L
Lost_Sheep
Guest
That’s the problem. The actual document is not in plain English. I guess the best answer is “It depends.”
What Pope Francis said about Communion for the divorced-and-remarried [CNA]
- Status
B
Bookcat
Guest
W
Wesrock
Guest
The document is written clearly enough. It’s just not black and white. And it’s how I’ve been interoreting the document sine I read it.
Anyway, the document’s primary audience, particularly this section, is for priests and bishops, not us.
Anyway, the document’s primary audience, particularly this section, is for priests and bishops, not us.
B
Bookcat
Guest
And in one small part of the world…
T
thinkandmull
Guest
The Pope cannot approve of rites that are invalid or harmful or laws that are harmful, so they are infallibly protected. I can list many theologians who say this is a basic Catholic belief because laws are even more important than teachings which sometimes are fallible. Laws are the lifeblood of the Church and situations do not always require that a law be universal, so for the sake of the faithful the Holy Spirit protects all laws approved by the Pope. The Popes apostolic letter did not enforce anything in particular but this new approval by the Pope as stated in this thread must be protected by the Holy Spirit, other Jesus was wrong when He said “WHATEVER you bind on earth is bound in Heaven”
W
Withburga
Guest
I genuinely do not understand what you’re trying to say here: universality of law - or the lack of it - has nothing to do with the charism of infallibility. And as I said before, law is not teaching, and is not infallible by its very nature. And I don’t believe that any theologian would say that law is more important or more definitive than doctrine. Law is predicated on teaching, not the other way around.
Respectfully, you clearly do not understand how the charism of infallibility works and how it can be invoked. I have no doubts about the authoritative nature of the Holy Father’s teaching, and unlike many people, have no fears or criticisms regarding it, but if it was infallibly held it would have been explicitly stated to be such because an explicit statement of infallibility is required both by doctrine and by law. And no theologian would say otherwise.
In Christ,
Withburga
B
Brendan
Guest
When this document came out, I was on a mission trip to Tanzania. My pastor and I were staying in the house of the local bishop.
Also visiting was the Papal Nuncio for Tanzania.
On the day this document came out, the Nuncio held a briefing for the bishop. The local archbishop drove in as well, so he could receive the briefing.
So they gathered in the bishop’s living room. The bishop, his secretary, the archbishop and his secretary, my pastor, the Mother Superior for the Benedictine convents in East Africa and her secretary.
A few minutes after they started, I was sent for. I was unsure as to why, and was told by the Nuncio “You are the only one here who is married, this document is for you”
So I received the briefing, along with the clergy and religious present
B
Brendan
Guest
There was a law that restricted Holy Communion for the laity to the species of bread alone, was that an infallible law?
Or the law that required a fast from bread and water from midnight prior in order to receive Holy Communion, what that too infallible?
If so, how can the Church deviate from those infallible truths?
T
thinkandmull
Guest
So when an apologist says “yes the Church allows ‘so and so’”, he means "this is just the Church’s fallible opinion? NO. When a ultr-traditionalist says “the Novus Ordo is a blasphemes rite”, that position is a legitimate opinion for a Catholic? NO. The Church’s laws are protected by the Holy Spirit. In recent times the Church has unfortunately started to teach fallibly but She has never claimed to do so with her laws, so all her laws are protected by the Holy Ghost. Thanks be to God
T
thinkandmull
Guest
If the Church allows only receiving under bread that doesn’t mean it can’t change, but it can not be something that is against Divine Law in itself. I have a long list of theologians approved by the Holy Office which say Church laws cannot inherently tend to evil or be against natural or divine law. I will list them when I get the chance
T
thinkandmull
Guest
I’ve had this discussion with SSPX supporters before. You need to read Pope Gregory XVI’s condemnation of Abbé de Lamennais. Pope Gregory taught that Church laws can never be inherently imperfect
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
I am sorry but you are mistaken in your categories. You are confusing (and confoudning) elements related to theology, to ecclesiology and to canon law.
The Novus Ordo – for the Mass, the other aspects of the liturgy, and of the sacraments – is not a law but elements of law do govern the various aspects of the liturgy.
I have no idea what you are trying to say when you write “the Church has unfortunately started to teach fallibly”
The Church is protected by the Holy Spirit.
Your post does remind me of an interview that Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger gave to a television programme several years before the 2005 conclave. His response to the news reader’s question “Does the Holy Spirit pick the Pope?” has always stayed with me as splendidly formulated…even when in translation.
“I would not say so, in the sense that the Holy Spirit picks out the Pope…I would say that the Spirit does not exactly take control of the affair, but rather like a good educator, as it were, leaves us much space, much freedom, without entirely abandoning us. Thus the Spirit’s role should be understood in a much more elastic sense, not that he dictates the candidate for whom one must vote. Probably the only assurance he offers is that the thing cannot be totally ruined.” Then the German theologian got to the heart of the matter: “There are too many contrary instances of popes the Holy Spirit obviously would not have picked!”
T
thinkandmull
Guest
“For all you subtleties you have no wisdom”
For the radical traditionalists:
Pope Gregory XVI condemned those who said that a Church law can be contrary to divine faith. The Church is a good shepherd. The Church has a long history of condemning with anathema those who say the Church’s law were bad
For the radical traditionalists:
Pope Gregory XVI condemned those who said that a Church law can be contrary to divine faith. The Church is a good shepherd. The Church has a long history of condemning with anathema those who say the Church’s law were bad
B
Bookcat
Guest
Such is not in keeping with the understanding of the Catholic Church.
T
thinkandmull
Guest
Trent condemned those who said that rites or even vestaments of the Church could be evil, even though none of those were used universally throughout the Catholic world. And
distinction between a law and liturgy is contrary to the teachings of the Church throughout
history
distinction between a law and liturgy is contrary to the teachings of the Church throughout
history
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
How is this statement to be understood?
Theology and canon law, both as one teaches them and as one applies them, each turn upon subtle nuances.
What are you attempting to assert? There is a very broad chasm indeed between four positions you have articulated:
Post 13
Post 28
Post 30
Post 32
Each of these actually assert something different.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
Just as a slight amendment, particular law or proper law can also be promulgated for a diocese or an institute of perfection.
Respectfully, there is something of a tendency to both overuse and misuse ‘infallibility’ as support for an argument or opinion here on CAF. This is despite the fact that most Catholics really don’t seem to have a full understanding of the doctrine, and it is indeed extremely complex. We should be cautious.
Your post is formulated so very well, that I am sure you don’t have need of a retired professor’s affirmation…but I am happy to affirm what you have written nevertheless, even if only for the delight it gave me to read such crispness of language and precision in articulation. Compliments.
T
thinkandmull
Guest
My position and the proof I have presented are easy to follow for all who are willing. It is not I who stands under the Church’s condemnation
K
kyrie03
Guest
But what of the rights of our God, Who voluntarily allows Himself to be prisoner as bread and wine on our altar? What did the Spotless Bride of Christ used to teach about withholding the Eucharist from those in objective deadly sin and why?
St John Chrysostom:* “…(You) after so many kindnesses received from Him, receive this Body into an evil soul. It was not enough that He became man, that He was struck in the face, that He was slaughtered, but He also commingles Himself with us; and this not alone through faith. He has in very deed made us His own Body. Who should be more free from sin than one who partakes of such a sacrifice? …What I am saying, I say to you also who minister, as well as to those who are ministered to. For it is necessary that I also address myself to you; that you may distribute the sacred gifts with great caution. For your punishment is not light should you, knowingly, admit anyone to the Communion of this Table whom you know to be unworthy of it. His blood will be required at thy hand (Ezech. 33:8)… For if a spring of pure water were placed in your care for your flock, and you saw a sheep coming, with its mouth smeared with mud, you would not let it put down its mouth to dirty the well. Now you have been given charge of a well, not of water, but of Blood and the Spirit; and should you see someone draw near who is soiled with sin, a more grievous thing than clay or mud, and you are not moved to wrath, and you do not drive him away, how do you deserve to be forgiven? It was for this God honored you with this dignity: that you might exercise judgment in these things. This is your office; this is your own security; this is your whole crown: not that you may go about clothed in a shining white habit.”*.
WHY were certain people of God denied the Eucharist? Those in the state of deadly sin weren’t unfairly judged or ostracized; they were being protected from a worse state! Should they receive they would become “…lower than one possessed by a demon. For those who are afflicted by an evil spirit are not on that account punished. But these others, should they come, unworthy, to the altar, they are handed over to everlasting punishment.” (St John Chrysostom)
How does AL and its implementations further explain and clarify this prior teaching?
St John Chrysostom:* “…(You) after so many kindnesses received from Him, receive this Body into an evil soul. It was not enough that He became man, that He was struck in the face, that He was slaughtered, but He also commingles Himself with us; and this not alone through faith. He has in very deed made us His own Body. Who should be more free from sin than one who partakes of such a sacrifice? …What I am saying, I say to you also who minister, as well as to those who are ministered to. For it is necessary that I also address myself to you; that you may distribute the sacred gifts with great caution. For your punishment is not light should you, knowingly, admit anyone to the Communion of this Table whom you know to be unworthy of it. His blood will be required at thy hand (Ezech. 33:8)… For if a spring of pure water were placed in your care for your flock, and you saw a sheep coming, with its mouth smeared with mud, you would not let it put down its mouth to dirty the well. Now you have been given charge of a well, not of water, but of Blood and the Spirit; and should you see someone draw near who is soiled with sin, a more grievous thing than clay or mud, and you are not moved to wrath, and you do not drive him away, how do you deserve to be forgiven? It was for this God honored you with this dignity: that you might exercise judgment in these things. This is your office; this is your own security; this is your whole crown: not that you may go about clothed in a shining white habit.”*.
WHY were certain people of God denied the Eucharist? Those in the state of deadly sin weren’t unfairly judged or ostracized; they were being protected from a worse state! Should they receive they would become “…lower than one possessed by a demon. For those who are afflicted by an evil spirit are not on that account punished. But these others, should they come, unworthy, to the altar, they are handed over to everlasting punishment.” (St John Chrysostom)
How does AL and its implementations further explain and clarify this prior teaching?
C
Catholic1954
Guest
Who or what is AL? Do you have another link to clarify your question?
- Status