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

[JimG]

Its called development of doctrine by the Church. Some see the difference between development of doctrine and change as half a dozen of one, six of the other. Those who argued against Newman’s explication of this for instance.

Either way, at one time it was de fide that one could not be saved outside the visible church (unless one was formally Catholic one was doomed to perdition). That dogma has become more nuanced. Two covenant theory, the idea that all may be saved and such.

This development that is unfolding is simply putting conscious at the core of sacramental understanding. Paul’s warning about receiving the Eucharist unworthily had nothing to do with whether one had eaten meat and not confessed (in the day when it was a mortal sin and would send one to hell if not forgiven in reconciliation) or any such. Paul can easily be understood as reception being unworthy if one’s conscious was not clear. AL is simply bringing out a truth that was there all along but that had not been grasped yet. Just as it took 1900 years to come to the current understanding of infallibility. Infallibility was always there. It did not pop up new at V1. So too this - assuming it is at some point formally defined by the Pope.

Newman would be aghast at the uses now being inappropriately applied to his idea of the development of doctrine. One can state “extra ecclesia nulla sanctis”—no salvation outside the Church. Or one can state that everyone who is saved is saved by being incorporated into the Catholic Church even if incompletely. They are two sides of the same coin.

But now we are discussing not doctrinal development, but the overturning of doctrine by the application of personal conscience. It is a “development” which will simply make us all Protestants, a victory of subjectivism.

 

[St_Francis]

Its called development of doctrine by the Church. Some see the difference between development of doctrine and change as half a dozen of one, six of the other. Those who argued against Newman’s explication of this for instance.

Either way, at one time it was de fide that one could not be saved outside the visible church (unless one was formally Catholic one was doomed to perdition). That dogma has become more nuanced. Two covenant theory, the idea that all may be saved and such.

This development that is unfolding is simply putting conscious at the core of sacramental understanding. Paul’s warning about receiving the Eucharist unworthily had nothing to do with whether one had eaten meat and not confessed (in the day when it was a mortal sin and would send one to hell if not forgiven in reconciliation) or any such. Paul can easily be understood as reception being unworthy if one’s conscious was not clear. AL is simply bringing out a truth that was there all along but that had not been grasped yet. Just as it took 1900 years to come to the current understanding of infallibility. Infallibility was always there. It did not pop up new at V1. So too this - assuming it is at some point formally defined by the Pope.

First, the spelling you want is conSCIENCE, not conscious.

Second, the statement is illogical: a person *is *living in a state of objective sin; to change the situation would *not *involve sin. If a person leaves another to whom they are not married, there is no sin involved. Each parent is still responsible for caring for the child(ren) s/he has had.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Newman would be aghast at the uses now being inappropriately applied to his idea of the development of doctrine. One can state “extra ecclesia nulla sanctis”—no salvation outside the Church. Or one can state that everyone who is saved is saved by being incorporated into the Catholic Church even if incompletely. They are two sides of the same coin.

But now we are discussing not doctrinal development, but the overturning of doctrine by the application of personal conscience. It is a “development” which will simply make us all Protestants, a victory of subjectivism.

These days I don’t know the difference between development of doctrine and just plain old different doctrine.

 

[St_Francis]

Repent, means to have a change of the mind or heart.

Jim

People in irregular situations can not receive Confession, either, unless they have an intention to no longer sin. Confession is not valid without that intention.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Repent, means to have a change of the mind or heart.

Jim

Sure, but that is just a part of it.
One cannot just say I wish i didn’t cheat on my wife, but I’m going to continue to do it, now give me Jesus…

Or can we now?

 

[St_Francis]

True, he has effectively spoken on this but not de fide and that is what is needed. Pope Francis should confirm the faithful in this. Otherwise the teaching of the Church will vary by region and even bishop. Taking away one of the key marks of the Church.

It becomes problematic how the SSPX Society can be incorporated into the Church. But maybe part of the deal is that they accept this teaching - or would accept a formal teaching regarding this from the Pope at a future time.

This more fuller discernment of conscious is the Spirit leading the Church to a more merciful embrace of her children. It does not stand in a vacuum insofar as there are moral issues beyond divorce/re-marriage. What about conscious and contraception?

Or assisted suicide - the Canadian bishops in the east have spoken that with discernment euthanasia is not necessarily a barrier to the sacraments. Using AL as a starting point.

Reinforcing the universality of the Church is critical now. I hope and expect at some point an ex cathedra pronouncement on this further discernment of conscious and how it relates to the moral law - that would be a truly historic development of doctrine for the Church as was infallibility coming out of V1…

The Church always considered the Pope to have th final say; infallibility was not a huge change from before.

This issue, however, is not development, it is change. It is a reversal of what the Church has practiced and taught for 2000+ years.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

I’d like to point something out to a number of posters here who are - quite understandably - very troubled by this crisis. The something is that the official Magisterium of the Church and the means by which that Magisterium is implemented have not been touched.

AL mentions in an oblique way the possibility of giving remarried divorcees the sacraments but doesn’t spell it out clearly. If it did the various episcopal conferences would have no need of issuing their own directives.

All the prominent churchmen who have pronounced in favour of Communion for remarried divorcees have done so in a manner that does not engage the Magisterium. Even Cardinal Coccopalmerio has not ***officially ***endorsed the Communion proposition but only in a private capacity by writing a book.

Now, humanly speaking, Pope Francis could quite easily engage the Magisterium and bring out a Papal Bull, change Canon Law and threaten with laicisation or excommunication any cleric who opposed him. If he did he would be supported by the great majority of the hierarchy and the vast majority of the laity. The few Catholics who objected would have no choice but to either fly into space or fall on their swords. If the Magisterium is engaged a serious Catholic has to submit to it, and if he can’t resolve the contradiction in his head then all he can do is blow it off with a pistol (or leave the Church if his survival instinct is strong enough).

Point is, the Pope doesn’t engage the Magisterium. Why? The only reason I can think of is that the Holy Ghost does not permit him. Right now Our Lord is directly and actively protecting His Church. Whilst He does so those who uphold the Faith and those who oppose it are separating out. It is a winnowing and I personally think it is excellent. Everything is, from the divine perspective, perfectly under control.

 

[acarlson]

Point is, the Pope doesn’t engage the Magisterium. Why? The only reason I can think of is that the Holy Ghost does not permit him. Right now Our Lord is directly and actively protecting His Church. Whilst He does so those who uphold the Faith and those who oppose it are separating out. It is a winnowing and I personally think it is excellent. Everything is, from the divine perspective, perfectly under control.

 

[Mongo]

The Vatican is trying to allow the bishops and Church to discern the proper role of conscious. conscious and the Eucharist as explained in the legal chief’s book just released today. By the Vatican.

Those who won’t embrace this development in doctrine can’t be allowed to set up places where the Eucharist is denied while in other places the Eucharist is given.

The theology behind the administration of the Eucharist in the case of the divorced/remarried lay faithful can’t be a regional phenomena. If that happens the church effectively becomes Protestant. The Pope needs to formally define this doctrinal development sooner rather than later IMO.

Regional differences don’t make it Protestant. The defining characteristic of Protestantism is its rejection of tradition and its radical break from the historical church. Regional differences have always been a part of the church.

St Vincent of lerins asserted that we believe that which has been believed ‘everywhere, always, and by all.’ The pope can’t simply define something for us to believe that contradicts the historical teaching.

 

[JPUSC]

If Holy Communion is permitted for the divorced, remarried and sexually active in an official, magisterial capacity it would demonstrate that the Catholic Church is not what it says it is. More specifically, the Church was either lying or deceived when it claimed to be infallible in areas of faith and morals. If the Church is mistaken in this area then it would naturally lead one to conclude that its teachings in other areas are suspect at best.

I suppose one could become Eastern Orthodox, a splinter group of Catholicism, or just another variety of Christian. Those options would be worth investigating. But it one believes for historical and scriptural reasons that the Catholic Church is the Church that Jesus Christ founded, and if one believes in the promises that accompany that distinction, then I (and others) may have difficulty accepting those traditions as relevant.

It’s hard to say what I would personally do in the event that Catholicism disqualified itself. Many of us have personal encounters with God that would be difficult to dismiss, even in the absence of a religious tradition. But I can see why an individual might relax their behaviour in some areas in the absence of a credible religious tradition.

Hear hear!

 

[JPUSC]

True. I will not be able to deny the existence of God, as he is knowable by reason alone. I’m a fairly smart guy and I know that God exists.

But the stuff that has been defined as definitive, such as the Trinity, Incarnation, Redemption, Original Sin, the Bible, as well as the moral law known only by faith, will fall by the wayside, for they are known only by the authority of the Church.

Hear hear!

 

[Pulvis]

This article fits in well to this discussion. Fr. Vavereck has. in my opinion, diagnosed the issues quite well.

thecatholicthing.org/2017/02/10/whats-happening-and-where-were-headed/

"Determining the precise meaning of the pastoral guidance in Amoris laetitia (AL) for the reception of Holy Communion is not the real crisis facing the Church. AL is tangled up in a centuries-long struggle with Subjectivism, which seeks to establish the primacy of private judgment as the effective norm for Christian life. No response to the Cardinals’ dubia can resolve this crisis, therefore, because AL did not start it. And besides, the controversy has now reached the stage that the question facing us is the authentic interpretation of the ordinary Magisterium of the Church, not the meaning of prudential guidance found in lesser pastoral letters of individual popes or bishops.

Subjectivism’s attack on the Gospel is rooted not only in the Reformation’s “private interpretation” of Scripture, but in the subsequent individualism and relativism that has characterized the Modern and Post-Modern West. It’s the same error that Cardinal Newman opposed in the 19th century. Although Newman famously defended conscience, he insisted that its only private judgment was the act of accepting the Church as teacher, after which it was bound to be docile to the Church’s normative proclamation of the Gospel."

Please read the entire article.
As for the current crisis, I do believe we are headed for schism, unless Divine intervention stops it. Even if it is simply a de facto Schism between Dioceses and Conferences, the Church cannot be one Body with divergent opinions and teachings regarding the core Doctrines of the Faith.
I will stand or fall on the totality of the teachings of Holy Mother Church as handed down through the centuries. Period.

 

[ChurchSoldier]

True, he has effectively spoken on this but not de fide and that is what is needed. Pope Francis should confirm the faithful in this. Otherwise the teaching of the Church will vary by region and even bishop. Taking away one of the key marks of the Church.

It becomes problematic how the SSPX Society can be incorporated into the Church. But maybe part of the deal is that they accept this teaching - or would accept a formal teaching regarding this from the Pope at a future time.

This more fuller discernment of conscious is the Spirit leading the Church to a more merciful embrace of her children. It does not stand in a vacuum insofar as there are moral issues beyond divorce/re-marriage. What about conscious and contraception?

Or assisted suicide - the Canadian bishops in the east have spoken that with discernment euthanasia is not necessarily a barrier to the sacraments. Using AL as a starting point.

Reinforcing the universality of the Church is critical now. I hope and expect at some point an ex cathedra pronouncement on this further discernment of conscious and how it relates to the moral law - that would be a truly historic development of doctrine for the Church as was infallibility coming out of V1…

I agree with your thoughts on this. As you state, it has other consequences when applied to different areas of moral teaching.

The Pope has not problem speaking clearly on topics he believes the Church should address such as immigration, if he wanted to clarify this he would. Coming from an Episcopalian background, I also clearly recognize the tactics and they are concerning.

I think we need to continue to surround the Church and all its leaders in prayer.
PAX

 

[ChurchSoldier]

This article fits in well to this discussion. Fr. Vavereck has. in my opinion, diagnosed the issues quite well.

thecatholicthing.org/2017/02/10/whats-happening-and-where-were-headed/

"Determining the precise meaning of the pastoral guidance in Amoris laetitia (AL) for the reception of Holy Communion is not the real crisis facing the Church. AL is tangled up in a centuries-long struggle with Subjectivism, which seeks to establish the primacy of private judgment as the effective norm for Christian life. No response to the Cardinals’ dubia can resolve this crisis, therefore, because AL did not start it. And besides, the controversy has now reached the stage that the question facing us is the authentic interpretation of the ordinary Magisterium of the Church, not the meaning of prudential guidance found in lesser pastoral letters of individual popes or bishops.

**Subjectivism’s attack on the Gospel is rooted not only in the Reformation’s “private interpretation” of Scripture, but in the subsequent individualism and relativism that has characterized the Modern and Post-Modern West. **It’s the same error that Cardinal Newman opposed in the 19th century. Although Newman famously defended conscience, he insisted that its only private judgment was the act of accepting the Church as teacher, after which it was bound to be docile to the Church’s normative proclamation of the Gospel."

Please read the entire article.
As for the current crisis, I do believe we are headed for schism, unless Divine intervention stops it. Even if it is simply a de facto Schism between Dioceses and Conferences, the Church cannot be one Body with divergent opinions and teachings regarding the core Doctrines of the Faith.
I will stand or fall on the totality of the teachings of Holy Mother Church as handed down through the centuries. Period.

Thank you for bringing this to us. Very informative.

Another paragraph from the article regarding AL:

Thus, in a single year the issue has gone from considering Holy Communion in rare cases for the “remarried” to entrusting local bishops with determining policy, to mandating Holy Communion for everyone in “good” conscience, to claiming this innovation is integral to being in communion with Rome. If this latter position stands, there will be no room for the consciences of priests or the authority of bishops who disagree.

 

[petra22]

As for the current crisis, I do believe we are headed for schism, unless Divine intervention stops it. Even if it is simply a de facto Schism between Dioceses and Conferences, the Church cannot be one Body with divergent opinions and teachings regarding the core Doctrines of the Faith. I will stand or fall on the totality of the teachings of Holy Mother Church as handed down through the centuries. Period.

Please then, let us pray for Holy Mother Church!

Lord, have mercy.
Christ, have mercy.
Lord, have mercy.

 

[pnewton]

"Determining the precise meaning of the pastoral guidance in Amoris laetitia (AL) for the reception of Holy Communion is not the real crisis facing the Church. AL is tangled up in a centuries-long struggle with Subjectivism, which seeks to establish the primacy of private judgment as the effective norm for Christian life.

Words mean real things and should no be used any way we please.

Subjectivism - the doctrine that knowledge is merely subjective and that there is no external or objective truth.

This accusation of subjectivism is a straw many, an easy out to avoid difficult theology. No one is suggesting or has suggested this doctrine, or applied it to marriage. Acknowledgment of the role of conscience is not, and never has been in the tradition of the Church, subjectivism. This is like calling people we do not like liberals or Nazis, though usually the phrase moral relativism is used.

Scott Hahn spoke of what he called cafeteria Catholicism by coincidence, where we agree with all the Church is teaching because the Church is teaching what we think. We do not know our faith in the Church until we are confronted with a teaching with which we do not agree. I am not going to get into the status of the various comments about Amoris Laetitia, but suffice it to say, if the Church finally resolves to a position one believes is not correct, then one must face by what standard do they measure truth. Is it by one owns reason? I am not going to say this is wrong, but if one determines by one’s own reason that the Church is in error and therefore departs, how is that different than what countless other Christians have done through the centuries? I am a firm believer in conscientious dissent. However, I believe it comes with the burden of trying to understand the what it is the Church teaches, whether it be birth control, the death penalty, or in this case, Amoris Laetitia.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

These days I don’t know the difference between development of doctrine and just plain old different doctrine.

Hermeneutic of continuity = papering over the cracks. Yes that’s not a misprint. Cracks.

Why not try “unpacking” Scriptures and mainstream Tradition. Stop giving out smarties - one eats them to one’s perdition!

All this waffle is “rich” but in a different sense.

 

[Thomas_White]

Newman would be aghast at the uses now being inappropriately applied to his idea of the development of doctrine. One can state “extra ecclesia nulla sanctis”—no salvation outside the Church. Or one can state that everyone who is saved is saved by being incorporated into the Catholic Church even if incompletely. They are two sides of the same coin.

But now we are discussing not doctrinal development, but the overturning of doctrine by the application of personal conscience. It is a “development” which will simply make us all Protestants, a victory of subjectivism.

“No salvation outside the Church” has surely been the subject of a development of the understanding of doctrine, but Newman was aghast at the proposal of a dogma of papal infallibility in the first place.

 

[goout]

“No salvation outside the Church” has surely been the subject of a development of the understanding of doctrine, but Newman was aghast at the proposal of a dogma of papal infallibility in the first place.

How does Papal infallibility enter into this?
Doctrine does not reduce to one man.
Infallibility is not just a possession of the Pope.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

People in irregular situations can not receive Confession, either, unless they have an intention to no longer sin. Confession is not valid without that intention.

That is if they are in a continued state of sin.

A divorced and remarried Catholic who is in a legal marriage, and has been for decades and even had children in that marriage is not committing adultery and the notion that they are, is an impediment to bringing them to Christ whom they seek. If I recall correctly, a recent statement from the Vatican is rejected the use of the world adultery in discribing such situations.

We Catholics could actually be committing sin by using words which condemn, rather than heal. Condemn, rather than bring hope. Condemn, rather than show God’s mercy.

Pope Francis along with the Vatican’s legal chief, are looking at the situation from a realistic standpoint, not an ideological one.

It’s easy for those of us in happy marriages and such, to tell those divorced and remarried Catholics that they are living disordered sinful lifestyles and must not receive Holy Communion as long as they remain married to the person other than the one they married at a Catholic wedding.

Jesus would have a different attitude.

Jim