Posted on 05/04/2016 2:18:57 PM PDT by ebb tide
News is now spreading about Cardinal Gerhard Müllers varied remarks on marriage, as well as on the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia itself, during his trip to Spain at the beginning of May. As the Spanish website Infocatolica.com now reports, Cardinal Müller spoke at a presentation of his new book on hope at the Francisco de Vitoria University in Madrid, Spain, where he affirmed and confirmed the traditional view of marriage and the impossibility of changing that clear doctrine.
It is not possible to live in Gods grace while living in a sinful situation, he said, and continued by saying that people living in sin can not receive Holy Communion unless they have received absolution in the sacrament of penance. Müller importantly added that the Church has no power to change the Divine Law and that Not even a pope or council can change that. He also said that it is a misreading of the Popes exhortation that has caused so much polemic, and also that his own book is dedicated to the Pope.
According to the German Catholic newspaper Die Tagespost, Cardinal Müller, who is the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, also made some important statements concerning the question of the remarried divorcees at another talk given at a seminary in Oviedo, Spain. The Tagespost is quoting from the manuscript of Müllers speech, which it will soon publish in its entirety. As this German source now reports, Müller said that there have been different interpretations of Amoris Laetitia, one of them even saying that the door has been opened for the remarried to be admitted to the Sacraments in individual cases. The newspaper continues: The prefect of the Congregation for the Faith is of another opinion. Müller stressed in his talk, and with decisiveness, that there, where Amoris Laetitia speaks in general about situations, without concentrating on the very concrete circumstances for example, in the cases of a civil remarriage after a first sacramental marriage the previous statements of the Churchs Magisterium are still valid with regard to these concrete cases, according to the Tagespost. The newspaper continues: And this applies [according to Müller]clearly to the reception of Holy Communion by remarried divorcees. What has been taught by John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio and by Benedict XVI in Sacramentum Caritatis is still valid in an unchanged way. In this context, the Tagespost which the only prominent nation-wide Catholic newspaper in Germany quotes Cardinal Müller verbatim:
There have been different claims that Amoris Laetitia has rescinded this (prior) discipline, because it allows, at least in certain cases, the reception of the Eucharist by remarried divorcees without requiring that they change their way of life in accord with Familiaris Consortio 84 namely, by giving up their new bond or by living as brothers and sisters.
Cardinal Müller responds to this line of argumentation with the following words:
If Amoris Laetitia intended to rescind such a deeply rooted and such a weighty discipline, it would have expressed itself in a clear manner and it would have given the reasons for it. However, such a statement with such a meaning is not to be found in it [Amoris Laetitia]. Nowhere does the pope put into question the arguments of his predecessors. They [the arguments]are not based upon the subjective guilt of these our brothers and sisters, but, rather, upon the visible, objective way of life which is in opposition to the words of Christ.
Moreover, the German cardinal also discusses the question as to whether there is not a certain change to be found in footnote 351 of the papal document, where it says that the Church could offer the help of the Sacraments to those who are living in an objective situation of sin. He responds to this question with the following words: Without entering into this question in a deeper way, it is sufficient to point out that this footnote refers in a general way to objective situations of sin, and not to the specific cases of the civilly remarried divorcees. Because this latter situation has its own distinctive characteristics which differentiate it from other situations. Here Cardinal Müller repeats the Churchs teaching that the remarried divorcees live in opposition to the Sacrament of Marriage and therefore also in opposition to the Discipline of the Sacraments, as the Tagespost paraphrases the cardinals words. Therefore, in Müllers own words, the footnote 351 does not touch upon the earlier discipline. The norms of FC 84 and SC 29 and their application in all cases continue to remain valid.
The Tagespost also presents another extended statement by Müller concerning the remarried divorcees:
The principle is that no one can really want to receive a Sacrament the Eucharist without having at the same time the will to live according to the other Sacraments, among them the Sacrament of Marriage. Whoever lives in a way that contradicts the marital bond opposes the visible sign of the Sacrament of Marriage. With regard to his existence in the flesh, he turns himself into a counter-sign of the indissolubility, even if he subjectively is not guilty. Exactly because his life in the flesh is in opposition to the sign, he cannot be part of the higher Eucharistic sign in which the incarnate Love of Christ is manifest by receiving Holy Communion. If the Church were to admit such a person to Holy Communion, she would be then committing that act which Thomas Aquinas calls a falseness in the sacred sacramental signs.
Where does he do that? It seems to me he is just going with the same old ambiguity line.
Yet Yeshua ministered to prostitutes and tax collectors, the basic dregs of society at that time and He said nothing about denying his Last Supper to anyone.
Of course, they all fold in the end.
With the 'conservative' Vatican-2 types finally taking umbrage at something, what is to be hoped for is an enlightening to all the evil that has been done since 1958, and not more confusion that will result in the loss of more souls.
That is, a 'good' cop, bad cop scenario will not result in the Truth of Christ when each is outside the fold.
For the record, we who hold the See vacant, and the V-2 edifice an impostor, do not wish you ill, but hope you will find your way through the coming turmoil, as the following article elucidates:
Amoris Laetitia and the Coming Schism: Retrospect and Prospect
What part of “Catholic Caucus” do you not understand?
First Epistle Of Saint Paul To The Corinthians. 11:26-29
[26] For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. [27] Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. [28] But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. [29] For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.
AL, Footnote 301: "Hence it is can no longer simply be said that all those in any irregular situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace."
It seems to me that Muller and AL (i.e. Francis) are arguing two different issues. Muller is saying that those living in "sinful situations" are not living in a state of grace and cannot receive Communion. I think Francis would happily assent to this statement because he's kicked the can further down the road.
Francis is saying in AL footnote 351 that what actually constitutes a "sinful situation" is no longer clear.
IOW, Muller is arguing theology and doctrine and Francis is arguing pastoral practicalities. Muller is saying that those living in mortal sin cannot receive Communion. Francis is saying..."Yeah we know. We haven't changed that doctrine as we keep telling you. We're just not sure who's actually living in mortal sin."
Muller is fanning the air here. In order attack this issue properly, he needs to 1) mention AL by name and it's problematic parts and 2) make clear that this exhortation cannot be used in the way both Schonborn and Francis said it could be used.
Wow. Just read the quick headline. Sorry to have intruded into your caucus. I beg forgiveness.
1 Corinthians 27-22
Therefore whoever eats the bread
or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily
will have to answer
for the body and blood of the Lord.
A person should examine himself,
and so eat the bread and drink the cup.
For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body,
eats and drinks judgment on himself.
That is why many among you are ill and infirm,
and a considerable number are dying.
If we discerned ourselves,
we would not be under judgment;
but since we are judged by the Lord,
we are being disciplined
so that we may not be condemned along with the world.
Pope Francis: I can say yes, period*. But it would be an answer that is too small. I recommend that you read the presentation of Cardinal Schonborn, who is a great theologian. He was the secretary for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, and he knows the doctrine of the faith well. In that presentation, your question will find an answer.
(Full Text of Pope Francis' in-flight interview from Lesbos to Rome, Catholic News Agency, April 16, 2016)
*The correct translation here is the word period. The translation from Catholic News Agency says many, but this is clearly a mistranslation of the Italian word punto, which Francis used.
As for Schonborn's presentation that Bergoglio recommends, the following excerpt which proves they are advocating a "de facto' ANYTHING GOES:
Schonborns Presentation of Amoris Laetitia
" In the sense of this via caritatis (AL 306), the Pope affirms, in a humble and simple manner, in a note (351) that the help of the sacraments may also be given in certain cases. But for this purpose he does not offer us case studies or recipes, but instead simply reminds us of two of his famous phrases: I want to remind priests that the confessional should not be a torture chamber but rather an encounter with the Lords mercy (EG 44), and the Eucharist is not a prize for the perfect but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak (EG 47)."
"Is it an excessive challenge for pastors, for spiritual guides and for communities if the discernment of situations is not regulated more precisely? Pope Francis acknowledges this concern: I understand those who prefer a more rigorous pastoral care which leaves no room for confusion (AL 308). However, he challenges this, remarking that We put so many conditions on mercy that we empty it of its concrete meaning and real significance. That is the worst way of watering down the Gospel (AL 311)."
Muller could well point out that neither doctrine nor discipline can be changed by forgettable footnotes, quirky straw-man quips, winks, nods, and knowing glances.
It is shameful that a pope writes this way in an APostolic Exhortation. Avoidance, equivocation and still more confusion with each "clarification".
Remember, also, that Francis, said, following the question immediately below:
>>Gianguido Vecchi:
Holy Father, during this visit too, you have frequently spoken of mercy. With regard to the reception of the sacraments by the divorced and remarried, is there the possibility of a change in the Churchs discipline? That these sacraments might be an opportunity to bring these people closer, rather than a barrier dividing them from the other faithful?
Pope Francis:
This is an issue which frequently comes up. Mercy is something much larger than the one case you raised. I believe that this is the season of mercy. This new era we have entered, and the many problems in the Church like the poor witness given by some priests, problems of corruption in the Church, the problem of clericalism for example have left so many people hurt, left so much hurt. The Church is a mother: she has to go out to heal those who are hurting, with mercy. If the Lord never tires of forgiving, we have no other choice than this: first of all, to care for those who are hurting. The Church is a mother, and she must travel this path of mercy. And find a form of mercy for all. When the prodigal son returned home, I dont think his father told him: You, sit down and listen: what did you do with the money? No! He celebrated! Then, perhaps, when the son was ready to speak, he spoke. The Church has to do this, when there is someone not only wait for them, but go out and find them! That is what mercy is. And I believe that this is a kairos: this time is a kairos of mercy. But John Paul II had the first intuition of this, when he began with Faustina Kowalska, the Divine Mercy He had something, he had intuited that this was a need in our time. With reference to the issue of giving communion to persons in a second union (because those who are divorced can receive communion, there is no problem, but when they are in a second union, they cant ), I believe that we need to look at this within the larger context of the entire pastoral care of marriage. And so it is a problem. But also a parenthesis the Orthodox have a different practice. They follow the theology of what they call oikonomia, and they give a second chance, they allow it. But I believe that this problem and here I close the parenthesis must be studied within the context of the pastoral care of marriage.<<
It’s still on the Vatican’s website. So please stop kidding yourself about Francis’ evil intents to attack the indissolubility of the sacrament of marriage.
Not allowed to answer since I’m not a member of this caucus.
OK, thanks for your gracious understanding about the Catholic Caucus.
If you want, you can PM me. But, gee, I can’t answer *that* because my account has been semi-suspended or something. :o|
The "safe place" of Caucus (yes, I am using the term "safe place" ironically) was set up so threads wouldn't have to be all-polemics, all-the-time. There must be places where we can discuss our own religious "theory and practice" without people hijacking the thread with repetitive OCD provocative drivel like "But c'mon, you Catholics worship a Mary-goddess, everybody knows that..."
Insert eye-rolling semi-smiley.
I notice that many potential conservative allies (e.g. Mormons) have been entirely driven out of Free Republic because of gang-bangers in the Religion Forum. (I don't mean robust debate, I mean drawing blood and leaving welts.) That's one reason FR has forfeited the growth in membership we really need.
I hope the Religion Forum --- the roughest 'hood in FR-town--- will not be permitted to be the "beating stick" that drives members away from FR. What a disgrace upon the Holy Name.
Love you too, SkyDancer!
The reason Mormons have left is not that they were driven out. They left because they didn't like the questions raised on what they believe. And when it was pointed out various incongruities in the Mormon religion they left and not without some caustic remarks rendered to the people here.
Jude 1:3
Regards in Christ, Janey
What I object to is the personal rebarbatives: as if sneering and disrespect count as discussion.
As anyone who knows me knows, I like a good give-and-take, and I respect the people who willactually engage and point out flaws and weaknesses on a basis of reason.
I do not like, however, that everything, everything, has a tendency to transmogrify into boilerplate cut-and-paste polemics.
Every forum doesn't have to be a "Mr. Rogers Let's-Just-Share" venue. But there should at least be an opportunity for that, shouldn't there?
I have seen FReepers drive people out of the RF, never to return, and then high-five each other: "We won!"
I want to answer, "What you mean 'we,' Kemosabe."
The thing is that when Mormons are confronted with an incontrovertible fact they go all beat up on you. Like who is their god for a start. And who do they say/believe Yeshua is.
I caution however against the inroads of the proud spirit. I am not against argumentation per se, except to say it's not evangelization and often ends up being anti-evangelization: it's seeing how many of the other-faith buggers we can crush and flick away. To what purpose? Are lambs being brought back to Christ, the true Christ, our Savior and our God?
This is not a criticism of you, SkyDancer. It is a warning against the dangers of spiritual pride and a contentious spirit that would beset us all.
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.