Oh dear. we cant now accept the plain words of the highest doctrinal authority in the Church. I quote from his tv interview: " Everyone, above all Cardinals, has the right to write a letter to the Pope. However, I am amazed that this became public, essentially constraining the Pope to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’. I don’t like this. Also, a possible fraternal correction of the Pope seems to me to be very remote, it’s not possible in this moment because it doesn’t concern a danger for the faith as St. Thomas said...‘Amoris laetitia’ is very clear in its doctrine ...But I don’t see any conflict (contrapposizione): on the one hand we have the clear teaching on matrimony, and on the other hand the obligation of the Church to concern itself with these people in difficulties.” The reality is there is no subtlty here-unless we refuse to look clearly at the facts. He stated the yes /no dubia he didnt like-presumably because , yes or no does not work with these complex issues. He says AL is very clear-no ambiguity, and finally and most explosively for those of us who thought there were definite issues with it, that he sees no conflict between the teaching on marriage and the pastoral care of those like in Janet's situation. Come on guys, its time to move on. Leave your angst behind. I know its tough but pride can destroy. There is no chance that this is going to change in the future because its the way its been done for years anyway. Rememeber Cardinal Schonborn related a conversation he had with Cardinal Ratzinger in 1994 about do we still use the internal forum as we were always taught in seminary? Muller hasnt corrected in any way Pope Francis; on the contrary he has backed him 100%. If we keep this opposition up then we are only damaging ourselves and the unity of the Church. The dubia is dead in the water; Cardinal Muller has pulled the rug from under them.
Maybe I am suffering from some form of dementia, as I am really doubting my ability to understand so much lately! So please forgive me if this is obvious to everyone but me! But can you tell me Mallett who you are referring to! with your quote above, regarding what a St Thomas said? Mallett said .........as St. Thomas said...'Amoris laetitia' is very clear in its doctrine...
Hello Josephite. It was actually Cardinal Muller's words rather quoted. Anyway, I think he was referring to no 304-05 in AL: "It is reductive simply to consider whether or not an individual’s actions correspond to a general law or rule, because that is not enough to discern and ensure full fidelity to God in the concrete life of a human being. I earnestly ask that we always recall a teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas and learn to incorporate it in our pastoral discernment: “Although there is necessity in the general principles, the more we descend to matters of detail, the more frequently we encounter defects… In matters of action, truth or practical rectitude is not the same for all, as to matters of detail, but only as to the general principles; and where there is the same rectitude in matters of detail, it is not equally known to all… The principle will be found to fail, according as we descend further into detail”.347 It is true that general rules set forth a good which can never be disregarded or neglected, but in their formulation they cannot provide absolutely for all 347 Summa Theologiae, I-II, q. 94, art. 4. 236 particular situations. At the same time, it must be said that, precisely for that reason, what is part of a practical discernment in particular circumstances cannot be elevated to the level of a rule. That would not only lead to an intolerable casuistry, but would endanger the very values which must be preserved with special care.348 305. For this reason, a pastor cannot feel that it is enough simply to apply moral laws to those living in “irregular” situations, as if they were stones to throw at people’s lives. This would bespeak the closed heart of one used to hiding behind the Church’s teachings, “sitting on the chair of Moses and judging at times with superiority and superficiality difficult cases and wounded families”.349 Along these same lines, the International Theological Commission has noted that “natural law could not be presented as an already established set of rules that impose themselves a priori on the moral subject; rather, it is a source of objective inspiration for the deeply personal process of making decisions”.350 Because of 348 In another text, referring to the general knowledge of the rule and the particular knowledge of practical discernment, Saint Thomas states that “if only one of the two is present, it is preferable that it be the knowledge of the particular reality, which is closer to the act”: Sententia libri Ethicorum, VI, 6 (ed. Leonina, t. XLVII, 354.)
Cardinal Muller's meaning, in my opinion, is that nothing has changed. The doctrine is as it always has been, because he knows that a pope has not the authority to proclaim any new doctrine, but only the duty to uphold that which has always ben. He may not like the dubia because of fear of the consequences of an antinomian answer. Cardinal Muller has 'pulled the rug' from under no-one. As far as I am concerned he's statement that 'we can interpret the whole teaching of Jesus on matrimony, the whole teaching of the Church in 2000 years of history' means that since the Church has always thought that unrepentant sin cannot receive absolution in Confession, so it continues. If any priest 'discerns' differently in Confession, they'll have to answer for it. [Isn't it quite a coincidence how new people arrive here at just the right moment to propagate their message? Nor do they involve themselves anywhere else. Agitprop, isn't that the tactic?]
This is exactly what breaks my heart. Because I do believe the majority of Priest are humble and obedient to their Bishops. And if they are told to absolve perpetual sins against the 6th Commandment outside of a valid marriage. Those poor Priests will be in agony within their conscience. I do believe we need to pray very much for our Priests and the Bishops who wield God given authority over them. For the Bishops themselves are subordinate to higher ups and so it goes on.
Elephants - in reverse reading: STN AHP ELE, what is garbled sentence of SATAN UP ALL. E.g. Cold play, servants of Satan use this symbol: And do not they sing accidentally PANATAS instead Paradise? PANATAS in reverse is again SATAN UP
I think the sticking point is that those against AL are misunderstanding Pope Francis teaching. He is only advocating the possibility for those who are repentant-who realise their situation is irregular. He is not for one minute saying any unrepentant person in a second marriage who has no care for truth can live as though its absolutely fine. Reading the document, it is clear he is talking about repentant catholics. By the way, so what about coincidence. Do you think everyone in the Church thinks as you do? There are millions of catholics who love Pope Francis and who would consider themselves totally in line with tradition and the magisterium. When Cardinal Muller says there is no contradiction between what Pope Francis has written about remarried catholics in certain cases receiving the sacraments of penance and the Eucharist, and the teaching on the permanance of marriage, then we should humbly accept that and not dismiss it with counter claims. If he says there is no contradiction, then he means no contradiction. Ave Maria!
Well ... I'll say again that AL, to me anyway, is much more understandable than some of the "other stuff" that Pope Francis has come up with. Divorce & Re-marriage is the 600# Gorilla that, for 40 years, The Church has been pretending does not exist! PF is attempting to address this very serious problem and perhaps he is trying to shift some responsibility down the folks in "the trenches" where us great unwashed are struggling in the muck-n-mire of Life. Remember! PF did not emerge from The Vatican. He spent his life in "The Trenches" and perhaps, in this instance, has a better "handle" than those who have spent their clerical careers shuffling papers and breathing the rarified air in The Vatican &/or Catholic Academia? The local Parish Priest should, IMHO, be given some sort of guidance and told to use his training, experience, observations and facts on a case by case basis. Like every huge and cumbersome bureaucracy, there is way too much "kicking the can" up the line. One of my Ol' Navy Dad's favorite quotes came from some famous admiral: "Regulations were written for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools." Looking at the World today .... I'm thinking we have an over abundance of Fools ........ many in High Places!! GOD SAVE ALL HERE!!
If a priest has the duty of obedience, in response from a directive from his Bishop, does the responsibility then rest with the latter? A terrible dilemma.
If it were understandable, we wouldn't have one Bishop saying it's ok for "remarried" divorcees to receive Communion and another saying it isn't. Pope John Paul wasn't a paper shuffler and neither is Bishop Schneider. They had personal experience of "the errors of Russia" and experienced the real "trenches" first hand. We would have no faith to adhere to if "everybody is doing it" were a benchmark for what is morally acceptable and nobody knew or knows that better than them. Pope Francis didn't invent charity or mercy, otherwise there would be no Catholic charities for a Soros inspired Catholic Spring crowd to infiltrate and use to subvert Church teaching. People here talk as though previous Popes had no access to documents from the likes of St. Thomas Aquinas when they affirmed and re-affirmed Church teaching. It is neither charitable nor merciful to state Church teaching in a way that allows for a range of interpretations of a fundamental teaching. Here's what Pope and later Saint John Paul ll said about Communion for the divorced and remarried: http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-p..._jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio.html "However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church's teaching about the indissolubility of marriage. Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children's upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they "take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples." If Pope Francis does not intend his Exhortation to be used as a means of contradicting what Pope John Paul said above, he needs to answer the dubia because his first duty as Vicar of Christ is to defend the Deposit of Faith.
If what I have boldened is the case, then there is no problem. Nevertheless, there is a strong perception abroad that AL is licence for the unconditional reception of the Eucharist by all couples living in 'irregular' situations. Cardinal Muller has stated that "‘Amoris laetitia’ is very clear in its doctrine and we can interpret the whole teaching of Jesus on matrimony, the whole teaching of the Church in 2000 years of history", which I interpret as his saying that nothing has changed doctrinally from what went on before. The four Cardinals' first dubia is: "It is asked whether, following the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (300-305), it has now become possible to grant absolution in the sacrament of penance and thus to admit to holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person more uxorio without fulfilling the conditions provided for by Familiaris Consortio, 84, and subsequently reaffirmed by Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 34, and Sacramentum Caritatis, 29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in Note 351 (305) of the exhortation Amoris Laetitia be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live more uxorio?" Of course, those documents they mention remain part of that 2000 years of history referred to by Cardinal Muller. If what you say in that sentence I have boldened is the actual thinking of Pope Francis, I see no reason that Pope Francis cannot say that it has not "... become possible to grant absolution in the sacrament of penance and thus to admit to holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person more uxorio without fulfilling the conditions provided for by Familiaris Consortio, 84, and subsequently reaffirmed by Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 34, and Sacramentum Caritatis, 29." If so, then why does he remain silent? [As for: "There are millions of catholics who love Pope Francis and who would consider themselves totally in line with tradition and the magisterium. The Church is not a democracy. A vote would not decide the truth of this matter. For myself, I consider Pope Francis my Pope, but that he is not a good one. I am supposed to love him as all my neighbours and I try to pray three Hail Marys for him everyday. But I don't think my duty is to agree with him when I think he's got it wrong. That would be ultramontanism taken to excess]. Ave Maria.
Please Mallett, stop putting words into the mouth of our pope who already suffers from Second, repent is not the word I would put into his mouth. The only times he uses that word has been relegated for traditional catholics who dismiss his constant mistakes. Yes, his constant mistakes.
Perusing Facebook today, I found the following salient comments: View attachment 5963 View attachment 5962 View attachment 5964 View attachment 5965 View attachment 5966
Hello Picadillo , I am really sorry you felt I was putting words in the mouth of our Holy Father, please forgive me if that is the case, but Amoris Laetitia says: "Seeing things with the eyes of Christ inspires the Church’s pastoral care for the faithful who are living together, or are only married civilly, or are divorced and remarried. Following this divine pedagogy, the Church turns with love to those who participate in her life in an imperfect manner: she seeks the grace of conversion for them; she encourages them to do good, to take loving care of each other and to serve the community in which they live and work…Naturally, if someone flaunts an objective sin as if it were part of the Christian ideal, or wants to impose something other than what the Church teaches, he or she can in no way presume to teach or preach to others; this is a case of something which separates from the community (cf. Mt 18:17). Such a person needs to listen once more to the Gospel message and its call to conversion" I dont know about you Picadillo, but ive had enough of being duped by the twisting catholic media who feed on unfounded fears. This text clearly shows that conversion is necessary (as I stated earlier today) and that the new discipline of possible reception of the Eucharist is not for those who in the words of Pope Francis "flaunt objective sin".
Brian, the problem is the wind has been taken out of the sails and the four cardinal dubia is dead in the water. I mean what credibility does a "formal correction" have when for 99% of the catholic world, they will adhere to the thoughts of the doctrinal head of the church (only inferior to the pope) who says AL has clarity and is no danger to the faith. Now Cardinal Muller has spoken, opposition will disintigrate. Most catholics will accept that there is absolutely no authority anywhere else in the Church, and of course if traditionalists critisize the CDF prefect over this, then why should they expect anyone else to accept other teachings. Non traditionalists will just see one giant mound of hypocrisy.
So, Mallett, according to Amoris Laetitia, can Catholics who are validly married and then divorce and remarry (and refuse to live as brother and sister) recieve Holy Communion?
I don't agree with that assessment. I think Cardinal Muller may have been put under pressure. He may indeed be very vulnerable. However, his wishing to retain his position cannot be merely attributed to personal ambition. It is a good thing that a man of impeccable orthodoxy remain at the head of the CDF, even if he is forced to concede ground. With this statement, he has conceded very little and arguably has inflicted some damage upon his opponent. I think it is not unsound strategy. We, on this planet are all human beings. It is not possible to expect everyone to do the perfect thing. Nor is it proper to be too cynical, damning everyone who doesn't match our expectations. The Church advises us to take the best interpretation of peoples' actions that we can. It goes without saying that being human myself, I often fail to do this. Perhaps I am even being ungenerous to Pope Francis, but I tried very hard for a long time to believe he was eminently orthodox and can't maintain that anymore. But, we have abundant evidence from so many of the Pope's statements. There is not nearly enough to even begin to think badly of Cardinal Muller. Unlike some in the Vatican, we must not make the mistake of adding two plus two and getting five.
The opposition to this is not by "traditionalists," it is simply among faithful and orthodox Catholics. Otherwise, see my signature. The Truth is not a majority or popularity game, even if/when 99% of its members apostasize.
He is far from "impeccably orthodox." See for instance the controversy surrounding his statements on the Immaculate Conception, liberation theology, and the authority of VII.
