I would assume that the Magestrium’s declarations would trump that of the Supreme Tribunal of the Signatura? There is not higher a authority than the Magestrium, of which the Pope is the head. I am sure the Magestrium has the power to change the tribunal process any way they want short of allowing divorce.The Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura is the highest authority in the Church, next to the Pope. The former head of the Apostolic Signatura (from 2008-2014) has stated that the streamlining of the annulment process wouldn’t work. It’s naturally a long process, and the streamlining of it would affect doctrinal integrity. I assume that the head of the Apostolic Signatura would know more about the annulment process than almost anyone, since the Apostolic Signatura oversees the various tribunals. If you like, I can try to find the interview in which the former head states the specific reasons why the streamlining of annulments won’t work.
I’m sure that quite a few Catholics are hoping for it.I am sure the Magestrium has the power to change the tribunal process any way they want short of allowing divorce.
Which is irrelevant to any decision l they make. We have to trust the Holy Spirit will lead them to the proper decisionI’m sure that quite a few Catholics are hoping for it.
Bob, you and I know that. And I’m sure Denise and Deacon Lapey know that. But how’s one to explain how even currently those who are in state of mortal sin receive communion and will no doubt continue to receive despite church’s teachings against divorce and remarriage? That that can’t be by the positive will of the Holy Spirit was my point.We are talking past each other. The question is not will the Church suddenly allow for divorce? The answer is an emphatic no. The question is will they change the way annulments are granted and/or the information that is required to get one?
People in the state of mortal sin have been receiving holy Communion since Judas did so at the first mass.Bob, you and I know that. And I’m sure Denise and Deacon Lapey know that. But how’s one to explain how even currently those who are in state of mortal sin receive communion and will no doubt continue to receive despite church’s teachings against divorce and remarriage? That that can’t be by the positive will of the Holy Spirit was my point.
Are you implying that it is the will of the Holy Spirit that those in a state of mortal sin should receive Holy Communion?People in the state of mortal sin have been receiving holy Communion since Judas did so at the first mass.
Absolutely not. I would never imply that somebody should puttheir immortal soul in danger !!!Are you implying that it is the will of the Holy Spirit that those in a state of mortal sin should receive Holy Communion?
I glanced through the first article from the first link. It’s looks like a good one. I’ll read more later when I have time. Thanks for posting it.This looks like a good resource:
nvjournal.net/
Nova et Vetera
The English edition of Nova et Vetera is published quarterly and provides an international forum for theological and philosophical studies from a Thomistic perspective.
One interesting article that caught my eye as regards the current discussion:
nvjournal.net/files/essays-front-page/recent-proposals-a-theological-assessment.pdf
It is interesting. One thing that immediately caught my attention was the discussion of spiritual communion. It seems the Catechism of Trent has already explained this.One interesting article that caught my eye as regards the current discussion:
nvjournal.net/files/essays-front-page/recent-proposals-a-theological-assessment.pdf
No, in my response I was quoting your own line which suggested that anyone ie those of us on this thread defending the Popes decision to invite examination on the question, are infact ‘hoping the Pope will change what he cannot change’. Ours is not a protest against any Church teaching. That is a weird interpretation of what our position is, especially myself knowing that my whole life has been one of striving to think with the Church and to be in communion with her. Our response is the *reaction *to objections that the Pope has even allowed the question to be looked at.I do not believe anyone, except for those who would hope the teachings on these issues change, have said the Holy Father is changing what he cannot change. Those who would have him and the synod Cardinals allow for the divorced and re-married to receive the sacraments are stating that the unchangeable is being changed.
I have not stated any such thing.
There is always greater healing in the acceptance of the heavenly and the want and desire to be with God rather than a simply humanly cure. All you see is me stating that if I can’t cure the cancer then I am sentencing a person to a life with no hope. So either I restate an untruth, “you will be cured without getting rid of the ailment” and therefore give a person hope that they will be able to continue in the state of life and have hope, or I state the truth, which in your mind and opinion brings despair and no hope.
Jesus also taught that “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” and yet our understanding of that has developed over time through openness to the work of the spirit. At one time we believed that the Limbo of infants was a doctrinal reality but in retrospect it can be seen as an interpretation of the doctrine that gave meaning during that time, to the unchanging doctrine.A truth is a truth, it does not change in time. Jesus taught that remarriage is adultery, that has not and cannot change. It doesn’t matter whether a person in this situation knows this or agrees, it is still grave matter and possibly grave sin on the person’s soul.
It must be recognised that we are the ones on the defense here. The tone the majority of the threads primarily takes is the the issue is catagorically closed and that the Pope is displaying some sort of flaw or worse in allowing it to be examined. Our tone reflects absolutely the defense of the Popes authority to guide the Church and the history of the living Magisteriums processes. There is no hint of anyone here on the defensive, having any other agenda directly related to this question of the pastoral care of divorced/remarried. What will happen as a result of the synod can only be speculation. Not really a realistic topic for us to be discussing with our very limited theological educations. What this argument is about is the whether the Church and the Pope has the right and authority to keep looking at doctrines for deeper understanding of what Gods will is for us, or whether the Pope is in fact doing something ungodly by allowing the examination.I wish those who disagree with these truths which have been passed down to us by our leaders of the past would be able to recognize the true sincerity and love that those who stand up for the truth do so with. I kind of take offense to the tone that you and Sirach2 take when those of us who would defend Church teaching are somehow unfeeling or possibly just plain mean. That is the tone of your response, I was going to ignore it but since Sirach2 jumped on board again I have no choice.
But you are dismissing that the Pope is also our leader and he wants this issue further looked at for a deeper truth.As has been stated, there is no “spirit” in hoping for truth to change, at least not the Spirit of God. There is in fact the spirit of the netherworld; if the devil can convince those in these situations to remain there and wait for the Church to change, he may indeed gain a soul. * I for one will stand with what has been handed on to me by my leaders and not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings.* (Hebrews 13:9)
I can see that i did to you exactly what I sensed you were doing to me. Sorry about that.No, in my response I was quoting your own line which suggested that anyone ie those of us on this thread defending the Popes decision to invite examination on the question, are infact ‘hoping the Pope will change what he cannot change’. Ours is not a protest against any Church teaching. That is a weird interpretation of what our position is, especially myself knowing that my whole life has been one of striving to think with the Church and to be in communion with her. Our response is the *reaction *to objections that the Pope has even allowed the question to be looked at.
Jesus also taught that “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” and yet our understanding of that has developed over time through openness to the work of the spirit. At one time we believed that the Limbo of infants was a doctrinal reality but in retrospect it can be seen as an interpretation of the doctrine that gave meaning during that time, to the unchanging doctrine.
It must be recognised that we are the ones on the defense here. The tone the majority of the threads primarily takes is the the issue is catagorically closed and that the Pope is displaying some sort of flaw or worse in allowing it to be examined. Our tone reflects absolutely the defense of the Popes authority to guide the Church and the history of the living Magisteriums processes. There is no hint of anyone here on the defensive, having any other agenda directly related to this question of the pastoral care of divorced/remarried. What will happen as a result of the synod can only be speculation. Not really a realistic topic for us to be discussing with our very limited theological educations. What this argument is about is the whether the Church and the Pope has the right and authority to keep looking at doctrines for deeper understanding of what Gods will is for us, or whether the Pope is in fact doing something ungodly by allowing the examination.
But you are dismissing that the Pope is also our leader and he wants this issue further looked at for a deeper truth.
Since Sirach didn’t answer this question I’m going to proceed as if the answer would have been yes. The citation below is from the article Recent Proposals for the Pastoral Care of the Divorced and Remarried: A Theological Assessment. (This is a real gold mine - thank you sps49.)Have I described everything accurately?
It is more accurate to say that these topics have come up and have been definitively resolved.Topics were discussed at the October synod that were unprecedented in the entire history of the Catholic Church…
This would be an inevitable extension of allowing the divorced/remarried to receive communion.“If accepted, however, it is hard to see how the Church could resist admitting to Holy Communion unmarried cohabiting couples, or persons in homosexual unions, and so forth.”…since then the Archbishop of Antwerp appears to have come out in support of homosexual marriage
This is the proverbial camel’s nose, and Burke recognizes it as such.*“Although the present proposals concern only the divorced-and-remarried, adopting them—even as a “merely” pastoral practice—requires that the Church accept in principle that sexual activity outside of a permanent and faithful marriage is compatible with communion with Christ and with the Christian life.” *This is precisely why Cardinal Burke and others have spoken out as they have.
“First, the Church teaches that sacramental, indissoluble bonds of marriage can be contracted between Catholics and baptized non-Catholics (e.g., Orthodox or Protestants). In such cases, the non-Catholic does not profess the Catholic faith in its full integrity. Likewise, when a Protestant couple becomes Catholic, the Church regards their marriage as sacramental and indissoluble, even if, at the time of their wedding, they did not believe marriage to be a sacrament and intended only the natural ends of marriage.”As I said a couple of pages ago, to be a valid Sacrament you have to have form, matter & intent. And since it’s the couple who confer the Sacrament, if the ***intent ***to do what the Church does is not there, then the Sacrament is not valid.
Essentially this means we can ignore what the law plainly says in favor of what we would wish it to say.I am also confident that some disciplines and procedures may change, and that it will be to keep with the “spirit” of the law, not the “letter” of the law.
That is not to say however, that doctrine can’t be undermined. Read Trent’s Session 22’s doctrine on the liturgy, for example, especially on the part about low-tones being used throughout the canon of the Mass. Technically it hasn’t been violated because it doesn’t say it MUST be used but our Trent fathers sure went to a lot of trouble to try to preserve it.Nothing doctrinally will be changed. That is ground rule one.
Transcribed some of the conversation / interview, though not perfectly:Raymond Arroyo spoke to Bishop Morlino about the Synod and other issues. Cardinal Burke’s recent comments / Communion for the divorced and remarried are talked about. Check out from around 9:52 onward for the discussion:
youtube.com/watch?v=8BVp-0IPh1Q
Bishop Morlino: Jesus says the one who divorced his wife and marries another commits adultery, those are Jesus’ words. Now how we can mitigate the truth of that is beyond me. I think we can develop approaches to people that encourages them to come and talk to us, rather than there’s really nothing to talk about. I know that many many years ago for instance if a Jewish person wanted to marry a Catholic person it was not unusual for the parish priest to tell me forget it, leave the church, and so even went so far as to say your going to hell. Now, there is way Jewish and catholic people can marry, they can have beautiful and wonderful marriages. They have to feel free from fear to come to the Priest. And the pastoral thing is to free the people’s fear. Pastoral, the best synonym for pastoral in my world is patient, and that means we’ve got to know the direction we are going in but we don’t need to know it this minute. We can approach this in a way it is revealed to you what direction we’re going in, in such way your able to accept it bit by bit by bit
Raymond arroyo: we keep hearing this argument, Cardinal Marx made it, others have bar it, even in the United States I’ve heard it repeated, that this is not, this question of cardinal Kasper’s proposal is no change in doctrine, no ones talking about the indissolubility of marriage, we are talking nearly about the discipline reception of the Eucharist and you can change that without changing the doctrine
Bishop morlino: well I don’t think that’s possible because again the discipline is embodied in the doctrine.
Raymond arroyo: it’s the lived doctrine
Bishop morlino: someone who is living in adultery can receive communion or they can not, and Jesus seemed to be very clear that someone living in adultery is not in proper relationship to him or the Church, because it’s a public thing, it’s a public thing and those problems wherever they develop need to be solved in a public way, that is through a tribunal and it can not be left in anyway to be subjective so that I would fill out a firm and send it my pastor and say I am sure my marriage was invalid.
Raymond arroyo: I am also concerned about those who are left behind, the wife and children left behind as a result of this marriage. It’s very nice that daddy went and found himself a nice younger model who he now wants to take to church, the question is what about mum and the kids left at home. Shouldn’t they be entitled in justice to a proper hearing.
Bishop morlino: yes
Raymond arroyo: and it seems this whole formula missed this, has no consideration for the largely women and children being left behind.
Bishop morlino: well it seems confusing to say that we’re going to change the discipline which embodies this doctrine, but we’re not going to change the doctrine. It’s almost like a mind body split. You know the doctrine is lived out in the disciple, you can’t and for sure people can say well if we’re going to do this, that means
Raymond arroyo: illing for other things
Then Raymond arroyo went over Cardinal Burke’s recent comments and
Bishop morlino: who named him to be a bishop, I agree with him completely. I don’t think though that Pope Francis will take that path and I don’t think Cardinal burke thinks so either, that’s a hypothetical, but I think he certainly going to conserve the truth of the faith. I do not think the holy spirit is going to allow the truth of the faith to be confused to that degree. Because when we’re talking about marriage we’re talking about the very core of society. You know, the first of all communities. If we get totally confused about that, even doctrinally, the official teaching of the church, then all is lost for society