Posted on 05/12/2016 5:42:08 AM PDT by ebb tide
I wonder what (if anything) Pope Francis thinks about the possibility of “transgender” deacons.
" 351 In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments. Hence, "I want to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with the Lord's mercy" (Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium [24 November 2013], 44: AAS 105 [2013], 1038). I would also point out that the Eucharist "is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak" (ibid., 47: 1039).
This footnote does not say one word about admitting divorced and remarried Catholics to Holy Communion without repentance for their sin of adultery, and amendment of life.
What it actually says --- the words, ebb tide, the words ---is that Confession and Communion are available "in certain cases."
In what cases? It doesn't say. But we know from previous Papal teachings, from the Catechism, and from Canon Law that Confession is available if the couple now living in civil-marriage adultery are willing to either separate entirely, or renounce their sexual relationship and live together in continence.
So that would be "a certain case."
Another "certain case" could be if one of the parties is receiving the Last Rites, and wishes to confess and receive Communion. If the person repents of their sin, and especially since it is unlikely they are ever going to resume adulterous relations again, this person could receive "the help of the Sacraments."
Likewise if the couple simply don't have sexual relations anymore, for whatever reason (age, health conditions or whatever) and one of the partners repents of the sin and intends no further sin of this sort --- then yes, the Sacraments could help.
Is that what the Pope had in mind? Who knows? But in any case, the footnote CAN be interpreted in a solid and orthodox fashion, and thus MUST be interpreted so.
It's a devilish vague footnote, a strawman footnote, a devious, elided, wink-wink of a footnote--- don't think I didn't notice that --- but it does not authorize any general relaxation of the norm, or even indicate any specific exceptions, that a person in mortal sin must repent, confess, be absolved and intend to amend their life, before being admitted to Holy Communion.
I repeat a point I have made many times before: the fault is not in formal heresy (that wasn't done), or even in the official abrogating abrogation of a single sentence of the Catechism or of Canon Law (that wasn't done either), but in injecting this maddening ambiguity and evasion into the texts.
That's where the fault is: and of course, we have to fight it.
OK. Have you contacted your bishop and asked for a clarification? How is your diocese going to handle it?
"Don’t even try playing blind, deaf and dumb with me"
is insulting, contemptuous talk. It calls my integrity into question. I do not accept it.
To re-emphasize my statement of playing deaf, dumb and blind, you seem to have glossed over the plural use of the word, "sacraments". Otherwise, maybe you or Francis or Lombardi could tell us what other Sacraments, besides that of the Sacrament of Penance, should be made available to those unrepentant, Catholics living in a public, mortal state of sin who are in "irregular" sexual unions (whether they be pre-marital, sodomite, adulterous or polygamous).
Thanks in advance.
Two sacraments are mentioned in #351, Confession and Communion. So there’s your plural. It does NOT say they are to be given to unrepentant Catholics. In fact, as you know, Confession without repentance is not only invalid, but sacrilegious. Repentance -— which includes Amendment of Life -— is a constitutive element of the Sacrament of Penance.
Sinners are being called to repentance, BECAUSE a valid Confession is predicated upon repentance.
And after a valid Confession, Communion is once more offered to the penitent.
Other Sacraments? I mentioned the Last Rites, which would include Anointing of the Sick.
Again it was never suggested that it would be of any spiritual help to encourage an *unrepentant* person to make an invalid confession.
You’re welcome.
I call B.S. The entire footnote is addressing "irregular" immoral unions without a call for withdrawal from such unions. Mercy without charity (aka love) is worthless and a call for sacrilege of the Body of Christ. I'm sorry you can't comprehend that.
The notorious footnote boggles everyone because it is so inapt for actually answering the presumed question. Nevertheless, since repentance in a constitutive element of every valid Confession, a call to Confession is a call to repentance. The words -— the actual words, ebb tide -— do not contradict this.
The fault is in the elision.
Please try to comprehend that.
So what’s your idea of a “valid” Confession of someone who continues to remain in an irregular union after said confession? Francis, Schonborn and Kasper think it’s personal discretion. Otherwise, why hold two jury-rigged SinNods to wink at such unions?
P.S. There are only seven sacraments and Extreme Unction is one of them. None of them are to be given to Catholics in a state of mortal sin until they receive a valid absolution in the Sacrament of Confession. And may God help those poor souls who confess their sins to the likes of Francis, Schonborn, Kasper and their ilk. I fear those prelates will dull, if not rob, those poor souls of their sense of sin, as is already obvious on this forum.
No, it does not boggle everyone. Those with eyes to see and ears to hear know exactly what the footnote means and they have started a fire of resistance. In my opinion, you're manning a hose to put out said fire.
It’s funny how you’re bringing up Confession and sincere repentance, when AL never did, or glossed over it.
That [elision and ambiguity] is where the fault is: and of course, we have to fight it. A call to fight is not the same as an attempt to "put out the fire of resistance."
Please pay attention tho what I actually say, instead of refuting what I didn't say.
And have you contacted your bishop?
Good night, ebb tide, and God bless.
You have never said we have to fight it. And by “it”, I assume you mean Pope Francis and his deliberate ambiguity. Why do you talk around Pope Francis?
Second to last paragraph.
So... have you written to your bishop?
I am Catholic and went to Catholic school...
What I originally typed was an incomplete statement, which I later corrected in another post. What I meant to say was that deacons must be married prior becoming a deacon, if they ever plan to be married - otherwise, if they are unmarried when they become a deacon, they are supposed to remain unmarried celibate.
Exactly, and thank you for taking the time to make that correction. Good clarification.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.