Vatican denies Pope told Italian journalist that ‘all divorced’ will be admitted to Communion

[LongingSoul]

But until it changes, those would be the teachings of Christ, correct?

And thus fully in accord with the Divine Mercy.

You’re coining the question from a Protestant perspective that believes that teaching is complete and without evolution specific to the times. CatholicTradition is a living servant of the Word charged with teaching today in the light of the Gospels and with the divine help of the visions and prophecies given to the living Saints for our extra help. It isn’t right to say that Divine Mercy is already completely reflected in Church teaching and should not be contemplated further by the Church.

 

[Augustine]

You’re coining the question from a Protestant perspective that believes that teaching is complete and without evolution specific to the times.

You’re coining the answer from a Protestant perspective, which believes that teaching evolves and is particular to the times, even if contradicting the teachings of old.

From a Catholic perspective, the teachings remain the same, even as it is further developed in time, yet never contradicting the teachings of old.

Pax Christi

 

[LongingSoul]

You’re coining the answer from a Protestant perspective, which believes that teaching evolves and is particular to the times, even if contradicting the teachings of old.

From a Catholic perspective, the teachings remain the same, even as it is further developed in time, yet never contradicting the teachings of old.

Pax Christi

There is one member here who adamantly believes that the Churchs strong language and current teaching against capital punishment is an error for the reasons you state… that it contradicts the teachings of old. I’m of the belief that even if I think that something is an unchangeable teaching, I will defer to the Churchs guidance on that since I’m not a trained theologian with years of religious vocation behind me. I don’t consider that I have the type of expertise to say that the Church is just wrong about a reformulated teaching.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

What do you mean by “a state of canonical limbo?
Does it mean that they are living in an invalid second marriage while a valid first marriage still exists?
Does it mean that they have determined in their own mind that the first marriage was not valid and not binding, and that the second marriage is valid?
Does it mean that the first marriage may be valid but that it doesn’t really matter now because the second marriage is going well?

Whatever it means, my point is that both marriages can not be simultaneously valid. One must be invalid. Whatever method is used to determine invalidity, the fact should be made clear that either the first or the second marriage is not valid.

A Tribunal can fail to issue a nullity decision simply thru lack of evidence. That is hardly a final decision the 1st marriage bond truly exists.
You are under the illusion a Tribunal can prove with certainty the existence of the 1st marriage bond simply by not finding nullity.

Your excessive need for absolute certainty re the validity of marriage can never be assuaged by a human Tribunal or a legal process… not even by Church men. Man up and get used to it like the rest of us .
All we get is a prudential legal decision from legit Church authority and that, mercifully, is all God expects us to follow. Anything else re seeking certainty is hubris and from the evil one.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Internal forum and tribunals are not contradictions in terms. They are different ways of coming to a decision about the truth of a marriage validity.
If a decision is made in the internal forum, it inevitably affects both parties to a marriage. Or can one spouse determine through the internal forum that a marriage was invalid, while the other spouse determines through the internal forum that the marriage was valid? If so, one of them is wrong.

Decisions of the internal forum are not objective and have no legal standing do they?

 

[phil19034]

“Talking to” is not the same as an interview.

Dan

I think the Pope buys into the notion that there is not such thing as bad press.

Pope Francis uses the media to evangelize, whether the media realizes it or not. The key is for faithful Catholics to remain faithful and not to stress about what the Pope says or doesn’t say… but rather look at everything through a Catholic lenses and understand what he is saying based on understanding it from within the teachings of the Church. Assume the Pope is NOT deviating from the Dogma, Doctrine and Discipline - then understand what he is saying.

 

[phil19034]

Well, if the pastor, or whoever is making the decision regarding such a second marriage, decides that the persons in that marriage can receive communion, and yet does not simultaneously declare the first marriage invalid, here is the message:

Your first marriage remains valid.
Marriage is indissoluble.
Your second marriage is not valid.
Nevertheless, you are not bound by the marriage vows of the first marriage.
You need not abstain from sexual relations in the second marriage.
You may receive communion.

Am I understanding this correctly?

NOTE: I’m not in favor of allowing divorced and remarried to receive communion without annulment, but I believe the theological question is this:

Let’s assume there is a couple who says “if I can’t receive communion I will never attend Church again or simply go to a protestant church”

– is it better for that couple to receive Communion in the Catholic Church or to attend the protestant church?

– is it better for the couple to never go to Church again, or receive Communion unworthily?

I’m not going to pretend that I know the answer to this. I also doubt I would know the answer to this if I were a theologian or bishop… I think ONLY God knows the answer to this.

That’s why to me… we shouldn’t be focused on whether can divorced and remarried (without annulment) can receive communion… we change who can receive communion.

Restore the communion fast to 3 or more hours and allow mortal sinners a way to “hide” from others in the pews just like we have private confession to allow Catholics to keep their sins private. I believe increasing the communion fast is the merciful thing to do for the divorced & remarried and to other Catholics who are not living in a state of grace.

 

[JimG]

A Tribunal can fail to issue a nullity decision simply thru lack of evidence. That is hardly a final decision the 1st marriage bond truly exists.
You are under the illusion a Tribunal can prove with certainty the existence of the 1st marriage bond simply by not finding nullity.

Your excessive need for absolute certainty re the validity of marriage can never be assuaged by a human Tribunal or a legal process… not even by Church men. Man up and get used to it like the rest of us .
All we get is a prudential legal decision from legit Church authority and that, mercifully, is all God expects us to follow. Anything else re seeking certainty is hubris and from the evil one.

I’m not asking for absolute certainty. I’m just asking that a couple not simultaneously hold two contradictory views of the status of their marriage.

It’s true that an internal forum decision does not have legal standing. But if a couple are making an internal forum decision in favor of their current marriage, they must also be at least implicitly making a decision against the validity of a prior marriage, even if a tribunal has decided otherwise.

Instead, what I think I sometimes see expressed, even by clergy, is something like this idea: "We don’t know if our prior marriage was valid or not, so we don’t know if our existing marriage is valid or not. But–it doesn’t matter, because our conscience is clear.
That makes no sense to me. If it doesn’t matter, why did Jesus address the issue of marriage and divorce at all?

 

[JimG]

NOTE: I’m not in favor of allowing divorced and remarried to receive communion without annulment, but I believe the theological question is this:

Let’s assume there is a couple who says “if I can’t receive communion I will never attend Church again or simply go to a protestant church”

– is it better for that couple to receive Communion in the Catholic Church or to attend the protestant church?

– is it better for the couple to never go to Church again, or receive Communion unworthily?

I’m not going to pretend that I know the answer to this. I also doubt I would know the answer to this if I were a theologian or bishop… I think ONLY God knows the answer to this.

That’s why to me… we shouldn’t be focused on whether can divorced and remarried (without annulment) can receive communion… we change who can receive communion.

Restore the communion fast to 3 or more hours and allow mortal sinners a way to “hide” from others in the pews just like we have private confession to allow Catholics to keep their sins private. I believe increasing the communion fast is the merciful thing to do for the divorced & remarried and to other Catholics who are not living in a state of grace.

I suppose a similar proposal might be offered by many persons in other situations. “if I can’t receive communion while fornicating every day of my life, I will never attend Church again or simply go to a protestant church.” “If I can’t receive communion while working as a professional thief, I will never attend Church again.” Examples could abound, but you get the idea. Can one simply reject any qualifications for receiving communion?

Still, I do like the idea of returning to at least a three hour Eucharistic fast.

 

[Augustine]

I don’t consider that I have the type of expertise to say that the Church is just wrong about a reformulated teaching.

Then please wait for the Church to teach instead of imputing to her your own musings as if they were magisterial.

Pax Christi

 

[graciew]

Then please wait for the Church to teach instead of imputing to her your own musings as if they were magisterial.

Pax Christi

This is her personal style. These are thoughts she shares.
We can tell the difference between Magisterium and personal sharing.
I’ d be pleased to keep listening to her .
If you don t mind.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I’m just asking that a couple not simultaneously hold two contradictory views of the status of their marriage.

Jim if you reread your post I think you will find you are far more interested in having the external, objective status of the remarried’s marriages clarified because it bugs the heck out of you!

Heres where most of your energy is evident:

“…both marriages can not be simultaneously valid. One must be invalid. Whatever method is used to determine invalidity, the fact should be made clear that either the first or the second marriage is not valid.”

 

[JimG]

Well yes, I admit to being a firm believer in non-contradiction. One should not believe two contradictory things at once or act as though it is unimportant. Nevertheless, that is the direction, it seems, that we are headed. The thinking is, it doesn’t matter, really, whether my first marriage was valid or not–that’s all in the past. What matters is working out the present situation in a way that feels right to everyone concerned. Maybe we’ve all been overly influenced by Quantum Mechanics: hey, if Schrodinger’s cat can be both alive and dead at the same time, so can my marriage! Why worry?

In the same way, Cardinal Kaspar’s proposal may come to life even while thought to be dead.

 

[dans0622]

I think the Pope buys into the notion that there is not such thing as bad press…

I would have to disagree with that.

Dan

 

[dans0622]

… my point is that both marriages can not be simultaneously valid. …

Indeed. It’s not too complicated, really.

Dan

 

[LongingSoul]

Well yes, I admit to being a firm believer in non-contradiction. One should not believe two contradictory things at once or act as though it is unimportant. Nevertheless, that is the direction, it seems, that we are headed. The thinking is, it doesn’t matter, really, whether my first marriage was valid or not–that’s all in the past. What matters is working out the present situation in a way that feels right to everyone concerned. Maybe we’ve all been overly influenced by Quantum Mechanics: hey, if Schrodinger’s cat can be both alive and dead at the same time, so can my marriage! Why worry?

In the same way, Cardinal Kaspar’s proposal may come to life even while thought to be dead.

Bearing in mind that this publication is very biased and agenda ridden like so many others… we know from the then Card. Ratzingers writing that he was in favour of finding a solution for the remarrieds and communion so to say that he ‘killed’ the idea before gives a false interpretation of the journey of this issue. It was Card. Ratzinger who coined the term ‘sacraments celebrated without faith’, to describe a recent cultural phenomenon among Catholics that might account for the increased marriage breakdown figures.

And as for non=contradiction… I’ve been hearing that argument my whole life as proof that Christianity is fantasy. How can someone be three persons and one at the same time for example. Or how can Mary be co-redemptrix when there’s only one Saviour. Or how can Mary be the ‘mother of God’.

 

[JimG]

Bearing in mind that this publication is very biased and agenda ridden like so many others… we know from the then Card. Ratzingers writing that he was in favour of finding a solution for the remarrieds and communion so to say that he ‘killed’ the idea before gives a false interpretation of the journey of this issue. It was Card. Ratzinger who coined the term ‘sacraments celebrated without faith’, to describe a recent cultural phenomenon among Catholics that might account for the increased marriage breakdown figures.

And as for non=contradiction… I’ve been hearing that argument my whole life as proof that Christianity is fantasy. How can someone be three persons and one at the same time for example. Or how can Mary be co-redemptrix when there’s only one Saviour. Or how can Mary be the ‘mother of God’.

The doctrinal items you mention are not contradictions. The Father is a different Person than the Son and the Holy Spirit. What they are unified in is one divine nature. Nature and Person are not the same thing. I don’t think I’ve heard “co-redemptrix” discussed but maybe so. I have heard the term co-mediatrix discussed, but the meaning is not what is most often assumed. And of course Mary can only be Mother of God because God, in the Person of the Son, chose to have a mother by taking on a human nature. None of it is a contradiction. Being married to two spouses at the same time is, at least for a monogamist.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Well yes, I admit to being a firm believer in non-contradiction. One should not believe two contradictory things at once or act as though it is unimportant. Nevertheless, that is the direction, it seems, that we are headed. The thinking is, it doesn’t matter, really, whether my first marriage was valid or not–that’s all in the past. What matters is working out the present situation in a way that feels right to everyone concerned. Maybe we’ve all been overly influenced by Quantum Mechanics: hey, if Schrodinger’s cat can be both alive and dead at the same time, so can my marriage! Why worry?

In the same way, Cardinal Kaspar’s proposal may come to life even while thought to be dead.

Jim I don’t understand the point of discussing on this forum if you cannot be a little more self-honest in your posts…if this is so, which appears to be the case, the only person you are fooling is yourself.

Where is the contradiction in the internal forum of the couple involved which you are allegedly concerned about? Clearly you already know a sincere couple would hold their first marriages were invalid even if that cannot yet be found by a tribunal.

Clearly you are far more concerned about the external forum, verified “validity”, the Church’s position…yet you try and tell us you deny having this concern .

 

[JimG]

Jim I don’t understand the point of discussing on this forum if you cannot be a little more self-honest in your posts…if this is so, which appears to be the case, the only person you are fooling is yourself.

Where is the contradiction in the internal forum of the couple involved which you are allegedly concerned about? Clearly you already know a sincere couple would hold their first marriages were invalid even if that cannot yet be found by a tribunal.

Clearly you are far more concerned about the external forum, verified “validity”, the Church’s position…yet you try and tell us you deny having this concern .

I did know several couples where one party, but not the other, believed the marriage to be invalid from the start. In the cases I have known like that, a decree of nullity was granted, pretty much against the wishes of the respondent. Fine. The marriage was determined to be null. There is no contradiction then, in a second marriage.

In another case, that of my wife’s aunt, she was abandoned by her husband after a few months. She sought a decree of nullity and was denied. She later remarried civilly, remained an active member of her parish, but did not receive communion. No contradiction there either. I suggested to her once that she apply again to the tribunal since the evidentiary rules had changed, but she said she accepted the decision of the first tribunal. No contradiction.

I do not necessarily oppose an internal forum solution for a second marriage. But I don’t see how it can be denied that if a person is allowed to receive communion in such a forum, the second marriage is thereby accepted as valid while the first marriage is considered invalid.

So just how am I fooling myself?

Edit: Actually it would seem that if a couple used an internal forum solution and did not consider the first marriage invalid, they would be fooling themselves.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

…I do not necessarily oppose an internal forum solution for a second marriage. But I don’t see how it can be denied that if a person is allowed to receive communion in such a forum, the second marriage is thereby accepted as valid while the first marriage is considered invalid.

So just how am I fooling myself?

Lets remind ourselves of what you said:

Originally Posted by JimG
Internal forum and tribunals are not contradictions in terms. They are different ways of coming to a decision about the truth of a marriage validity.

Your statement, as previously noted, appears flawed. “Validity” is a juridical term and therefore is only meaningful when pronounced by a public authority.

The private judgements of individuals on “validity” is no more than personal disagreement or agreement on an official pronouncement of legal “invalidity.”
It cannot change the legal status so declared in the external forum can it?

Your real difficulty seems to be with the possibility of the remarried being officially allowed to receive Communion when the invalidity of their 1st one has not yet been legally proven in the usual external forum (a Tribunal)?

You seem to refer to the “accompanyment” proposal?

Well that proposal is currently stated ambiguously about how the decision is actually reached. But one thing is for sure, if it is made a formal process with steps that require consensus with an appointed Priest before “ascending” then it is definitely a form of external forum. But it is an external forum that makes decisions about Communion reception not the marriage’s actual legal status (“validity”).

Obviously such a couple would only be admitted to this process if their original marriage had annulment merit but which tribunal judgement has not yet been made for a variety of well known tribunal process weaknesses discussed at length elsewhere even by the Popes themselves.