Discussion in 'Announcements' started by padraig, Dec 25, 2016.
Always has been annulment
No Pope, including Francis, will be able to create a pathway for divorced and remarried (who refuse to live as brother and sister) to recieve Communion; the Holy Spirit will prevent him from doing so. It is a matter of doctrine not disicpline and the pathway already exists in the "discipline" of living as brother and sister for those who find themselves divorced and remarried.
This is good information. So what part of the equation is discipline in your mind?
1. Is divorce and remarriage human or divine teaching? Doctrine or discipline?
2. Is adultery a human or divine teaching? Doctrine or discipline?
3. Will adulterer's enter the kingdom of heaven? Doctrine or discipline?
4. Will someone who receives Eucharist unworthily receive it to their condemnation? Doctrine or discipline?
Fallen Saint he did say it. It was in the discussion between Smudger and Garabandal.
The most relevant posts are:
Garabandal post #307
Smudger post #310
Garabandal post #319
Smudger please do not accuse me of manipulating your words. You stated flat out it was possible for active homosexuals to receive Holy Communion if they discern it the confessional. If you wish to retract that statement then please do, but do not accuse me of changing what you said.
Am I misreading what your words are?
Please correct me if I am wrong.
Do you still consider yourself Catholic?
Richard and Fatima, there really does seem to be a rather deep misunderstanding about what Church discipline means.
When I was a child, one had to fast overnight if one was to receive Holy Communion. That is Church discipline. The discipline has been modified many times in my lifetime.
There is currently a certain discipline regarding the Orthodox being allowed to receive Holy Communion in a Catholic Church. And there is a similar discipline regarding vice versa.
At the heart of the problem around the Pope's encyclical is the lack of agreement of who is or is not in a state of mortal sin in 'second marriages'.
My original post on the matter was simply to highlight the very similar positions of Pope Benedict and Pope Francis. We do not know at this moment how Pope Benedict views Pope Francis' modification of previous discipline on the matter.
No, this is not subject to change as it is by virtue of the very authority of the Lord
From the mouth of Saint John Paul II himself:
"As I wrote in the Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio, the divorced and remarried cannot be admitted to Eucharistic Communion since "their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist" (n. 84).
And to emphasize the fact that it cannot change in the future he adds:
"And this is by virtue of the very authority of the Lord, Shepherd of Shepherds, who always seeks his sheep. It is also true with regard to Penance whose twofold yet single meaning of conversion and reconciliation is contradicted by the state of life of divorced and remarried couples who remain such."
Why won't Pope Francis speak clearly to this issue? What part of Pope Francis teaching in your mind is Church discipline and not doctrine?
Divorce and remarriage?
Divorce and remarriage receiving communion?
Modern Catholic Dictionary with Imprimatur
by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
INDISSOLUBLE MARRIAGE. Christian marriage, between two baptized persons who enter into a valid contract and consummate their marriage by natural intercourse, cannot be dissolved by any human power, whether civil or ecclesiastical.
INDISSOLUBILITY. The permanence of marriage which cannot be dissolved either by the withdrawal of consent of the married partners or by civil authorities. Christian marriage is absolutely indissoluble, as defined by the Council of Trent, condemning anyone who says, "The Church errs when she has inculcated and continues to inculcate in accord with evangelical and apostolic teaching, that the bond of marriage cannot be dissolved by reason of adultery on the part of one spouse, and that both parties, even the innocent one who gave no reason for adultery, cannot contract a new marriage while the other spouse is alive; and that both the man who marries another wife after dismissing an adulterous one commits adultery and the wife who marries another husband after dismissing an adulterous one commits adultery" (Denzinger 1807).
DOCTRINE. Any truth taught by the Church as necessary for acceptance by the faithful. The truth may be either formally revealed (as the Real Presence), or a theological conclusion (as the canonization of a saint), or part of the natural law (as the sinfulness of contraception). In any case, what makes it doctrine is that the Church authority teaches that it is to be believed. This teaching may be done either solemnly in ex cathedra pronouncements or ordinarily in the perennial exercise of the Church's magisterium or teaching authority. Dogmas are those doctrines which the Church proposes for belief as formally revealed by God. (Etym. Latin doctrina, teaching.
DOGMA. Doctrine taught by the Church to be believed by all the faithful as part of divine revelation. All dogmas, therefore, are formally revealed truths and promulgated as such by the Church. They are revealed either in Scripture or tradition, either explicitly (as the Incarnation) or implicitly (as the Assumption). Moreover, their acceptance by the faithful must be proposed as necessary for salvation. They may be taught by the Church in a solemn manner, as with the definition of the Immaculate Conception, or in an ordinary way, as with the constant teaching on the malice of taking innocent human life. (Etym. Latin dogma; from Greek dogma, declaration, decree.)
DIVORCE. Legal separation of husband and wife, or the release by civil authority from any one or more of the bonds of matrimony between them. Imperfect divorce is the separation of husband and wife so that the duty of living together, and sometimes the support, is relaxed, but giving them no right to remarry. Also called separation from bed and board, but not the severance of the primary bond of marriage, which is the exclusive lifelong fidelity in the use of marital rights. (Etym. Latin divortium; from divertere, to part, separate, turn aside.)
Pope Francis says he would agree with Catholics on a lot of things and then goes on to agree with a lot of non-Catholics on the same things from abortion to adultery to fornication to sodomy. Hard to tell, really, what he believes. It's possible from his statements and actions to argue either way on many issues that are fundamental to Catholicism. He might believe in the Real Presence and he might not. If he does, it's hard to tell whether he believes there is such a sin as sacrilege. His example thus far suggests that there's no such sin as sacrilege.
Someone else asked Padraig whether he still considers himself Catholic. There are Catholic saints in Heaven who had that slur made against them by people who thought they were defending the Church and the Papacy but were in fact defending heretics or enablers of heresy.
The AL is the KILLSHOT of traditional catholicism! The pope has been at war with traditional catholicism since he took office.
Ah, if only life were that simple....
Here are a couple of quotes from Rocco Buttiglione, an expert on the teaching of St. John Paul II:
What relationship do you see between this document by Francis and the magisterium of Pope Wojtyla?
“Once, the Church excommunicated the divorced who had remarried. It did so for the sake of a valid concern: to avoid scandal and to not put into question the indissolubility of marriage. But then we were living in a concise Christianity. It was presumed that everyone knew what marriage was, a sacrament in which the spouses become mutual guarantors of the love of God and therefore if one leaves, in some way it is as if God has left too. John Paul II said that the divorced and remarried could not be excommunicated, remembering that in every sin there are objective and subjective factors. There are people who can do the wrong thing, which remains an evil, but without being totally responsible. So Pope Wojtyla opened up, inviting the divorced and remarried to enter the Church, receiving them, baptizing their children, reintegrating them into the Christian community. But without readmitting them to communion - as in point 84 of Familiaris Consortio - unless they came back with the legitimate spouse, or separated from the new spouse, or lived in the second marriage as brother and sister, that is abstaining from sexual relations.”
And yet Saint John Paul II fought against situational ethics, which is based on the subjective aspect ...
“What I see in some opponents of the Pope is the desire to remain only on the side of objectivity. It is true, as you recall, that Pope Wojtyla fought against situational ethics, according to which there is no objectivity, but only the subjective intention. Obviously this is not the case: there is the objective nature of an act. But John Paul II never thought, even remotely, of negating subjectivity. There are situations of sin from which it is difficult to extricate oneself. We live in a society of pansexualism in which there is less consciousness of certain ethical evidence. Because certain truths are assimilated by all, it takes patience and it takes the effort of going on a journey. Are there risks? Sure! Some might be inclined to think that a divorce and a new union are no longer an evil; someone who has remained faithful, even when separated from his marriage, might think there has been some mistake; someone else might fear the risk that consciences will weaken. There are pastoral risks, without a doubt. For this reason we must guide and explain. But it is a pastoral decision. Some may say it is wrong but please let us do away with the apocalyptic tones, and stop saying that the doctrine on indissolubility is being put in to question when we are faced with a choice that relates to the discipline of the sacraments and which is grafted on a path whose foundations were laid by Pope John Paul II.”
I'm sorry, Fatima, I really am not trying to be difficult but I simply do not understand the question! In his encyclical, Pope Francis has relaxed the discipline relating to the reception of the Holy Eucharist by the re-married.
Good post Frodo! If I understand this correctly, Pope John Paul II, infallibly stated that divorced and remarried, without proper annulment, cannot go to confession to be absolved of the sin. If this is correct, then discussion closed, no?
Is is simple - at least on this subject.
I quote St. John Paul II directly about the subject.
You quote an "expert" on St. John Paul II who tells us what he *really* meant even though that isn't what he said.
Let those who have eyes see.
At least we can agree on that, Frodo.
See above http://motheofgod.com/threads/in-petri-sede-vacante.10034/page-18#post-158217
Discussion closed in the sense that the Holy Father has ruled on current discipline.
Yes, it is settled despite what others may be saying:
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
CONCERNING THE RECEPTION OF HOLY COMMUNION
BY THE DIVORCED AND REMARRIED MEMBERS OF THE FAITHFUL
5. The doctrine and discipline of the Church in this matter, are amply presented in the post-conciliar period in the Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio. The Exhortation, among other things, reminds pastors that out of love for the truth they are obliged to discern carefully the different situations and exhorts them to encourage the participation of the divorced and remarried in the various events in the life of the Church. 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"(9). 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.
The document is dated 1994. The Church is alive and develops despite some who would like it to remain fixed and unchanging.
Was Pope John Paul mistaken in his change to discipline when he was Pope?
Once, the Church excommunicated the divorced who had remarried. It did so for the sake of a valid concern: to avoid scandal and to not put into question the indissolubility of marriage. But then we were living in a concise Christianity. It was presumed that everyone knew what marriage was, a sacrament in which the spouses become mutual guarantors of the love of God and therefore if one leaves, in some way it is as if God has left too. John Paul II said that the divorced and remarried could not be excommunicated.
You have hit the nail on the head here David!
If there is a schism (and I very much pray there is not) it will be over this point.
There is one camp that feels the civilly remarried without an annulment who continue to engage in conjugal acts reserved for marriage may receive Holy Communion in at least some cases. They feel this is okay because the matter is only a discipline of the Church.
There is a second camp that feels this same group of people cannot receive Holy Communion because they are in an objective state of mortal sin and the Church has no power to change Christ's laws. They feel this cannot be allowed because it is a doctrine of the Church.
In essence you have a classic view of Catholicism and a modern view of Catholicism.
I do not see how these two positions can be reconciled without one side capitulating.
I do Cathy.
But I do not consider Jorge Bergoglio to be one:
The Chastisement is not brought on by what happens outside the Church , primarily. This is a common misunderstanding. No what is actually coming upon us, even as I write is brought on by what is going on within the Church.
Separate names with a comma.