Chuy\u1ec7n r\u01b0\u1edbc l\u1ec5 c\u1ee7a ng\u01b0\u1eddi t\u00e1i h\u00f4n v\u1eabn c\u00f2n l\u00e0 m\u1ed9t tranh lu\u1eadn n\u00f3ng b\u1ecfng. <\/b><\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
B\u00e0i c\u1ee7a Sandro Magister<\/i><\/p>\n
Ngu\u1ed3n: http:\/\/chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it\/articolo\/1350815?eng=y<\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Nh\u1eefng quan \u0111i\u1ec3m m\u1edbi t\u1eeb h\u1ed3ng y Brandm\u00fcller ch\u1ed1ng l\u1ea1i c\u00e1c \u00fd ki\u1ebfn c\u1ee7a Kasper. T\u1eeb v\u1ecb t\u1ed5ng \u0111\u1ea1i di\u1ec7n \u1edf Chur v\u00e0 t\u1eeb b\u1ea9y nh\u00e0 th\u1ea7n h\u1ecdc v\u00e0 gi\u00e1o lu\u1eadt h\u1ecdc c\u1ee7a b\u1ed1n qu\u1ed1c gia. Nh\u01b0ng t\u1ea1i ph\u00e2n khoa th\u1ea7n h\u1ecdc Regensburg c\u00f3 cu\u1ed9c b\u00e0n lu\u1eadn v\u1ec1 kh\u1ea3 th\u1ec3 c\u1ee7a cu\u1ed9c h\u00f4n nh\u00e2n th\u1ee9 hai. <\/i><\/p>\n <\/p>\n ROMA \u2013 Ng\u00e0y 11 th\u00e1ng S\u00e1u n\u0103m 2014- \u0110\u1ee9c gi\u00e1o ho\u00e0ng Phanxic\u00f4 kh\u00f4ng th\u00edch cu\u1ed9c tranh lu\u1eadn trong th\u01b0\u1ee3ng h\u1ed9i \u0111\u1ed3ng s\u1eafp t\u1edbi c\u1ee9 nh\u1eafm v\u00e0o vi\u1ec7c r\u01b0\u1edbc l\u1ec5 c\u1ee7a ng\u01b0\u1eddi ly d\u1ecb v\u00e0 t\u00e1i h\u00f4n. Ng\u00e0i cho c\u00e1c nh\u00e0 b\u00e1o bi\u1ebft nh\u01b0 th\u1ebf trong chuy\u1ebfn bay t\u1eeb \u0110\u1ea5t Th\u00e1nh tr\u1edf v\u1ec1 Roma. R\u00f5 r\u00e0ng Ng\u00e0i \u01b0a chu\u1ed9ng m\u1ed9t l\u1ed1i suy t\u01b0 \u201cto\u00e0n di\u1ec7n<\/i>\u201d v\u00e0 to\u00e0n c\u1ea7u v\u1ec1 gia \u0111\u00ecnh.<\/p>\n Nh\u01b0ng \u0111i\u1ec1u l\u00f4i k\u00e9o s\u1ef1 ch\u00fa \u00fd m\u1ecdi ng\u01b0\u1eddi \u0111\u1eb7t v\u00e0o \u0111i\u1ec3m g\u00e2y tranh lu\u1eadn ch\u00ednh l\u00e0 b\u00e0i d\u1eabn nh\u1eadp c\u1ee7a h\u1ed3ng y Walter Kasper tr\u00ecnh b\u00e0y trong cu\u1ed9c m\u1eadt ngh\u1ecb th\u00e1ng Hai v\u1eeba qua. M\u1ed9t b\u00e0i tr\u00ecnh b\u00e0y m\u00e0 \u0111\u1ee9c Phanxic\u00f4 l\u1eadp t\u1ee9c d\u01b0\u01a1ng c\u1edd gi\u00f3ng tr\u1ed1ng ca t\u1ee5ng, v\u00e0 cho c\u00e1c h\u1ed3ng y bi\u1ebft ng\u00e0i th\u1ea5y b\u00e0i n\u00e0y r\u1ea5t \u201cth\u00e2m s\u00e2u<\/i>\u201d x\u00e9t theo kh\u00eda c\u1ea1nh th\u1ea7n h\u1ecdc, \u201cnghi\u00eam ch\u1ec9nh,<\/i>\u201d \u201csuy t\u01b0 th\u1ea5u \u0111\u00e1o trong c\u1ea7u nguy\u1ec7n<\/i>,\u201d v\u00e0 Juan Carlos Scannone, tu s\u0129 d\u00f2ng T\u00ean ng\u01b0\u1eddi Achentina, gi\u00e1o s\u01b0 th\u1ea7n h\u1ecdc c\u1ee7a Jorge Mario Gergoglio l\u00fac c\u00f2n tr\u1ebb, \u0111\u00e3 ca t\u1ee5ng c\u00f2n r\u1ea7m r\u1ed9 h\u01a1n trong t\u1edd \u201cLa Civilt\u00e0 Cattolica<\/i>\u201d s\u1ed1 m\u1edbi nh\u1ea5t.<\/p>\n S\u1ef1 th\u1ec3 l\u00e0, k\u1ec3 t\u1eeb cu\u1ed9c m\u1eadt ngh\u1ecb \u0111\u00f3, cu\u1ed9c tranh lu\u1eadn v\u1ec1 vi\u1ec7c r\u01b0\u1edbc l\u1ec5 c\u1ee7a ng\u01b0\u1eddi t\u00e1i h\u00f4n \u0111\u00e3 l\u00e0m rung chuy\u1ec3n Gi\u00e1o h\u1ed9i c\u1ea3 trong h\u00e0ng gi\u00e1o ph\u1ea9m cao c\u1ea5p nh\u1ea5t.<\/p>\n Ch\u00ednh h\u1ed3ng y Kasper \u0111\u00e3 l\u00ean ti\u1ebfng l\u1ea7n n\u1eefa \u1ee7ng h\u1ed9 vi\u1ec7c r\u01b0\u1edbc l\u1ec5 c\u1ee7a ng\u01b0\u1eddi t\u00e1i h\u00f4n, trong m\u1ed9t b\u00e0i ph\u1ecfng v\u1ea5n t\u1ec9 m\u1ec9 tr\u00ean t\u1edd \u201cCommonweal<\/i>.\u201d<\/p>\n Nh\u01b0ng c\u0169ng c\u00f3 nh\u1eefng ph\u1ea3n \u1ee9ng c\u00f4ng khai ch\u1ed1ng \u0111\u1ed1i l\u1ea1i Kasper, g\u1ed3m c\u00e1c h\u1ed3ng y Gerhard Ludwig M\u00fcller, Carlo Caffarra, Velasio De Paolis, v\u00e0 Walter Brandm\u00fcller.<\/p>\n M\u1edbi \u0111\u00e2y, v\u1ecb h\u1ed3ng y \u0111\u01b0\u1ee3c nh\u1eafc \u0111\u1ebfn cu\u1ed1i c\u00f9ng \u0111\u00e3 \u0111\u01b0a ra m\u1ed9t l\u1eadp lu\u1eadn th\u1ee9 hai d\u00e0nh cho v\u1ea5n \u0111\u1ec1 n\u00e0y, \u0111\u01b0\u1ee3c c\u00f4ng b\u1ed1 b\u1eb1ng ti\u1ebfng \u00dd tr\u00ean trang m\u1ea1ng d\u00e0nh cho suy t\u01b0 th\u1ea7n h\u1ecdc:<\/p>\n > Connubio tra potere e diritto<\/strong><\/a> Ban \u0111\u1ea7u, Lothair c\u00f3 m\u1ed9t ng\u01b0\u1eddi y\u00eau, t\u00ean Waldrada, sau \u0111\u00f3 \u00f4ng c\u01b0\u1edbi b\u00e0 qu\u00fd t\u1ed9c Teutberga v\u00ec l\u1ee3i \u00edch ch\u00ednh tr\u1ecb. V\u1ec1 sau \u00f4ng chia tay v\u1edbi b\u00e0 qu\u00fd t\u1ed9c n\u00e0y \u0111\u1ec3 c\u01b0\u1edbi ng\u01b0\u1eddi t\u00ecnh tr\u01b0\u1edbc kia. V\u00e0 \u00f4ng mu\u1ed1n b\u1eb1ng m\u1ecdi gi\u00e1 \u0111\u1ee9c gi\u00e1o ho\u00e0ng ph\u1ea3i c\u00f4ng nh\u1eadn t\u00ednh h\u1ee3p l\u1ec7 c\u1ee7a cu\u1ed9c h\u00f4n nh\u00e2n th\u1ee9 hai n\u00e0y.<\/p>\n Nh\u01b0ng b\u1ea5t k\u1ec3 vi\u1ec7c vua Lothair \u0111\u01b0\u1ee3c c\u00e1c gi\u00e1m m\u1ee5c c\u1ee7a x\u1ee9 m\u00ecnh h\u1eadu thu\u1eabn, v\u00e0 c\u1ee7a c\u1ea3 ho\u00e0ng \u0111\u1ebf Louis \u0111\u1ec7 Nh\u1ecb. Th\u1eadm ch\u00ed ho\u00e0ng \u0111\u1ebf \u0111\u00e3 t\u1eebng d\u1ee5ng binh \u0111\u1ec3 x\u00e2m chi\u1ebfm Roma. V\u00e2y m\u00e0 \u0111\u1ee9c gi\u00e1o ho\u00e0ng Nicholas \u0111\u1ec7 Nh\u1ea5t \u2013 nay \u0111\u00e3 \u0111\u01b0\u1ee3c t\u00f4n k\u00ednh nh\u01b0 m\u1ed9t v\u1ecb th\u00e1nh – v\u1eabn kh\u00f4ng ch\u1ecbu nh\u01b0\u1eddng b\u01b0\u1edbc chi\u1ec1u theo y\u00eau c\u1ea7u c\u1ee7a Lothair v\u00e0 kh\u00f4ng bao gi\u1edd ch\u1ea5p nh\u1eadn cu\u1ed9c h\u00f4n nh\u00e2n th\u1ee9 hai c\u1ee7a vua l\u00e0 h\u1ee3p ph\u00e1p.<\/p>\n H\u1ed3ng y Brandm\u00fcller \u0111\u00e3 thu\u1eadt l\u1ea1i c\u00e1c bi\u1ebfn c\u1ed1 m\u1ed9t c\u00e1ch h\u1ea5p d\u1eabn v\u00e0 ph\u00e2n t\u00edch ch\u00fang t\u1eeb quan \u0111i\u1ec3m l\u1ecbch s\u1eed, lu\u1eadt ph\u00e1p v\u00e0 th\u1ea7n h\u1ecdc.<\/p>\n Ngo\u00e0i ra, ng\u00e0i c\u00f2n n\u00eau l\u00ean r\u1eb1ng b\u00e0i khuy\u1ebfn d\u1ee5 \u0111\u1ee9c Nicholas thuy\u1ebft ph\u1ee5c Lothair l\u00e0m sao \u0111\u1ec3 \u0111\u00f3n nh\u1eadn l\u1ea1i ng\u01b0\u1eddi v\u1ee3 ch\u00ednh th\u1ee9c c\u1ee7a m\u00ecnh l\u00e0 Teutberga, kh\u00f4ng ph\u1ea3i ch\u1ec9 trong h\u00ecnh th\u1ee9c m\u00e0 c\u00f2n v\u1edbi t\u00ecnh y\u00eau ch\u00e2n th\u00e0nh, \u0111\u00e3 ph\u00e1 tan \u201cki\u1ec3u n\u00f3i r\u1eadp khu\u00f4n phi\u1ebfm di\u1ec7n \u0111\u1ecbnh ngh\u0129a vi\u1ec7c hi\u1ec3u bi\u1ebft h\u00f4n nh\u00e2n t\u00ecnh y\u00eau \u0111\u1eb7t n\u1ec1n t\u1ea3ng tr\u00ean m\u1ed1i li\u00ean k\u1ebft thi\u00eang li\u00eang ch\u1ec9 l\u00e0 m\u1ed9t th\u00e0nh t\u1ef1u c\u1ee7a th\u1eddi hi\u1ec7n \u0111\u1ea1i.<\/i>\u201d<\/p>\n Tr\u00edch d\u1eabn d\u01b0\u1edbi \u0111\u00e2y l\u00e0 ph\u1ea7n cu\u1ed1i ti\u1ec3u lu\u1eadn c\u1ee7a Brandm\u00fcller, trong \u0111\u00f3 ng\u00e0i r\u00fat ra m\u1ed9t b\u00e0i h\u1ecdc cho Gi\u00e1o h\u1ed9i ng\u00e0y nay t\u1eeb nh\u1eefng bi\u1ebfn c\u1ed1 l\u1ecbch s\u1eed n\u00e0y.<\/p>\n Nh\u01b0ng sau b\u1ea3n v\u0103n c\u1ee7a Brandm\u00fcller, tr\u00ean trang n\u00e0y, c\u00f2n c\u00f3 ph\u1ea7n k\u1ebft lu\u1eadn c\u1ee7a m\u1ed9t nh\u1eadn \u0111\u1ecbnh kh\u00e1c c\u1ee7a \u0111\u1ee9c \u00f4ng Martin Grichting, t\u1ed5ng \u0111\u1ea1i di\u1ec7n gi\u00e1o ph\u1eadn Chur, Thu\u1ef5 s\u0129, v\u1eeba vi\u1ebft ra m\u1ea5y ng\u00e0y nay \u0111\u1ec3 ch\u1ed1ng l\u1ea1i chuy\u1ec7n cho ng\u01b0\u1eddi t\u00e1i h\u00f4n r\u01b0\u1edbc l\u1ec5.<\/p>\n B\u00e0i nh\u1eadn \u0111\u1ecbnh b\u1eb1ng ti\u1ebfng \u0110\u1ee9c c\u1ee7a Grichting, \u0111\u01b0\u1ee3c c\u00f4ng b\u1ed1 tr\u00ean t\u1edd in “Die Tagespost<\/i>” s\u1ed1 ng\u00e0y M\u1ed3ng 5 th\u00e1ng S\u00e1u:<\/p>\n > Wider die Engf\u00fchrung<\/strong><\/a> > Uscire dal corridoio stretto<\/strong><\/a> Qu\u1ea3 v\u1eady, ng\u00e0i nh\u1ea5n m\u1ea1nh \u0111\u1ebfn c\u00e1i nguy c\u01a1, trong m\u00f4t v\u00e0i x\u1ee9, Gi\u00e1o h\u1ed9i c\u00f3 th\u1ec3 ch\u1ecbu thua s\u1ee9c \u00e9p c\u1ee7a v\u0103n ho\u00e1 v\u00e0 quy\u1ec1n l\u1ef1c \u0111ang th\u1ed1ng tr\u1ecb \u0111\u1ec3 c\u00f3 \u0111\u01b0\u1ee3c c\u00e1i \u1ea3o t\u01b0\u1edfng Gi\u00e1o h\u00f4i \u0111\u01b0\u1ee3c h\u1ecd n\u00e2ng \u0111\u1ee1. V\u00e0 ng\u00e0i \u0111\u01b0a ra v\u00ed d\u1ee5 c\u1ee7a Gi\u00e1o h\u1ed9i Ph\u00e1p, v\u00e0o \u0111\u1ea7u th\u1ebf k\u1ef7 hai m\u01b0\u01a1i, su\u00fdt n\u1eefa \u0111\u00e3 quy thu\u1eadn quy\u1ec1n l\u1ef1c ch\u00ednh tr\u1ecb \u0111\u1ec3 mong gi\u1eef \u0111\u01b0\u1ee3c quy\u1ec1n s\u1edf h\u1eefu t\u00e0i s\u1ea3n c\u1ee7a m\u00ecnh. Ch\u00ednh \u0111\u1ee9c Pi\u00f4 X \u0111\u00e3 ki\u1ec1m ch\u1ebf Gi\u00e1o h\u1ed9i Ph\u00e1p kh\u00f4ng \u0111\u01b0\u1ee3c nh\u01b0\u1ee3ng b\u1ed9, \u201cth\u1eadm ch\u00ed v\u1edbi c\u00e1i gi\u00e1 ph\u1ea3i s\u1ed1ng ngh\u00e8o<\/i>.\u201d<\/p>\n Nh\u01b0ng nh\u1eadn \u0111\u1ecbnh c\u1ee7a v\u1ecb t\u1ed5ng \u0111\u1ea1i di\u1ec7n gi\u00e1o ph\u1eadn Chur c\u00f2n l\u00fd th\u00fa v\u00ec nhi\u1ec1u l\u00fd do kh\u00e1c n\u1eefa, trong ph\u1ea7n m\u1edf \u0111\u1ea7u v\u00e0 k\u1ebft lu\u1eadn c\u1ee7a b\u00e0i vi\u1ebft.<\/p>\n Nh\u01b0 c\u00f3 th\u1ec3 xem trong ph\u1ea7n tr\u00edch d\u1eabn d\u01b0\u1edbi \u0111\u00e2y, ngay sau b\u1ea3n v\u0103n c\u1ee7a h\u1ed3ng y Brandm\u00fcller.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n __________<\/p>\n <\/p>\n LEARNING FROM HISTORY<\/b><\/p>\n <\/p>\n by Walter Brandm\u00fcller <\/b><\/p>\n If history, including the history of the Church, does not content itself with appearing as a collection of episodes that are more or less edifying – and sometimes even entertaining or scandalous – and on account of its results even makes a claim to theological significance, then it is necessary to consider the theological conclusions that emerge from the dispute over the marriage of Lothair II. [. . .] Considering the social position of the persons involved in the case taken into consideration and the dimensions of the conflict, which embraced both politics and the Church, it is not an exaggeration to consider the dispute over the marriage of the Frankish king as a milestone in the long process of the affirmation of Christian marriage norms.<\/p>\n In examining the different stages of this process, we note that under the fundamental aspect, that of theology, there were no doubts. But there was great uncertainty over the application of Christian teaching on marriage in concrete cases, which continued to present themselves in a social situation characterized by the pagan tradition.<\/p>\n In fact, we find in this regard bishops and synods that thought they could dissolve marriages and permit new ones, precisely as happened in the case just described. This observation could lead us to recall a formula forged by Enlightenment-era canon law: “Olim non erat sic,” once it was not so.<\/p>\n Applied to the present: “Once there existed the permission to remarry after a divorce.” So is there some reason that prevents, in the current situation and in the face of the pastoral difficulties of the present, returning to a position already taken in the past and to admitting a “more humane” practice – as one would put it today – of divorce and new marriage?<\/p>\n This therefore raises a question of great theological significance. Its importance emerges when we remember that a similar argument has been made in the area of ecumenical theology. Could one not – this is the question in that arena – more easily persuade the Orthodox to reunification if there were a return to the state of relations between East and West before the excommunications of 1054?<\/p>\n Already around the middle of the 17th century, moreover, there was an appeal – to be precise, by the theologians of “Lutheran orthodoxy” and the school of Helmst\u00e4dt, closer to Melanchthon – to the model of reunification of the “consensus quinquesaecularis”: of a return, that is, to the situation of the doctrine of the faith and of the Church that existed in during the first five centuries and about which there are no controversies today.<\/p>\n Truly fascinating ideas! But do they really offer a key to resolving the problem? Only in appearance. [. . .] Tradition in the technical-theological sense of the term is not a market of antiquity where one can look for and acquire particular desired objects.<\/p>\n “Traditio-paradosis” is instead a dynamic process of organic development consistent with – if I may use this comparison – the Church’s genetic code. But this is a process that does not find adequate counterparts in the profane history of human social forms, in states, in dynasties and so on. Just as the Church itself is an entity “sui generis” with no analogies, so also its practical decisions cannot be compared, “sic et simpliciter,” with those of purely humane and worldly communities.<\/p>\n What is decisive here, instead, is divine revelation. This is the source of the indefectibility of the Church, or the fact that the Church of Christ, as far as its patrimony of faith, sacraments, and hierarchical structure founded on divine institution are concerned, cannot undergo any development that would threaten its identity.<\/p>\n As soon as one takes seriously as a matter of faith the action of the Holy Spirit who dwells in the Church and who, according to the promise of the Divine Teacher, will lead it into all truth, it appears obvious that the principle “olim non erat sic” does not belong to the nature of the Church and therefore cannot be a determining factor for it.<\/p>\n But if the synods mentioned above effectively authorized Lothair II to remarry, was that not also a decision guided by the Holy Spirit? Was it not perhaps an expression of the “traditio”?<\/p>\n The answer to that lies in the concrete form and competency of those synods. [. . .] In the case examined those synods were not at all free, and given the pressure exercised by the king they must undoubtedly be considered as biased, if not in fact corrupt. Their dependence on Lothair II led to such compliance with the wishes of the king that the bishops even violated the law and corrupted the pontifical legates.<\/p>\n Taking into account the circumstances and other irregularities, it was evident that those synods had done anything other than administer justice. It was precisely this kind of experience that led to the norm in canon law that deprives territorial ecclesiastical tribunals of competency over cases concerning the highest authorities of the state and indicates as the only competent forum the tribunal of the pope (1983 Code of Canon Law, canon 1405). [. . .]<\/p>\n One can therefore not consider even remotely that such assemblies could be a place to find the authentic and binding tradition of the Church.<\/p>\n Of course, it is not only the general councils but also the particular synods that can formulate “traditio” in a binding manner. Nonetheless, they can do so only if they themselves correspond to the demands of the authentic tradition in terms of both form and content. This, however – it is good to reiterate this – was not the case with the assemblies of bishops examined here.<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n In tying up the loose ends of the argument just presented, in conclusion allow me to respond to a possible objection that someone could raise and that corresponds to the interpretative scheme of a “history of the victors,” closer to Marxist historical thought. [. . .] This way of considering the events of Church history, and the results of the same, would permit one to see the latter as mere casual products of their own relativity. In other words, one could toss them aside at any moment and set off in other directions.<\/p>\n But this is not possible if one takes as the foundation an authentically Catholic understanding of the Church, as expressed most recently in the constitution “Lumen Gentium” of Vatican Council II.<\/p>\n For this purpose it is necessary – as already observed – for the Church to be able to be certain of the constant help of the Holy Spirit, who is its most intimate vital principle, establishing and guaranteeing its identity in spite of all the changes of history.<\/p>\n In this way, therefore, the effective development of the teaching, sacraments, and hierarchy of divine law are not the casual products of history, but are guided and made possible by the Spirit of God. Because of this such development is irreversible and is open only in the direction of more complete understanding. Tradition in this sense thus has a normative character.<\/p>\n In the case examined, this means that there is no way out of the teaching of unity, sacramentality, and indissolubility rooted in marriage between two baptized persons except for that – inevitable and therefore to be rejected – of maintaining that these are an error to be corrected.<\/p>\n The manner in which Nicholas I proceeded in the new marriage of Lothair II – aware of the principles, unyielding, and fearless – constitutes an important stage of the journey to the affirmation of the teaching on marriage in Germanic culture.<\/p>\n The fact that the pope, and a number of his successors on similar occasions, showed himself to be an advocate for the dignity of the person and the freedom of the weak – who for the most part were women – earned for Nicholas I the respect of historiography, the crown of sanctity, and the title of “Magnus.”<\/p>\n <\/p>\n __________<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n ON THE CONDITIONS OF SACRAMENTAL COMMUNION<\/b><\/p>\n by Martin Grichting <\/b><\/p>\n The upcoming synod, and in particular the question of the divorced who have “remarried” in a civil ceremony, could be an opportunity for new reflection on the conditions that make sacramental communion fruitful and on the frequency of receiving this sacrament.<\/p>\n The Council of Trent did not prescribe any particular frequency. Then the precept of receiving communion at least once a year was established. [. . .] Although afterward many spiritual authors recommended frequent communion, it was only with the decree “Sacra Tridentina Synodus,” issued by the sacred congregation of the council on December 20, 1905, that the turning point came.<\/p>\n This document, promulgated at the initiative of Pope Pius X, stated that frequent and even daily communion was highly commendable, and invited the faithful to receive it often.<\/p>\n Pius X, however, laid down a few conditions for frequent communion. The faithful must not receive it out of habit, for the sake of vanity or human respect. Above all they must be free from grave sin and have the intention of sinning no more, according to the word of Saint Paul: Let each one recognize the body of the Lord and not eat and drink his condemnation by receiving it unworthily (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:27-29).<\/p>\n Even back then, therefore, one could not think of a general and unrestricted invitation to receive sacramental communion, especially since the rules for Eucharistic fasting were much more restrictive than they are today. In many cases, in fact, communion was distributed only during the first Sunday morning Mass.<\/p>\n But unfortunately the conditions for receiving sacramental communion, which at the time of Pius X were still considered obvious, have practically been ignored by the Church in recent decades. In practice, what remains of the guidelines of Pius X today is only the invitation to frequent communion, which is even interpreted as an invitation extended to all present at the celebration. Today sacramental communion is seen as an obligatory part of the rite of the Mass, like making the sign of the cross with holy water or the exchange of the sign of peace.<\/p>\n So what is needed for those “remarried” in a civil ceremony – but not only them – is a change of mentality. If the conditions mentioned by Pope Pius X for approaching sacramental communion were still applied in pastoral practice, the question concerning sacramental communion for those “remarried” in a civil ceremony would be situated in a broader context more favorable to them. These faithful would no longer be the only black sheep discriminated against, since of course there is not only the sixth commandment but also the rest of the ten.<\/p>\n Moreover, the problem concerning sacramental communion for those “remarried” in a civil ceremony has been getting more serious in recent decades because of the liturgical impoverishment of ecclesial life. In some parishes the liturgy is reduced solely to the Eucharistic celebration. The various forms of popular piety, the different religious functions, Eucharistic adoration, the common recitation of the rosary or the breviary have been ever more marginalized.<\/p>\n Without a doubt, the Eucharist is “the fount and apex of the whole Christian life” (Lumen Gentium, 11). But the thinning out of the forms that prepare for and lead to this apex accentuates the difficult situation of those who, for whatever reason, are unable to approach this fount of Christian life because the personal conditions of their lives do not permit them to do so.<\/p>\n These reflections demonstrate that the debate over the “remarried” faithful cannot lead to any useful result if it continues to be restricted to the question of whether or not they may receive communion.<\/p>\n The manner of proceeding proposed by Cardinal Kasper ignores theological principles of Church doctrine concerning the sacraments of penance, marriage, and the Eucharist. It is obvious that these principles cannot be sacrificed in order to “save” the Church. If the debate remains in this narrow channel there is the risk that it will get stuck there.<\/p>\n The only solution remaining is therefore that of developing and putting into action a specific pastoral practice for the “remarried” faithful that respects Church teaching. The Church must also attend to the liturgical impoverishment that has been created in recent decades. And finally there must be fresh study and reflection at the level of the universal Church over the question of the worthy and fruitful reception of the sacraments.<\/p>\n If an exploration of Church teaching and a renewal of pastoral practice could be opened on these points, the next two sessions of the synod will have been well spent.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n __________<\/p>\n <\/p>\n In the dispute on this issue that is taking place even among theologians and canonists, attention should also be paid to two recent statements that have appeared in Germany and Italy.<\/p>\n Sabine Demel, a professor of canon law at the theology faculty of Regensburg, has upheld the idea that the indissolubility of Christian marriage does indeed prevent the dissolution of a valid marriage, but nonetheless permits the Church to revoke its legal effects in exceptional circumstances, allowing a second marriage “for the spiritual good of the partners.”<\/p>\n The commentary by Sabine Demel was published in issue number 6, 2014 of the German Catholic magazine “Herder Korrespondenz”, published in Freiburg:<\/p>\n > (K)ein Widerspruch? Unaufl\u00f6slichkeit der Ehe und Zulassung zu einer Zweitehe<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n While seven theologians and canonists of four European countries have spoken out in defense of the indissolubility of marriage, without exceptions, not even by resorting to an abused conception of “mercy” – and therefore against access to communion for the divorced and remarried – in a contribution to the upcoming synod published in its entirety on this other page of www.chiesa:<\/p>\n > L\u2019indissolubilit\u00e0, una sfida da attraversare<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n In alphabetical order, the seven signatories of the document are Nicola Bux, Juan Carlos Conde Cid, Carlos Jos\u00e9 Err\u00e1zuriz M., Andrea Favaro, Montserrat Gas Aixandri, Wojciech G\u00f2ralski, Giorgio Zannoni.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n __________<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Chuy\u1ec7n r\u01b0\u1edbc l\u1ec5 c\u1ee7a ng\u01b0\u1eddi t\u00e1i h\u00f4n v\u1eabn c\u00f2n l\u00e0 m\u1ed9t tranh lu\u1eadn n\u00f3ng b\u1ecfng. B\u00e0i c\u1ee7a Sandro Magister Ngu\u1ed3n: http:\/\/chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it\/articolo\/1350815?eng=y Nh\u1eefng quan \u0111i\u1ec3m m\u1edbi t\u1eeb h\u1ed3ng y Brandm\u00fcller ch\u1ed1ng l\u1ea1i c\u00e1c \u00fd ki\u1ebfn c\u1ee7a Kasper. T\u1eeb v\u1ecb t\u1ed5ng \u0111\u1ea1i di\u1ec7n \u1edf Chur v\u00e0 t\u1eeb b\u1ea9y nh\u00e0 th\u1ea7n h\u1ecdc v\u00e0 gi\u00e1o lu\u1eadt h\u1ecdc … Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":26,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[65],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/saobiennhatrang.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3212"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/saobiennhatrang.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/saobiennhatrang.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/saobiennhatrang.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/26"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/saobiennhatrang.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3212"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/saobiennhatrang.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3212\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3213,"href":"http:\/\/saobiennhatrang.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3212\/revisions\/3213"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/saobiennhatrang.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3212"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/saobiennhatrang.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3212"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/saobiennhatrang.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3212"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\nV\u1ed1n l\u00e0 m\u1ed9t nh\u00e0 gi\u00e1o s\u1eed h\u1ecdc- v\u00e0 h\u01a1n hai m\u01b0\u01a1i n\u0103m l\u00e0m ch\u1ee7 t\u1ecbch \u1ee6y ban Gi\u00e1o ho\u00e0ng v\u1ec1 S\u1eed H\u1ecdc \u2013 trong t\u00e0i li\u1ec7u n\u00e0y, Brandm\u00fcller \u0111\u00e3 tr\u00ecnh b\u00e0y cu\u1ed9c xung kh\u1eafc gi\u1eefa gi\u00e1o ho\u00e0ng Nicholas \u0111\u1ec7 Nh\u1ea5t v\u00e0 vua Lothair \u0111\u1ec7 Nh\u1ecb, cai tr\u1ecb x\u1ee9 Lotharingia, v\u00e0o th\u1ebf k\u1ef7 th\u1ee9 ch\u00edn.<\/p>\n
\nV\u00e0 b\u1ea3n d\u1ecbch to\u00e0n b\u00e0i sang ti\u1ebfng \u00dd:<\/p>\n
\nPh\u1ea7n tr\u1ecdng t\u00e2m trong nh\u1eadn \u0111\u1ecbnh c\u1ee7a Grichting l\u00e0 m\u1ed9t suy t\u01b0 r\u1ea5t li\u00ean t\u1ee5c v\u00e0 g\u1ea7n v\u1edbi \u0111i\u1ec1u Brandm\u00fcller \u0111\u00e3 vi\u1ebft.<\/p>\n