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

[RCinMT]

Obviously on the same prudential grounds that AL and the Accompanyment/Discernment process rests.
If you don’t accept this reality I can understand your confusion here.

Where in the Bible or in any other Church document is authority granted unto priests, bishops or the pope, for that matter, to confer communion to somebody living in a mortal sin? To decide that a sin is not mortal?

Its a common prudential observation of experienced pastors and conclusion of respected moral theologians.

And yet others disagree. I guess those in disagreement don’t meet the criteria to be respected?

And, oh yes, its also the clear view of Pope Francis in a Magisterial document.

And what of other magisterial documents? What of Christ?

One sign that sticks out to experienced pastors is that such persons are typical quiet, humble and loyal Catholics in every other area of their lives. This is typical of people caught up in situations beyond their full control.

What of pedophiles? Is that not a mental illness beyond one’s control? Should they be given communion?

Its also an obviousness of life to many loyal Catholics, though not all.

So is pornography, birth control, abortion. Is it time for the Church to fully adopt the new social norms? Time to reject the word of Christ and turn our collective backs on two millenia of teaching, interpretation and doctrinal formation?

You are free to disagree with the above.
But please give us a rest from saying it cannot be a valid Catholic position.
It clearly is no matter how much you personally abhor it.

Others have quoted authoritative Church councils and now antiquated things like, I dunno, the words of Christ. You’ve quoted a footnote and twisted Thomistic thought.

So things are obviously “complicated”.
Obviously those who do not want to assume the burdens of our fellow Catholic irregulars will “simplify” and walk by…on the other side of the road.

Indeed and no doubt the churches will be quickly filled by all of the good Catholics who haven’t been coming to mass all these years because of the jerks trying to live out the word. Now we have a new day, a day in which we’re no longer asked to follow in the footsteps of Christ in accordance with–forget Church teaching–his own words but are now instructing Christ to follow in our footsteps as we show him what he really meant to or should have been teaching all these years.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Answer, please.

Think please .

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Where in the Bible or in any other Church document is authority granted unto priests, bishops or the pope, for that matter, to confer communion to somebody living in a mortal sin? To decide that a sin is not mortal?

And yet others disagree. I guess those in disagreement don’t meet the criteria to be respected?

And what of other magisterial documents? What of Christ?

What of pedophiles? Is that not a mental illness beyond one’s control? Should they be given communion?

So is pornography, birth control, abortion. Is it time for the Church to fully adopt the new social norms? Time to reject the word of Christ and turn our collective backs on two millenia of teaching, interpretation and doctrinal formation?

Others have quoted authoritative Church councils and now antiquated things like, I dunno, the words of Christ. You’ve quoted a footnote and twisted Thomistic thought.

Indeed and no doubt the churches will be quickly filled by all of the good Catholics who haven’t been coming to mass all these years because of the jerks trying to live out the word. Now we have a new day, a day in which we’re no longer asked to follow in the footsteps of Christ in accordance with–forget Church teaching–his own words but are now instructing Christ to follow in our footsteps as we show him what he really meant to or should have been teaching all these years.

There is no answering a hot can of coke left to explode and froth out in the noon day sun sorry.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I think there is no way I think you and the pope are on the same page.

Obviously if you still believe AL says nothing new re irregulars and Communion possibilities you would be consistent in the above opinion.

But given that with every month what he wrote in AL from the beginning is proving to be exactly what I and most others (both yay, nay or OK) now tend to agree on…its perhaps time to pull the old head out of the sand and make a new decision as to who understands the Pope better .
Let alone then decide whether it is acceptable or not.

Obviously someone who would have extreme and traumatic difficulty in accepting such a thing would sub-consciously want to deny that Pope Francis ever suggested same.
I believe psychologists call this “denial”.

 

[Robert_Sock]

The Church has to change with the times! The mission of the Church is not so much to define and enforce rules but to save souls. What is considered impermissible at one time in history should be considered permissible at another point in history given the world has changed. Again, the Church’s main goal should be to save souls. God knows what’s going on in each heart, and the Church should fully accept all repentant sinners for the Holy Eucharist.

 

[goout]

The Church has to change with the times! The mission of the Church is not so much to define and enforce rules but to save souls. What is considered impermissible at one time in history should be considered permissible at another point in history given the world has changed. Again, the Church’s main goal should be to save souls. God knows what’s going on in each heart, and the Church should fully accept all repentant sinners for the Holy Eucharist.

I agree.

1431 Interior repentance is a radical reorientation of our whole life, a return, a conversion to God with all our heart, an end of sin, a turning away from evil, with repugnance toward the evil actions we have committed. At the same time it entails the desire and resolution to change one’s life, with hope in God’s mercy and trust in the help of his grace. This conversion of heart is accompanied by a salutary pain and sadness which the Fathers called animi cruciatus (affliction of spirit) and compunctio cordis (repentance of heart).24

It’s difficult to avoid that word “radical”. Radical repentance does not play games with conscience and does not tolerate presumption. It anticipates the difficulty involved, or it wouldn’t be radical. It embraces the cross, it doesn’t run from it.

Restraining one’s passions is difficult, but only a juvenile spirituality capitulates to this difficulty for difficulty’s sake. Avoiding the difficulty of chastity is a pathetic motivation for moral decision making.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

“In rigorism there is an innate brutality that goes against the gentle way God has of guiding each person.”

Cardinal Georges Cottier. Well put I thought.

 

[St_Francis]

Cardinal Georges Cottier. Well put I thought.

Words fail me.

 

[Stat_Crux]

The Church has to change with the times! The mission of the Church is not so much to define and enforce rules but to save souls. What is considered impermissible at one time in history should be considered permissible at another point in history given the world has changed. Again, the Church’s main goal should be to save souls. God knows what’s going on in each heart, and the Church should fully accept all repentant sinners for the Holy Eucharist.

So there was no such thing as adultery in Jesus’ time? When he spoke of adultery in the Gospel he was talking to the pharisees, who tried to teach that Marriage is not indissoluble? Jesus? Or the “rigid”, “legalistic” pharisees? On whose teaching has the Church based its constant teaching and practice for the last 2,000 years? That of Jesus, or the pharisees? The sin of the pharisees was that they would exploit the law using their own wit and, corrupted by original sin, they would contort the law such that they could violate it in substance while still holding a pretence to be following that law.

If indeed morality is not objective, as you have stated by suggesting it should change (e.g. subjective morality), why didn’t Jesus not say so? He being God Himself, and so fully aware not only how the Jews around him would understand His words, but also omniscient in knowing how we today would interpret it? Why would he have instituted a Church founded on St Peter knowing that that same Church would then proceed to teach error for 2,000 years until 2016 when a vague wording in a footnote nobody can agree on corrected that misunderstanding?

That wouldn’t be a very coherent concept of “the one true church founded by God Himself” now would it?

 

[Stat_Crux]

The Church has to change with the times! The mission of the Church is not so much to define and enforce rules but to save souls. What is considered impermissible at one time in history should be considered permissible at another point in history given the world has changed. Again, the Church’s main goal should be to save souls. God knows what’s going on in each heart, and the Church should fully accept all repentant sinners for the Holy Eucharist.

And how does the Church “save souls” without calling them to repent? The Church has always taught that conversion starts with an interior conversion (faith) which proceeds to an outward conversion of actions and lifestyle (works). If there is no standard of behaviour that God expects of us, why did He clearly say there was in the Gospels?

It has only been two Sundays since we had these readings at Sunday Mass, and already they seem to have been forgotten by some:

1st Reading: Sirach 15:15-20
If you choose, you can keep the commandments, and to act faithfully is a matter of your own choice. He has placed before you fire and water;stretch out your hand for whichever you choose. Before each person are life and death, and whichever one chooses will be given.

For great is the wisdom of the Lord; he is mighty in power and sees everything; his eyes are on those who fear him,and he knows every human action. He has not commanded anyone to be wicked, and he has not given anyone permission to sin.

2nd Reading: 1 Corinthians 2:6-10
Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glorification. None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But, as it is written, “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him,” God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God.

Gospel: Matthew 5:17-37
Jesus said to his disciples: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you,unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”

“You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, ‘You shall not murder’; and ‘whoever murders shall be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult a brother or sister, you will be liable to the council; and if you say, ‘You fool,’ you will be liable to the hell of fire. So when you are offering your gift at the altar, if you remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother or sister, and then come and offer your gift. Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are on the way to court with him, or your accuser may hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you will be thrown into prison. Truly I tell you, you will never get out until you have paid the last penny.”

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to go into hell. “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”

“Again, you have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but carry out the vows you have made to the Lord.’ But I say to you, Do not swear at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let your word be ‘Yes, Yes’ or ‘No, No’; anything more than this comes from the evil one.”

 

[ARSpade]

. What is considered impermissible at one time in history should be considered permissible at another point in history given the world has changed.

Rape has been considered pretty normal and permissible at various times in history.

 

[goout]

Cardinal Georges Cottier. Well put I thought.

And the point is relevant how…?

“I slept at a Holiday Inn last night”
Joe Dokes.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

And the point is relevant how…?

“I slept at a Holiday Inn last night”
Joe Dokes.

You’ll get it one day Goout.
It takes an open heart to have an informed mind.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Rape has been considered pretty normal and permissible at various times in history.

I’ve never noticed that in Church canons myself, have you?
Though the Church for a time seemed to argue over whether marital rape was a contradiction in terms. I believe the reason was that the marriage vow itself was held to give one partner consensual rights over the body of the other. Like Muslims today, our modern sensitivities re personal freedom of choice in family situations back then we’re lacking somewhat perhaps.

 

[goout]

You’ll get it one day Goout.
It takes an open heart to have an informed mind.

As one of your heartless uninformed, please flesh out the point your are trying to make.
Have mercy on me Blue Horizon.

Quote:
“In rigorism there is an innate brutality that goes against the gentle way God has of guiding each person.”
QUOTE=Blue Horizon
Cardinal Georges Cottier. Well put I thought.

 

[ARSpade]

I’ve never noticed that in Church canons myself, have you?
Though the Church for a time seemed to argue over whether marital rape was a contradiction in terms. I believe the reason was that the marriage vow itself was held to give one partner consensual rights over the body of the other. Like Muslims today, our modern sensitivities re personal freedom of choice in family situations back then we’re lacking somewhat perhaps.

Does it matter? If people suddenly decide rape is cool, should the church “get with the times”? What about the torture of terrorist suspects, or the death penalty. 60% of Americans support the death penalty after all. Should the church get with the times and say, “Christ would say that some people just need killin’”?

 

[JPUSC]

God help us.

 

[pnewton]

When the argument descends to the absurd, as in rape, it has pretty much ran its course.

 

[St_Francis]

Cardinal Georges Cottier. Well put I thought.

You’ll get it one day Goout.
It takes an open heart to have an informed mind.

And the point is relevant how…?

“I slept at a Holiday Inn last night”
Joe Dokes.

Rigid is a word liberal (“non-rigid”) Catholics use to describe those whose arguments they can’t answer. It’s not only an ad hominem attack, it’s a false ad hominem.

You’ve heard of fighting words? There are shutting-up words, too. This is the Catholic one.

 

[RCinMT]

There is no answering a hot can of coke left to explode and froth out in the noon day sun sorry.

The problem is that you never answer any thing. When questioned, you deflect or attack the poster.