«Communion for remarried does not affect the doctrine but discipline»

«COMMUNION FOR REMARRIED DOES NOT AFFECT THE DOCTRINE BUT DISCIPLINE»

.

 

Author of Patmos Island Editorial
Author
Drafting
Island of Patmos

.

.

 

 

Andrea Tornielli
the journalist and writer Andrea Tornielli, Vatican correspondent of the newspaper The Print

The Vatican de The Print Andrea Tornielli published today on Vatican Insider the interview with one of the Fathers of’Patmos Island. Responding to questions, the Dominican theologian Giovanni Cavalcoli clarifies one of the debated issues and burning controversy especially outside of the Synod on the Family.

.

.

To read the interview click WHO

 

 

.

.

.

.

.

About isoladipatmos

9 thoughts on "«Communion for remarried does not affect the doctrine but discipline»

  1. Communion for divorced and remarried profane three Sacraments (Penance, Eucharist,Wedding) and Cavalcoli (no longer part of the Catholic Church) It has the courage to say it would be only a disciplinary measure: but because the Cavalcoli instead of using beating about the bush does not say clearly that he and Ariel are on the heretic line Kasper (he is not part of the Catholic Church) and then the other heretic head Bergoglio? at least it would save the confusion to consider such people still in the Church of Christ.

  2. http://blog.messainlatino.it/2015/10/ma-e-proprio-padre-cavalcoli.htm
    DFR writes:
    It is hard to believe that such an interview might have been actually issued by one of the most intransigent scourge of Karl Rahner;
    Surprising and contradictory ideas about
    the existence of a "state of mortal sin"
    the provisions of the penitent,
    Sacred Tradition
    Spiritual provisions for access to the Communion are not recognized as "moral norms" deeply rooted in Sacred Scripture (as is the living Magisterium of the Church teaches, cf.. esort. apost. Family company, n. 84: AAS 74 (1982) 185), but they are reduced to "pastoral and liturgical norms".

    Only words of a “friend” disappointed?

  3. Rev. Father,
    humbly, making my, I submit to this troubling question of
    http://www.iltimone.org/33771,News.html

    You CAN canonize A POPE AND AFTER ONE YEAR TO THROW IN THE MACERO MAGISTERIUM EUCHARIST AND HIS PREDECESSORS, FATHERS OF THE CHURCH INCLUDED?

    And’ She might also have contributed to the drafting dell'Encilica of St. John Paul II, Ecclesia de Eucharistia, 17 April, Holy thursday, year 2003, Year of the Rosary

    36. 3 Along these lines, the Catechism of the Catholic Church rightly stipulates: "Anyone conscious of a grave sin, It must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to communion ". I would therefore like to reiterate that exists in the Church and vigerà always the rule by which the Council of Trent gave concrete expression to the Apostle Paul's stern warning saying that, at the end of a worthy reception of the Eucharist, "One must first confess one's sins, when one is aware of mortal sin ".

    I can think of a poor confused sinner?

  4. In addition to:
    http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20000706_declaration_it.html

    Only a few quotes:

    “The Code of Canon Law states that: "Do not be admitted to holy communion the excommunicated or interdicted, after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin " (can. 915). In recent years, some authors have argued, based on different arguments, that this canon would not be applicable to faithful who are divorced and remarried…
    1. The prohibition found in the cited canon, by its nature, It derived from divine law and transcends the domain of positive ecclesiastical laws: latter can not introduce legislative changes which would oppose the doctrine of the Church…
    2. Any interpretation of can. 915 that is opposed to its substantive content, He declared uninterruptedly by the Magisterium and by the discipline of the Church throughout the centuries, It is clearly misleading. One can not confuse respect for the law words (cf.. can. 17) with the improper use of the same words as tools to relativize or empty the substance of the sacraments.

    “[in] If a divorced, remarried civilly, who rediscovered faith in games played: we assume it has been abandoned by his wife, who is remarried with the wrong idea to rebuild their family, and that he can no longer return with the first true only wife (maybe this was taken back with another man and had children by him); this brother, while praying and actively participating in parish life, well-liked by the pastor and the faithful, aware of his state of sin and even stubborn to want to justify, He lives as husband and wife with his wife married civilly, failing to live with her as a brother and sister. In this case, the choice of approaching the new wife is a perfectly free and conscious act, and what was said by § 1735 the Catechism of the Catholic Church can not be applied in any way. "

    An effective refutation of his father Cavalcoli arguments seems to find me here:

    http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1351141

    Advice, among others, these steps:
    "It's still the question in-depth, keeping in mind the distinction between the objective situation of sin and mitigating circumstances, since "the imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or nullified" by various "psychological or social factors" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1735)”.

    In these last lines of § 122 dell ' "Instrumentum laboris", please refer to § 1735 the Catechism of the Catholic Church to support "the distinction between the objective situation of sin and mitigating circumstances", a view to possible admission to the sacraments of "divorced and remarried". What does the § actually 1735 the Catechism? Let's read it in full:

    "The imputability or responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by, dall'inavvertenza, from violence, fear, by customs, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors "...

  5. I cite in defense of p.Cavalcoli
    The infallibility as things not to pastoral moral and faith. the documents of Vatican II are not invested with infallibility there where we speak of pastoral.
    Maybe, p. Cavalcoli. traditionalist always, as the article says,, He wanted to express themselves in terms of private guide of souls. Coexistence is not good for the couple, but if the two have children, they must be educated. True that the two may live in continence and educate their children as husband and wife there where possible and always there where it is possible to carry out the demands of marriage recognition void.
    In summary::
    to) the Magisterium, Tradition and Scripture do not change
    b) the rule MUST be restrictive as possible
    (c)) in the confessional or private guide in the soul must go to fathom, to verify, probe and guide you step by step the soul: 1) where possible to stop the coexistence; 2) where it is not possible (children, economic issues, serious diseases and care of companion) check the previous marriage (if you celebrated in Church) and request verification / void; 3) verify the real repentance of the wrong done or shortly.

  6. Rev. Father,
    his young brother P. Thomas Michelet Op in an interview published today
    http://www.lanuovabq.it/it/articoli-nessuno-puo-modificare-la-legge-divina-per-questo-non-e-lecita-leucarestia-ai-divorziati-14148.htm

    a quick read I seem to express a different position compared to its. The article quoted a him recent and comprehensive study on the subject published by
    http://novaetvetera.ch/index.php/fr/la-revue/a-la-une/40-synode-sur-la-famille-la-voie-de-l-ordo-paenitentium

    I “studierò” in the evening.
    I will assess whether to ask other questions, if something does not make it clear.

    Thank you very much.

Leave a Reply