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

[thinkandmull]

I’ve already answered all this and backed it with the authority of Gregory XVI. I read the article and it doesn’t provide any arguments against what I said. But I don’t feel like people are talking with ME on this thread but instead with people who breeze through these posts and who don’t trust our Pope

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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.”

Re the last theological statement, if actually true, then the discipline Francis encourages is at odds.

This discrepancy can only be resolved by one of the following conclusions.

1. The above statement is clearly infallible and Francis is seriously mistaken in his new discipline and AL is non infallible.
2. The above is fallible and prudential yet served well enough given past conditions of low Catholic remarriage rates. Equally, Francis’s changes are fallible and prudential and perhaps a better practice given the previously unheard of rates of Catholic divorce and remarriage in recent times.
3. The above statement is fallible and Francis has spoken infallibly.

Given that the status of the Magisterial docs of the two Popes are both Apostolic Exhortations and neither an Encyclicals…it’s pretty clear which of the three logical solutions is the most reasonable for non theologian lay people to go with.

It’s not rocket science.

 

[irenaeus1]

Re the last theological statement, if actually true, then the discipline Francis encourages is at odds.

This discrepancy can only be resolved by one of the following conclusions.

1. The above statement is clearly infallible and Francis is seriously mistaken in his new discipline and AL is non infallible.
2. The above is fallible and prudential yet served well enough given past conditions of low Catholic remarriage rates. Equally, Francis’s changes are fallible and prudential and perhaps a better practice given the previously unheard of rates of Catholic divorce and remarriage in recent times.
3. The above statement is fallible and Francis has spoken infallibly.

Given that the status of the Magisterial docs of the two Popes are both Apostolic Exhortations and neither an Encyclicals…it’s pretty clear which of the three logical solutions is the most reasonable for non theologian lay people to go with.

It’s not rocket science.

This may not be rocket science, but as a former engineer for NASA and McDonnell Douglas, I can vouch that navigating through AL and the theological nuances seems much more difficult.

Now considering that a statement is not infallible by virtue of its presence in an apostolic exhortation, but rather, a statement on a certain teaching can be considered infallible if it has been taught consistently, constantly and universally, having been taught through the Ordinary Magisterium, which is the more common and typical manner that the Church teaches doctrine. So when popes, councils, and bishops united with the pope through various documents reaffirm, restate, reiterate consistent teaching, this teaching is considered from the Ordinary Magisterium and should be deemed as infallible doctrine. Keep in mind that most infallible doctrines of the Church have not been defined via the Extraordinary Magisterium via ex cathedra statement or ecumenical council.

With that said, scenario number 1 presented above is a real possibility.

 

[thinkandmull]

The document Reconciliation and Penance can be interpreted to mean that the Church at that particular time “can only invite” those people to confession and not communion. The Vatican Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith is not the Pope. It is often said that a consistent teaching of Popes eventually becomes infallible but there is no way to know when there has been enough Popes teaching such and such. The document on limbo that came out a few years ago claimed that limbo was taught by several Popes, but few would say that is infallible

 

[irenaeus1]

The document Reconciliation and Penance can be interpreted to mean that the Church at that particular time “can only invite” those people to confession and not communion.

… at that particular time “can only invite”?.. but the document does not say that. In fact, it clearly states that it is based on the principles of compassion/mercy and truth/consistency - not any particular time. And it is on this basis that the church cannot invite her children who find themselves in these painful situations to approach the sacraments of penance and the Eucharist until such time as they have attained the required dispositions and can only invite them to approach the divine mercy by other ways. Time comes in only when they have attained the required dispositions.

 

[irenaeus1]

The document on limbo that came out a few years ago claimed that limbo was taught by several Popes, but few would say that is infallible

Limbo was never a constant and universal teaching… I’m not aware of anyone who claimed it was an infallible teaching; it was a theological opinion.

 

[irenaeus1]

The Vatican Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith is not the Pope.

Nevertheless, the CDF document was approved and ordered to be published by the pope.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

This may not be rocket science, but as a former engineer for NASA and McDonnell Douglas, I can vouch that navigating through AL and the theological nuances seems much more difficult.

Ir I am an engineer also and while not a rocket scientist I regularly play Chinese chess with a a retired high level rocket scientist from China…and I win at least as many games as he .
But other than to demonstrate we are both capable of appreciating logic, seeking objective truth and dispassionatley recognising the limitations of our data, methods and conclusions I don’t know why such is particularly useful in understanding the difficulties you are having.

I do not deny the speculative possibility of the position you ate taking…though some here appear to deny even the speculative possibility of the one I and others take.
At a prudential level I find your position no stronger than that of the geocentrics…sure if you do enough mathematical backward flips it can be made to work. I shave with Ochkams razor myself in a world where there can only be models of reality as opposed to absolute truth.
Magisterial teaching and our appreciation of it in many areas is art as much as science.

For myself I am quite confident in the art of situating modern Magisterial statements within the very different camps of tradition, dogmatic theology, ancient pastoral praxis, Liturgy, Canon Law etc because I also have 6 years of Dominican theological education in theology/history under my belt. Autodidacts are always at sixes and sevens in these sorts of jelly like discussions I find.

Now considering that a statement is not infallible by virtue of its presence in an apostolic exhortation, but rather, a statement on a certain teaching can be considered infallible if it has been taught consistently, constantly and universally, having been taught through the Ordinary Magisterium, which is the more common and typical manner that the Church teaches doctrine

This is so vague a truism as to be meaningless in this particular discussion and is even circular. I think you will find it very difficult to establish this truism holds for the point we are actually putting in the spotlight, namely

“This norm … expresses an objective situation that of itself renders impossible the reception of holy communion.”

This is a wise opinion of Card Ratzinger that is Papally tolerated in a CDF publication.
When you can demonstrate it has at least the Papal or Conciliar provenance, tradition and universality of a teaching like that on Limbo or the death of Mary then it deserves to be taken more seriously.
But even these serious teachings are not infallible…which just goes to show how much more reasonable my position on AL and FC is compared to yours.

With that said, scenario number 1 presented above is a real possibility.

Yes, it’s possible the Pope is material heretic…and the longer he goes on stubbornly leading us this way the closer he becomes to being a formal heretic.

Realistic? …unlikely given his continuing de facto Papal support amongst leading bishops and Cardinals.
A minority disagree with him which is fine in prudential judgements. If the minority are opposed not simply on prudential grounds but on inherent theological grounds…I suggest their very small numbers and lack of both universality and Magisterial status suggest they have interpreted both tradition and history and Scripture wrongly. Admittedly a long standing Communion rule can take on the appearance of being an unchangeable theological teaching.
But if the Pope prudentially judges otherwise…there actually is no past teaching to deny his position. This question may just never have been addressed before.

 

[irenaeus1]

But if the Pope prudentially judges otherwise…there actually is no past teaching to deny his position. This question may just never have been addressed before.

But the very same questions that were under discussion at the synod regarding divorced and remarried receiving Holy Communion have indeed been asked before for the last 35 years or so. Holy Communion for the divorced and remarried was asked in the late 70’s and early 80’s prior to JPII’s synod on the family. FC was the response and said, “No.” It was asked again, JPII said “No” in Reconciliation and Penance. It was asked again in the early 90’s, this time the CDF responded in Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church Concerning the Reception of Holy Communion by the Divorced and Remarried Members of the Faithful saying, “No.” And a follow-up shortly after detailing some specific objections Concerning Some Objections to the Church’s Teaching on the Reception of Holy Communion by Divorced and Remarried Members of the Faithful – again, “No.” The Catechism of the Catholic Church was then issued and published saying, “No.” I don’t know that it was asked again once Ratzinger became pope, but regardless in Sacramentum Caritatis, Pope Benedict XVI said, “No.” Now another pope is in office, so let’s ask once again, and the answer is, “No, well maybe, sort of, kind of under certain circumstances, so maybe yes really.” Now see the reason for the confusion?

 

[Randolph]

But the very same questions that were under discussion at the synod regarding divorced and remarried receiving Holy Communion have indeed been asked before for the last 35 years or so. Holy Communion for the divorced and remarried was asked in the late 70’s and early 80’s prior to JPII’s synod on the family. FC was the response and said, “No.” It was asked again, JPII said “No” in Reconciliation and Penance. It was asked again in the early 90’s, this time the CDF responded in Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church Concerning the Reception of Holy Communion by the Divorced and Remarried Members of the Faithful saying, “No.” And a follow-up shortly after detailing some specific objections Concerning Some Objections to the Church’s Teaching on the Reception of Holy Communion by Divorced and Remarried Members of the Faithful – again, “No.” The Catechism of the Catholic Church was then issued and published saying, “No.” I don’t know that it was asked again once Ratzinger became pope, but regardless in Sacramentum Caritatis, Pope Benedict XVI said, “No.” Now another pope is in office, so let’s ask once again, and the answer is, “No, well maybe, sort of, kind of under certain circumstances, so maybe yes really.” Now see the reason for the confusion?

Well said… Thank you… with love, forgiveness and mercy.

 

[thinkandmull]

… at that particular time “can only invite”?.. but the document does not say that. In fact, it clearly states that it is based on the principles of compassion/mercy and truth/consistency - not any particular time. And it is on this basis that the church cannot invite her children who find themselves in these painful situations to approach the sacraments of penance and the Eucharist until such time as they have attained the required dispositions and can only invite them to approach the divine mercy by other ways. Time comes in only when they have attained the required dispositions.

What are you claiming is a universal infallible position on this question? The document in question says in balancing "compassion and mercy” with “truth and consistency” remarried Catholics are not to be invited to communion. It doesn’t say this can never happen, but that this is how it is balanced at that time. Pope Francis has changed this

 

[irenaeus1]

What are you claiming is a universal infallible position on this question? The document in question says in balancing "compassion and mercy” with “truth and consistency” remarried Catholics are not to be invited to communion. It doesn’t say this can never happen, but that this is how it is balanced at that time. Pope Francis has changed this

Did you notice the other quotes… What does “can only”, “cannot”, “binding”, “cannot be modified for different situations”, “rendered impossible”, etc. mean then if they can be subsequently changed?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

But the very same questions that were under discussion at the synod regarding divorced and remarried receiving Holy Communion have indeed been asked before for the last 35 years or so. Holy Communion for the divorced and remarried was asked in the late 70’s and early 80’s prior to JPII’s synod on the family. FC was the response and said, “No.” It was asked again, JPII said “No” in Reconciliation and Penance. It was asked again in the early 90’s, this time the CDF responded in Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church Concerning the Reception of Holy Communion by the Divorced and Remarried Members of the Faithful saying, “No.” And a follow-up shortly after detailing some specific objections Concerning Some Objections to the Church’s Teaching on the Reception of Holy Communion by Divorced and Remarried Members of the Faithful – again, “No.” The Catechism of the Catholic Church was then issued and published saying, “No.” I don’t know that it was asked again once Ratzinger became pope, but regardless in Sacramentum Caritatis, Pope Benedict XVI said, “No.” Now another pope is in office, so let’s ask once again, and the answer is, “No, well maybe, sort of, kind of under certain circumstances, so maybe yes really.” Now see the reason for the confusion?

This is easy.
There is no tradition that the ancient Communion rule is anything more than a long standing practice. You are right, this prudential rule has come under increasing pressure to be changed in recent times and on each occasion the Vatican has chosen not to.

Unfortunately you have also been trying to assert it is an intrinsic theological conclusion flowing from the sin of adultery and has been taught as such from year dot…and an infallible teaching to boot.
This is completely unsupportable. That is a recent thesis put forward most prominently by Cardinal Ratzinger and he is entitled to his opinion.

Clearly there is open debate on this point. Given that Pope Francis has changed this longstanding rule this indicates it is in the end but a prudentially decided rule…or its a theological teaching that has not yet been infallibly decided yet.

Either way the children of God have guilt free freedom to take advantage of the new pastoral guidelines if allowed in their Dioceses. You do not need to take advantage if your conscience speaks otherwise. Nor have you any right to murmer if fellow Catholics do.

Or you could charge the Pope with formal heresy (believe me he won’t change course on this) or leave and start your own true Church.

The sensible choice for a loyal lay Catholic not trained in theology or Church history is fairly obvious to me.
The logic involved is not rocket science as I say .

 

[XndrK]

After reading about all of this, the best way I can interpret what is being said is this: Receiving the sacraments after a divorce and remarriage is OK in some cases but no one can agree on exactly what those cases are, and if you are divorced and remarried, and have sex with your spouse then receive communion you may or may not be committing a mortal sin but nobody knows for sure if you are or not.

Understand?

Can I repost that?

 

[thinkandmull]

Did you notice the other quotes… What does “can only”, “cannot”, “binding”, “cannot be modified for different situations”, “rendered impossible”, etc. mean then if they can be subsequently changed?

A document approved by the Pope for the CDF is still not a papal teaching, it is approved as a document of the “Holy Office”. From what I’ve seen, the direct teachings of Popes on this are not teachings about doctrine but practice. Please show me if I am wrong

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Can I repost that?

Sure, if you have read the countering responses.

What is your problem exactly?

Do you really believe that being banned from receiving communion always=personal mortal sin, loss of the life of God in that person=destined for hell?

If that is so then I suggest it isn’t Pope Francis who is unclear or confused but perhaps his uneducated, pastorally inexperienced lay murmerers?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Did you notice the other quotes… What does “can only”, “cannot”, “binding”, “cannot be modified for different situations”, “rendered impossible”, etc. mean then if they can be subsequently changed?

Sure we did.
For the moment the CDF sees no exception, no justifying circumstances whatsoever, to its current prudential blanket one size fits all judgement of “NO”.

There is no good reason to assume this statement can only be interpretted as you do.
It certainly isnt to be presumed infallible for all time and not even open for debate.

And yes, Cardinal Ratzinger may well agree with you…but as there is no long history of this particular question ever being debated before (ie banning of the remarried is a necessary theological conclusion rather than a perennial rule) … debate seems wide open.
Which is just the hole that Pope Francis is steering the Barque of Peter through.

Even the unbroken Papal teaching tradition that Mary died is not yet considered an infallible position - as was made clear in MunDeus’s statement on the Assumption.
So why would we consider this novel idea of Cardinal Ratzinger (and perhaps JPII) already infallibly settled?

Why do people think that a perennial practice (or even a long term belief) has to be infallible and non-debatable simply for that reason alone.