US bishops try to calm anxiety over pope

[Sirach2]

Rin:

His interpretation of the EENS teaching was orthodox, but his insistence that the mainstream interpretation was heretical was wrong. It was the latter that got him excommunicated. When the excommunication was lifted, he was not required to recant his theology (and he never did), since his theology was not the reason for the excommunication.

That was a mercy on the part of the Church, but his theology is not the mind of the Church as newly defined in V-II. Truly, the footnote #19 in L.G. says the teaching came from this very letter to Feeney.
(19) Cfr. Epist. S.S.C.S. Officii ad Archiep. Boston.: Denz. 3869-72.

There are Feeneyite communities in communion with Rome, and canonically recognized, even today. They still hold, and are allowed to hold, Feeney’s position.

Not to derail, but this is untrue. They have applied for canonical recognition, but at this point in time, they are still not recognized. It may be true that they are allowed to hold that belief in their community, but Feeney was broadcasting prolifically with printed material to promote his agenda, and this is what the Church clamped down on.

 

[Ender]

Pope Benedict revisited it again in 2005 after raising it in a letter of 1998 …During the meeting with clergy in the Diocese of Aosta, which took place 25 July 2005, Pope Benedict XVI spoke of this difficult question: "those who were married in the Church for the sake of tradition but were not truly believers…

This goes to the question of annulments. Again, this creates no doctrinal problems. If the first marriage was invalid there is no bar to a second one. BXVI did not raise the issue of giving communion to those whose first marriage was valid.

I don’t have the theological or academic requirements to tell the Church how to set out her disciplines of faith. You neither.

This isn’t about defining doctrines, it is about understanding them, and the catechism (CCC 1650) is quite clear on this point. This is not something that is difficult to comprehend; there is no disagreement on what it says.

My belief is that it involves not making changes to the general rules on annulment, but looking at the validity of a first marriage from a different perspective. One that gives more value to the fruits of faith that exist in the now and the internal forum.

I really don’t care if they tweak the rules of annulment; there is no doctrinal question involved with that. I do care if they try to get around the existing doctrines that render it impossible to receive communion for someone who divorced from a valid marriage and remarried.

Ender

 

[KDamgirl]

I’ve already addressed the content of post 84 in virtually every reply I make to McCall. I try not to judge his inflexibility to consider that there are always new ways of addressing old truths, as willful obstinacy. In life this is natural and necessary. People had to get used to the new way of thinking about “outside the Church there is no salvation” also and some still can’t accept it. Fr Feeney was ultimately at odds with Catholic teaching until the end.

The Church has made big shifts over time in the way we view the Jews, the slaves, the mentally ill and alcoholics etc. She has softened or completely abandoned restrictions on Catholic practices addressed to these groups.

The fact that Pope Francis is making a space for these ideas indicates that there may be a more loving and holy way of addressing the divorced/remarried issue from a different angle without downgrading the indissolubility of marriage. Why would we not feel optimism that other groups that suffer, may be able to be understood and accepted more without downgrading the moral truths involved? It actually seems that some hate the idea of a merciful God to the point of blocking out the whisperings of the Holy Spirit by casting doubt over the Pope and his pontifical mission.

What “restrictions” on catholic practices addressed to slaves, mentally ill and alcoholics has the church ever made and then changed?

Has the church ever taught that being a slave was sinful, being mentally ill was sinful? Did Jesus or the apostles ever teach being slaves of mentally ill was sinful? It is simply funny to compare these groups with the clear teaching on remarriage by our Lord’s lips as ADULTERY. The idea that there is room for change in this is heretical.

On top of it all the idea that Pope Francis has just discovered a more merciful approach than Jesus or St. Paul or 2,000 years of Catholic magisterium is also bizarre.

 

[KDamgirl]

Lastly, I question whether some teachings commonly seen as infallible are indeed such, or simply deductions from infallible doctrine, which may or may not follow necessarily. Conserative Catholics do in my opinion have a tendency of claiming infallibility a tad too often, but as with the above, I do not know. It is not my business to challenge any specific teaching.

Something that has been taught unanimously for 2,000 years is indeed infallible. That’s the meaning of ordinary magisterium. You don’t need a formal declaration by a Ecumenical council or papal statement when something has been taught by bishops “every where” always as being the truth. It is automatically infallible. It is for this reason both contraception and female ordination was rejected because it is the unanimous teaching of the church everywhere for 2,000 years. It is quite telling that advocates for this new discipline are forced to look outside the church for a contrary teaching or practice. Inside the church there is one constant teaching. Conservatives do not claim infallibility too often. What is true is that some Catholics think that infallibility only applies for extraordinary magisterium which is completely inaccurate. Please read catechism on ordinary magisterium compared to extraordinary magisterium. It is not catholic faith that anything not defined in a council or papal decree is open to change. Anything unanimously taught as truth by bishops of the church everywhere is infallible and not open to change according to “brainstorming sessions” taking place 20 centuries after the truth has been proclaimed. indissolubility of marriage, remarriage being adultery and receiving communion worthily. None of those are open to change. They are the teaching of the catholic church for 2,000 years. They will not stop being true tomorrow after a firestorm of brainstorming sessions. Please note that the time of public revelation was closed when st. John died. The idea that the Holy Spirit is revealing fresh new things the church has never known before is not catholic. What the church has always taught is true and is true for all time and for all catholics.

 

[Ender]

Kasper asks **questions **but does not give answers. He presumes these will be answered in the synod. His role was to ask these to stimulate discussion and make sure that no stone was unturned for the participants to explore every possibility. He did not make demands or proposals…

I don’t understand why you find it so difficult to even admit what is taking place. Yes, proposals have been made to allow at least some people who have divorced and remarried to receive communion. The proposals are very generic at this point - which is unsurprising given that existing doctrine doesn’t permit it - but surely the purpose of the entire discussion was to find a way to “overcome” the current restrictions. Whether you define it as discussing a question or discussing a proposal is immaterial. The objective, and the discussion, are the same.

At this point there are no specifics, only vague approaches that should be considered:* permitting access in certain situations and with certain well-defined conditions… Access to the sacraments might take place if preceded by a penitential practice, determined by the diocesan bishop.*
What is entirely lacking at this point is any suggestion of how to circumvent the doctrines that now disallow this. Surely that ought to be a concern: how can we allow something tomorrow that doctrine forbids us to do today? If you’ve read something where this question is addressed I would be interested in seeing it.

Ender

 

[KDamgirl]

I don’t understand why you find it so difficult to even admit what is taking place. Yes, proposals have been made to allow at least some people who have divorced and remarried to receive communion. The proposals are very generic at this point - which is unsurprising given that existing doctrine doesn’t permit it - but surely the purpose of the entire discussion was to find a way to “overcome” the current restrictions. Whether you define it as discussing a question or discussing a proposal is immaterial. The objective, and the discussion, are the same.

At this point there are no specifics, only vague approaches that should be considered:* permitting access in certain situations and with certain well-defined conditions… Access to the sacraments might take place if preceded by a penitential practice, determined by the diocesan bishop.*
What is entirely lacking at this point is any suggestion of how to circumvent the doctrines that now disallow this. Surely that ought to be a concern: how can we allow something tomorrow that doctrine forbids us to do today? If you’ve read something where this question is addressed I would be interested in seeing it.

Ender

It is simply impossible. The proposal is that we all agree that couple x IS committing adultery but we want them to receive communion anyway without telling them to STOP the adultery. We are asking for a way to be able to disbelieve Jesus’ words. Lets sit down and brainstorm real hard. Maybe after we are finished, couple x will not be committing adultery after all. Huh?

 

[Sirach2]

I don’t understand why you find it so difficult to even admit what is taking place.
What is entirely lacking at this point is any suggestion of how to circumvent the doctrines that now disallow this. Surely that ought to be a concern: how can we allow something tomorrow that doctrine forbids us to do today? If you’ve read something where this question is addressed I would be interested in seeing it.
Ender

In the same way that EENS was expanded to now include those “outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church,” I trust our Shepherds to guide us faithfully, and whether it speaks to your theory or comes in a surprise nuance, doesn’t really matter to me, because I accept either outcome. Here’s a refresher for you. Quote: “I don’t know, and I don’t care!”

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!

 

[Sirach2]

Something that has been taught unanimously for 2,000 years is indeed infallible.
Anything unanimously taught as truth by bishops of the church everywhere is infallible and not open to change
What the church has always taught is true and is true for all time and for all catholics.

You show your lack of education and scant formation in these comments. Dei Verbum, a solemn Dogmatic Constitution proclaimed in V-II, states clearly:
Now what was handed on by the Apostles includes everything which contributes toward the holiness of life and increase in faith of the peoples of God; and so the Church, in her teaching, life and worship, perpetuates and hands on to all generations all that she herself is, all that she believes.
This tradition which comes from the Apostles develop in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit.

(5) For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (see Luke, 2:19, 51) through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through Episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. [That’s the Magisterium]

For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.
There are truths which were initially proclaimed in the Church’s infancy years, that have been further developed and defined in later years. These do not contradict doctrine, but enlarge it with more fullness of Divine Truth.

 

[KDamgirl]

You show your lack of education and scant formation in these comments. Dei Verbum, a solemn Dogmatic Constitution proclaimed in V-II, states clearly:
Now what was handed on by the Apostles includes everything which contributes toward the holiness of life and increase in faith of the peoples of God; and so the Church, in her teaching, life and worship, perpetuates and hands on to all generations all that she herself is, all that she believes.
This tradition which comes from the Apostles develop in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit.

(5) For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (see Luke, 2:19, 51) through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through Episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. [That’s the Magisterium]

For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.
There are truths which were initially proclaimed in the Church’s infancy years, that have been further developed and defined in later years. These do not contradict doctrine, but enlarge it with more fullness of Divine Truth.

You show your own lack of education, excuse me. Development never entails doctrinal back flips. 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

“Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.”

Pope St. John Paul II.

Reconsiliation 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?

 

[Sirach2]

You show your own lack of education, excuse me. Development never entails doctrinal back flips.

It can sometimes seem contradictory to the initial concept, but yes, it can develop into a new way of understanding it. You are too young to know much of this, but I give you credit for trying to trump the Church.

Over and out…

 

[Rin]

That was a mercy on the part of the Church, but his theology is not the mind of the Church as newly defined in V-II. Truly, the footnote #19 in L.G. says the teaching came from this very letter to Feeney.
(19) Cfr. Epist. S.S.C.S. Officii ad Archiep. Boston.: Denz. 3869-72.

Quoting myself:
"Rin:

He was at odds with the “mind of the Church” for certain

It’s quite obvious that he was. Additionally, he was in my opinion wrong. But neither being wrong nor being at odds with the mind of the Church makes one a heretic. To paraphrase my dogmatics professor, “you can deny that diaconal ordination is part of the Sacrament of Holy Orders if you so wish without being a heretic, but you would be an oddball”. It has only been infallibly declared that sacerdotal ordination is part of the Sacrament, but one would of course be seriously out of sync with the mind of the Church if one rejected that a deacon is sacramentally ordained. Refusing to see episcopal consecration as part of the Sacrament is more common (I know of respected theologians who avoid teaching sacramental theology over it), but still at odds with the mind of the Church. But neither are heresies.

Not to derail, but this is untrue. They have applied for canonical recognition, but at this point in time, they are still not recognized. It may be true that they are allowed to hold that belief in their community, but Feeney was broadcasting prolifically with printed material to promote his agenda, and this is what the Church clamped down on.

I stand corrected - they are not canonically recognized by Rome.

They are however regularized in their diocese - from their website:
Saint Benedict Center:

In 2002, Bishop Reilly of Worcester came to the Center and after a ceremony in the Chapel where the community recited and signed a copy of the Creed, he gave his formal blessing and “regularized” the community in the diocese.

They still insist on their literalist interpretation of EENS. Yet, they are in full communion with the Church, and recognized by their diocese. Again, their position is not heretical.

But I’m not really out to defend them - I dislike their position heavily, and many ultraconservatives would probably view my unwillingness to proclaim hellfire upon non-Catholics, even non-Christians (I have a hard time accepting that the millions upon millions of people of good will who have never heard the Gospel proclaimed in its fullness are to perish just for growing up in the wrong areas of the world) as bleeding-heart liberalism, while in reality my view falls within orthodoxy too. So I’ll reserve detailed debate about Feeneyism for another time, or preferably never . It’s just important to remember that on some areas, disagreement is legitimate - even on soteriology. Perhaps especially on soteriology. His excommunication was because of his defamation of the Magisterium, not because of his theological position.

---

Something that has been taught unanimously for 2,000 years is indeed infallible. That’s the meaning (…)

Look, I’m not advocating anything. I’m simply asking questions. And I’m not really asking you, or anyone else on this forum. I’m “asking” the bishops and the Pope, and sharing my questions here. And we’ll see how they conclude.

As for perennial unanimous teaching and infallibility, you are technically correct. The question is whether a specific teaching has been taught unanimously. And in some cases, it’s a question of what has been taught. It’s not always as clear cut as you might believe; there is a reason why we have theologians.

EENS is a great example of something “everyone” thought had been taught unanimously (and it had!), but it turned out our understanding of it was insufficent. The change of interpretation by the mainstream Church was so radical that it caused a semi-schism. A minuscule one, but still a semi-schism.

And to conclude, I stand by my words about conservatives being too trigger-happy with the infallibility trump card. Websites such as this one are teeming with it.

 

[Tigg]

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

Correct and I have never understood the confusion over the development of doctrine nor how some can actually believe there can ever be a gospel other than the one which was initially given. The Catechism teaches that the fuller vision of immutable truth can never deny the original, but only grow from it. It must always go forward from “the same doctrine in the same meaning and in the same sense.” 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?

 

[ProVobis]

It is a means of collecting the different perspectives of people in order to learn from each other and contribute to a rounded understanding of Gods will for the Church.

Unfortunately it also has the potential of giving false hopes to those who ultimately will be denied communion anyway. Then, as another poster suggested, many will turn their backs on the Pope. Seems like we’ve been down this road before.

 

[McCall1981]

Issue 1,
Has there been a concrete proposal to admit some re-married Catholics to communion?

Given that the Synod’s expressly says that there has, there is no reason to debate this.

Issue 2,
Have any explanations or arguments been put forth to answer the theological objections to this proposal?

I and others in this thread (not to mention Cardinals and Synod fathers) have directly asked for any attempt to reconcile this proposal with Catholic doctrine on the indissolubility of marriage, and the Eucharist. The responses have so far have evaded the question, and only posed personal attacks on the posters asking the questions, so I have to conclude that no one is able to attempt an explanation.

It’s kind of boring being in a debate in which the “other side” is unable to even provide an argument, so I’ll ask the direct question yet again: Has anyone ever seen, or can anyone provide, any attempt to reconcile this proposal with Catholic doctrine?

Anyone?

 

[Tigg]

Maybe this new affirmation of teaching will allay some fears:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=921301

 

[Sirach2]

Issue 1,
Has there been a concrete proposal to admit some re-married Catholics to communion?

Anyone?

How about Pope Benedict?

No Communion for Outlaws. But the Pope Is Studying Two Exceptions

The ban on Eucharistic communion for divorced and remarried Catholics is increasingly contested and disobeyed. Benedict XVI is standing firm. But he is republishing an essay from 1998 that opens two loopholes, the second entrusted to **conscience **

An important footnote, because it concerns precisely one of the points on which Benedict XVI maintains that an exception could be opened in the general ban on communion.

 

[McCall1981]

How about Pope Benedict?

No Communion for Outlaws. But the Pope Is Studying Two Exceptions

The ban on Eucharistic communion for divorced and remarried Catholics is increasingly contested and disobeyed. Benedict XVI is standing firm. But he is republishing an essay from 1998 that opens two loopholes, the second entrusted to **conscience **

An important footnote, because it concerns precisely one of the points on which Benedict XVI maintains that an exception could be opened in the general ban on communion.

You should re-read the below, because, yet again, this is exactly what I have been saying all along. Benedict addresses potential changes to the process for determining whether a marriage was valid in the first place, he does not address giving communion to those in a marriage that has already been determined to be valid.

As I have already said several times, potential changes to the process of determining validity are a perfectly valid theological discussion. Potential changes to the practice involving* marriages that have already been determined to be valid* is not.

“In the first part of his essay, the pope reiterates that this ban is not an invention of the Catholic Church. The Church has no choice but to adhere to the teaching of Christ, who expressed himself with absolute clarity on the indissolubility of marriage. But of what kind of marriage?”

and

“If the prior marriage of two divorced and remarried members of the faithful was valid, under no circumstances can their new union be considered lawful and therefore reception of the sacraments is intrinsically impossible. The conscience of the individual is bound to this norm without exception.” A norm, the indissolubility of marriage, that is of “divine law” and “over which the Church has no discretionary authority.”

But immediately afterward, he adds:

“However, the Church has the authority to clarify those conditions which must be fulfilled for a marriage to be considered indissoluble according to the sense of Jesus’ teaching.”

And, he writes, the ecclesiastical tribunals that should ascertain whether or not a marriage is valid do not always function well. Sometimes the processes “last an excessive amount of time.” In some cases "they conclude with questionable decisions."In still others “mistakes occur.”

In these cases, therefore – the pope recognizes –, “it seems that the application of ‘epikeia’ in the internal forum is not automatically excluded,” meaning a decision of conscience"

and

“Further study is required, however, concerning the question of whether non-believing Christians – baptized persons who never did or who no longer believe in God – can truly enter into a sacramental marriage. In other words, it needs to be clarified whether every marriage between two baptized persons is ‘ipso facto’ a sacramental marriage.”

I am asking for an argument to support a change to the practice of giving communion to remarried people who have a previous valid marriage, as has been proposed.

I still have yet to see one.

 

[Sirach2]

Like I said, one sees what they want to see and exclude everything else.

From the Author of the Article:
The “openness” indicated by the pope in the essay and in the supplemental footnote has at least two parts.

The first is the possible expansion of the canonical recognition of the nullity of marriages celebrated “without faith” by at least one of the spouses, although baptized.

The second is the possible recourse to a decision “in the internal forum” to receive communion by a divorced and remarried Catholic if the lack of recognition of the nullity of his previous marriage (because of a verdict held to be erroneous or because of the impossibility of proving its nullity in procedural form) were to contrast with his firm conviction of conscience that that marriage was objectively null.
End Quote.

"In still others "mistakes occur

."

In these cases, therefore – the pope recognizes –, "it seems that the application of ‘epikeia’ in the internal forum is not automatically excluded," meaning a decision of conscience:

“Some theologians [such as Burke’s group] are of the opinion that the faithful ought to adhere strictly even in the internal forum to juridical decisions which they believe to be false. Others maintain that exceptions are possible here in the internal forum, because the juridical forum does not deal with norms of divine law, but rather with norms of ecclesiastical law.”

This question, however, demands further study and clarification. {which is the reason for the synod discussions]

Now I ask you, does he or does he not believe “divorced and remarried” without a formal null decree may receive communion in the internal forum? What part of his thought are you not understanding?

Over and OUT!

 

[McCall1981]

Like I said, one sees what they want to see and exclude everything else.

"In still others “mistakes occur.” (This is referring to mistakes made in the annulment process, which is an administrative concern)

In these cases, therefore – the pope recognizes –, “it seems that the application of ‘epikeia’ in the internal forum is not automatically excluded,” meaning a decision of conscience. (The internal forum is involved in determining the validity of a previous marriage, not in determining the reception of communion)

“Some theologians [such as Burke’s group] are of the opinion that the faithful ought to adhere strictly even in the internal forum to juridical decisions which they believe to be false. Others maintain that exceptions are possible here in the internal forum, because the juridical forum does not deal with norms of divine law, but rather with norms of ecclesiastical law.” (This says that some, like Burke, believe that the external forum must be adhered to even if the internal forum disagrees, while others believe that the internal forum can override the external forum since the external forum only deals with ecclesiastical law. Either way this is still a discussion of the process of determining the validity of a previous marriage, it is not a discussion of the reception of communion by people with a previous marriage that is already known to be valid)

This question, however, demands further study and clarification. {which is the reason for the synod discussions] (The questions here that need further discussion all pertain to the determination of validity, none of them pertain to the reception of communion by a person with a previous marriage that is already known to be valid)

At the risk of beating an already dead horse, the issue is not over changes to the process of determining the validity of a previous marriage. The issue is whether those with a previous marriage (that we already know to be valid) may under certain circumstances receive communion.

Card Kasper proposes that some people in this situation could receive communion if they first follow a path of penitence. He has not answered the basic theological implications of this proposal to the indissolubility of marriage (what happens to the first, valid marriage?) and the Eucharist (how can person in a objective state of sin receive communion?).

No one else has been able to answer these basic theological objections either.

 

[McCall1981]

Like I said, one sees what they want to see and exclude everything else.

From the Author of the Article:
The “openness” indicated by the pope in the essay and in the supplemental footnote has at least two parts.

The first is the possible expansion of the canonical recognition of the nullity of marriages celebrated “without faith” by at least one of the spouses, although baptized.

The second is the possible recourse to a decision “in the internal forum” to receive communion by a divorced and remarried Catholic