Amoris Laetitia footnote contradicts Church’s tradition, says leading German philosopher

  • Thread starter Thread starter slMike
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

slMike

Guest
Amoris Laetitia footnote contradicts Church’s tradition, says leading German philosopher

by Staff Reporter 28 Apr 2016 Catholic Herald
  • Robert Spaemann said Communion was a ‘yes or no’ question and that the Pope’s document could lead to a schism*
    Robert Spaemann, one of the foremost living Catholic philosophers, has said Amoris Laetitia contradicts the traditional teaching of the Church.
In an interview with the German Catholic News Agency, Spaemann says that most of Pope Francis’s apostolic exhortation is in line with the Church’s teaching – although some sections are capable of being read otherwise. However, Spaemann says that paragraph 305, when read with its accompanying footnote 351, “directly contradicts [widerspricht direkt] paragraph 84 of John Paul II’s letter Familiaris Consortio.”

Spaemann, described as one of Europe’s leading philosophers, has written almost 20 books and has an international reputation for his work in ethics and other areas. He belonged to Pope Benedict XVI’s circle of thinkers and went to meetings organised by the Pope Emeritus…

“The Powers That Be” should get this squared away, i.e. the learned,
it’s their duty, which this catholic intellectual seems to be fulfilling.

Mike
 
Robert Spaemann From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*"Robert Spaemann (born 5 May 1927) is arguably the foremost Roman Catholic philosopher in Germany today.[1] He is considered as a member of the Ritter-School.

Spaemann’s focus is on Christian ethics. He is known for his work in bioethics, ecology, and human rights. Although not yet widely translated into languages other than his native German, Spaemann is internationally known and his work is highly regarded by Pope Benedict XVI…"*
 
slMike said:
Amoris Laetitia footnote contradicts Church’s tradition, says leading German philosopher

by Staff Reporter 28 Apr 2016 Catholic Herald
  • Robert Spaemann said Communion was a ‘yes or no’ question and that the Pope’s document could lead to a schism*
    Robert Spaemann, one of the foremost living Catholic philosophers, has said Amoris Laetitia contradicts the traditional teaching of the Church.
In an interview with the German Catholic News Agency, Spaemann says that most of Pope Francis’s apostolic exhortation is in line with the Church’s teaching – although some sections are capable of being read otherwise. However, Spaemann says that paragraph 305, when read with its accompanying footnote 351, “directly contradicts [widerspricht direkt] paragraph 84 of John Paul II’s letter Familiaris Consortio.”

Spaemann, described as one of Europe’s leading philosophers, has written almost 20 books and has an international reputation for his work in ethics and other areas. He belonged to Pope Benedict XVI’s circle of thinkers and went to meetings organised by the Pope Emeritus…

“The Powers That Be” should get this squared away, i.e. the learned,
it’s their duty, which this catholic intellectual seems to be fulfilling.

Mike
Click to expand...
forums.catholic-questions.org/images/smilies/frown.gif

The question does not seem to be a “yes or no” one. There will be no schism, unless someone intentionally instigates such. 😦
 
slMike said:
Amoris Laetitia footnote contradicts Church’s tradition, says leading German philosopher

by Staff Reporter 28 Apr 2016 Catholic Herald
  • Robert Spaemann said Communion was a ‘yes or no’ question and that the Pope’s document could lead to a schism*
    Robert Spaemann, one of the foremost living Catholic philosophers, has said Amoris Laetitia contradicts the traditional teaching of the Church.
In an interview with the German Catholic News Agency, Spaemann says that most of Pope Francis’s apostolic exhortation is in line with the Church’s teaching – although some sections are capable of being read otherwise. However, Spaemann says that paragraph 305, when read with its accompanying footnote 351, “directly contradicts [widerspricht direkt] paragraph 84 of John Paul II’s letter Familiaris Consortio.”

Spaemann, described as one of Europe’s leading philosophers, has written almost 20 books and has an international reputation for his work in ethics and other areas. He belonged to Pope Benedict XVI’s circle of thinkers and went to meetings organised by the Pope Emeritus…

“The Powers That Be” should get this squared away, i.e. the learned,
it’s their duty, which this catholic intellectual seems to be fulfilling.

Mike
Click to expand...
In that news article, if you read the third paragraph, which begins “Paragraph 305 refers to those in ‘irregular’ situations,” and if you continue reading through to the fifth paragraph, which ends with “not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried,” you may find something that I think is interesting. The article quotes a paragraph and a footnote in Amoris Laetitia and a paragraph in Familiaris Consortio. It quotes Amoris as saying “In certain cases” people in irregular situations can receive the Sacraments. Then it quotes Familiaris as saying “[not] unless they live in complete continence.”

To me, that seems exactly the opposite of a contradiction. If I said that in some cases Jim can drive a car, and then someone else followed up with Not unless he’s sober, they have just identified the limit of cases where he can drive. Similarly, Amoris says that some people in irregular situations can receive the Sacraments, and Familiaris says Not unless they live in complete continence. By doing so, it appears that Familiaris identifies the limit of cases where people in such situations can receive Communion. If that analysis is correct, that is not a contradiction, and I wonder why Robert Spaemann thinks it is.
 
dmar198 said:
If that analysis is correct, that is not a contradiction, and I wonder why Robert Spaemann thinks it is.
Click to expand...
I agree that there is nothing erroneous in the footnote, but there’s a reason many intelligent people are reading it otherwise.

The Church used to have a bunch of theological censures aimed at avoiding this type of confusion. One, for example, applied to things that were true as written, but given the times and circumstances of their writing, were likely to give the wrong idea. Likewise, there was one for things that were written in a way that, taken in a vacuum, sounded wrong, even though it was technically right in the broader context. There was another for being ambiguous, etc. See here:
newadvent.org/cathen/03532a.htm

These have been completely neglected for some reason since Vatican II. IMO, while the members of the Church Teaching have generally kept strict care to avoid outright teaching error or heresy like always, this next level of vigilance has been lacking to the detriment of the effectiveness of the Church Teaching.
 
Genesis315 said:
I agree that there is nothing erroneous in the footnote, but there’s a reason many intelligent people are reading it otherwise.

The Church used to have a bunch of theological censures aimed at avoiding this type of confusion. One, for example, applied to things that were true as written, but given the times and circumstances of their writing, were likely to give the wrong idea. Likewise, there was one for things that were written in a way that, taken in a vacuum, sounded wrong, even though it was technically right in the broader context. There was another for being ambiguous, etc. See here:
newadvent.org/cathen/03532a.htm

These have been completely neglected for some reason since Vatican II. IMO, while the members of the Church Teaching have generally kept strict care to avoid outright teaching error or heresy like always, this next level of vigilance has been lacking to the detriment of the effectiveness of the Church Teaching.
Click to expand...
It gives the appearance of “constructive ambiguity” (a phrase coined by Henry Kissinger).
 
This is above my pay grade. Speaking honestly, I’ve heard so many contradictory opinions I’m not really sure what to believe, and wouldn’t know what to say if other Catholics in my life brought the issue up.
 
I’ll put my faith first in the successor to St. Peter before a mere student of past philosophers.

PEACE AND ALL GOOD!
 
Neofight said:
I’ll put my faith first in the successor to St. Peter before a mere student of past philosophers.

PEACE AND ALL GOOD!
Click to expand...
I agree. 👍

I’m sure a lot of people might have a lot of words for this sort of attitude, and many of them might not be particularly charitable.

But me, I’m much too simple to worry about all of these nuances, or even pretend that I have the capacity to discuss them.

I trust the Holy Father, and I trust his document. If I’m wrong, then Jesus will know that I was wrong because I love Him and His Vicar, and also because I was trying not to overstep my limitations.
 
Polyphony said:
I agree. 👍

I’m sure a lot of people might have a lot of words for this sort of attitude, and many of them might not be particularly charitable.

But me, I’m much too simple to worry about all of these nuances, or even pretend that I have the capacity to discuss them.

I trust the Holy Father, and I trust his document. If I’m wrong, then Jesus will know that I was wrong because I love Him and His Vicar, and also because I was trying not to overstep my limitations.
Click to expand...
I commend you and everyone who shows complete faith and loyalty to the Holy Father our Dear Pope Francis. I too love him and have complete fidelity to the Magisterium.

Unfortunately for me, my family has been ripped apart by abuses that occurred because the Church has not stood firm on it’s teachings about divorce and remarriage.

This is why I am speaking out about my concerns on the application of AL in real life. I think this is what some of the Bishops and others in the church are doing as well, in spite of their love for the Pope.

So giving voice to our concerns about certain changes, or potential changes, or requesting clarity on these issues isn’t necessarily a case of lack of fidelity or charity.

Peace 🙂
 
Neofight said:
I’ll put my faith first in the successor to St. Peter before a mere student of past philosophers.

PEACE AND ALL GOOD!
Click to expand...
and this is the crux of the confusion…
We must believe everything in the Deposit of Faith. Tradition literally means “handing on,” referring to the passing down of God’s revealed word. Tradition means all of divine revelation, from the dawn of human history to the end of the apostolic age, as passed on from one generation of believers to the next, and as preserved under divine guidance by the Church established by Christ.
Tradition is the property of God; the Magesterium (primarily the pope) is the guardian and teacher of revelation. No one can bind or loose what God has revealed and has been consistently taught by the Church. Communion for the divorced and civilly remarried has been consistently forbidden. AL is ambiguous as to whether or not the Magesterium today forbids it and seems to be suggesting that some in “irregular unions” can now be allowed to partake of the Eucharist.
There are different levels of tradition. Some can and some cannot be changed. What Christ has revealed is unchangeable (divorcing a wife and marrying another and not receiving unworthily unto our own condemnation). Our task is to remain faithful to what the Church has taught and to follow the Magesterium. They seem to be in conflict right now.
This isn’t a case of either following the pope or following mere students of past philosophers. Our opinions, feelings, emotions, etc… aren’t going to lead us to the truth or to salvation. We need to seek what is true -learn our faith- and reject what is false in this confusing time in the Church and in society. The salvation of our children depends upon our diligence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top