The information below is taken from the interview with Bishop Athanasius Schneider (dated Nov. 2nd 2015) and published in Rorate Caeli. (dated Nov. 2nd 2015)
The full article can be read here:
“All is OK. The Synod did not change doctrine”.
Yet such a perception… ignores the back door and the pending time bombs…”
Error: The new concept of mercy (without repentance).
The most merciful act …would be to draw the attention to this danger by means of a clear…admonition about the necessarily full acceptance of the Sixth Commandment of God. They have to call the things by their right name exhorting: “divorce is divorce,” “adultery is adultery” and “who commits consciously and freely grave sins against the Commandments of God – and in this case against the Sixth Commandment – and dies unrepentantly will receive eternal condemnation being excluded forever from the kingdom of God.”
The new language used by Synod fathers to promote their concept of “mercy”.
Way of discernment
Orientations of the bishop
Dialogue with the priest
A more fuller integration into the life of the church
Way of discernment:
“…there is talk of “repentance” (Final Report, n. 85), there remains nevertheless a great deal of ambiguity. In fact,… ,(according to Cardinal Kasper and other clergy) – such a repentance concerns the past sins against the spouse of the first valid marriage and the repentance of the divorced indeed may not refer to the acts of their marital cohabitation with the new civilly married partner.”
Cardinal Kasper and others have repeatedly affirmed that “a judgement in the conscience in that case has to be considered as being correct even when the divorced and remarried continue to cohabitate in a marital manner, and that they should not be required to live in complete continence as brother and sister.”
In the Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio of Pope John Paul II, it is stated: “The way to the Eucharist can only be granted to those who take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples”.
This statement was selectively omitted from the Final Report.
Saint Augustine affirmed: “Who dismisses his adulterous wife and marries another woman, whereas his first wife still lives, remains perpetually in the state of adultery. Such a man does not any efficacious penance while he refuses to abandon the new wife. If he is a catechumen, he cannot be admitted to baptism, because his will remains rooted in the evil. If he is a (baptized) penitent, he cannot receive the (ecclesiastical) reconciliation as long as he does not break with his bad attitude” (De adulterinis coniugiis, 2, 16).
A more fuller integration into the life of the church
Numbers 84 -86 of the final Report does not directly say that the divorced and remarried can be admitted to Holy Communion. Statements such as “a more full participation in the life of the Church” and “discernment and integration” are the expressions which were used. These are ambiguous expressions and were a clever tactic. It would be well to remember – “You made void the word of God by introducing your own tradition” (Mark 7: 13).
By the use of such tactics, the Final Report in fact put time bombs and a back door for the admittance of the divorced and remarried to Holy Communion. Doctrine has not been changed but such statements can lead to abuses and true meaning of doctrine.
Christ demanded from all His disciples to speak in an extremely clear manner: “Let what you say be ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil” (Math 5: 37). This is valid all the more when the Shepherds of the Church preach or when the Magisterium speaks in a document.
The Final Report in n. 84 pleads for an admittance of the divorced and remarried to liturgical, pastoral and educational offices.
Such a proposal represents an indirect support to the culture of divorce and a practical denial of an objectively sinful lifestyle. The Apostle Saint James said: “But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves” (James 1: 22). Their life continuously contradicts their words.
Pope John Paul II ... indicated only the following possibilities of participating in the life of the Church, which for their part aim a true conversion:
“They should be encouraged to listen to the word of God,
to attend the Sacrifice of the Mass,
to persevere in prayer,
to contribute to works of charity
and to community efforts in favor of justice,
to bring up their children in the Christian faith,
to cultivate the spirit and
practice of penance and thus
implore, day by day, God’s grace” (Familiaris Consortio, 84).
As long as they continue giving a public anti-witness to the indissolubility of marriage and contributing to a culture of divorce, the divorced and remarried cannot exercise those liturgical, catechetical and institutional ministries in the Church, which demand by their own nature a public life in accordance with the Commandments of God.
Public violators of the Sixth Commandment, such as divorced and remarried, cannot be admitted to the office of lectors, godparents or catechists.
Accompaniment and orientations of the bishop.
The Final Report seems to leave the solution of the question of the admittance of the divorced and remarried to Holy Communion to local Church authorities: “accompaniment of the priests” and “orientations of the bishop.”
By allowing individual local bishops and priests to guide these people and make decisions about their “worthiness” means that the Church will no longer be one. Doctrine could be interpreted and applied differently all over the world. This cannot be – it “contradicts the very essence of being Catholic”.
The Final Report …avoids confessing the unchangeable principle of the entire Catholic tradition, that those who live in an invalid marital union can be admitted to Holy Communion only under the condition that their promise to live in complete continence and avoid public scandal. John Paul II and Benedict XVI confirmed strongly this Catholic principle.”
At the Council of Nicea in the 4th Century, when the heresy of Arianism was ramoant, similar tactics were used – “who invented continuously other expressions in order not to confess directly the consubstantiality of the Son of God with God the Father.” This resulted in continuous synodal meetings and a proliferation of new doctrinal formula – deliberately avoiding clarity in terminology.