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.
A law can be not fit for a time and so be abolished, but no law of the Pope can be inherently evil
 
thinkandmull said:
Bookcat, read my post 76 on Gregory XVI. He says that God protects the Church in her discipline to follow all truth
Click to expand...
You have been answered at length…disciplines are not infallible.

It is to the context and finally to the Magisterium of Church that one looks - even in understanding ancient saying or words or documents or laws from Popes etc.
 
You haven’t faced up to what Gregory XVI actually said. He said Jesus protects disciplines and they can NEVER be called imperfect. You have offered no argument about why the liturgy is infallibility protected as Trent says but not other disciplines. What kind of a Church would we have is the Church could require things that are immoral. Francis said that he was not making a final decision on the matter in his apostolic letter but now this new interpretation that this thread has brought to light gives the answer to your question: the Pope is allowing something that cannot be evil
 
thinkandmull said:
You haven’t faced up to whatl
Click to expand...
It is to the context and finally to the Magisterium of Church that one looks - even in understanding ancient saying or words or documents or laws from Popes etc.

One must understand such as the Catholic Church understands it.

It is the Magisterium that is the authentic interpreter of past historical sayings and laws etc etc of Popes.

Are all the laws or disciplines issued by a Pope infallible? The Church would say - no they are not. That does not mean they are evil or are to be dismissed…but just that they are not infallible. The Church teaches what is infallible and what is not. See Vatican I and II

(I have never said the Pope would be allowing an evil here. I discussed above what the matter of the thread. My point was that infallibility does not extend to all the laws etc of the Pope etc ).
 
The Church has never said that Church laws can be contrary to divine law. Gregory XVI taught otherwise. If the Pope can officially allow priests to do things that are evil I wouldn’t be Catholic, bottom line
 
“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.** 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.”

Truth is taught in disciple. Gregory XVI
 
thinkandmull said:
Truth is taught in disciple. Gregory XVI
Click to expand...
I presume you mean ‘discipline’. In any event, I do not believe that this is a quote from Gregory XVI, so why do you make it look as though it is?

Consistently throughout this thread you show no clear understanding of the precepts that you cite - natural law, teaching, ecclesiology, discipline, infallibility. You are simply proof texting out-of-context quotes that you think support your mistaken belief that law is infallible and that Church law=magisterial teaching.

Underlying this seems to be a likewise mistaken belief that most of us reading and contributing to this thread believe that the putative canonical implications of Amoris Laetitia are flawed and/or contrary to divine law: for all I know, some people may believe that, but I certainly don’t and nor do most of the contributors to the thread if you read their remarks in context.

To put it another way, you are fighting a straw man, and doing so with insufficient awareness of the theology that you are using as ammunition in this unnecessary combat. Can I respectfully suggest - and I genuinely do mean this respectfully - that you find a priest or teacher of theology with whom you can talk or correspond to further educate you on the matters of ecclesiology and canon law that you are conflating here? I think that your very obvious enthusiasm for the subject would greatly benefit from that kind of (name removed by moderator)ut.

For what it’s worth, there is a reason that I don’t seek out and contribute to the Quantum Physics Answers Forum: it’s because my understanding of the concepts involved is insufficient to make an informed contribution to the discussions therein. 🙂 The fact that you want to defend the orthodoxy of Church teaching is great; but your factual misunderstandings and category errors are not strengthening that teaching, but rather are undermining it as far as this discussion goes.

Having the luxury (and generous workload!) of now being in my fifth year of full-time theological studies, I am well aware of those areas where I might safely venture a few facts and opinions, and those where I have inadequate knowledge to do so. Too often here on CAF, that judgment is never even considered by over-zealous posters.

Think about it, please. Sincere best wishes to you.

In Christ,
Withburga
 
There’s the encyclical, nothing out of context. All I have been saying is that whatever the Pope decides with regard to discipline is protected by the Holy Spirit. Vatican I did not define the limits of infallibility; that is your mistake. I’ve cited numerous theologians that say the Church’s laws are infallible. So stop pretending I am clamoring
 
thinkandmull said:
There’s the encyclical, nothing out of context.
Click to expand...
Inasmuch as the closing line of the post in question contained your own words as a (fallacious) summary - misspelt to add to the confusion - which was followed by the pope’s name, implying that he had made that statement, your conclusion was entirely out of context.
thinkandmull said:
All I have been saying is that whatever the Pope decides with regard to discipline is protected by the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
You have been saying a great deal more than that; but your apparent misunderstanding of many of the terms that you have been using - often as though they were interchangeable, which they are not - probably explains why you think that this is all that you have been saying.
thinkandmull said:
Vatican I did not define the limits of infallibility;
Click to expand...
Have you actually read the documents of the First Vatican Council? And do you understand how dogmatic teaching is phrased?

On the occasions when the Church has dogmatically defined the charism of infallibility it has been absolutely clear what its limits were.
thinkandmull said:
I’ve cited numerous theologians that say the Church’s laws are infallible.
Click to expand...
You have cited no theologians which say this, because all of your citations are misinterpretations of the actual intent of their authors - none of whom were intending to state that Church law is infallible, because it cannot be infallible by its very nature, irrespective of whether it reflects natural law, is congruent with scripture, or is free of blemish or fault. None of those qualities, even if all present simultaneously, would make a law infallible.
thinkandmull said:
So stop pretending I am clamoring
Click to expand...
I don’t understand what you mean.

All of this is off-topic to the thread title, for which I profoundly apologise to other readers here at CAF, but the reason that I have now twice tried to point out your misunderstandings - a task also taken up by several others in the thread - is because your lack of comprehension is misleading in the extreme.

I won’t respond again because the entirety of your post herein quoted is completely non-responsive to my previous post. Your position can be summed up as arguing ‘No, black is white,’ - a position that can only be held by someone who doesn’t know what black and white are. I’m unclear where your sense of expertise originates, because it is completely undermined by the fundamental errors you continue to evidence.

I think it’s unfortunate that in your apparent desire to uphold orthodoxy, you show complete contempt for established and non-negotiable facts. Your failure to appreciate the difference between Church teaching and Church law - a basic principle of the functioning of the magisterium, learned in the first semester of theological studies, and not in any sense open to question - is not mitigated by constant repetition of sources that do not say what you think they say.

And sadly, that typifies much of the response to Amoris Laetitia generally, the endless and uninformed speculation about which only betrays a lack of faith in the Church and a lack of clear understanding of elementary theology. The difference between open questions upon which we are entitled to an opinion, and basic facts, regarding the existence of which we do not get a vote, surely isn’t that complicated?

One last try:

Although authoritative, Church law is not infallible. That is a fact, and not responsive to opinion or speculation. I suggest that you accept that, as we all do on occasions, you have spoken in error on this matter.

Apologies again to the many people who are no doubt thoroughly bored by what seems like an increasingly pointless discussion.🤷

In Christ,
Withburga
 
All the theologians I cited said disciplinary law is infallible. Jesus said faith as small as a mustard seed would do. OH, out of context? You can’t understand what that means without the full text? sarcasm of course. Gregory XVI directly applied what Trent said about infallibility to discipline. I don’t need to spoon feed it to you. Nor have you provided a single, a single argument for your position
 
DEFINITION: The infallibility of a law means it cannot be against divine or natural law.
 
“The Church is infallible in issuing a doctrinal decree as intimated above- and to such an extent that it can never sanction a universal law which would be at odds with faith or morality or would be by its very nature conductive to the injury of souls… If the Church should make a mistake in the manner alleged when it legislated for the general discipline, it would no longer be either a loyal guardian of revealed doctrine or a trustworthy teacher of the Christian way of life. It would not be a guardian of revealed doctrine, for the imposition of a vicious law would be, for all practical purposes, tantamount to an erroneous definition of doctrine; everyone would naturally conclude that what the Church had commanded squared with sound doctrine. It would not be a teacher of the Christian way of life, for by its laws it would induce corruption into the practice of religious life” [Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology. pg 291]

Clear Catholic logic.
 
Amoris Laetitia is not infallible because the Pope said at the beginning that he was not going to settle all issues but make some observations. This thread is dealing with something infallible though because it is a direct allowance by the Pope. As I have proven from clear Catholic reasoning, if general laws of the Church are infallibly protected than so are other ones for example the ones for the Latin rite alone. This is because different sections of the Church require different laws, and this should not prevent the Holy Spirit from protected the Pope in law making. We should not fear what our Pope will do but have trust
 
JimG said:
Creeping Infallibility: Amoris Laetitia and Magisterial Authority
Click to expand...
The article seems to carry two significant implications:
  1. AL is not an infallible teaching, but is representative of a general trend in the Church of misleading the faithful into a belief that all magisterial teaching is infallible.
  2. If a magisterial teaching contains what are perceived to be ambiguities, it may forfeit its status as magisterial teaching.
Neither implication is in any way correct or reasonable - I’m unaware of anyone who believes AL to be infallible, nor will anyone with an appropriate understanding of the charism of infallibility find it difficult to understand where particular documents sit within the hierarchy of truths; and complexity of thought does not determine its applicability or authority - so I fail to understand what the article is usefully trying to assert, other than repeating the now-viral trope that AL is ‘ambiguous’.

AL is complex - sufficiently so that Bishops’ conferences and their expert advisers are examining it and concluding how to apply it to the pastoral situations occurring amongst their flocks, as is congruent with the collegial approach favoured by Pope Francis, and as is canonically appropriate to the principle of subsidiarity - to say nothing of its being entirely consistent with the fundamental principles of Catholic moral theology.

Since the author is a professor of dogmatic rather than moral theology, she must be aware of the different styles and purposes of documents relating to those respective concerns, so the conflation of the two here makes even less sense. 🤷

And unless we have actual experts in moral theology here on the forum - an area of theology in which I am about to begin advanced studies, but regarding which I would see myself as being anything but an expert! - I would suggest we defer to the people with real knowledge of the subject, and only when they have fully considered how this teaching is to be applied. Until then, our speculation isn’t achieving very much.

In Christ,
Withburga
 
If we are indeed to take AL to be a proposal in a change in discipline of allowing the divorced and civilly remarried, albeit in certain limited cases, to receive Holy Communion – even if we understand the objective sinfulness of the situation yet take into account mitigating circumstances, then how can this be deemed legitimate considering, besides Familiaris Consortio, the following:

APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION
RECONCILIATION AND PENANCE
“Basing herself on these two complementary principles “compassion and mercy” being the first, and “truth and consistency” being the other], the church can only invite her children who find themselves in these painful situations to approach the divine mercy by other ways, not however through the sacraments of penance and the Eucharist until such time as they have attained the required dispositions.”

CONCERNING THE RECEPTION OF HOLY COMMUNION BY DIVORCED AND REMARRIED MEMBERS OF THE FAITHFUL
Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

“At the same time it confirms and indicates the reasons for the constant and universal practice, “founded on sacred Scripture, of not admitting the divorced and remarried to holy communion.” The structure of the exhortation and the tenor of its words give clearly to understand that this practice, which is presented as “***binding, cannot be modified because of different situations.” ***”

“This norm is not at all a punishment or a discrimination against the divorced and remarried, but rather expresses an objective situation that of itself renders impossible the reception of holy communion.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top