Theologians & Scholars Formally Request Correction of Amoris Laetitia

Doesn't look like you're confused at all, Pic. You're noticing the 'we can judge you but you can't judge us' mindset. It's annoying, isn't it?

 

I think there's a word for it, and an appropriate adjective to go with it. The word is hypocrisy. But I'll refrain from posting the correct adjective.

 

Nope...you guys can do and say what you want. I will just go the safe path.

May Gods Will be Done

 

And we'll take the narrow, less comfortable, path.

 

Is it...obedience is the cross.

 

Unthreading your claims Dolours : The Church has never, ever taught that no Pope would be a heretic or an apostate. = Ridiculous logic.
To that I say name one Pope who has. The Church's teaching of indefectibility ensures NO Pope will.

"He is dismantling Church teaching by stealth, using the tactics of those who have destroyed marriage and the family in Western cultures to the stage that marriage means anything you want it to mean and selling the organs of unwanted babies is no big deal."

Pope Francis has not changed one iota of Church teaching. He IS encouraging pastors to minister to those who are ignorant of serious sin to bring the Light of Christ AND His Mercy to them. Consider Archbishop Chaput's response in Philidelphia. Known as a conservative or Trad, he has maintained throughout this papacy he does not hate the Holy Father. Archbishop Chaput has moved forward from the release of AL by confirming what His Holiness has never changed:
http://www.denverpost.com/2016/07/06/archbishop-chaput-guidelines-for-gay-and-remarried-couples/
This leaves the door wide open for ministering to sinners just as Christ met sinners and loved them as they were, not their sins, but loved the sinner in his/her current condition, leading them by His Light into His Light of Truth.

As for your add on, Dolours, "...selling the organs of unwanted babies is no big deal." What is this?!?!?! Pope Francis has been a staunch defender of life.

At the same time, it very much matters where one chooses to gather material. This article captures essential elements of this ongoing rejection of Pope Francis. Written in 2013, it sadly remains true today.
https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2013/04/05/hating-the-pope/

I don't know how hearts can be changed when people continue to pick at Pope Francis for his South American style of expression. They pick at it to the point of negating the reality he has NOT and NEVER WILL change dogma or doctrine.

Another problem: people project fear of what will ensue based on the confusion which has been present for a long time, especially after Vatican II was oft misinterpreted. Both Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Emeritus Benedict taught very clearly with solid and elegant teaching. (I have touched on this in a new thread "The Times they are a Changing") Did this prevent the ever-increasing confusion and intensifying loss of sin? No it did not.

Now we have a well-educated sector of faithful Catholics who appreciate the documents generated by these two predecessors of Pope Francis but obviously, the Holy Spirit sees the mess we're in as the vast majority of Catholics do not know the essential teachings. The Holy Spirit then descended on that conclave and inspired the selection of one Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio to move God's NEW WAY of catching fish. This wonderful passage, the beginning of Chapter 5 of Luke, speaks to me of what the Holy Spirit is now doing with Pope Francis: Once while Jesus[a] was standing beside the lake of Gennesaret, and the crowd was pressing in on him to hear the word of God, 2 he saw two boats there at the shore of the lake; the fishermen had gone out of them and were washing their nets.

3 He got into one of the boats, the one belonging to Simon, and asked him to put out a little way from the shore. Then he sat down and taught the crowds from the boat. 4 When he had finished speaking, he said to Simon, “Put out into the deep water and let down your nets for a catch.” 5 Simon answered, “Master, we have worked all night long but have caught nothing. Yet if you say so, I will let down the nets.” 6 When they had done this, they caught so many fish that their nets were beginning to break. 7 So they signaled their partners in the other boat to come and help them. And they came and filled both boats, so that they began to sink.

8 But when Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus’ knees, saying, “Go away from me, Lord, for I am a sinful man!” 9 For he and all who were with him were amazed at the catch of fish that they had taken; 10 and so also were James and John, sons of Zebedee, who were partners with Simon. Then Jesus said to Simon, “Do not be afraid; from now on you will be catching people.” 11 When they had brought their boats to shore, they left everything and followed him.

For those who have eyes to see, the Holy Spirit has asked the Church through Christ's Vicar, Pope Francis: Do it another way! Cast those nets in the deeper waters of Christ's Mercy. Abba gave the laws to guide us. Christ with His WAYS OF MERCY is the FULFILLMENT of those laws. Christ! And He has a mere man charged with standing in His very Person, commissioned to lead our Church. Pope Francis deserves all the respect due his office. RESPECT! We may not like his style. We may have fears of what he will cause - but then fear is not fact.

Here's a good examen:
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2015/08/ask-father-is-it-a-mortal-sin-to-criticize-the-pope/

Sorry to say, too many across the Catholic blogoshpere are definitely guilty of this alone:

Criticism of the Pope can become a mortal sin if one’s criticism is filled with a hatred and vitriol that shows a lack of respect or filial love for Our Sovereign Pontiff. One must also consider to whom you show that lack of respect. If by your words and actions you harm his reputation with others unjustly, you do him and them a grave wrong. You also may be committing the sin of sacrilege.

At this point I will quote what Padraig recently quoted from the CCC

ARTICLE 8
THE EIGHTH COMMANDMENT

2479 Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one's neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity.

The following is what Padraid said in defence of Charlie
"Clearly Charlies reputation and honour are being attacked here. Again discernment can be carried out without personal attack. You are going like a pack of wild dogs at the poor man.
I repeat who made you his judge? I am going to freeze this thread. But it would behoove some of you people to bring these matters up the nezt time you go to the sacrament of confession. Detraction of a very serious sin indeed. Especially when it is carried on in such a well organised and persistent way."

What about the reputation and honour of one's pope!

 

"Equally odious to God are the evildoer and the evil deed"
Wisdom 14:9

;-)

 

"Unthreading your claims Dolours : The Church has never, ever taught that no Pope would be a heretic or an apostate. = Ridiculous logic.
To that I say name one Pope who has. The Church's teaching of indefectibilityensures NO Pope will. " -Joe Crozier

In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off. "A pope who would be separated from the Church by heresy, therefore, would by that very fact itself cease to be head of the Church. He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because, since he is outside of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church." Summa Theologica, cited in Actes de Vatican I. V. Frond pub. St. Antoninus (†1459)

 

So this is where all this silliness has come from? A simple but common error among modern Catholics? Folks need to be disabused of this false notion; the Church has NEVER taught that a pope CANNOT be guilty of heresy. In fact, quite the opposite. The Church has mused about and talked about such a possibility for centuries, She just isn't sure what would happen if a pope is a heretic:


http://www.crisismagazine.com/2015/can-pope-heretic
Can a Pope Be a Heretic?
Excerpt:

Since believing something wrong doesn’t automatically make you culpable for the sin or guilty of the crime, theologians usually make a distinction between people who aren’t consciously and deliberately rejecting the Church’s teaching and those who are:

• A material heretic is someone who does notrealize that they believe something heretical. Provided that their ignorance is not their own fault, material heretics are neither culpable of the sin nor guilty of the crime.

• A formal hereticis someone who does realize that they believe something heretical and makes a conscious and free decision to believe it. Formal heretics are culpable for the sin, and can also be penalized of the crime provided that they meet the appropriate conditions (age, awareness, etc.).

Can the pope be a heretic?Most theologians would agree that a pope could be a material heretic, just like any other well-meaning but misinformed Catholic. He wouldn’t be culpable for any sin or guilty of any crime. He could, in fact, remain in a state of grace, and, endowed with the virtue of faith, lead the Christian faithful in the faith delivered once for all to the apostles. His material heresy might even appear in his non-infallible teaching, although God gives him special help to avoid that (CCC 892). But Catholics firmly believe that it could never appear in his infallible teaching. (CCC 891)

Theologians are divided as to whether the pope could ever be a formal heretic, because they don’t agree on two things:

1. Does the grace promised by Christ to Peter preclude the possibility of a pope falling into formal heresy?

1. If it doesn’t, would a heretical pope lose his office as a consequence of the sin of heresy, or as a penalty for the crime of heresy?

There were always some people who believed that God would simply not allow the pope to become a formal heretic, because it would be against Christ’s promises to Peter. But from the twelfth century onwards, a lot of Catholic theologians didn’t. That’s when Gratian, the most important medieval canon lawyer, included in his Decretum a warning to errant popes that he attributed to St. Boniface:

If the Pope, remiss in his duties and neglectful of his and his neighbor’s salvation, gets caught up in idle business, and if moreover, by his silence (which actually does more harm to himself and everyone else), he nonetheless leads innumerable hoards of people away from the good with him, he will be beaten for eternity with many blows alongside that very first slave of hell [the Devil]. However, no person can presume to convict him of any transgressions in this matter, because, although the Pope can judge everyone else, no one may judge him, unless he, for whose perpetual stability all the faithful pray as earnestly as they call to mind the fact that, after God, their own salvation depends on his soundness, is found to have strayed from the faith. (Decretum, Part 1, Distinction 40, Chapter 6)​

So, no one can convict a pope of being remiss in his duties, because no one stands above the pope in judgment—unless the pope is a heretic, and then… Then what? Unfortunately, Gratian didn’t fill in the blank. But since Gratian’s Decretum became required reading for theologians and canon lawyers, the question became unavoidable for subsequent generations of Catholic theology.

The two most important answers came from sixteenth-seventeenth century Jesuits: Francisco Suarez and St. Robert Bellarmine.

Suarez took it as a given that a pope could be a formal heretic. He then considered two possibilities for what happens next:

First possibility: The pope loses his office as a consequence of the sin of heresy, because people who commit that sin cease to be members of the Church, and God deposes a pope who is no longer a member of the Church. (Suarez, De fide, 10.6.2)​

Suarez rejects this possibility for two reasons. First, falling out of a state of grace might mean that you aren’t a member of the Church in the way that you’re supposed to be, but it doesn’t mean that you’re not a member of the Church—otherwise you’d be kicked out of the Church every time you committed a mortal sin. Second, if Catholics are supposed to believe that God deposes popes, then Scripture, the Tradition of the Church, and the pronouncements of the Magisterium ought to have said something about it—but they haven’t. Besides, if God deposes popes, you could never be sure if the pope was really the pope—what if he was a secret heretic and God had secretly deposed him? How would you ever know? (Suarez, De fide, 10.6.2-4)

Second possibility: The pope keeps his office if he commits the sin of heresy, but loses his office if he is convicted of the crime of heresy. (De fide 10.6.6)​

Suarez thinks that, just like Christ bestows the papacy on the man whom the Church elects, so also Christ takes away the papacy from the man whom the Church convicts (De fide 10.6.10). So, if a pope commits the sin of heresy, all the other bishops of the world have the right to try him for the crime of heresy, even against his will (De fide 10.6.7). If they were to convict him, he could be considered deposed from the papacy by Christ, and the Church could elect another pope.

Bellarmine was more hesitant about the whole question. Unlike Suarez, he did not take it as a given that the pope could be a formal heretic. Actually, Bellarmine considered it “probable” that God would prevent the pope from ever being a formal heretic (he says it twice: De Romano Pontifice 2.30 and 4.2). Nevertheless, Bellarmine was willing to consider what would be the case if the pope could fall into formal heresy.

If we assume that the pope could be a formal heretic, Bellarmine thinks Suarez’s opinion is wrong. Suarez allows the bishops to judge the pope. But one of Gratian’s basic rules is that no one can judge the pope. Sure, Suarez has Christ carrying out the judgment, but it is only because the other bishops of the Church have pronounced the judgment first.

Instead, Bellarmine adopts the position that Suarez rejected: the pope loses his office immediately by committing the sin of formal heresy, because people who commit that sin cease to be members of the Church, and God deposes a pope who is no longer a member of the Church. It’s true that the bishops could still get together and make a declaration that God had deposed the pope, but their declaration would not be a judgment in any real sense, only an acknowledgement of what God had already done. (De Romano Pontifice 2.30)

 

Brian, you and others begin: "In the case in which the pope would become a heretic" Which Pope has taught heresy? Which case is this? There is no such case. How often does that have to be repeated? Quite often it seems. Has it penetrated yet? Has it registered? Or are the blinkers and the ear muffs still in place. I am surprised at such vacuous commentary coming from you. As Mac asked me - is it really you? (And do not try to get me thrown off again because of my use of the word vacuous. You have described me in far worse terms - I only refer to your commentary.)

Your commentary reminds me of an article in the BMJ which suggested that Low cholesterol was associated with higher risk of cardiac events in men over 50. This was the exact opposite to the intent of publication. Similarly what you have quoted contradicts your claim that a pope can teach heresy. It consists of nothing but coulds and ifs. Nothing definite - just intrigue and conjecture. You condemn Our Holy Father for being conditional rather than certain yet here you are using the same tactics to support his opposition. Christ pronounces judgment in many ways - not just words. Have a care Brian, if not for your own sake then for the sake of others. "Weep not for me but for your selves and for your children."

"Pope Francis remains the Roman Catholic Pontiff and he HAS NEVER and WILL NEVER declare false dogma. If we believe he is capable of doing so, we, in effect, profess that we don’t believe in the promises of Jesus Christ contained in Matthew 28: 18-20 (see below) and in Matthew 16:18 - And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. God simply never lies."

"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.’”(Matthew 28:18-20) We can see from these words Christ was most certainly present at the conclave. The Power of the Holy Spirit was invoked in prayer by the Cardinals and this same Spirit of Truth guides the Holy Father so that he cannot declare false dogma"

"Pope Francis has never declared anything against any article of faith."

 

Yet you do not answer and therefore dismiss all the points Brian and others have made. The only rebuttals I see from you to their points is calling them Church Dividers and attackers of Pope Francis.

 

The actual teaching of the Church is that no pope has ever been shown to be a manifest or formal heretic. It is not the teaching of the Church that no pope has ever been a material heretic, nor that a pope could never commit manifest or formal heresy.

It has not happened historically, but from that one may NOT conclude that it may never happen.

Because it could happen in the future (but has not happened in the past), theologians have debated the subject for centuries, and still do not have a definite answer of how God and the Church will handle it. But to claim it cannot happen in the future is NOT a teaching of the Church.

 

Which is why the posts are rightly considered rants, because baseless claims are made about others while their serious points are ignored.

God gave us a brain, He expects us to engage it before spilling digital ink.

 

View attachment 5172

All kidding aside, again, I repeat: the Gates of Hell will not prevail. This much we know for certain. But why would Christ make such a promise at the very foundation of His Church?

http://www.onepeterfive.com/can-a-catholic-criticize-the-pope/

 

I dont think I have called them that directly. It may be your own conclusions that the cap fits. I think I have addressed their contentions. I am not going to repeat my points here.

Ah there he is again.

 

Ah there he is again.

 

I have a question that gets to the heart of this.

Is there one good reason/situation where people who are re-married and co-habitating should receive the Blessed Sacrament?

Here is what I mean. What is stopping couples living in Sin from dissolving their sexual relations and living as friends. What is stopping people from getting room mates if they need two incomes to survive. From where I stand the Church is always ready to forgive, people are just not willing to give up their relationships.

 

Do you want me to do you the Charity of quoting all the posts where you call people Church Dividers and Pope Francis attackers?

As well you never addressed their comments. What you do is ignore them, then post some abstract comment along with scripture.