whats the idea with Pope Benedict saying the suffering of those remarried is a gift to the Church. there seems to be a bit of a struggle to answer it ~ Smudger I'm not one to whom this was addressed, as I don't call Pope Francis false (duly worrisome, but not false), but I'll take a shot at it, anyway. I have had a lifetime struggle with chronic disabling health, and have felt driven to want to understand how suffering can possibly be acceptable to God, rendering me (feeling) mostly "useless". You know the plea: why haven't I been healed after decades of prayer? What I've kept running into is that God not only accepts suffering to go on existing, even amongst his striving, very well-intentioned, Christian / Catholic children, but for some crazy reason that we have a hard time comprehending, all manner of suffering is even necessary. Apparently, even the horrific suffering of the Jews in the Holocaust was necessary. Not desired, but somehow necessary. Somehow, it serves a purpose, on an infinite scale, towards humanity's benefit, towards its salvation, following that Garden of Eden event. So there is nothing to say that the suffering of even those who are as good as "Lost" -- even to the very worst of willful, mortal sinners -- will not be able to serve a positive purpose -- for our collective good. Therefore it can be called a Gift. In my mind, I hear that as what Pope Benedict may have been suggesting. As marital sins wound, the wounded suffer, and the suffering can, or will, be applied to good purpose. You know, "Nothing lost in God's Economy", or the Biblical, "Everything working together for good". Doesn't mean they are not in mortal sin, or that they are. That may apply to active homosexuals, too, but calling their suffering a Gift, doesn't mean that homosexuality is a gift -- but many of them latch onto that anyway, misinterpreting entirely what is not spelled out well enough. Back to the original topic here: these things need to be spelled out, and truths protected. It's beyond me why suffering has to be, what good suffering can serve -- I struggle with it daily. But it simply seems to be the way it is, according to all of the suffering souls, whether suffered by those in mortal sin, or by the more righteous. It's experienced across the board, rain falling on the just and the unjust alike. Doesn't that cover the question? Or am I missing the point?
One is either a Catholic or not. "Traditional" and "Modern" are false distinctions. The Pope is clearly not in union with the world's bishops as regards Amoris Latetia as evidenced by the Dubia. Cardinal Burke has indicated a formal correction will take place in 2017. So Pope Francis could try the Ex Cathedra route but I believe the Holy Spirit will prevent that route. It is really sad so much time of this pontificate has been wasted on this issue as well as "climate change" when so much could have been done on truly important issues.
David, therein is the crux of the problem. Pope Francis has labeled it a church "discipline", yet everything I have read from past Popes, to the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Father Hardon's Catholic Dictionary there is no mention of the Churches teaching on the Indissolubility of Marriage as a church "discipline" that can change. I am far from a 'pope basher', but when I read/study what he has written that is contrary to what has been taught since Jesus (Matthew 19:8) then I have to question his thinking. I have no other major issue with Pope Francis or his teachings, but this one most essential teaching on divorce and remarriage, which seems to be at odds with Church history. Do you acknowledge what Jesus said in Matthew 19:8 that "any man who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery"? Thus the indissolubility of marriage. If Pope Francis would dialog on his position that seems to contradict scripture and tradition, I am sure we could all profit from this, because at this moment it seems as if he has taken Moses' discipline and not Jesus' doctrine on divorce and remarriage (Matthew 19:8).
I understand what you are saying but I use the terms Traditional and Modern as easy names to put on the two positions so people can understand what we are talking about. In essence only one of these two camps has the authentic Catholic interpretation. Both cannot be right as they are juxtaposed in their beliefs. This is why I keep urging everyone who will to get their First Fridays and/or First Saturdays done while there is still one Church. If there is a schism we know some will be on the wrong side. If a break in the unity of the Church is a part of the Chastisement it is a great punishment indeed.
Pope Francis is not changing any doctrine or belief in the indissolubility of marriage. His critics interpret his modification to the discipline on the reception of Holy Communion as a change to marriage doctrine but their interpretation is mistaken. He is merely recognizing the complexities of family life out there in our secular age and trying to reduce the number of souls simply walking away from their faith totally.
Thing is, they don't have to walk away from the faith. They need to participate in it as fully as their state in life permits, in conjunction with Jesus and his Church teachings, based on their past choices. A free pass for past choices is not the way Jesus or his Church has taught.
If what we are seeing on this forum is replicated in the Church by traditionalists and like minded people then the Church is facing a schism. I cannot quite believe how some here are placing their own knoweldge and wisdom above the successor to St Peter. This is dangerous friends-you may think you know it but you dont. You have to know something serious about catholic theology and not just come out with the same regurgitated weak arguments and insults. eg am I a freemason; modernist) I quote from an interview at La Stampa with Cardinal George Cotteir papal theologian to John Paul II and Benedict XVI: As far as the term “remarried divorcees” is concerned, the Theologian sees it as “unfortunate” from a canonical point of view: “It is too generic and is applied in fundamentally different situations. It indicates that one or more persons who have divorced from an indissoluble sacramental marriage, have entered into a civil marriage. This second marriage des not annul the first, neither does it substitute it, because the first remains the only marriage and the Church does not have the power to dissolve it. Pastoral judgement cannot ignore the origin of each of these two unions, it is purely a question of equity.” Cottier describes two very different cases which come under the “remarried divorcee” category: One case is that of a person who has been abandoned by their spouse and who holds custody of their children. This person meets someone who offers them help and security and the two marry. The other case involves a married person with adolescent children who “meets a younger and brilliant individual. They are carried away by passion, abandon their family, divorce and enter into a civil marriage” and “take part in parish life”: “These are different cases. The second one involves a “scandal”, while the first is linked to solitude, a difficulty is moving on, vulnerability, need, including for companionship”. “Generally, in every situation, justice requires certain important factors to be taken into account”: “The duty one has towards the abandoned spouse, who often remains faithful to their sacramental vows,” “the rights of the children born during the first and legitimate marriage” (“Strangely, the 2014 Synod focused little on this aspect, at least in terms of media coverage”). What is needed instead, is “prudent judgement”. Cottier stated: “I believe that the solution to some problems should come from the prudent judgement of the bishop. I say this not without hesitation and doubt, seeing division between bishops. My claim refers first and foremost to certain situations where there is a big likelihood of the first marriage being null but it is difficult to provide canonical proof”. More generally, “in accordance with its pastoral mission, the Church always needs to be attentive to historical changes and the evolution of mentalities. Not because it should subordinate itself to these but in order to overcome the obstacles that can prevent others from embracing its advice and guidelines.” According to Cottier, “the existential coordinates of peoples’ spiritual lives must be respected. “In rigorism there is an innate brutality that goes against the gentle way God has of guiding each person,” he added." Second I quote from Fr.Giovanni Cavalcoli,metaphysics philosopher, dogmatic theologian, professor emeritus of Metaphysics at the Dominican Philosophical Studium in Bologna, Italy and of Dogmatic Theology at the Theological Faculty of Bologna. He is also an ordinary member of the Pontifical Academy of Theology: "Some claim that any changes made to sacramental discipline regarding remarried divorcees would amount to “heresy” or at least would constitute an attack against the core of the indissolubility of marriage. Is this so? “The discipline of the sacraments is a legislative power that Christ has entrusted to the Church so that in the course of history and in the midst of changing circumstances, it is able to administer the sacraments in the way that is best for people’s souls, while at the same time fully respecting the unalterable substance of the sacrament, just as Christ intended it. The current discipline regulating the pastoral care and the conduct of remarried divorcees is an ecclesiastical law that aims to combine respect for the sacrament of marriage, the indissolubility of which is an essential element and the possibility of salvation for the new couple. The Church cannot change divine law, which institutes and regulates the substance of the sacraments but it can change the laws that derive from it, regarding discipline and pastoral care of the sacraments. We must therefore bear in mind, that a potential change in the current norms regarding remarried divorcees, will not undermine the dignity of the sacrament of marriage at all. In fact, it would constitute a more suitable provision for dealing with and resolving today’s situations. Can you give some examples of times throughout the course of the Church’s history, when an in-depth examination led to a change in sacramental discipline or the development of doctrine on marriage and the family? “As far as the sacrament of penitence is concerned, the Church has gone from the early-century practice of one single celebration in the course of one’s lifetime, to the current practice that encourages frequent confession, said practice dates back to the Tridentine reform. In the early centuries, second marriages were discouraged. In the 17th century, mixed-race individuals were excluded from the sacrament of the orders. The common practice of daily communion dates back to the more recent times of St. Pius X. The haereticus vitandus figure existed until then. The Magisterium presented the conjugal act as a “sign and incentive of love” for the first time in Paul VI’s “Humanae Vitae”. In the past, the legal impediments to marriage differed from today’s. Paul VI abolished the so-called “minor orders”, which were once necessary if one wished to become a priest. Only after the conciliar reforms were women granted liturgical ministries that were once reserved exclusively for men. Until the conciliar reforms, the sacrament of the anointing of the sick, which is significantly also called “extreme unction”, was only given to people who were on their deathbed. Now, you only have to be getting on a bit or have a serious illness to receive it, so it can easily be repeated. In his recent Motu Proprio, the Pope modified the law on the reasons for marriage annulments.” In his opening speech at the Synod Cardinal Erdö mentioned the bit of the Instrumentum laboris that distinguishes between objective situations of sin – or differences between Christ’s plan – and events that diminish liability for the act. Could this be a way to agree on some concessions that could be introduced not as a general law but as a gesture of attention to individual cases? “Yes, if the couple is constantly exposed to an opportunity or a situation that poses an inevitable impulse to sin. Such cases should be verified carefully. In the case just mentioned one could certainly admit the presence of subjective guilt, in addition to the objective evil of sin but liability is weakened by the overpowering inevitability of the opportunity presented, which crushes the resistance of a good-willed person. So the element of wilfulness typical of a sinful act is diminished by the power of temptation. Naturally, even in the case of reduced liability, a persistent path of conversion and penitence is still required I and David, Fallen Saint and others are fully on side with the Catechism and the rightful authoriy of the Pope.
Before I forget, Joseph Ratzinger wrote an essay in 1972 in which he promoted the possibility of a case by case basis for Holy Communion for remarried. Its not about Pope Francis. I blame a lot of crazy so called "revelations" and people are on the look out for an anti pope figure, and because a lack of theology prevails; 2 and 2 are making 5.
Interesting question and I believe that is the one that the pope, the "servant of servants" (what a joke), will not answer and is being asked by way of the dubia.
I believe smudger you are a dangerous catholic because you "smudge" and split hairs and look for exceptions to push through an agenda that you kmow will: 1. put a knife in traditional catholicism 2. turn exceptions in church practice to the rule 3. knowing full well what you are doing The document AL is the killshot on traditional catholicism and you know it which is why you are using "loopholes" to push it through. I think if you are a catholic and are not demanding an answer from the "servant of servants" you are as puffed up with pride as the pope. Pope Francis, answer the dubia! Do you still believe in catholicism?
I suspect that the idea that Pope Francis will be the one to lead the charge of schism will more than likely become moot in the not too distant future since his words about his limitations, time and health and dangers against him, as well as prophecy has alluded to his martyrdom (white or red). I believe that our Lady, as the Spouse of the Holy Spirit will protect him from going too far due to his openly expressed love and devotion of her....esp. his papacy dedicated to OLOF....also possibly due to his knowing of the short time for both? Meanwhile though a schism is only accomplished by people choosing, acting, moving, taking the steps, organizing, etc. It then won't be a "schism occurring based upon the divorce point"; but it is likely to be a schism by those who will "USE" that point for their own "actions", "movements" and "organizing" which actually has already taken place....and for quite a long time! As we've said before...this is the time for exposing what has been hidden within systems and especially within the hearts of individuals.
Joe or smudger, how hard is it to answer a few really simple questions that Cardinals have asked of Pope Francis? How hard is it to answer questions on this forum that myself and others have asked in charity for truth? I notice that both Pope Francis, yourself and others on this forum often reply sarcastically to legit questions that sincere clergy and laity ask for, then become angry when simple questions are asked. Now you are blaming 'crazy people looking for revelations of an antipope' as you have no other recourse but to try and diminish anyone's credibility who dares to ask for clarity. This is childish at the best. The Holy Eucharist is the heart, soul and summit of our Catholic faith, as it is Jesus Christ's body, blood, soul and divinity that we are referencing when Pope Francis and his followers are seemingly advocating distribution of communion to those in divorce and remarriage situations, seemingly doing an end-around the Churches formal annulment process and making it a "pastoral" decision. So let's see how this unfolds. Scripture tells us "anyone who receives the body and blood unworthily, receives unto their condemnation". How many divorce and remarried people, who may get their pastors nod to receive the true presence of Jesus in communion, will do so in the mortal state of adultery that Jesus spoke of in Matthew 19:8? Does this not concern those advocating Pope Francis vague position on this issue? We know that scripture say's "no adulterer will enter the kingdom of heaven". Should we do a better job of discernment in this process rather than leaving it up to local pastors to decide who is able to eat at the table of the Lord? Obviously not all divorced and remarried are adulterer's, but let's let the system the Church has in place assess this, even it is is not perfect, in lieu of Father Any Thing Goes permission.
Why I am Joe?? Doesnt more than one catholic in the world support Francis? By the way suggesing I am angry is a bi silly. Look back over every pos I have written. Not one should come across as angry. Please just stick to facts ok! So I will answer he dubia for you 1) It is asked whether, following the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (nn. 300-305), it has now become possible to grant absolution in the sacrament of penance and thus to admit to Holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person more uxorio without fulfilling the conditions provided for by Familiaris Consortio n. 84 and subsequently reaffirmed by Reconciliatio et Paenitentia n. 34 and Sacramentum Caritatis n. 29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in note 351 (n. 305) of the exhortation Amoris Laetitia be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live more uxorio? Answer: Yes, but only in certain cases 2) After the publication of the post-synodal exhortation Amoris Laetitia (cf. n. 304), does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor n. 79, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, on the existence of absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts and that are binding without exceptions? YES absolutely 3)After Amoris Laetitia (n. 301) is it still possible to affirm that a person who habitually lives in contradiction to a commandment of God’s law, as for instance the one that prohibits adultery (cf. Mt 19:3-9), finds him or herself in an objective situation of grave habitual sin (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Declaration, June 24, 2000)? Yes, but as the Catechism clearly teaches, guilt can be significantly lessed due to a variety of factors, meaning absolute mortal sin is not present. Full consent may well be lacking. "Man judges appearances, God judges the Heart" 4) After the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (n. 302) on “circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility,” does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor n. 81, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, according to which “circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice”? Yes absolutely 5) After Amoris Laetitia (n. 303) does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor n. 56, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, that excludes a creative interpretation of the role of conscience and that emphasizes that conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object? Yes absolutely There. Sorted. I am a faithful Catholic loyal o the papacy past prsent and future, loyal to Sacred Scripture and loyal o he constant Tradition of the Church.
I wonder if that's what was said to any Jews who weren't happy when Moses decided to permit divorce. I expect that poor Moses was under pressure to be merciful, had plenty of hard cases quoted to him, and justified it on the grounds that it would only apply to rare, exceptional cases, that God didn't understand how hard it was for him and the priests to swim against the tide, and that the all-merciful God would accept that he was trying to shepherd the flock by choosing a lesser evil to keep them from abandoning the faith because God wanted everybody to be saved. Fast forward a few thousand years and along comes Jesus saying that Moses shouldn't have bowed to populism, lays it on the line for the faithful and admits it's a hard teaching. The learned pharisees weren't happy with this upstart nobody over-ruling Moses by reminding them of how God defined marriage and adultery. A few ignorant fishermen and tent-makers got the message but the pharisees weren't interested in people who lacked the correct qualifications to understand the nuances and grey areas of something as complicated as marriage. Fast forward another 2000 years and we are told that it takes learned theologians to understand that Jesus didn't mean what we have always been told he meant, and that unless we are living in adulterous unions or unless we are the Pope it's none of our business and we have no right to even ask for an explanation as to why our understanding of what Jesus said has changed. There's nothing new under the sun.
No. what learned theologians do is try and ensure that the correct spirit of the law is proclaimed. Why do you think annulment tribunals exist??
Dubia are very specifically written legal documents used by the Church meant to be answered with a simple "Yes" or "No". Not, "Yes, but la, la la,..." Or "No, but la, la, la..." They are designed that way for a specific purpose, to avoid the kind of convoluted answers that could be written to them if they were answered otherwise. They are to clarify confusion. Not to add to it.
So you cant understand what I just wrote?? Maybe thats why Pope Francis won allow himself to be cornered by those not interested in the entire truth. Anyhow, what I have written is crystal clear to those who genuinly want the truth
