Vatican’s legal chief says desire to change enough for Communion

[St_Francis]

I have made my point re the original topic Francis.
You are now merely sounding off on pedantic argumentative tangents, based on wild and subjective alternate facts that have been done to death elsewhere. They reflect no more than your set and still unsubstantiated biases. Such “discussions” are pointless and enlighten nobody, cathartic though they are for you.

No, I have valid questions. When I ask you as nicely as I can, you do not care to respond to someone at such a low level of Catholic moral theology as I.

Why do so many seem to think that this will not cause pain for others? Why do so many seem to think that this will have no effect on things? Why do so many assume that those who are not on board with the change think we are stupid, simplistic, uncaring people with axes to grind and a total disregard for the Pope and those of the hierarchy who are going along with this?

This is a huge change. It was set forth in a footnote, which apparently the Pope later joked that he forgot, if I read you correctly? There are no criteria, none of the directives you claimed the Pope made, no rationale for the change other than that “the Eucharist is food for sinners, not a reward for the perfect.”

Re the “forgotten” footnote…Pope Francis’s facetious irony seems to have thundered over the silence of your thinking.

Oh, ha. Ha, Ha. Very funny.

Jean-Marie Guenois (Le Figaro): I had the same question, but it’s a complementary question because you wrote this famous ‘Amoris Laetitia’ on the problems of the divorced and remarried (footnote 351). Why put something so important in a little note? Did you foresee the opposition or did you mean to say that this point isn’t that important?

Pope Francis: One of the recent popes, speaking of the Council, said that there were two councils: the Second Vatican Council in the Basilica of St. Peter, and the other, the council of the media. When I convoked the first synod, the great concern of the majority of the media was communion for the divorced and remarried, and, since I am not a saint, this bothered me, and then made me sad. Because, thinking of those media who said, this, this and that, do you not realize that that is not the important problem? Don’t you realize that instead the family throughout the world is in crisis? Don’t we realize that the falling birth rate in Europe is enough to make one cry? And the family is the basis of society. Do you not realize that the youth don’t want to marry? Don’t you realize that the fall of the birth rate in Europe is to cry about? Don’t you realize that the lack of work or the little work (available) means that a mother has to get two jobs and the children grow up alone? These are the big problems. I don’t remember the footnote, but for sure if it’s something general in a footnote it’s because I spoke about it, I think, in ‘Evangelii Gaudium.’

Of course, it doesn’t actually sound like facetious irony in context. It sounds like he was very focused on the social problems —which concern many and not just Catholics, either— to the point that the idea of the Eucharist just was drowned by these other concerns?

If the foundation of our faith is God, and Christ, and the center of our lives the Eucharist, then the Eucharist is where we *start. *What the Pope is saying here sounds upside-down. I actually regret reading what you wrote because it led me to this which seems worse than his simply forgetting, which at least could have been temporary.

If your involvement on these topics elicits the bitterness that increasingly seems to seep through your posts

You do not know me and you do not know what I have had to contend with or struggle through. You seem to think I am bitter. I don’t think so. I am angry with a hierarchy that swings the laity around at the end of a tiger’s tail and then tells us “Pray, pay, and obey.”

maybe it would be better to spend the time praying for wayward Pope Francis instead and recovering a more healthy disposition on the matters.

Nor do you know anything about my prayer life or intentions. Possibly ironically to you, all this confusion makes me pray harder for the Pope and for the Church.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Every issue also has its Cardinal Kaspar, to grab one name, that pushes the limits. The conflict between the theological liberal and the theological conservative is healthy to avoid stagnation and allow the Church to continue to be guided by the Holy Spirit in all things. That’s why I think it premature to be too sure of anyone’s position, or at least to fail and acknowledge the other side, or engage in such things as labeling either as heretical or schismatic. We simply cannot think in those terms at this point when the Church has not threshed Amoris Laetitia out.

Yes , I hope this comes across as my position also.

I actually have no idea of the final “truth” of the matter (or even what that means to be honest).

I honestly don’t think it matters either way.
The only thing that matters I believe is that:
(1) We all recognise we are in an interim period, a time of prudentially judged “experiment” if you will. Sometimes the right approach can only be found by “trying it on”. Its a fact of life that sometimes we can only reach certainty about the way forward by walking down what may seem the wrong path until we reach a new height, or can see round the bend.
If it looks wrong then we walk back to where we started and try another route.

This of course may take some time in the life of the Catholic Church, perhaps 15 or even 50 years or more.
(2) We don’t prematurely keep trying to prove to our protagonists that they cannot possibly be right which effectively disenfranchises them.
(3) We laity take due regard for our own theological credentials compared to the Pope before we start making dogmatic statements about his errors and how well we understand Tradition.
(4) We don’t let personal insecurities cause us to take set stands or easy offence when others robustly question or reject over strongly asserted opinions (or personal interpretations of weighty sources.).

I really don’t understand why people make their spiritual emotional equilibrium so dependent on speculative set positions and others accepting them without critique.

Personally I am happy to go with whatever pastoral directives the Pope sets up because:
(a) if I think its not right I won’t take advantage of the new leniency and will respect those who sincerely do. Who am I to look over the fence, I just need to keep my own back yard in order.
(b) nobody in doubt can go morally wrong if they abide by the Pope’s position even if he does turn out to have taken a wrong turn here. That is God’s promise to the Church and to Peter.

I find that very comforting, I really do not know why others don’t.

 

[twf]

Yes , I hope this comes across as my position also.

I actually have no idea of the final “truth” of the matter (or even what that means to be honest).

I honestly don’t think it matters either way.
The only thing that matters I believe is that:
(1) We all recognise we are in an interim period, a time of prudentially judged “experiment” if you will. Sometimes the right approach can only be found by “trying it on”. Its a fact of life that sometimes we can only reach certainty about the way forward by walking down what may seem the wrong path until we reach a new height, or can see round the bend.
If it looks wrong then we walk back to where we started and try another route.

This of course may take some time in the life of the Catholic Church, perhaps 15 or even 50 years or more.
(2) We don’t prematurely keep trying to prove to our protagonists that they cannot possibly be right which effectively disenfranchises them.
(3) We laity take due regard for our own theological credentials compared to the Pope before we start making dogmatic statements about his errors and how well we understand Tradition.
(4) We don’t let personal insecurities cause us to take set stands or easy offence when others robustly question or reject over strongly asserted opinions (or personal interpretations of weighty sources.).

I really don’t understand why people make their spiritual emotional equilibrium so dependent on speculative set positions and others accepting them without critique.

Personally I am happy to go with whatever pastoral directives the Pope sets up because:
(a) if I think its not right I won’t take advantage of the new leniency and will respect those who sincerely do. Who am I to look over the fence, I just need to keep my own back yard in order.
(b) nobody in doubt can go morally wrong if they abide by the Pope’s position even if he does turn out to have taken a wrong turn here. That is God’s promise to the Church and to Peter.

I find that very comforting, I really do not know why others don’t.

The problem is that the Pope hasn’t, as far as I can tell, bound the Church to one particular position on this issue. Yes, his personal feelings seem to be abundantly clear (he expressed the “liberal” position in his letter to the Argentine bishops for example), yet he hasn’t “required” more conservative dioceses to implement the more progressive guidelines. Public debate between bishops continues. Public debate between Cardinals continues. I think with that in mind, all I can personally do is follow my own bishop…as St. Ignatius says “See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father…”
The Judicial Vicar in my archdiocese published an editorial indicating that he considers the Pope to be wrong on this particular issue. I can only assume the Monsignor had the Archbishop’s tacit approval. Until such time as the Pope binds the entire Church, I think the buck stops with YOUR bishop.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I dont understand how that would grant a right to communion. I personally dont understand why doing benign things like occasionally missing Sunday mass results in mortal sin. After this AL saga, I have had a hard time readily submitting to the church’s authority intellectually in all things with the child like trust I had before. Yet, I have never felt the need to set aside the church’s teachings and approach communion based on my subjective hunch that not showing up on all Sundays is not as serious as murder or abortion or fornication. I don’t understand how a person’s subjective conclusion that they are right and the church wrong on a certain position entitles them to approach sacraments contrary to the church’s own positions.

Re " I personally don’t understand why doing benign things like occasionally missing Sunday mass results in mortal sin."

Ah, but the Church teaches it can never be a “benign” thing to intentionally occasionally miss Sunday mass without a serious reason. It is a grave sin to do so.
It is therefore in itself not benign but a grave disorder/evil

 

[Ginny89]

Perhaps, as a loyal Catholic, I find the contributors poor estimation of Pope Francis’s intelligence, insights and leadership disrespectful and worthy of confronting.

Confronting is not an intrinsic evil after all.

A loyal catholic who openly rejects the church teaching on infallibility? How loyal can that be?

 

[JPUSC]

Re " I personally don’t understand why doing benign things like occasionally missing Sunday mass results in mortal sin."

Ah, but the Church teaches it can never be a “benign” thing to intentionally occasionally miss Sunday mass without a serious reason. It is a grave sin to do so.
It is therefore in itself not benign but a grave disorder/evil

The Church teaches that; Jesus teaches this:

“Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”

Mark 10:11-12

 

[Blue_Horizon]

A loyal catholic who openly rejects the church teaching on infallibility? How loyal can that be?

I don’t know? You are the one making up the story .

But if you are attempting to describe a loyal Catholic who, like you, is unable to understand how benignly missing Sunday mass now and then can be a mortal sin…then you should be able to understand another who is unable to understand the rationale for the Church’s teaching on infallibility.

Doesn’t really sound like rejection to me if they are loyal Catholics in every other respect.

Or are you just leaking unprocessed negative emotion from another thread perhaps?

 

[Ginny89]

I don’t know? You are the one making up the story .

But if you are attempting to describe a loyal Catholic who, like you, is unable to understand how benignly missing Sunday mass now and then can be a mortal sin…then you should be able to understand another who is unable to understand the rationale for the Church’s teaching on infallibility.

Doesn’t really sound like rejection to me if they are loyal Catholics in every other respect.

Or are you just leaking unprocessed negative emotion from another thread perhaps?

I understand difficulty understanding everything. But you seem to suggest that you willingly retain the “right” to pick and choose what you believe, else you become a follower of a “cult leader”. While I struggle to understand, I do accept. I dont retain the right to say “No it is not mortal sin and I have no obligation to accept it is” You feel free to reject an explicit dogma based on your own intellect. I dont find that loyal, is all Im saying.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I understand difficulty understanding everything. But you seem to suggest that you willingly retain the “right” to pick and choose what you believe, else you become a follower of a “cult leader”. While I struggle to understand, I do accept. I dont retain the right to say “No it is not mortal sin and I have no obligation to accept it is” You feel free to reject an explicit dogma based on your own intellect. I dont find that loyal, is all Im saying.

You can “seem to suggest” whatever you like about me, its not a topic I care to discuss when you continue to interpret negatively in my regard what you interpret positively for yourself .

And why on earth would you not discuss the content of the post that seems to have upset you on the forum I actually wrote it on .
It was infallibility, conscience and ignorance.

A good start might be to respond to my questions which you have studiously avoided.
I won’t be pursuing your bilocating posts here though sorry.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The problem is that the Pope hasn’t, as far as I can tell, bound the Church to one particular position on this issue. Yes, his personal feelings seem to be abundantly clear (he expressed the “liberal” position in his letter to the Argentine bishops for example), yet he hasn’t “required” more conservative dioceses to implement the more progressive guidelines. Public debate between bishops continues. Public debate between Cardinals continues. I think with that in mind, all I can personally do is follow my own bishop…as St. Ignatius says “See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father…”
The Judicial Vicar in my archdiocese published an editorial indicating that he considers the Pope to be wrong on this particular issue. I can only assume the Monsignor had the Archbishop’s tacit approval. Until such time as the Pope binds the entire Church, I think the buck stops with YOUR bishop.

I don’t think I disagree with you.
Obviously your bishop is your local rep re Pope Francis and he has been given authority to implement AL however he sees fit.

The Pope hasn’t “bound” any bishops to make his new options available in their dioceses - that is pretty much what I am saying. He has put in place an “experiment”… its a conversation with no final answer expected either way any time soon.

A bit like the current doctrinal position re whether Mary died or not before she was Assumed.
You are free to hold either position at the moment. However it is very clear the Papal tradition has always held and taught she died first.
One day a decision will be made after the wind direction in the Church Universal has percolated for a while. That might take 200 years.

 

[St_Francis]

Yes , I hope this comes across as my position also.

At least to me, this has not come across as your position.

I actually have no idea of the final “truth” of the matter (or even what that means to be honest).

I honestly don’t think it matters either way.
The only thing that matters I believe is that:
(1) We all recognise we are in an interim period, a time of prudentially judged “experiment” if you will. Sometimes the right approach can only be found by “trying it on”. Its a fact of life that sometimes we can only reach certainty about the way forward by walking down what may seem the wrong path until we reach a new height, or can see round the bend.
If it looks wrong then we walk back to where we started and try another route.

This of course may take some time in the life of the Catholic Church, perhaps 15 or even 50 years or more.
(2) We don’t prematurely keep trying to prove to our protagonists that they cannot possibly be right which effectively disenfranchises them.

And the protagonists might try listening to their interlocutors
Do we enfranchise people to be wrong?
Is it wrong to ask “our protagonists” to supply some form of reasoning for their position other than So-and-so said so?
Is it wrong to challenge the plan of the protagonists with evidence-based facts?

(3) We laity take due regard for our own theological credentials compared to the Pope before we start making dogmatic statements about his errors and how well we understand Tradition.

We have had over 200 popes, some of whom have specifically written against a position which was at least theologically justifiable. So is Pope Francis saying Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI are inexperienced or unknowledgeable?

(4) We don’t let personal insecurities cause us to take set stands or easy offence when others robustly question or reject over strongly asserted opinions (or personal interpretations of weighty sources.).

Who is doing that? The people who have argued against you have used actual logical arguments, and have not been offended by what the Pope is doing but by ad hominem responses delivered from a high horse.

I really don’t understand why people make their spiritual emotional equilibrium so dependent on speculative set positions and others accepting them without critique.

I for one am not upset that some people are accepting what Pope Francis is doing. I am only upset by what he is doing. And why is it upsetting? Because I have already seen this scenario during the 1960s, when the idea was rampant throughout the Church that the Pill might be OK to use as abc. When the Pope came out with HV, there was massive pushback on the part of priests, and complete confusion among the laity. As a result of that mess, many, many people left the Church, including most of the Catholic members of my family.

So, am I not supposed to be upset about a loss of souls? Just go along without caring about the fact that these people are closer to Hell than to Heaven?

Personally I am happy to go with whatever pastoral directives the Pope sets up because:
(a) if I think its not right I won’t take advantage of the new leniency and will respect those who sincerely do. Who am I to look over the fence, I just need to keep my own back yard in order.

If you don’t like abortion, just don’t have one. No need to take on about the fact that this barbarity is not only permitted but promoted by your society.

(b) nobody in doubt can go morally wrong if they abide by the Pope’s position even if he does turn out to have taken a wrong turn here. That is God’s promise to the Church and to Peter.

And nobody can go wrong by criticizing the Pope’s *actions *in this matter, either.

I find that very comforting, I really do not know why others don’t.

Among other things, maybe we protagonists are concerned about desecration of the Body and Blood of our Lord, which seems to have been on the minds of those popes who considered the internal forum as unacceptable. Maybe we are concerned about the souls of those around us and not just our own.

 

[commenter]

(earlier poster) “Every generation has its Cardinal Bourke and more extreme rigorist saints who only provide one side of the whole picture which is bigger. And so we can all cherry pick texts to suit our personal opinions and points.”

Every issue also has its Cardinal Kaspar, to grab one name, that pushes the limits. The conflict between the theological liberal and the theological conservative is healthy to avoid stagnation and allow the Church to continue to be guided by the Holy Spirit in all things.

I am not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with the descriptions of the 2 cardinals, both of whom must be treated with respect. I simply point out that Pope Benedict was mostly successful in drawing out the strengths of very liberal and very conservative people, utilizing the good ideas and knowledge of both. He tried to avoid any initiatives that might cause extreme or divisive reactions, either by conservatives or liberals. He was not totally successful, but for the most part, I think he foresaw potential problems with personalities and ideologies and mostly avoided internal ****preoccupation ****and division, which would distract the Church from evangelism and engaging the secular culture. Those were his priorities.

Sometimes the great achievements of a pope are only visible in hindsight.

 

[pnewton]

Sometimes the great achievements of a pope are only visible in hindsight.

Or maybe they will always be invisible. What never happens and never shows can be a great labor. Thank you for the insight.

 

[goout]

(earlier poster) “Every generation has its Cardinal Bourke and more extreme rigorist saints who only provide one side of the whole picture which is bigger. And so we can all cherry pick texts to suit our personal opinions and points.”

This was not your comment, but it should be addressed.

It betrays a misunderstanding of what sanctity is. The Church recognizes sanctity in canonizing a saint, and it is improper to cast a saint in the way it was cast above.
A saint does not subscribe to ideologies, which is what “ism” connotes. Ideologies divide, but sanctity is union with God and his Church.

Rigorist… one sided…saints
:nope:

A poster might use a saint in some way to present a one-sided picture, but that is a misuse.

 

[Thomas_White]

A saint does not subscribe to ideologies, which is what “ism” connotes. Ideologies divide, but sanctity is union with God and his Church.

Rigorist… one sided…saints
:nope:

A poster might use a saint in some way to present a one-sided picture, but that is a misuse.

Is this always the case? What of Thomism, the legacy and philosophical school of thought of Thomas Aquinas, Saint and Doctor of the Church?

 

[twf]

I don’t think I disagree with you.
Obviously your bishop is your local rep re Pope Francis and he has been given authority to implement AL however he sees fit.

The Pope hasn’t “bound” any bishops to make his new options available in their dioceses - that is pretty much what I am saying. He has put in place an “experiment”… its a conversation with no final answer expected either way any time soon.

A bit like the current doctrinal position re whether Mary died or not before she was Assumed.
You are free to hold either position at the moment. However it is very clear the Papal tradition has always held and taught she died first.
One day a decision will be made after the wind direction in the Church Universal has percolated for a while. That might take 200 years.

I wouldn’t use the word “rep” in regards to bishops. The Second Vatican Council clarified, in response to exaggerated interpretations of the First Vatican Council’s proclamation on the papal primacy, that the bishops are not to be seen as mere deputies of the pope. Each bishop is a vicar of Christ in his own right in and over the local Church entrusted to him. Of course he is still subject to papal authority, within the limits mandated by divine law, but the relationship is nuanced.
I think the Pope is also very unlikely to openly act without at least the tacit consent of the college of bishops around the world.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I wouldn’t use the word “rep” in regards to bishops. The Second Vatican Council clarified, in response to exaggerated interpretations of the First Vatican Council’s proclamation on the papal primacy, that the bishops are not to be seen as mere deputies of the pope. Each bishop is a vicar of Christ in his own right in and over the local Church entrusted to him. Of course he is still subject to papal authority, within the limits mandated by divine law, but the relationship is nuanced.
I think the Pope is also very unlikely to openly act without at least the tacit consent of the college of bishops around the world.

Of course, just shorthand from my tablet, I think it’s pretty clear from context what was meant.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

At least to me, this has not come across as your position.

And the protagonists might try listening to their interlocutors
Do we enfranchise people to be wrong?
Is it wrong to ask “our protagonists” to supply some form of reasoning for their position other than So-and-so said so?
Is it wrong to challenge the plan of the protagonists with evidence-based facts?

We have had over 200 popes, some of whom have specifically written against a position which was at least theologically justifiable. So is Pope Francis saying Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI are inexperienced or unknowledgeable?

Who is doing that? The people who have argued against you have used actual logical arguments, and have not been offended by what the Pope is doing but by ad hominem responses delivered from a high horse.

I for one am not upset that some people are accepting what Pope Francis is doing. I am only upset by what he is doing. And why is it upsetting? Because I have already seen this scenario during the 1960s, when the idea was rampant throughout the Church that the Pill might be OK to use as abc. When the Pope came out with HV, there was massive pushback on the part of priests, and complete confusion among the laity. As a result of that mess, many, many people left the Church, including most of the Catholic members of my family.

So, am I not supposed to be upset about a loss of souls? Just go along without caring about the fact that these people are closer to Hell than to Heaven?

If you don’t like abortion, just don’t have one. No need to take on about the fact that this barbarity is not only permitted but promoted by your society.

And nobody can go wrong by criticizing the Pope’s *actions *in this matter, either.

Among other things, maybe we protagonists are concerned about desecration of the Body and Blood of our Lord, which seems to have been on the minds of those popes who considered the internal forum as unacceptable. Maybe we are concerned about the souls of those around us and not just our own.

Francis you seem to have issues more than theological.
I don’t think anything I say can resolve them other than already provided.
God’s peace.

 

[goout]

Is this always the case? What of Thomism, the legacy and philosophical school of thought of Thomas Aquinas, Saint and Doctor of the Church?

God help us.

 

[RCinMT]

Did Trent say Rome was built in a day?

Answer, please.