Pope Francis: Amoris Laetitia is ‘the Magisterium of the Church’ on divorced and remarried Dorothy Cummings McLean https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/p...on-to-adulterers-is-magisterium-of-the-church Pope Francis (center) visits Thailand. Paul Bronstein / Getty Images BANGKOK, Thailand, December 6, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) ― Pope Francis told Jesuits in Thailand that how the Church should behave pastorally to Catholics who are “divorced and remarried” is found in chapter 8 of his controversial 2016 exhortation Amoris Laetitia, a teaching that has been used by bishops around the world to allow Catholics living objectively in adultery to receive Holy Communion. The pope indicated that such teaching is the “Magisterium of the Church.” While meeting with a group of Southeastern Jesuits in Bangkok last month, Pope Francis invited their questions. One stated that they had “divorced and remarried” Catholics in their communities and asked how they are to “behave pastorally with them.” “I could answer you in two ways: in a casuistic way, which however is not Christian, even if it can be ecclesiastical; or according to the Magisterium of the Church as in the eighth chapter of Amoris Laetitia, that is, journey, accompany and discern to find solutions,” the pontiff replied. “And this has nothing to do with situation ethics, but with the great moral tradition of the Church.” Francis did not explain how something that is ecclesiastical could not be Christian, instead moving to a question about his experience of the Church in Thailand. The word “magisterium” has several potential meanings, including the teaching office of a pope or a bishop in union with the pope, or the doctrine being taught. John Zmirak, author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Catholicism, told LifeSiteNews that the word is typically used two ways: “One, the infallible parts that reflect the Deposit of Faith, either sacred tradition or authoritatively taught Natural Law judgments, and two, whatever some pope said that another pope hasn't contradicted yet.” Zmirak took exception to Pope Francis’s use the words “casuistry” and “Magisterium.” “As usual, Pope Francis is equivocating, using language sloppily, and relying on the anti-Catholic connotations that perfectly innocent words were given by anti-Christian pamphleteers,” he said. “‘Casuistry’ means nothing more or less than the application of general rules to particular cases. It’s a Latinism best translated as ‘case law.’ Imagine a judge denouncing ‘case law.’ That’s how much sense it makes for a moral teacher to denounce casuistry,” he continued. Zmirak also criticized the pope of elevating “his own baseless and un-Catholic opinions, issued in fallible documents, to the level of Magisterium.” “For Francis the Marxist sympathizer, [Magisterium] appears to mean essentially ‘Party Line,’ the author said. “It can shift as the Party leadership does.” “To understand this papacy you don't need to read Francis, but Arthur Koestler’s Darkness at Noon.” Dr. John Rist, professor emeritus of the University of Toronto, told LifeSiteNews that Pope Francis’s answer to the question is a typical example of “Peronism.” “Step one is to deny ‘casuistry,’ apparently understood by [Pope] Bergoglio as some form of consequentialism/situation ethics (which he rightly dubs non-Christian),” Rist stated. “The second step is to try to muddle us by using traditional words like ‘discernment’ but to imply that trying to discern what to do will get you an answer which is non-consequentialist while simultaneously disregarding the norms the Church has traditionally taught, and appealing to the Magisterium, i.e. to himself, to justify this procedure,” the philosopher continued. “What it all amounts to is readmitting consequentialism/situation ethics by the back door and giving it another name (i.e. discernment).” Chapter eight of Amoris Laetitia attracted a torrent of criticism after the apostolic exhortation was published on April 8, 2016 because it allows for interpretations that undermine or even contradict perennial Catholic doctrine. The Catholic Church teaches that sacramental marriages end only by death, and that anyone in such a marriage who divorces and attempts to marry again commits adultery (cf. Matt. 5:31–32; 19:3–12; Mk. 10:2–12; Lk. 16:18; 1 Cor. 7:1–16). As adultery is a mortal sin that cuts off sanctifying grace to one’s soul, Catholics in so-called irregular marriages are not considered in a fit state to receive Holy Communion. Amoris Laetitia was criticized for overturning these teachings in a footnote. Recognizing the post-conciliar explosion in the number of Catholics who have divorced and illicitly remarried despite the doctrine, St. John Paul II taught in Familiaris Consortio that such Catholics may go to confession and receive Holy Communion as long as they live in perfect continence, or, in other words, as “brother and sister”: 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.” [Familiaris Consortio, 180] Amoris Laetitia, however, has been used to permit people who have divorced and “remarried” to receive the sacraments of Penance and Holy Communion without a promise to live in continence (footnote 351) and even to suggest that it would be wrong for people in adulterous unions to stop committing adultery. This suggestion, perhaps one of the most explosive innovations of Pope Francis’s pontificate, was all but buried in a footnote, Footnote 329, which misrepresented Gaudium et Spes: 329. … In [adulterous so-called second marriages], many people, knowing and accepting the possibility of living “as brothers and sisters” which the Church offers them, point out that if certain expressions of intimacy are lacking, “it often happens that faithfulness is endangered and the good of the children suffers” (Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, 51). Gaudium et Spes was referring not to irregular unions here, but to legitimate marriages in which spouses are abstaining from marital union for a protracted period so as not to engender children. While the confusion and debate over Amoris Laetitia raged, four cardinals followed the normal procedures in sending Pope Francis questions or “dubia” regarding the theological implications of Amoris Laetitia. The pontiff has still not answered the dubia. However, on September 9, 2016, Francis wrote a private letter to the bishops of Argentina, which was leaked to the press, that their interpretation of Amoris Laetitia — i.e. to permit some irregularly married Catholics, even some with no intention of living in continence, to receive the sacraments after a period of penitential preparation — was the correct one. +
U.S. Bishops Must Clear Up This Communion Confusion If one in a state of mortal sin — no matter what the sin — has not sacramentally confessed and been absolved, he must not receive Holy Communion. There are no exceptions. Msgr. Charles Pope http://www.ncregister.com/blog/msgr-pope/u.s.-bishops-must-clear-up-this-communion-confusion So, Msgr Pope has it right: one in a state of mortal sin must not receive Holy Communion. PF has it wrong. But he says that it's "the Magisterium of the Church". So if PF is truly the pope, how are Catholics supposed to square this circle? +
Quite simply one does as Pedro Regis messages continue to repeat: "stay with the truth teachings of the Magisterium of the Church". The prophets of our time have been plenty clear what to do if one has their hearts and eyes open to God's will. For our part we continue to fast and pray we stay faithful and don't run to error, whether on the extreme right or the extreme left of the church. 4886 - Message of Our Lady Queen of Peace, Juiz de Fora, MG, November 11, 2019 Dear children, be faithful to my Son Jesus. Love and defend the truth. Truth is your great weapon of defense for these times of spiritual confusion. Do not retreat. Your battle will be painful, but the Lord will be with you. Courage. On your walk in search of holiness you will find many predators of faith. Do not seek the glories of this world, but seek the things of Heaven. In everything God first. The silence of the righteous strengthens the enemies of God. With your examples and words, proclaim to all the Gospel of my Jesus. Your life here on earth is a continuous succession of encounters with Christ. Do not stand idly by. The Lord will ask you for accounts. Pray much before the cross for the conversion of sinners. Seek Jesus in the Eucharist and strengthen yourselves. You are living in the time of great spiritual battle. Stay with Jesus. In him is your victory. Whatever happens, stay with the true Magisterium of the Church of My Jesus. I know each one of you by name and I have come from Heaven to help you. Listen to me. I am your Mother and I love you. Onward without fear. This is the message I give you today in the name of the Holy Trinity. Thank you for having allowed me to gather you here once more. I bless you, in the name of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. Be at peace.
It is heartening that Pope Francis has clearly (in as much as he ever is) confirmed that the divorced and remarried must have their difficulties solved "with the great moral tradition of The Church". In other words, Pope Francis is telling us that while AL is a magisterial document it most certainly does not nor cannot supercede the Magisterium that went before it. This is as Cardinal Mueller had advised. In other words, nothing has changed. One presumes this statement about what is magisterial is itself magisterial. It is also encouraging to hear Pope Francis say that Amoris Laetitia "has nothing to do with situation ethics". Again, one presumes he is speaking magisterially about this. These are the most important things I read from above. What do others on here think?
As I read it, divorcees must proceed "with the great moral tradition of The Church". I see no room here whatsoever for reception of the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin. These are the quoted words of Pope Francis himself. As far as I can reason, they leave no room whatsoever for any other interpretation of 'accompaniment', no matter what anyone else, including Pope Francis himself, might say. If Pope Francis says that this clause does not have the only logical meaning it can possibly have, it would render this statement as a whole so devoid of coherence that it could not possibly itself claim magisteriality, consequently making null and void any attribution of magisteriality to the AL statements to which it referred.
Contained within the latest, yet to be translated, message to Luz de Maria where our Lord is pretty clear about current happenings within the Church I look at My Church welcoming practices outside My Will and thereby rushing into the abyss and pleasing Satan, committing heresies, desecrations, denials to My Divinity.
More opinion re: clergy now more controlled by the secular society than their own teachings?....if they even know them any longer. Sad, while drawing the purifying justice upon the earth. Ilhan Omar Hypnotizes Catholic Church, Reads Islamic Prayer at St. Peters Gathering in D.C. .......... Through all this, a priest sat off to Omar’s left, occasionally consulting a large book he held in his lap, perhaps to follow along with Omar’s words of wisdom. And speaking of wisdom, as he sat there listening to her, did he reflect upon the wisdom and prudence of inviting into his church a speaker who would publicly proclaim her faith in a religion that denies the Incarnation, Resurrection, and Redemption of Christ, all of which are supposed to be core Catholic tenets? Did he hesitate at all to bring in a speaker who has asserted that “Israel has hypnotized the world” and made numerous other anti-Semitic statements? Was this priest in the slightest degree concerned that his parish might be tarred by association with an open anti-Semite who apparently also endorses Sharia, the Islamic law that mandates that she keep her head covered and also denies basic rights to the Christians (including Catholics) under the hegemony of Islam? He likely wasn’t worried about this, and he needn’t have been. A Catholic priest who invited into his church an opponent of jihad terror and Sharia oppression of women would never hear the end of it, not only from the establishment media, but from the Catholic hierarchy and maybe even from the top dogs in the Vatican. But an anti-Semitic, pro-Sharia congresswoman? No one will mind at all. In fact, the priest was likely sitting there congratulating himself over being the wokest priest in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Washington. Meanwhile, you may be wondering when we will see a big mosque in Washington reciprocating this generous act of “outreach” by inviting in a lot of Christian speakers to praise Jesus, and the answer to that question, of course, is “Never.” Omar’s appearance inside this Catholic church illustrates a great deal of what’s wrong with the “interfaith dialogue” that all too many Christians, especially Catholics, so enthusiastically endorse today. The Muslim groups with whom Catholics play at “dialogue” often announce that they hope to “build bridges” with non-Muslims. “Building bridges” is also a frequently enunciated goal of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Such bridges, however, are really just proselytizing mechanisms to convert the Christians to Islam, not an attempt to engage in genuine dialogue — as the Muslim Brotherhood theorist Sayyid Qutb explained: The chasm between Islam and Jahiliyyah [the society of unbelievers] is great, and a bridge is not to be built across it so that the people on the two sides may mix with each other, but only so that the people of Jahiliyyah may come over to Islam. Was it in this spirit that Ilhan Omar stood up in St. Peter’s Catholic Church in Washington and praised Allah? Of course, no establishment media “journalist” would ever dare ask her such a question. Nor would the Catholic officials who invited her there. It seems as if all too many Christians today are far more interested in presenting a sanctified version of the Democratic Party platform than they are in presenting the Gospel. Ilhan Omar’s appearance at St. Peter’s was not a bug, but a feature of Pope Francis’ New Age Catholic Church. Catholics can expect a great deal more of the same. https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/ilhan-omar-hypnotizes-catholic-church/
Defending the Faith by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J. Somewhere near the center of the crisis in the Catholic Church today is confusion about the meaning of the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. Pope Paul VI recognized this crisis before the close of the Second Vatican Council. He identified the two principal errors about the Real Presence that were already current in his day. The errors were capsulized in two words, "transfinalization" and "transignification." Objection: The term "transubstantiation" depends upon an outdated concept of medieval scholastic philosophy. Today, we must speak of "transfinalization" or "transignification" of the bread and wine. The meaning or sign of the bread and wine changes, but not the matter. Reply: Somewhere near the center of the crisis in the Catholic Church today is confusion about the meaning of the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. Pope Paul VI recognized this crisis before the close of the Second Vatican Council. He identified the two principal errors about the Real Presence that were already current in his day. The errors were capsulized in two words, "transfinalization" and "transignification." Transfinalization is the view of Christ's presence in the Eucharist that the purpose or finality of the bread and wine is changed by the words of consecration. They are said to serve a new function, as sacred elements that arouse the faith of the people in the mystery of Christ's redemptive love. Transignification is the view of Christ's presence in the Eucharist which holds that the meaning or significance of the bread and wine is changed by the words of consecration. The consecrated elements are said to signify all that Christians associate with the Last Supper; they have a higher value than merely food for the body. Both transfinalization and transignification were condemned by Pope Paul VI in the encyclical Mysterium Fidei which he published in 1965. Transubstantiation is not an outmoded concept of medieval scholastic philosophy. It is an article of faith defined by the Council of Trent as the "wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and the whole substance of the wine into the blood" of Christ. The term transubstantiation is taken from the Latin words trans (change) and substantia (substance). This term was incorporated into the decree of the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. However, its antiquity goes back to the early Greek Fathers of the Church who used the word meta-ousiosis. Literally meta means change of one ousia or being, that of bread and wine, into another ousia or being, that of Christ's living body and blood. As understood by the Catholic Church, transubstantiation means that the whole substance of bread and wine ceases to exist at consecration at Mass. What we must be very clear about is that it is the whole substance of bread and wine which becomes the whole humanity of Christ. It is not only that the substance of bread and wine becomes the substance of Christ's body and blood. No. The substance of bread and wine becomes everything which makes Christ Christ. Normally we speak of the substance of anything as that which makes a thing what it is. With transubstantiation , however, the substance of bread and wine becomes everything which Christ is. After transubstantiation, the physical properties of bread and wine remain. But the "witness" or "thingness" of bread and wine ceases to exist. What had been the substance of bread and wine now becomes the whole Christ, in the words of the Council of Trent the totus Christus. Is Christ, therefore, present in the Holy Eucharist with everything that makes Him who He is? Yes. In other words, it is not just the substance of Christ's humanity which becomes present on the altar through transubstantiation. It is Jesus Christ whole and entire.
Same with my Rosary DeGaulle. I love that Rosary.it has a special blessing from a Holy exorcist priest I know. I will now have to take it apart. This is truly evil. The medals SG got for me from the shrine at Rue de Bac in Paris are legitimate. I am SO grateful to her. Maybe that shrine is the place to get them from now on.
When AL was released, I read it online or in a brochure through the Archdiocese, as I recall. And there was a commentary by the Archbishop. I felt relieved at the time that there was really nothing different than before. My pastor is a canon lawyer and served on the Marriage Tribunal. I would hope that he would know what to do.
No, I wouldn't do that. I reckon if there is no star directly over the Cross and the 'M' is correctly orientated, and there are no masonic symbols, anything else is just honest variation. Anyway, is a five-pointed star not more associated with the occult than the six (pentagram and all that)?
Therein lies the problem. One has to go to extraordinary lengths to twist PF's own words in order to interpret them according to the true Tradition of the the Church. If one looks back at the letter that PF sent to the Buenos Aires bishops, there is no doubt whatsoever that he did not mean to keep to the 'great moral Tradition of the Church'. Pope: ‘No other interpretation’ of Amoris Laetitia than allowing communion for divorced/remarried in some cases John-Henry Westen and Matthew Cullinan Hoffman https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/p...f-amoris-laetitia-than-allowing-communion-for Editor's Note: There have been slight corrections to our original translation of one paragraph of the Pope's letter. The 10th paragraph below, starting with "Pope Francis adds...", is now fully accurate. September 9, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) — In a letter reportedly leaked by a priest in Argentina, Pope Francis writes that there is “no other interpretation” of Amoris Laetitia other than one admitting divorced and remarried Catholics to Holy Communion in some cases. The letter, dated September 5, comes in response to a confidential document by the bishops of the Buenos Aires pastoral region to priests instructing them on the application of the Pope’s controversial apostolic exhortation. LifeSite has acquired copies of both original documents and has provided professional side-by-side translation. The Spanish original of the letter from the Pope is here. The Spanish original of the bishops’ directive is here. LifeSiteNews’ translation of the Pope’s letter is here. LifeSiteNews’ translation of the bishops’ directive is here. The story was first published yesterday by the Spanish-language Catholic news service InfoCatolica and an anonymous Argentinean Catholic blogger whose blog is known as “The Wanderer.” The blogger has published photostatic copies of the original documents, and LifeSite has been informed that the blogger’s source is a priest in Buenos Aires. After consulting with sources, LifeSite believes that the blogger is trustworthy and that the copies of the letters are authentic. The document by the bishops of the pastoral region of Buenos Aires interprets for priests in the region the 8th chapter of Amoris Laetitia on how to deal with couples who are remarried after divorces but have not been granted annulments. It follows closely the language of the most controversial parts of the papal exhortation including the infamous footnote 351, which opens the door to what Cardinal Raymond Burke and other faithful bishops have called “sacrilege.” The bishops’ directive called “Basic Criteria for the Application of Chapter Eight of Amoris Laetitia” says that in “complex circumstances” when the remarried couple could not “obtain a declaration of nullity,” the priests can nevertheless move forward to grant them access to Holy Communion. If the priest recognizes that “in a particular case there are limitations that diminish responsibility and culpability (cf. 301-302), particularly when a person judges that he would fall into a subsequent fault by damaging the children of the new union,” says the directive, “Amoris Laetitia opens the possibility of access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist (cf. notes 336 and 351).” The Pope’s letter affirms this path with effusive praise for the bishops’ work. Writing to the delegate of the Buenos Aires Pastoral Region, Monsignor Sergío Alfredo Fenoy, the Pope says, “I thank you for the work they have done on this: a true example of accompaniment for the priests.” Pope Francis adds: “The document is very good and completely explains the meaning of chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia. There are no other interpretations. And I am certain that it will do much good. May the Lord reward this effort of pastoral charity.” The blogger who published the documents writes that the priests of the diocese met Thursday to discuss the matter. At the meeting, some priests were openly critical of both the bishops’ directive and the Pope’s document. The blogger adds that Cardinal Mario Poli was present at the meeting with a canon lawyer and that both contradicted the bishops’ directive, "clarifying that the Eucharist can only be received by those divorced and remarried who live together as brother and sister, maintaining chastity." The leaked document is the first time there is explicit confirmation that Pope Francis interprets Amoris Laetitia as allowing communion for divorced and remarried Catholics without the condition that the couple in the irregular situation live as brother and sister without sexual relations, as was always required by the Church. Neither the Vatican spokesman nor the chancery office of Buenos Aires were available for comment on this story. LifeSite Paris correspondent Jeanne Smits contributed to this report. +++++++++++ PF is the destroyer prophesied by St Francis of Assisi. +
Why is it going to extraordinary lengths to 'twist' his words which are quite clear? It has always been the 'great moral tradition of The Church', as far as I am aware, to permit adulterous couples to discretely receive with the proviso that they live together as brother and sister. You say that what is important is not what Pope Francis actually publicly states, but what he really 'means'. That is to strip language of all meaning and to consign truth to whatever either the speaker considers it to be within their minds which are ultimately unknowable except to themselves and to God, or to whatever the hearer self-interprets as the speaker's meaning. Sanity requires that we can only interpret Pope Francis by what he publicly writes or speaks, not by what we think he really means. The words 'with the great moral tradition of The Church' are among the clearest and unambiguous I have heard from this Pope and leave no room for anything except one meaning, echoing Cardinal Mueller's statement on Amoris Laetitia. You are probably right that these words are not what he really means, but neither of us can ever know that. We can only go by his spoken and written words, not being mind-readers. There is nothing in the Magisterium but the record of words that have been spoken and written. I have certainly heard of no magisterial documentation based on what individuals were, according to other individuals, meant to have thought. It is my understanding that the Pope's recent comments on magisteriality were directed to the original document Amoris Laetitia. These comments are public, that is the reason they are being reported. The Buenos Aires letter was a private one to the local bishops. I have not heard anyone say that Pope Francis' recent comments attributing magisteriality to an AL document interpreted 'with the great moral tradition of The Church', and one having nothing to do with 'situation ethics', were in any way directed to this mere private letter. Logic dictates that the apparent meaning of that letter cannot be reconciled with the Pope's recent explanation of the meaning of Amoris Laetitia. Therefore, he would run into all sorts of irresolvable problems if he claimed magisteriality for the letter too. As he does not seem to have claimed magisteriality for the letter, one can not use its contents for a magisterial interpretation of AL, most particularly if such an interpretation contradicted his recent comments. As far as I am concerned, it is therefore not unreasonable to assume that the Buenos Aires letter might have contained some unfortunate, unintentional linguistic error or might have been mis-typed. You have asserted that I might be twisting words in order to fit my own narrative. I don't think I am. The words are plain, the saying of them cannot easily be unsaid. We certainly have heard no Vatican denial of them, nor any attempt to reinterpret them 'in context'. I suggest you ask yourself whether you might be 'twisting' words and events to fit your own narrative which continually sails very close to anti-popery or even sedevacantism. If you haven't already done so, I recommend reading Cardinal Sarah's recent book 'The Day is Now Near Spent'. The Cardinal is a good guide to how one might remain absolutely loyal to the papacy while not deviating one iota from orthodoxy.
I feel like I am in the 'Twilight Zone'. Am I correct in assuming that you are saying that we should now ignore the fact that this Buenos Aires letter was included in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis as instructed by PF to become part of 'authentic Magisterium'? Pope Francis Promulgates Buenos Aires Guidelines Allowing Communion for Some Adulterers in AAS as his "Authentic Magisterium" https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2017/12/pope-francis-promulgates-buenos-aires.html https://w2.vatican.va/content/franc..._20160905_regione-pastorale-buenos-aires.html (With Google translate: https://translate.google.com/transl..._20160905_regione-pastorale-buenos-aires.html) "5) When the specific circumstances of a couple make it feasible, especially when both are Christians with a path of faith, the effort to live in continence can be proposed. Amoris laetitia does not ignore the difficulties of this option (cf. note 329 ) and leaves open the possibility of accessing the sacrament of Reconciliation when he fails in that purpose (cf. note 364 , according to the teaching of St. John Paul II to Cardinal W Baum, 03/22/1996). 6) In other more complex circumstances, and when a declaration of nullity could not be obtained, the mentioned option may not be in fact feasible. However, a path of discernment is also possible. If it comes to recognize that, in a specific case, there are limitations that mitigate responsibility and guilt (cf. 301-302 ), particularly when a person considers that he would fall into a further fault damaging the children of the new union, Amoris laetitia opens the possibility of access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist (cf. notes 336 and 351 ). These in turn provide the person to continue maturing and growing with the force of grace." I am definitely NOT anti-popery. I am also not sedevacantist because I believe that Benedict XVI is still the true Pope. +
Yes, ignore it. That's the best thing that we general infantry can do with it. Giving it attention is only lending it credibility. Even if the Buenos Aires letter is considered part of the Magisterium, this pope has just said that it must be interpreted "with the great moral tradition of The Church". This implies that the stated access to 'the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist' must be undertaken in the traditional way, with all that implies regarding a firm purpose of amendment. It is perhaps under-emphasised that PF linked Reconciliation and the Eucharist in BA. At least he didn't drop Confession altogether. It is also now significant that he has rejected the application of situation ethics in interpreting AL, in contradiction of his invocation of it in note 336. Note 351 does not contain anything very problematic. It is also very debateable whether the notes of a document deemed magisterial are themselves attributed with the same magisteriality. It doesn't appear likely considering PF has just cut the ground from under 336. I consider that these recent statements have clarified quite a bit about these two prior documents and leave relevant penitents no wriggle room, if they wish to be honest, to themselves and to Christ. Otherwise, they reject the 'great moral tradition of The Church', extending unambiguously for two millenia since He said 'go, and sin no more' (unlike some, He wasn't saying one thing and meaning something else). Thankfully, his recent words indicate that Pope Francis has now hitched himself firmly onto the tradition, whatever he might think in the recesses of his mind. By declaring that Benedict is still pope, you are deeming Francis an anti-pope by default. You are also placing yourself dangerously close to schism, if not worse. Pope Francis might be the most wicked pope ever-probably is, unfortunately-but he is still Pope and as the current member of that office deserves the loyalty that is due to him. No loyalty is due to any of his thoughts, words, writings or deeds that contradict the Faith. It is an excruciating situation to have to bear, but simply saying he's not Pope is taking the easy way out. It's monstrous, but he's Pope.
That's the truth. It is easy to be loyal to Popes like St John Paul II and Benedict. The real test of loyalty is when it has to be given to someone who doesn't inspire it. It's not unlike Hope. Hope is easy when things are hopeful. As Chesterton said, real Hope is hoping when things seem hopeless. The crucial word is 'seem'. Real loyalty is remaining loyal when there seems no reason to be.
