What Pope Francis said about Communion for the divorced-and-remarried [CNA]

  • Thread starter Thread starter CNA_News
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Blue_Horizon said:
Its in the Catechism and Canon Law. From memory “those conscious of grave sin may not receive Communion without Reconciliation.”
That is all your children need to worry about from their side.

Now the Priest offering Communion also has a responsibility - to make sure obstinate and grave sinners do not scandalise by publicly receiving even if they are in good conscience because they are in fact battling a weakness that therefore does not make them privately unworthy but may make then publicly “unworthy.”

That is not your problem, that is the priest’s problem and he needs to consult with his bishop and ultimately the Pope on these matters of external discipline.

All very clear to me.
Click to expand...
I hope and pray not just my children, but all our brothers and sister in Christ, develop not just the practice of following the letter of the law, but also grow in love of the law because it comes from the Lawgiver and they seek to know and conform to Love Itself. Do you agree that the fullness of the law includes the rich patrimony that precedes our current day and age and it behooves us to research it?
 
Blue_Horizon said:
Did you give them a set of unchanging moral principles that they must personally apply with fallible prudence and good conscience to one’s own complicated life …
or a set of rules for every action and circumstance where one size allegedly fits all without question or ambiguity.

The latter I believe is for children but when they mature I believe its the principles that will last the moral distance.
Click to expand...
How does this help me in the situation I described? Of Catholic teacher contradicting what I taught as unchangeable truth?

Some laws, those that come directly from the Eternal Lawgiver are true for everyone, in every time.
From CCC 1601-1617:* In the Sacrament of Matrimony, a man and a woman are united indissolubly as Jesus Christ and His Spouse, the Church, are united. Through the Sacrament they are given special graces to live in a holy way and to raise and educate children in the Christian manner.*

From writings of St John Chrysostom (we are Byzantine-our Liturgy comes to us through this Saint) "It is not not as dreadful to be possessed by evil Spirits, such as those of whom Paul speaks, as to tread Christ under foot, and to hold the blood of the testament unclean, and offer an affront to the Spirit of grace (Heb. 10:29). He who has sinned, and comes to Holy Communion, is 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."

I’ve referenced what JPII says in Familiaris Concortio in prior post that you can reread. Still waiting for someone to point out how both FC and AL can be true…:confused: did you say AL was clear to you?

How does AL reflect or explain these unchangeable truths? If we research and learn WHAT the Church has consistently taught and WHY, we can come to a deeper knowledge and love of God…is this not worthwhile? We also can become confused when contrasting it with latest teaching in AL. I am not the only sinner struggling for clarity.
 
kyrie03 said:
How does this help me in the situation I described? Of Catholic teacher contradicting what I taught as unchangeable truth?

Some laws, those that come directly from the Eternal Lawgiver are true for everyone, in every time.
From CCC 1601-1617:* In the Sacrament of Matrimony, a man and a woman are united indissolubly as Jesus Christ and His Spouse, the Church, are united. Through the Sacrament they are given special graces to live in a holy way and to raise and educate children in the Christian manner.*

From writings of St John Chrysostom (we are Byzantine-our Liturgy comes to us through this Saint) "It is not not as dreadful to be possessed by evil Spirits, such as those of whom Paul speaks, as to tread Christ under foot, and to hold the blood of the testament unclean, and offer an affront to the Spirit of grace (Heb. 10:29). He who has sinned, and comes to Holy Communion, is 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."

I’ve referenced what JPII says in Familiaris Concortio in prior post that you can reread. Still waiting for someone to point out how both FC and AL can be true…:confused: did you say AL was clear to you?

How does AL reflect or explain these unchangeable truths? If we research and learn WHAT the Church has consistently taught and WHY, we can come to a deeper knowledge and love of God…is this not worthwhile? We also can become confused when contrasting it with latest teaching in AL. I am not the only sinner struggling for clarity.
Click to expand...
Clearly for AL and FC to both be true it is a matter of applying unchanging truths to changing cultural and temporal circumstances and these are prudential judgements in both cases … or these are simply matters of discipline when it comes to public Communion rules - like eating meat on Fridays.

We get it that you are unable to accept that possibility.
Thats OK, Our job is not to understand fully but to go with our legitimate leaders in cases of confusion. God asks no more of you.
 
kyrie03 said:
I hope and pray not just my children, but all our brothers and sister in Christ, develop not just the practice of following the letter of the law, but also grow in love of the law because it comes from the Lawgiver and they seek to know and conform to Love Itself. Do you agree that the fullness of the law includes the rich patrimony that precedes our current day and age and it behooves us to research it?
Click to expand...
According to our limited abilities of course.
And I am sure you also agree, as Jesus also demonstrated, there are times when love of God requires us to contradict the letter of the law to truly fulfill its intended purpose.

Maybe that is the answer to your difficulties with AL.
 
kyrie03 said:
To suggest that many marriages are null seems to deny the teaching that God’s grace is sufficient
Click to expand...
After my decades in the priesthood, I agree completely with what Pope Francis said about the extent to which marriages are, in fact, null.
 
thinkandmull said:
laws of the latin rite are not universal. All laws made by a Pope are infallible
Click to expand...
As noted there are yes laws that are universal.

No - all laws of the Pope are NOT infallible. The Catholic Church teaches what is infallible and what is not infallible -and “all laws made by a Pope” are not (according to the Teachings of the Popes! and the Councils)- infallible.

That is the Teaching of the Catholic Church. Period.

That being said of course one follows the laws issued by the Pope (which is not even under discussion in this thread for no new laws have been issued that are under discussion here).
 
Don_Ruggero said:
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.
Click to expand...
what I wrote was clear for all to see. “The Church is also rightly helld to be infallible in her disciplinary decrees” (E. Dorsch 1928, Institutionest Theologiae Fundamentalis, approved by the Holy Office)
 
Bookcat said:
And such an assertion would be incorrect.

As per the Teaching of the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Which you haven’t proven. If universal laws are infallible than other laws are well because unlike teachings laws are not made for everyone? Follow my logic?
 
thinkandmull said:
what I wrote was clear for all to see. “The Church is also rightly helld to be infallible in her disciplinary decrees”
Click to expand...
Code of Canon Law

Can. 749 §1. By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility in teaching when as the supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful, who strengthens his brothers and sisters in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.

§2. The college of bishops also possesses infallibility in teaching when the bishops gathered together in an ecumenical council exercise the magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals who declare for the universal Church that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held definitively; or when dispersed throughout the world but preserving the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter and teaching authentically together with the Roman Pontiff matters of faith or morals, they agree that a particular proposition is to be held definitively.

§3. No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P2H.HTM
 
That is speaking of teaching authority and simply does not mention discipline. It doesn’t mention for example that a rite can’t be heretical even though Trent taught such
 
Did you go read Gregory XVI as I pointed out? He condemned a priest who was attacking as immoral the disciplines of the Latin rite. Gregory said that Church haw cannot be inherently imperfect. I guess you forgot to read about that when I mentioned it
 
thinkandmull said:
That is speaking of teaching authority and simply does not mention discipline. It doesn’t mention for example that a rite can’t be heretical even though Trent taught such
Click to expand...
Why?

Because disciple is not about infallibility. Discipline by nature is open to constant change - it changes all the time…century after century.
 
thinkandmull said:
Did you go read Gregory XVI as I pointed out? He condemned a priest who was attacking as immoral the disciplines of the Latin rite. Gregory said that Church haw cannot be inherently imperfect. I guess you forgot to read about that when I mentioned it
Click to expand...
That has nothing to do with this…
 
Bookcat said:
Universial laws are not infallible per se.
Click to expand...
“The Church’s infallibility extends to ecclesiastical laws passed for the universal Church for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living…” (Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology. 2:91)

“If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the service of piety: let him be anathema” Trent

“The Church is infallible in her general discipline” (P. Hermann 1908, Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticase)

“The Church, in establishing universal laws, is infallible as regards their substance.” (R.M. Schultes 1931 De Ecclesia Catholica)

“In establishing disciplinary laws for the universal Church, the Church is likewise infallible” (Valentino Zubizarreta 1948 Theologia Dogmatico-Scholastica)

Also check out Serapius Iragui 1959 Manuale Theologiciae Dogmaticae and Joachim Salaverri 1962 Sacrae Theologiae Summa
 
Bookcat said:
Why?

Because disciple is not about infallibility. Discipline by nature is open to constant change - it changes all the time…century after century.
Click to expand...
You haven’t decided to engage with me. As I have said, they are not infallible in the sense that they cannot change, but they are protected from being evil
 
thinkandmull said:
You haven’t decided to engage with me. As I have said, they are not infallible in the sense that they cannot change, but they are protected from being evil
Click to expand...
I engaged you a number of times.

The teaching regarding “infallibility” does not protect against a law from being evil.

Now is it likely that a Pope is going to attempt to issue an evil law? No of course not.

Does the Holy Spirit help a Pope in such matters? Sure.

But it is not part of “infallibility” unless it is something that of faith and morals and according to the conditions noted by last two Councils.

Just because XYZ is of universal discipline does not make it “infallible” nor the fact that universal discipline XYZ is good and not evil make it “infallible”.
 
"Furthermore, the discipline sanctioned by the Church must never be rejected or be branded as contrary to certain principles of natural law. It must never be called crippled, or imperfect or subject to civil authority. In this discipline the administration of sacred rites, standards of morality, and the reckoning of the rights of the Church and her ministers are embraced.
  1. To use the words of the fathers of Trent, it is certain that the Church ‘was instructed by Jesus Christ and His Apostles and that all truth was daily taught it by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.’ Therefore, it is obviously absurd and injurious to propose a certain “restoration and regeneration” for her as though necessary for her safety and growth, as if she could be considered subject to defect or obscuration or other misfortune. … according to the testimony of St. Leo, ‘the right to grant dispensation from the canons is given" only to the Roman Pontiff. He alone, and no private person, can decide anything "about the rules of the Church Fathers.’ As St. Gelasius writes: ‘It is the papal responsibility to keep the canonical decrees in their place and to evaluate the precepts of previous popes so that when the times demand relaxation in order to rejuvenate the churches, they may be adjusted after diligent consideration.’"
Gregory XVI
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top