Some Q & A re Amoris Laetitia (Catholic Answers)

[Peace]

I believe that I already acknowledged that there are post-Familiaris people in the Church who believe that the prohibition is based in divine law.

The point was that if the Pope or another Commission happens to disagree, you would just have one interpretation against another. There does not seem to be anything beyond the documents that would render one right and the other wrong, except for that Familiaris has 30 years on Amoris.

[Nihil Obstat]

Asserting that the prohibition is based, at least on part, on divine law actually is part of the pope's authority as caretaker and interpreter of church doctrines. Where John Paul and Benedict claim that it is an aspect of divine law, though they are merely reiterating what was already believed, they are presenting it in an authoritative and fairly binding manner. This is very distinct from a pope who purposes new interpretations or new practices which contradict past practice. This is prohibited by Vatican I and the Church's traditions.  

[Peace]

11 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Asserting that the prohibition is based, at least on part, on divine law actually is part of the pope's authority as caretaker and interpreter of church doctrines. Where John Paul and Benedict claim that it is an aspect of divine law, though they are merely reiterating what was already believed, they are presenting it in an authoritative and fairly binding manner. This is very distinct from a pope who purposes new interpretations or new practices which contradict past practice. This is prohibited by Vatican I and the Church's traditions.  

That is a fair argument.

[Nihil Obstat]

Solid.

[Guest]

Just now, Peace said:

That is a fair argument.

 

[Peace]

11 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Solid.

I always suspected that you were jealous of my avatar.

[Nihil Obstat]

That gif and video have always been favourites of mine. 

[Guest]

12:50 pm PST

#48  Tim Staples - El Cajon, California - Catholic Answers Blogger

Eric,
In response to your #47, I would first say you need to slow down and listen to what both I and Pope Francis are saying. You are missing the boat here in three essential areas:
1. Neither I nor Pope Francis deny that the practice surrounding communion involves doctrine. But that does not mean everything surrounding the practice is unchangeable. You say the reception of the Eucharist and the doctrine of the Eucharist are "genetically one," "inseparable," and "unchangeable." Thus, you would declare, Pope Francis is, indeed, a heretic. Or, at the very least, he is in grave sin.
Oy vey!
And I will note here that, as I said before, in some aspects you are correct. Not about the Pope being wrong part. But you are correct that some aspects of practice surrounding the Eucharist are unchangeable. For example, barring someone in mortal sin from receiving the Eucharist. That is an example of a "practice" that reflects divine law that cannot change. I will give you the citations from the Council of Trent, the Catechism and the CIC to prove that below. However, the practices involved with communion are not in all respects unchangeable. For example, and I think you would agree that whether one kneels or stands, receives on the tongue or in the hand would not involve a change in doctrine, right? Each differing practice says something different theologically and is rooted in a different approach to applying doctrine in the lives of the faithful. One says we are adults and receive standing, for example, one says we humbly receive on our knees as children of the Lord, sinful and unworthy, etc. But there is no substantial change in doctrine involved. These differing practices are not part of what you would call the "genetic union" of doctrine and communion, right? Even though this involves both doctrine and communion. You would also agree (I hope, or else we have more 'splainin' to do!) that Canon 844 in the Code of Canon law introduces the possibility of admitting members of the Orthodox communions, or even Protestants in some limited cases, to communion. This was never permitted before the era after Vatican II. But this is a matter of prudential judgment, right? These too are not part of the "genetic union" you describe between doctrine and practice regarding receiving the Eucharist. So it is entirely reasonable to say we can speak of certain aspects of the faithful receiving communion that are changeable and certain aspects that are not changeable. Even though I know many (I deal with them all the time) who cannot make the distinction here and claim the 1983 Code is heretical and has "changed doctrine" because of canon 844. In a nutshell: We have to learn to make distinctions, my friend.
2. You say, "the doctrine governs the practice and never the other way around." We agree. But both practices we are discussing here reflect true aspects of Catholic doctrine. The practice of Pope St. John Paul II emphasizes the truth that the objective state of a person married outside of the Church contradicts the reality of Christ's union with the Church that marriage is a sacramental sign of. And Pope Francis agrees. There is no difference in the understanding of the objective state of the person in question. Both Popes acknowledge we are talking about an objectively grave situation. Pope Francis also acknowledges that to be the reason (along with scandal) that Pope John Paul II forbade the possibility of the reception of communion to those in that objective state, even if they were not mortally culpable for it.
Pope Francis is emphasizing another aspect of doctrine in a way that Pope John Paul II did not. That is, that a person who is not culpable for mortal sin, and therefore, should not have any "mortal sins" on his conscience, can receive communion according to divine law. And this leads to the most important point I would like to make here:
3. The Council of Trent defined infallibly in Session 13, in both chapter 5, "On Confession" and in canon VII of that same session, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches in para. 1457, and the Code of Canon law teaches in Canon 916, that it is a matter of divine law that only mortal sins are required to be confessed and only mortal sins impede someone from receiving communion validly. In fact, chapter 5 even says the faithful can willfully "omit to mention" venial sins "without guilt" in Confession because they do not have to be confessed according to divine law. And according to divine law they do not separate the faithful from communion with Christ and his Church, which is what the Eucharist is both sign and cause of - communion with Christ and the Church. The Pope has the authority, as a "steward of the sacraments of God" (I Cor. 4:1, Vulgate) to declare those in the objective state of divorce and remarriage outside the Church who are not mortally culpable of sin to be barred from receiving communion. he can do that. He's the pope. But that does not become divine law because the Pope declares it so. He does not have that kind of power. That is ecclesiastical law. And ecclesiastical law can change. Thus, Pope Francis can and has modified the prudential judgment of Pope St. John Paul II with regard to these "irregular" and "exceptional" cases completely in keeping with divine law

[Nihil Obstat]

How surprising. "Everything is normal. Nothing has changed now and everything is exactly the same. Go back to sleep."

Answers like that are exactly why we find ourselves in this mess.

[Jack4]

29 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

How surprising. "Everything is normal. Nothing has changed now and everything is exactly the same. Go back to sleep."

Answers like that are exactly why we find ourselves in this mess.

If everything is so clear and all questions have already been answered, why exactly do different dioceses and conferences have radically different policies? 

[Guest]

Just now, Nihil Obstat said:

How surprising. "Everything is normal. Nothing has changed now and everything is exactly the same. Go back to sleep."

Answers like that are exactly why we find ourselves in this mess.

So in your opinion Tim Staples is wrong on this? 

Edited December 20, 2016 by Guest

[Nihil Obstat]

Yes, I believe Tim Staples is wrong.

[Guest]

Just now, Nihil Obstat said:

Yes, I believe Tim Staples is wrong.

Like 100% wrong? Is there any chance he could be right?

[Nihil Obstat]

36 minutes ago, Josh said:

Like 100% wrong? Is there any chance he could be right?

Being 100% wrong is very difficult. Exponentially more difficult than being, say, 65% wrong.