US bishops try to calm anxiety over pope

  • Thread starter Thread starter SAVINGRACE
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
McCall1981 said:
You edited your post while I was answering, so I’ll respond again.

Yes, his point is that a decree of nullity could potentially not be necessary for the person to receive communion, if the internal forum demonstrates that the previous marriage is not valid.

I don’t know how else to say it, the debate over the internal forum is concerned with the determination of validity of a previous marriage.
Click to expand...
That is NOT the concept of internal forum whatsoever. I take it you have not read any other authors or books on this. It means specifically that the couple themselves can…in the internal forum of their own conscience…decide to receive communion if they are convinced through deep personal prayer with God that their marriage is null, even though the “external forum” of a tribunal has not been able to state this.

So BXVI is saying that this may be a valid option for these couples.

I don’t see any value in discussing this further with you. Now you may beat the dead horse with others, if you like. 😉
 
Sirach2 said:
That is NOT the concept of internal forum whatsoever. I take it you have not read any other authors or books on this. It means specifically that the couple themselves can…in the internal forum of their own conscience…decide to receive communion if they are convinced through deep personal prayer with God that their marriage is null, even though the “external forum” of a tribunal has not been able to state this.

So BXVI is saying that this may be a valid option for these couples.

I don’t see any value in discussing this further with you. Now you may beat the dead horse with others, if you like. 😉
Click to expand...
The internal forum, means that the couple can determine for themselves whether the previous marriage was valid or not, and thus whether they could receive communion or not. This could indeed be a possible method for determining validity.

Whether the Church uses the external forum, the internal forum, a combination of the two, changes the legal requirements, changes the administrative process, etc, etc does not matter because that is not the issue here.

At issue is “are there circumstances under which a re-married Catholic,* with a valid previous marriage*, can be admitted to communion?” Kasper suggests that after a path of penitence, this could be done, but has not addressed the theological implications (no one has).

Still waiting for any attempt at an argument or explanation.
 
The internal forum refers to the couple itself, rather then the external tribunal process, being the determiner of whether the first marriage was valid and whether the couple can receive communion. The process of determining this information is not at issue.

A remarried couple could apply for a annulment, knowing for sure themselves that the previous marriage was invalid, but aren’t able to prove it to the tribunal for some reason. Then the erroneous answer comes back that the previous marriage was valid. The internal forum would allow them use their conscience (because they actually do know that their first marriage was invalid) to make the decision that they can receive communion.

This is just shifting the responsibility of determining validity from the tribunal to the couple. Either way, some entity is determining whether the first marriage is valid, according to same criteria.

If the Church chose to use the internal forum this way it would have the effect of allowing many remarried couples that currently cannot receive communion, to receive. But it would not be giving communion to remarried couples with a valid previous marriage.

It would simply be allowing that there are couples out there who did not actually have a valid first marriage, but were given an incorrect ruling that they did. *These are people that should have been allowed by the tribunal to receive communion in the first place, but due to some problem, were incorrectly denied. *

It does nothing to change whether the previous marriage* actually* was valid or not, the same standards still apply. It only changes who gets to make the determination.

Card Kasper proposes some circumstances for allowing remarried Catholics, with valid previous marriage, to receive communion. How we determine whether the previous marriage was valid, whether we use the internal forum or external forum or whatever is irrelevant. The point is that a person with a valid previous marriage (regardless of how that determination has been reached) could be allowed to receive communion.
 
I appreciate that we should try to use the most correct vocabulary, so thanks for that. But we’re kind of writing short-hand here and I think everyone knows what we mean. I don’t think it changes the ideas being expressed 🤷
 
Per Tigg: " It can never mean abandoning what has always been believed and taught, nor can it abrogate the old and substitute a newer version for the old. If this were not true, how could the Church possibly declare she holds any authority at all?"

Well,Tigg, it depends on the “Church” in question. The American Catholic church, for example, understands it so well that Pope Leo XIII had to condemn the heresy of “Americanism”–adjusting Catholic doctrine by Amchurch to the culture, rather than vice versa as taught by the Roman Catholic Church.

You, Ender, McCALL1981 and a few others have a real talent for getting to the heart of the matter. Too bad that “You are too young to know much of this” doctrinal developement thing:rolleyes:

Per KDamgirl: “Reconciliation is not compatible with a life in contradiction to doctrine. Brainstorming is supposed to give us a new revelation how a life in contradiction to doctrine can be ‘reconciled’ without being reconciled. Huh?”

Why are you confused; Protestants do it all the time. And you know how pristine they keep their “doctrine” :eek: (“The concept of having a representative body of the Church voting on doctrinal applications and pastoral solutions strikes me as being rather Protestant.”, Bishop Tobin, Providence Diocese , inre the Synod) diocesepvd.org/from-bishop-tobin-random-thoughts-about-the-synod-on-the-family/
 
McCall1981 said:
I appreciate that we should try to use the most correct vocabulary, so thanks for that. But we’re kind of writing short-hand here and I think everyone knows what we mean. I don’t think it changes the ideas being expressed 🤷
Click to expand...
:egyptian: :choocho:

🍿
 
Saying “decree of nullity” rather than “annulment” doesn’t change the point being made, you know what the person means.

I see nothing in your post that changes the meaning of anything I, or anyone else, said.
 
being the determiner of whether the first marriage was valid and whether the couple can receive communion. The process of determining this information is not at issue.

A remarried couple could apply for a annulment, knowing for sure themselves that the previous marriage was invalid, but aren’t able to prove it to the tribunal for some reason. Then the erroneous answer comes back that the previous marriage was valid. The internal forum would allow them use their conscience (because they actually do know that their first marriage was invalid)[only if the “internal forum” actually also involves a priest/spiritual director - which by definition is what the “internal forum” requires]] to make the decision that they can receive communion.

This is just shifting the responsibility of determining validity from the tribunal to the couple. Either way, some entity is determining whether the first marriage is valid, absolutely incorrect. NO ONE ever determines that the marriage “is valid”]according to same criteria.

If the Church chose to use the internal forum this way it would have the effect of allowing many remarried couples that currently cannot receive communion, to receive. But it would not be giving communion to remarried couples with a valid previous marriage.

It would simply be allowing that there are couples out there who did not actually have a valid first marriage, but were given an incorrect ruling that they did. *These are people that should have been allowed by the tribunal to receive communion in the first place, but due to some problem, were incorrectly denied. *

It does nothing to change whether the previous marriage* actually* was valid or not, the same standards still apply. It only changes who gets to make the determination.

Card Kasper proposes some circumstances for allowing remarried Catholics, with valid previous marriage[no no no no. no one ever determines that a marriage is actually valid], to receive communion. How we determine whether the previous marriage was valid,[we don’t, we don’t now, we won’t then, we only determine if there is sufficient evidence to decree that it is “invalid” Lack of a decree of invalidity, i.e an annulment, doesn’t mean the marriage is actually "valid}[/COLOR] whether we use the internal forum or external forum or whatever is irrelevant. The point is that a person with a valid previous marriage (regardless of how that determination has been reached) could be allowed to receive communion.[incorrect, because there is never a determination that a marriage is actually valid]
/quote]

Same thing, none of this changes the meaning of anything I said.

You’re arguing wording that doesn’t change the meaning of the sentence, and I’m sure you’re correct about it, but so what 🤷
[/quote]
 
And yet again, while both are true, neither effect the points I’m making.

No marriages are deemed valid. Fine. You know perfectly well what I mean, and instead of writing out a full paragraph to explain this every time I say it, I say “deemed valid” instead. I don’t think anyone is confused by that.

The internal forum "allows the couple to determine validity"etc etc. Fine. Same thing, you know what I mean, and it’s faster than writing out a full paragraph every time I refer to it.
[/quote]
 
Still at, McCall? Some of us don’t have an intense desire to “win at all costs.”

Let’s leave this to the synod who has a full year to study the matter. It’s really odious to instruct the participants that our lay opinions are the only ones that are worth considering.
 
This strikes me as presumptuous. A couple and priest can’t just assume that a tribunal will find the marriage null.

Annulments are given very quickly for the criteria stated. I don’t see the point in assuming invalidity from the get-go.

It’s the Church’s responsibility, not the couple’s, to determine whether a marriage is Sacramental. It is also the Church’s responsibility to error on the side of caution, in seeing a marriage as valid, unless there is strong evidence to the contrary. To leave it to the couple entails the risk that emotions and wishful thinking leads them to mortal sin. A couple can easily shop for a spiritual director who will rubber stamp what they already want. I see this option as doing a great disservice. You can’t say to the Church, “my marriage is invalid, but I can’t tell you why”.
 
, to receive communion. How we determine whether the previous marriage was valid, whether we use the internal forum or external forum or whatever is irrelevant. The point is that a person with a valid previous marriage (regardless of how that determination has been reached) could be allowed to receive
communion
[/quote]

."

However Kaspar proposes no such thing, because there is never a determination that a prior marriage is in fact “valid”.

Kaspar only proposes that remarried Catholics with either a previous marriage that has not yet been ruled upon or a previous marriage which failed to be “annulled” (to use your term) but which has been found to be not valid in the internal forum, be allowed to receive communion.

I don’t know how else to say it.

I don’t know how else to say it either, so let’s drop it 😉

Where did you get this from? I ask because I’ve never seen this anywhere, and it would be good to know.
 
, be allowed to receive communion.

Thanks for a heroic effort to break through this conundrum, Deacon Actually, this was also Pope Benedict’s proposal, pending further study.
[/quote]
 
Sirach2 said:
Those who labor to impute their own theology in the mouths of the Shepherds are the ones who follow every post, ready with keyboard in hand to dispute anyone who violates their personal outlook. Some members of the good old boys club can be seen on line here all day long So very sad!
Click to expand...
Yes, you’ve nailed us. We are all sad, miserable people. Now that we’ve gotten that out of the way let’s address the only relevant issue: are the comments we’ve made incorrect? Is the catechism to be believed when it says: *“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.”

*This isn’t a particularly nuanced statement so what reason is there to believe it doesn’t mean precisely what it says? I accept it. So: is it right because the catechism says it or does it become wrong because a person like me believes it?

Ender
 
Sirach2 said:
(name removed by moderator);12492922:
Thanks for a heroic effort to break through this conundrum, Deacon Actually, this was also Pope Benedict’s proposal, pending further study.
Click to expand...
You apparently still misunderstand me. What Benedict talked about isn’t problematic at all (I think in practice it would probabaly be abused pretty badly, but theologically it’s fine).
Click to expand...
 
Sneaking right in before this thread gets locked up…

For a scholarly article on the notion of an “internal forum solution”, see: scribd.com/doc/46811462/Does-there-exist-an-internal-forum-solution-for-the-divorced-and-remarried

For Cardinal Ratzinger’s actual letter, without Magister’s interspersed commentary/interpretation (which has a varied value), see: osservatoreromano.va/en/news/the-pastoral-approach-to-marriage-must-be-founded-#.UulAWPZ21dg

I contend that Ratzinger never “proposed” anything in the letter. The letter recounts a discussion among theologians/bishops/etc. Some points, he said, require further study. I am amused at how he said the 1994 letter from the CDF “was met with a very lively response.” That’s a very diplomatic way to say it.

For that 1994 letter, which has more weight than the one linked to above, see: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_14091994_rec-holy-comm-by-divorced_en.html

Dan
 
KDamgirl said:
To repeat, what the church has taught in its bishops unanimously as true for 2,000 years is true for all times and for all catholics. If remarriage after a valid marriage has been adultery for 2,000 years it shall be so tomorrow. The church cannot discover a way for it to not to be adultery after 20 centuries. The catholic magisterium is not a synod of 200 bishops. It is the magisterium of 2,000 years. Truth does not die with each new generation of bishops and this below has been incontrovertible Catholic TRUTH for 2,000 years.
Click to expand...
The point that is either unappreciated or ignored by those who consider it possible to reverse a doctrine is that such a reversal could never be considered development. Over 100 years ago Cardinal Newman identified a seven point test that had to be satisfied in order for something to be considered valid development. The second criterion was this:By continuity of principles: “A development, to be faithful, must retain both the doctrine and the principle with which it started.”
There is no possible means of developing the doctrines that now absolutely prohibit the divorced and remarried from receiving communion so as to allow it. Such a change would not be a development of doctrine, but a repudiation of truth.

Ender
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top