Great words. Maybe Eccles is right and on April 1st Pope Francis is going to announce to the liberal faction-"fooled you, and now that you have identified yourself, you're all out on your ear!" Such wonderful and truly Catholic theology as the above simply cannot be reconciled with giving Holy Communion to active adulterers. I hope that Pope Francis will now deal severely with the ultimate neo-Pelagianists, the German Church that exists under the misapprehension that one pays one's way into Heaven.
I understand the cynicism, but your suspicion could also be reversed-perhaps he has had little or nothing to do with the heterodox material (he didn't write AL, for one) and this is the true Francis cutting loose? It certainly reads more passionately and unambiguously than what we are used to. It is, for a change, plain English (or Italian, more strictly), and leaves little wriggle-room for subsequent deniability. Nobody reading that could, if they possessed even a modicum of goodwill, entertain the thought of receiving Holy Communion unworthily.
Yet all of us ARE unworthy to receive Our Lord in this way. But Jesus, nevertheless, calls us to receive Him in this way. The whole argument about AL is hinged around the concepts of worthiness and unworthiness. It is all a matter of degree. The change in discipline that AL brings is a change in discipline, not a change in belief or doctrine. The Church has changed its discipline in this area hugely in the last hundred years.
I cannot agree with you. A person who intends to persist in their adulterous behaviour cannot honestly claim to have a firm purpose of amendment. That goes deeper than mere technical aspects of discipline. It boils down to whether the person is serious about following Christ or not. Apply it to a certain other sin, because it surely cannot apply, as a principle, to only one-that would be absurd. If it's only a matter of degree, perhaps the paedophile who intends to reduce his rate of abuse and to conscientiously limit his behaviour to children above a certain age might feel justified in claiming 'worthiness'. You claim that we are all unworthy to receive. This is not the teaching of the Catholic Church. The teaching has always been, to the best of my knowledge, that we are worthy if we confess all our mortal sins committed since our last confession, with a firm purpose of amendment. Some support or references to support your assertion of 'huge' changes in discipline in the last century would not be unhelpful.
Only the devil and those cooperating with him would say or assume that divorce and remarriage and one receiving Holy Eucharist is a discipline, not a change. Jesus' words over and again on this issue of divorce and remarriage are explicit and unchanging. Those who support or pander to changing the 6th commandment of God are in grave sin and if they take Holy Communion harboring this evil they are in deadly eternal sin if not repented from! Period!
Well, we can argue about what degree of change merits the use of the word 'huge' but the following paragraph taken from a very good article on the matter illustrates the practical difference in behaviour since the beginning of the last century: In the late 19th century and the early 20th century, the general habit of the faithful was to refrain from Holy Communion except when the sacrament of Penance had been received the day before, typically at Christmas and Easter. Infrequent reception of Holy Communion was not a sign of indifference to the Faith and the sacraments. This practice was a virtue of the times. It represented the awe and reverence worthy of the Blessed Sacrament, Our Lord Jesus Christ. Pope St. Pius X was suggesting that that same awe and reverence worthy of the Blessed Sacrament be expressed by frequent reception. https://www.catholicstand.com/liturgical-discipline/
While you may be correct in what you say above, the controversial aspects of AL do not conflict with Jesus' words on divorce and remarriage. It doesn't matter how many times you and others suggest otherwise, the AL changes are concerned only with matters related to Church discipline on the reception of Holy Communion.
The discipline that PF is open to employ is at odds with the doctrine of divorce and remarriage. You only need to read what St John Paul wrote on this truth in his encyclical. Which states the church has no authority to change this teaching. If anyone, by now, can't see the trickery in word language being employed by Pope Francis and his willing minions to usurp the church explicit teachings then there is little hope for the church but watch it self destruct till God raises it anew through its purification already underway.
Um, am I the only one who thinks this is rather tricky (and abusive type) language being used....once again..... by the Pope? Only he could twist such matters of collection as having the meaning of "paying for Mass"! People who don't wish to give/donate at offering time already don't do so. No one is forcing the issue. But then even our Lord put a little emphasis on the matter of giving....even better to give, from the heart, like the widow who gave all she had. So is there a responsibility for us to pay for the temple of God where He is "housed" on earth and the services that go with that that also take time and money? Are repairs just going to get done by magic? And what about social responsibility (like taking care of pregnant mothers to help them decide against abortion)...at our parish that is done just before or after Mass, often with a talk given to explain just what is done with the money.....I mean the Pope sure doesn't mind making "certain" groups feel guilty or shaming them for not giving more to his own chosen causes. I doubt if too many feel that they may be "paying for Mass" as he puts it. Another rather self anointing talk, appealing again mainly to division between the faithful to my way if thinking.....followed up with a really non-contrasting topic of the Eucharist Itself to put some kind of personal seal of devotion to the first point. SO! Let's start that crusade of "not paying for Mass because we're just forced to do so" and just let Notre Dame in Paris continue its demise via rot. Believe it or not....there are good responsible Catholics who give out of a good conscience rather than approach such matters as somehow only "forced" upon them. And those who feel they cannot do so are not having any kind of spotlight shone on them these days. He may just have forgotten that some who openly refrain from giving do so as well because they don't like how many "temples" shame God as well as the rather godless homilies offered to them in those places! And they don't care what people think! There's more to it than such easy simplifications perhaps really meant in service for other motives. Sorry, ....just being your friendly neighborhood curmudgeon today!
If ten different bishops' conferences interpret AL ten different ways, that will result in dividing the Church. Our Church is to be ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC, and APOSTOLIC. If ten different bishops' conferences change the words of the liturgy in ten different ways that will result in dividing the Church. Again, our Church is to be ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC. I see that you are a believer in Medjugorje. As such, you would do well to quit trumpeting every modernist move that Pope Francis and others are making. The Virgin has said we are to fight AGAINST modernism, not defend it.
I don't know how you can argue such a minor suggestion as 'huge' disciplinary change. Yet, even this minute change in practice proved greatly counter-productive. How catastrophic is the genuinely huge 'paradigm' change to permitting recalcitrant mortal sinners to receive Holy (?) Communion going to be? Inasmuch as it facilitates and practicably encourages the sin of adultery, forbidden by a Commandment and by Christ, it goes beyond mere Eucharistic discipline. Already it has been asserted that not continuing adulterous sex may be what constitutes the actual mortal sin. This has nothing to do with discipline, but represents a complete inversion of God's law, but it is the inevitable consequence of this confusing and heretical document.
Well he better get the word out to the guys working in the St. Peter’s sacristy. There is a sign in there that tells you that the donation for having a mass said is €10!
Yes, but this is a mere general habit of the people at the time. Someone could still practice this today and it would be absolutely fine. Habits and customs do not change Church Teaching. If anyone who lived at that time went into the confessional and told the priest that they were in an adulterous relationship that they intended to continue, but wanted to receive absolution so they could receive Holy Communion the priest would have looked at them like they had three heads. He would have handed them a basic catechism and told them to go back to studying the basics because they had absolutely no understanding of the sacraments of confession, marriage, and the Eucharist.
You're not the only one. You hit the nail on the head with your self-anointing assessment. All this disdain for money from the Pope who tapped up that American charity for $25 million to bail out the hospital in Rome mired in financial scandals. Funny how he turned to rich Americans for help despite his barely veiled contempt for the US. As to his orthodox description of the Blessed Eucharist. People should realise by now that often the message Pope Francis is conveying lies in what he omits to say rather than what he actually says. We get the Eucharist from the Consecration at Holy Mass - which has always been described as the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass where we Catholics are transported back in time to the eternal and perfect sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. In recent times, there has been a trend in Catholicism to sideline the sacrificial aspect of Holy Mass in favour of the more Protestant-friendly description of "The Lord's Table". Notice how he mentions the need to build communion "with everyone". Protestants also believe that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ. Where they differ from Catholics is whether or not what appear to be bread and wine remain bread and wine or are transubstantiated with only the appearance of bread and wine remaining. We are being softened up for the Church introducing open Communion. It started with public adulterers who give public witness to their dissent from Church teaching and by extension to people in same sex unions or people living in common law marriages. Protestants married to Catholics are next. When that's passed with barely a whimper from the hierarchy, the next stage is Communion for anyone who shows up.
I agree, thank you Dolours for pointing this out - I was maybe being naive. In your line of thought It is indeed interesting to note that the Pope emphasizes “faith, it is act of faith”. It made me wonder if theologically speaking, the transubstantion is a matter of reason or faith, or both. Protestants would probably agree it is a matter of faith and faith only ...
Wow, definitely on point, Delours. Thank you, I think! The crevice has gotten so deep and wide, praying that we are rescued before we all fall in.
