Some Q & A re Amoris Laetitia (Catholic Answers)

[BarbTherese]

CATHOLIC ANSWERS

 

Catholic Culture Review of CA: "Catholic Answers is the largest Catholic apologetics and evangelization organization in North  America. This site is among the best and most comprehensive of the Catholic sites on the internet. It features a large library of online answer tracts, personal and insightful newsletters, a number of their popular booklets, and an audio archive of their popular radio programs "Catholic Answers Live" and "The Doctor is In" — well worth frequent and extended visits. READ MORE HERE

 

• Is Pope Francis a Heretic? Part I
• Is Pope Francis a Heretic? Part II
• Is it Prudent to Allow Divorced and Remarried Catholics to Receive Communion?
• What Did Pope Francis Change About Communion for Divorced Catholics? (8 min video)
• Sounds of Silence
• Pope Francis's New Document on Marriage: 12 Things to Know and Share
• The Latest from the "Make a Mess" Philosophy

 

 

Edited December 12, 2016 by BarbaraTherese

[Peace]

In the first two articles Staples concludes that divorced and remarried Catholics could be allowed to participate in communion. He concludes that the Church's practice is prudential, and not mandated by divine law. To the extent that Familiaris indicates that the practice of prohibiting them from participating in communion is based on the divine law, he seemingly believes that Familiaris would be incorrect.

For reasons stated in the other thread, I do not think that his conclusion is unreasonable, but ultimately it is up to the powers to be to decide that question.

It's at least nice to know that there are some respected people (not respected by all obviously) who would come to the same conclusion that I see. But I think there are good arguments on both sides of it.

[Guest]

I thought that the CA Q&A as posted were a balanced and non-emotive type commentary. It made an effort to see both sides of the subjects discussed.

4 hours ago, Peace said:

I think there are good arguments on both sides of it.

4 hours ago, Peace said:

For reasons stated in the other thread, I do not think that his conclusion is unreasonable, but ultimately it is up to the powers to be to decide that question

 

 

Edited December 12, 2016 by BarbaraTherese

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Peace said:

he seemingly believes that Familiaris would be incorrect.

Rather than incorrect, I thought he was stating that Pope Francis was attempting to build on what FC states in 84, while it would be a contradiction in another part. "Is our current practise of refusing Holy Communion to those in irregular marriage and objective manifest grave matter directly Divine Law or Church practise interpreting Divine Law?" becomes the question and only our hierarchy can decide it.  All we can do is discuss it and perhaps have an opinion either way.

Another point is (and confirmed in the CA Q&A) that The Church teaches only those in a state of mortal sin cannot receive Holy Communion; however, The Church has made an exception where those in manifest grave matter are concerned, no matter their state of soul.  It would therefore seem that those who are indeed in a relationship with God and His Church through Sanctifying Grace are refused Holy Communion as things now stand in Church practise.  It is that (in part) that AL addresses.

[Nihil Obstat]

It is incredibly dangerous to presume, because that is what you are doing, that someone in a state of manifest grave sin is nonetheless in a state of sanctifying grace. Ignorance is not salvific.

[Jack4]

AL does say good things.

The problem is that, sometimes, what is affirmed with one hand is apparently denied with the other.

After some of the "good" things he says, there is a "but the Church cannot forget those who..." which sometimes does not make concrete references to repentance with purpose of amendment. 

Altogether, it is a (with all due respect to +Bellarmine et al) "Jesuitical" exhortation which can be understood either way. Hence the importance of the dubia, to give clear answers. 

[Guest]

I don't know why people feel they deserve Communion every time they go to Mass. While it has negatives being scrupulous isn't always a bad thing. Very often I don't go up for Communion. Not saying this is a good thing. Because A.)I should of already went to Confession so I could go up B.) I shouldn't be committing the grave/mortal sins I do......But yet there I am not going up to Communion again. I could gamble and hope that becuase of certain factors my grave sins were lessened and culpability was reduced and I wasn't in mortal sin. But it's not worth it. I would rather not receive and have the Lord at least know I recognize how much of a wretched worthless sinner I am. Just because no-one stops you from going up to Communion doesn't mean you should go up. Each time you should scrutinize your conscience thoroughly and if there's any doubt go to Confession first. Why risk it. You're not required to take Communion at every Mass. Only once a year actually. Although I'm guessing it's better to go up more than once a year.

Edited December 13, 2016 by Guest

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

It is incredibly dangerous to presume

I presumed nothing, if the above refers to me.

3 minutes ago, Josh said:

I don't know why people feel they deserve Communion every time they go to Mass. While it has its negatives being scrupulous isn't always a bad thing. Very often I don't go up for Communion. Not saying this is a good thing. Because A.)I should of already went to Confession so I could go up B.) I shouldn't be committing the grave sins I do......But yet there I am not going up to Communion again. I could gamble and hope that Becuase of certain factors my grace sins was reduced and culpability was reduced and so I wasn't in mortal sin. But it's not worth it. I would rather not receive and have the Lord at least know I recognize how much of a wretched worthless sinner I am. Just because no-one stops you from going up to Communion doesn't mean you should go up. Each time you should scrutinize your conscience thurouly and if there's any doubt go to Confession first. Why risk it.

Commendable perhaps, Josh - but only absolutely necessary if one knows one is in a state of mortal sin.  Holy Communion helps to keep us on the rails as nothing else.  The Blessed Eucharist is not only Sacred and Holy, it is also Healing and Balm for the soul.  It is our strength and encouragement.  It is Presence which should always be received with great humility and a sense of unworthiness even if we know we have not even committed venial sin.  We remain forever unworthy.

I don't think personally that scrupulosity is ever to be recommended. 

Edited December 13, 2016 by BarbaraTherese

[Guest]

How do you ever really "KNOW" if you're in mortal sin especially with sexual sin? With addiction and passion playing a role in possibly lessening culpability? I find it impossible to really ever know. I never commit sexual sin out of malice or because I hate God or want to go to hell. So I could try to talk myself into saying it's only venial but I would rather not risk it. Either go to Confession or just not go up for Communion.

[Guest]

I am not staying in this thread because I do not have the time.  I posted the Questions and Answers from CA on Amoris Laetitia for some educated and balanced reflections, for those who might want or need them, on some questions relating to Amoris Laetitia.  I did suspect at the time that probably the usual would come into the thread and argue and nit-pick and their right to do so.  God bless 'em and their cotton-picking socks! 

I'm outta here.  I hope the Questions and Answers might prove helpful to some.  And if only even one, it is worthwhile.

Edited December 13, 2016 by BarbaraTherese

[Guest]

Thanks for posting something positive and defending the Pope. I'm glad to see it. My intentions weren't to argue. Sorry I went in that direction. I just think people shouldn't be so quick to go up for Communion and think it's unfathomable not going up until you get to Confession.

[Guest]

Had a quick look, Josh - this might be informative (again from CA). It does quote the Catechism on the subject of mortal sin and Holy Communion.

http://www.catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/mortal-and-venial-sin

[Guest]

Just briefly looked at it. Perhaps will look at it more. I know what venial and mortal sin are. Actually almost all sins can end up being mortal. I used to have a problem with this I nolonger do. It's the Church's teaching so I accept it 100%. I'm just saying with sins that are sexual in nature where culpability can be lessened to nil it's very difficult to know when you're in mortal sin. Yeah it's obvious if you say to yourself God I can't stand you I'm going to go sleep with this woman. That's mortal sin. For most people who love God though that's not usually how it plays out. Malice is usually not part of it. So it can then be very easy to justify saying to yourself it was just venial and I can go up for Communion. I personally think that's risky and anytime you commit a grave sin you should go to Confession before receiving the Eucharist.

Edited December 13, 2016 by Guest

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, Josh said:

How do you ever really "KNOW" if you're in mortal sin especially with sexual sin? With addiction and passion playing a role in possibly lessening culpability? I find it impossible to really ever know. I never commit sexual sin out of malice or because I hate God or want to go to hell. So I could try to talk myself into saying it's only venial but I would rather not risk it. Either go to Confession or just not go up for Communion.

Not a good question for such as I to answer, Josh.  I am not even morally assured of salvation let alone any other assurance, other than my trust is in The Mercy and Understanding of God to know my true state of soul even if I do not.  I do not presume salvation, I only Hope rather desperately in God's Loving Mercy.

On your other point the CA text I posted might be helpful.  In a state of mortal sin according to the CCC one can make an act of Perfect Contrition and resolve to go to Confession at first opportunity and to do so.  Then, of course, one has the obligation to fully inform oneself on what is (and is not) a Perfect Act of Contrition.  Alternatively, to choose to refrain to go to Holy Communion UNTIL one confesses is admirable in my book and I have taken that course in the past and out of fear.  Fear is not the best of motivations I don't think - The Lord accepts the imperfect and imperfect motivations and He has even stated He is drawn to such people, i.e. the weak, struggling and imperfect (but with Grace one can do much better, far better - extremely far better than fear and it is to what The Lord invites the weak and struggling, burdened.  This to me is what gradualness of response to Grace is all about - we might start at fear but Grace can move us beyond it.

Disagreements can be decidedly healthy and usually indicate that Truth is still engaged in the struggle to be heard.  That is, neither side has it quite spot on.

I am just flat out now because of Christmas.

 

6 minutes ago, Josh said:

Just briefly looked at it. Perhaps will look at it more. I know what venial and mortal sin are. Actually almost all sins can end up being mortal. I used to have a problem with this I nolonger do. It's the Church's teaching so I accept it 100%. I'm just saying with sins that are sexual in nature where culpability can be lessened to nil it's very difficult to know when you're in mortal sin. Yeah it's obvious if you say to yourself God I can't stand you I'm going to go sleep with this woman. That's mortal sin. For most people who love God though that's not usually how it plays out. Malice is usually not part of it. So it can then be very easy to justify saying to yourself it was just venial and I can go up for Communion. I personally think that's risky and anytime you commit a grave sin you should go to Confession before receiving the Eucharist.

If one is very wise and prudent, one will not decide for oneself if there is any unsureness or insecurity about it, but ask a priest ideally in Confession (i.e. the internal forum).  This is what Pope Francis in AL is stating too and advising priests to engage in the internal forum with poor struggling and messy humanity with compassionate understanding and a willingness to journey.  This is not putting aside what The Church teaches, nor advocating and permitting it.

[Peace]

1 hour ago, Nihil Obstat said:

It is incredibly dangerous to presume, because that is what you are doing, that someone in a state of manifest grave sin is nonetheless in a state of sanctifying grace. Ignorance is not salvific.

Yeah. It's dangerous. Tough to argue with that.

Are you of the mind that the priest should decide who is eligible, or whether the person who receives should decide for himself if he is eligible?

Different situation of course, but the whole thing seems pretty dangerous from the perspective of a priest nowadays. Given the state of the Catholic world (at least in the US) I wonder how many people in line for communion at any given time may be in a state of mortal sin?

A few weeks ago before I received the priest asked me "Are you Catholic?" I was at a small parish out of town so perhaps he did not recognize me. I have no problem with that, but if that is cool, why not ask everybody "did you use contraception last month?" or any other similar question before distributing communion? You could seemingly wipe out about 75% of people in line with that question alone.

If a primary role of the person distributing communion is to ensure that people receiving are not in a state of mortal sin, rather than leaving this determination up to the individual, the seemingly prudent thing to do would be to deny communion to most people, and except out people that the priest has a good reason to know are living out the faith faithfully.  Or you could do something like requiring confession the day before communion. People could get a confession stamp or wrist band before receiving communion, similar to how young people get a stamp at a bar indicating that their age has been checked!!