Amoris Laetitia Article

  • Thread starter Thread starter Phillip_Rolfes
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Phillip_Rolfes

Guest
A fine article from the National Catholic Register. I think he hits the nail pretty square on the head by pointing out that most who “read” AL only read chapter 8. In my reading and rereading of the document, I believe the interpretive keys lie at the beginning of the document itself.

To others who have read AL, where do you believe the interpretive keys to the document lie?
 
The interpretive key to the infamous footnote of Chapter 8 is found in Paragraph 84 of Familiaris Consortio. Once one learns from the clear and unambiguous writing statement in FC 84 one can move on realizing that nothing has changed regarding communion matters both pastorally and theologically. The great saint was clear on communion for the divorced and remarried (irregular union etc), folks need to realize this a move on with the rest of “AL”.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately your interpretation is denied by Papal approval of the Argentinian view.
Both Popes cannot be right if its a matter of doctrine as you suggest.

If one is wrong then one is not teaching infallibly.
But as both are adamant in their positions then it is just as likely that neither are teaching infallibly.

In which case the issue is unresolved - or is simply a matter of discipline not doctrine.
If its a matter of discipline then the discipline has changed since FC.

But all this has been done to death in AL threads last year.
Just reread.
 
Tatum said:
In which case the issue is unresolved - or is simply a matter of discipline not doctrine.

If its a matter of discipline then the discipline has changed since FC.
Click to expand...
And that is the question.

But as regards to the original question, I did not see the first part of the exhortation as the key as much as I saw it as the Pope teaching about marriage and the family. We need his message today, and instead of learning what he has to tell us, or applauding him for taking time to address this in the world today, people jump to the one thing that wasn’t specifically clarified. That one or two lines in chapter eight are a moot point to those who follow the rest of what is taught.
 
Due to a misprint in the completely rewritten owner’s manual of a 2017 car, owners were left with the idea that they could change the oil whenever they wanted rather than at specified times.

The rest of the owner’s manual is great.

However, the part that is unclear still needs to be clarified. It doesn’t matter if all the rest of the manual is clear and terrific, following the one badly written part could cause owners to destroy their cars.
 
Phillip_Rolfes said:
To others who have read AL, where do you believe the interpretive keys to the document lie?
Click to expand...
The key lies with Pope Francis. AL should be read in the light of the mind of Pope Francis.
 
Last edited:
One pope used a brief footnote.
The other pope used an entire paragraph to say the opposite.

Both used an apostolic exhortation. One of the exhortations footnote evidently can abrogate another’s paragraph. One of the two popes is incorrect on the matter. FC is still in force as is AL. One is free to use all of FC for guidance including paragraph 84. Choose I guess. I love the owners manual example listed above, however AL is a wonderful document. Not so sure about the footnotes though…but the main document is awesome.
 
deacon3b said:
One of the two popes is incorrect on the matter.
Click to expand...
Not at all. They do not contradict. You do know, I assume, that in Familiaris Consortio St. John Paul called this a practice. The man was a precise theologian, more so than Pope Francis. If it had been a doctrine, I am sure he would have used the right word. That said, it might indeed be a doctrinal truth, but if so, it has not yet been defined as so.
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.
Click to expand...
Now add to this that Pope Francis did not contradict this in any way, any more than the practice of allowing couples who live in continence to receive communion contradicts this.
 
Last edited:
Personally I have not found a neutral informed Catholic on this matter who is in any doubt as to the new possibilities allowed by AL given Pope Francis’s Magisterially recorded response to the Argentinian bishops.

As to the issue of two Popes allegedly contradicting each other - the jury is still out on that one. As observed there are three choices:
  • Its a disciplinary matter so contradictions are acceptable over time.
  • One Pope is infallible the other is not. That is an untestable proposition
  • Both Pope’s are in fact in accord with each other.
The latter position is where most faithful Catholics seem to be working from - admitting they may not have the pastoral or theological training to be able to explain it.
 
Phillip_Rolfes said:
A fine article from the National Catholic Register.
Click to expand...
Is there a link? I couldn’t find which article you meant by just going to the site. I did find one that mentioned paragraph 2 of the document, but it didn’t talk about everyone reading chapter 8 only.

I didn’t just read chapter 8. I particularly liked chapter 4. I was confused by chapter 8, though, so of course I have talked about that.

I think the interpretive key is held by the magisterium. They/it will have to tell us.
 
Whoops! My bad. The article that you linked was the one I was referencing. Not sure how the link didn’t make it into my post.
 
Good point. The interesting part of 84 is now the author uses “The Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture” Then the author goes on to say “there is another pastoral reason (there are two reasons at least according to the great saint):…the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching…”

The great saint was spot on in. I would also like to point out that JPII used the word “WOULD be led to error” not COULD be led to error. I agree with you, JPII, being the precise theologian, carefully using words here… would over could.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top