standard Catholic teaching, even stronger than that on the possibility of remarriage.

God is not going to force a relationship on anyone who does not want it.

Do come back to us when you have serious references other than repetition of your own personal lay theology.

The topic is not forcing of relationship but can God remit punishment for our sins (ie forgiveness) without our first repenting. Well if humans can why cannot God

To think the woman caught in adultery is a perfect paradigm of modern day confessional protocols and “absolution” (which is not the same as “forgiveness”) is so anachronistic I do not know whether to laugh or cry.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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

I just quoted from the CCC .
You, not so much.

Consequently some ambiguities are present in your rendition.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Originally Posted by Blue Horizon View Post
You mean with the same guy accused by the “clean” of:
"…eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look at this glutton and drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and of adulters!’ But wisdom is vindicated by her actions.”

You are getting a little fuzzy re what you actually said. Lets have a recap:

Originally Posted by RCinMT
If the woman had decided to take up and follow Christ then one would imagine that he would’ve been somewhat unhappy if she did so while continuing the adulterous affair.

You suggest repetition of sinful behaviour is evidence of unwillingness to be forgiven.

Pure conjectures:
(1) There is no evidence that the woman was having a long running affair. All we know is she was caught in an act of adultery.
(2) Rome wasn’t built in a day. While some sinner’s can do cold turkey, most don’t which is why the Church, especially Pope Francis, speaks of the “law of gradualness”. He didn’t invent the law, usually we discern them from long experience of human nature. Pastors have great experience, you don’t sound very pastorally experienced.
(3) There is no evidence Jesus only rsvp-ed to sinners one-time only and if they didn’t stop sinning there and then no more invites please guys. On the contrary “Behold I stand at the door and knock”. The Pharisees kind of suggested Jesus was a repeat offender in this regard.

Material repetition of itself is no sure sign of recidivism which you seem to suggest.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

A person in a valid marriage is committing adultrey when he/she is involved sexually with somebody other than the valid spouse while he/she is alive. There’s no work around to that.

Nobody disagrees with this somewhat abstract principle…just as its hard to disagree that an immortal cannot die.
The question is whether certain concrete situations (irregulars) are evidence of adultery and further still, why Pope Francis cannot allow some of them to Communion.

But I do appreciate you bringing up baptism because now you’re wading out into the deeper waters: in baptism we born anew. Our parents, God parents and parish families assent to be witnesses to Christ, to raise us in the ways of Chirst, to walk always in his footsteps. How does giving communion to adulterers witness to Christ? How does an ongoing adulterer renew his/her baptismal vows and witness to Christ?

Your tangents are spectacular but off topic sorry.

Ultimately, I really don’t care what the pope says or does in this situation.

That says it all really. Nothing more so say then.

 

[Ginny89]

That is somewhat obvious from your erroneous position re grace, forgiveness and free will and why I pointed out this old teaching to you.
Is Catholic theology on CAF to be set to the limits of Ginny89s lay catechesis?

Oh please, you really have no grasp at all of what I said. For a start I did not say babies had committed mortal sin but rather unbaptized babies are validly said to be in a state of mortal sin. ie a very poor relationship with God, a punishment, an impairment, loss of the possibility of heaven if left unaided. Standard Catholic teaching, even stronger than that on the possibility of remarriage.

Do come back to us when you have serious references other than repetition of your own personal lay theology.

The topic is not forcing of relationship but can God remit punishment for our sins (ie forgiveness) without our first repenting. Well if humans can why cannot God

To think the woman caught in adultery is a perfect paradigm of modern day confessional protocols and “absolution” (which is not the same as “forgiveness”) is so anachronistic I do not know whether to laugh or cry.

As usual, adhominems when caught stating a foolish notion such as babies are in mortal sin, clearly not knowing the difference between mortal sin and original sin. I mean, for centuries the church debated whether dead unbaptized babies went to limbo **precisely because their state is not the same as the state of a soul damned for mortal sins **but noo! Lets just go with Blue’s ideas, where he states flatly that babies are in mortal sin and then he claims I made him do it!!!

And this here is just precious:

** Do come back to us when you have serious references other than repetition of your own personal lay theology.**

FOLLOW YOUR OWN ADVICE! This is literally what you have done for weeks upon weeks here, is inundating us with your own twisted PERSONAL LAY THEOLOGY.

I was foolish to allow myself to be drawn back into a discussion with you. O well, we are only human!

 

[Ginny89]

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.

We are not. Forgiving someone of whatever personal injury is infinitely smaller than what God has done. On top of that, we are required to forgive because we ourselves owe an infinite debt of which we have been forgiven. Thats why he demands it!

God has remitted punishment for literally anybody who wants it, even Afolf Hitler. None of us can claim to have deserved this justification to any degree. He not only forgave it, he PAYED THE PRICE himself. Is that what you do when you forgive? No. You cant even take away that person’s sin or retain it (by refusing to forgive). Ultimately, all wrongdoing is against God who HAS provided the salvation through Jesud.

So thinking that would be greater than what Gid did unless we adopt Calvinism where God declares people with utterly corrupt wills “saved” is just wrong.

Jesus’ death did that for us all, free of charge, even those who came before, including Adam’s sin and that woman’s adultery. And yet, we are not Calvinists or other protestants who think salvation is either a legalist matter of balancing books or a legalist matter (like you are suggesting here) of God simply arbitrarily declaring someone “saved” without converting that person.

Salvation is an actual meeting of wills, a matter of lovers and union. Again, God will never foist this on a soul. He is a gentleman, in fact. He will give you the grace to convert but you must chose to convert.

She did not.

That was my point! She wouldn’t know Jesus was God unless by a special revelation. That doesnt mean she did not turn from her sins in her own heart, which Jesus would have no problem seeing even if you or I couldnt.

 

[pnewton]

So thinking that would be greater than what Gid did unless we adopt Calvinism where God declares people with utterly corrupt wills “saved” is just wrong.

Exactly, which is why Amoris Laetitia reflects this infinitely greater mercy of God, since it does not apply to people with corrupt wills. This is why the desire to change shows the will to turn toward God, not an “utterly corrupt will.”

And I have no idea what you meant by this earlier statement, “…why would she direct her pleas for forgiveness to him directly so that they would be recorded for us to read?” since, “she did not.” She only said two words, a simple response to a question Jesus asked. No pleas are recorded of any kind.

 

[Ginny89]

Exactly, which is why Amoris Laetitia reflects this infinitely greater mercy of God, since it does not apply to people with corrupt wills. This is why the desire to change shows the will to turn toward God, not an “utterly corrupt will.”

It is because our wills are not utterly corrupt AND because God is not the indifferent watchmaker that the Calvinist solution you propose is wrong. We have a weak will that is not working alone but supplemented by divine grace. God would not require our conversion without first supplying us grace sufficient for it. And the Scriptures telk us we would never even seek God if he had not first supplied the grace. Your suggestion gives the indication that some people dont have enough grace to convert, therefore in their case, God becomes a Calvinist. This is the thing Trent was condemning. Everuthing God has asked us to do is possible because he has already provided grace more than sufficient.

And I have no idea what you meant by this earlier statement, “…why would she direct her pleas for forgiveness to him directly so that they would be recorded for us to read?” since, “she did not.”

You appeared to assume that the woman did not ask forgiveness simply because she did not say to Jesus “forgive me”. My point there is that she would never ask Jesus for forgiveness unless by some special revelation she understood he was in fact her God. Therefore, her pleas for forgiveness wouldve been directed to the God she knew, in her own heart. My point is that Jesus would see her interior conversion even if she did not ask him for forgiveness, and being God, would have granted it her.

 

[RCinMT]

You are getting a little fuzzy re what you actually said. Lets have a recap:

You suggest repetition of sinful behaviour is evidence of unwillingness to be forgiven.

Pure conjectures:
(1) There is no evidence that the woman was having a long running affair. All we know is she was caught in an act of adultery.
(2) Rome wasn’t built in a day. While some sinner’s can do cold turkey, most don’t which is why the Church, especially Pope Francis, speaks of the “law of gradualness”. He didn’t invent the law, usually we discern them from long experience of human nature. Pastors have great experience, you don’t sound very pastorally experienced.
(3) There is no evidence Jesus only rsvp-ed to sinners one-time only and if they didn’t stop sinning there and then no more invites please guys. On the contrary “Behold I stand at the door and knock”. The Pharisees kind of suggested Jesus was a repeat offender in this regard.

Material repetition of itself is no sure sign of recidivism which you seem to suggest.

No, you’re missing the point or trying to obfuscate: we’re not talking about repentance with a determination to change–we’re talking no commitment to change and in fact a blessing to keep sinning.

 

[RCinMT]

Nobody disagrees with this somewhat abstract principle…just as its hard to disagree that an immortal cannot die.
The question is whether certain concrete situations (irregulars) are evidence of adultery and further still, why Pope Francis cannot allow some of them to Communion.

Your tangents are spectacular but off topic sorry.

That says it all really. Nothing more so say then.

My tangents? Haha! You used baptism as a basis of comparison for blessing adultrey! You cannot find your footing here and have no theological basis for anything that you’re saying. I have asked repeatedly for you to back up any of your fuzziness with scripture and you don’t.

 

[pnewton]

You appeared to assume…

No, I did not assume anything. I did not add anything other than what was said. I am not assuming for what Jesus knew or thought for sure. You are the one that is saying more than John did. That is why I quoted the passage. You might well be 100% right. I will not assume you are either right or wrong. The Scripture has been posted. Our posts are here for anyone to point out where I ever stated anything about this passage other than what was written. The written word is all I have discussed.

 

[Ginny89]

No, I did not assume anything. I did not add anything other than what was said. I am not assuming for what Jesus knew or thought for sure. You are the one that is saying more than John did. That is why I quoted the passage. You might well be 100% right. I will not assume you are either right or wrong. The Scripture has been posted. Our posts are here for anyone to point out where I ever stated anything about this passage other than what was written. The written word is all I have discussed.

Pnewton, I specifically asked you WHY you pointed out the sequence of events that Jesus forgave before saying “Go and sin no more.” You yourself said that “we assume that people must ask for forgiveness” before they can be forgiven. Which is why I made the point that unless we are to endorse a clear heresy, that “possibility” you were playing with that Jesus forgave the woman without her conversion must be discarded as she did not need to say to Jesus “forgive me” in order for her to have “asked for forgiveness” which is what YOU brought up and were busy highlighting. Indeed if that was NOT the point you were making, I will repeat and ask you just what relevance that sequence has to this discussion then and why you brought it up.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

As usual, adhominems when caught stating a foolish notion such as babies are in mortal sin, clearly not knowing the difference between mortal sin and original sin. I mean, for centuries the church debated whether dead unbaptized babies went to limbo **precisely because their state is not the same as the state of a soul damned for mortal sins **but noo! Lets just go with Blue’s ideas, where he states flatly that babies are in mortal sin and then he claims I made him do it!!!:

Again your insufficient lay Catechesis lets you down when you try to punch beyond your weight as it were. You really do not understand what original sin is nor what a state of mortal sin is because you only have the drivers manual to guide you rather than the more detailed and complete mechanic’s manual .

Adhominems when caught stating a foolish notion such as babies are in mortal sin…

It’s merely a simple and politely observed home truth to help you objectively discern your insufficiency of learning for comment on this point.
**
Seeing that you are so determined to embarrass yourself theologically you force me to demonstrate this to you to the hilt. Look up the first chapter or so of the Baltimore Catechism.
You will find indeed that it is perfectly valid to say that unbaptized babies are in a state of mortal sin**.

If you have any sense of objective scholarship and shame do come back and quote the verse I refer to from my memory of being taught it old school 50 years ago. That was when we got real Catechesis…quite apart from my later tertiary studies.

The reason you cannot accept this is because your lay understanding of original sin, mortal sin and the role of free will in forgiveness of sin is incomplete and poorly formed. It betrays the influence of both secular Enlightenment philosophy (i.e. modern science and democracy) resulting in your vaguely passive aggressive Pelagianism on this point re forgiveness.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

No, you’re missing the point or trying to obfuscate: we’re not talking about repentance with a determination to change–we’re talking no commitment to change and in fact a blessing to keep sinning.

Actually we talk of the woman forgiven by Jesus. She was clearly forgiven her sin by Jesus without having made an act of contrition or a firm pupose of ammendment to Jesus either before or after so far as the story goes .

End of story, at least for me and most readers here I suggest.

 

[pnewton]

Pnewton, I specifically asked you WHY you pointed out the sequence of events that Jesus forgave before saying “Go and sin no more.”

I do not see any clear heresy. Jesus asked for forgiveness for those who crucified him without conversion. He is God.

I pointed out the sequence because I do not think the “Go and sin no more,” says what people here keep saying that it says, from a standpoint of strict scripture interpretation. The need for repentance in confession comes from Church teach, and other places in the Bible. But this verse is used as it seems to more easily rebut the Holy Father’s encyclical, at least that is what has happened here.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Again your insufficient lay Catechesis lets you down when you try to punch beyond your weight as it were. You really do not understand what original sin is nor what a state of mortal sin is because you only have the drivers manual to guide you rather than the more detailed and complete mechanic’s manual .

It’s merely a simple and politely observed home truth to help you objectively discern your insufficiency of learning for comment on this point.
**
Seeing that you are so determined to embarrass yourself theologically you force me to demonstrate this to you to the hilt. Look up the first chapter or so of the Baltimore Catechism.
You will find indeed that it is perfectly valid to say that unbaptized babies are in a state of mortal sin**.

If you have any sense of objective scholarship and shame do come back and quote the verse I refer to from my memory of being taught it old school 50 years ago. That was when we got real Catechesis…quite apart from my later tertiary studies.

The reason you cannot accept this is because your lay understanding of original sin, mortal sin and the role of free will in forgiveness of sin is incomplete and poorly formed. It betrays the influence of both secular Enlightenment philosophy (i.e. modern science and democracy) resulting in your vaguely passive aggressive Pelagianism on this point re forgiveness.

This is getting comical!

 

[Ginny89]

I do not see any clear heresy. Jesus asked for forgiveness for those who crucified him without conversion. He is God.

I pointed out the sequence because I do not think the “Go and sin no more,” says what people here keep saying that it says, from a standpoint of strict scripture interpretation. The need for repentance in confession comes from Church teach, and other places in the Bible. But this verse is used as it seems to more easily rebut the Holy Father’s encyclical, at least that is what has happened here.

Ok, so the point you denied making earlier was you in fact made: the point that Jesus does not necessarily require conversion. Jesus asked his father for forgiveness for us all, not just his oppressors: that is what we call justification. It is just one part of salvation, however, the other requires our own co-operation. Jesus’ words “Go and sin no more” do show that in fact, contrary to your suggestions, conversion is integral to him or he whose words are not superfluous would not have declared it. And since God said that to the woman whose sin he had cleansed, the idea that the church should say the diametric opposite “Go and dont feel compelled to stop sinning” is a suggestion that the church should find her examples elsewhere beside her Christ. And what do you care that this is church teaching? Does that not have weight? And as said earlier, God’s forgiveness is available already to all, unmerited and his grace is present to enable any weak person to seek and find and accept that forgiveness. It is a clear heresy to suggest that our salvation is a legalist declaration rather than a conversion or that there is insufficient grace to convert available to all.