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

[Wesrock]

Pope Francis has been on record recently as dismissing simply allowing the divorced and remarried to communion. I do wish he was less vague in other areas and more black and white, and a nuanced approach, while ideal, can also be confusing in practice, but all this hub bub about pastoral direction and discerning moral sin (in keeping with what’s in the Catechism) is driving me crazy!

 

[Wesrock]

I thought that doctrine was not changeable…but *tradition *could be, and has been (eg–married priests was once tradition, but teaching on it was changed…)

.

Discipline is modifiable. Tradition is a much broader word, which can refer to doctrine and such, too. (Also, the celibate priesthood was a changed discipline in order to restore the far older tradition of a sexually continent priesthood, so that example isn’t as black and white as most make it out to be, but more discussion on that should go in a different topic).

 

[Brendan]

I thought that doctrine was not changeable…but *tradition *could be, and has been (eg–married priests was once tradition, but teaching on it was changed…)

.

No, the Catholic Church views Tradition to be a part of Sacred Revelation. It is that which Christ gave to the Apostles, in Word and Deed, that is passed from generation to generation with Divine assurance.

It represents the complete body of experience that the Apostles had with Christ during His full time on Earth, not just that which was recorded in Scripture.

It is unchangeable.

What you are thinking of is what is known as Church Discipline. Married clergy is a disciplinary rule, rules that help the Church fulfil Her mission on Earth. Those CAN be changed. Sacred Tradition, like Sacred Scripture, cannot change.

 

[Spudbynight]

I thought that doctrine was not changeable…but *tradition *could be, and has been (eg–married priests was once tradition, but teaching on it was changed…)

.

People often confuse Tradition with tradition. Tradition (with a capital T) refers to the Catholic faith. It includes all of the faith that isn’t found within Sacred Scripture. This includes every Council, every Papal Encyclical etc. This cannot be changed.

When talking about tradition (with a small t) this is simply those practices that are held by custom.

As examples, the dogma of the Assumption of Mary is part of Tradition. The abstinence from meat on Fridays is a tradition.

 

[kyrie03]

I thought that doctrine was not changeable…but *tradition *could be, and has been (eg–married priests was once tradition, but teaching on it was changed…)

.

What the other posters said about tradition is true.
Doctrine is part of tradition. Tradition is anything that has been divinely revealed (either orally or written down) and passed on/handed down by the Church. It is contains what is necessary for us to believe and teaches us how we should live in order to attain heaven. Some traditions (those taught by Christ to apostles and what apostles taught) can never be changed. Other traditions can be changed only when a greater good is achieved. And if a greater good is not achieved by the changing of tradition it points to the fact that the Holy Spirit is not using the changes to draw men in closer union with God.

Minor changes to traditions (such as inserting new feasts of saints, allowing younger children to receive Communion, requiring celibacy in West for priesthood, laws regarding fasts, etc…) were instituted in order to help Christians live more perfectly. Changes to established tradition were tolerated when a greater good or more perfect way of worshipping God was promulgated. Destruction or sweeping modification of tradition can be considered “impious” because it denies that prior teachers of the Magisterium were guided by the Holy Spirit. Past saints would never have presumed to change drastically or refused to pass on traditions that their forefathers had practiced faithfully and piously. This is irreverence presuming that one is greater than one’s ancestors, that God did not properly guide the saints in history when they promulgated the traditions.

With regards to divorce and civil remarriage - this is adultery as taught directly by Christ. With regards to receiving the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist - how does allowing those in “irregular unions” recognize the reality of the Sacred Body and Precious Blood in the food he/she is receiving, possibly unto his/her own condemnation!? Were our ancestors all wrong?

 

[Waylon102]

The priests at my Church warned people about the document and said that there are wolves in sheep’s clothing in the upper echelons of the Church and that we should pray that people are not deceived if they read the document. It is bad enough we have errors outside the Church to deal with. Now we have to be on our guard against writings from the Pope. What a sad state of affairs. Christopher Ferrara has an excellent article that points out the errors in the document and how the Pope is very selective when quoting previous Church documents to support his leftist agenda.

 

[anon67074017]

The priests at my Church warned people about the document and said that there are wolves in sheep’s clothing in the upper echelons of the Church and that we should pray that people are not deceived if they read the document. It is bad enough we have errors outside the Church to deal with. Now we have to be on our guard against writings from the Pope. What a sad state of affairs. Christopher Ferrara has an excellent article that points out the errors in the document and how the Pope is very selective when quoting previous Church documents to support his leftist agenda.

I would be weary of the priests at your Church if they deny the Holy Father’s truth.

 

[JosieN]

The priests at my Church warned people about the document and said that there are wolves in sheep’s clothing in the upper echelons of the Church and that we should pray that people are not deceived if they read the document. It is bad enough we have errors outside the Church to deal with. Now we have to be on our guard against writings from the Pope. What a sad state of affairs. Christopher Ferrara has an excellent article that points out the errors in the document and how the Pope is very selective when quoting previous Church documents to support his leftist agenda.

It is a sad state of affairs. It has divided us and is hurting the members of the Church.

 

[commenter]

I would be weary of the priests at your Church if they deny the Holy Father’s truth.

I think you meant to write “wary”, but then again the word “weary” might also fit here.

 

[commenter]

The priests at my Church warned people about the document and said that there are wolves in sheep’s clothing in the upper echelons of the Church and that we should pray that people are not deceived if they read the document. It is bad enough we have errors outside the Church to deal with. Now we have to be on our guard against writings from the Pope. What a sad state of affairs. Christopher Ferrara has an excellent article that points out the errors in the document and how the Pope is very selective when quoting previous Church documents to support his leftist agenda.

Mr. Ferrara has consistently opposed the leadership of the Catholic Church for many years. In 2012 he appealed to the anti-Catholic European Union to put political pressure on Pope Benedict. Many people who themselves supported St. John Paul II, and Pope Benedict, oppose Mr. Ferrara. Many people who are grateful for the good legal work Mr. Ferrara did for prolife years ago, or even collaborated with him, have since split with him. Pope Francis is not the only pope Mr. Ferrara has opposed.

Once you step outside obedience to the Magisterium to evaluate it, you stop benefiting from it. Is your parish connected to the actual Catholic Church, to a diocese? Or is it some kind of offshoot? If you are looking for guidance, I urge you to read people who are currently in obedience to the Magisterium; in other words, those who currently benefit from it.

 

[otjm]

I say this because both the liberals and traditionalists are claiming that nothing has changed.

Peace

Well, from what I read, it is my understanding that Cardinal Kapser has acknowledged that nothing has changed - to wit: without a decree of nullity, divorced and remarried Catholics cannot receive Communion, unless they live as brother and sister. So you are correct that liberals have claimed that nothing has changed.

 

[kyrie03]

Well, from what I read, it is my understanding that Cardinal Kapser has acknowledged that nothing has changed - to wit: without a decree of nullity, divorced and remarried Catholics cannot receive Communion, unless they live as brother and sister. So you are correct that liberals have claimed that nothing has changed.

If you understand German, read what Cardinal Kasper stated.aachener-zeitung.de/dossier/karlspreis/kardinal-kasper-was-franziskus-von-der-kirche-und-europa-erwartet-1.1343592

I don’t read German - here is a translation and commentary on his statements onepeterfive.com/kasper-pope-intends-not-to-preserve-everything-as-it-has-been/

*And he (Kasper) continues, in the context of the question about “remarried” divorcees, by saying that Pope Francis has agreed with him about making some “humane decisions.” The German cardinal recounts how he once told Pope Francis about a priest whom he knew who had decided not to forbid a “remarried” mother to receive Holy Communion on the day of the First Holy Communion of her daughter. Cardinal Kasper himself concurred with that priest’s decision, saying: “That priest was fully right.” About his further conversation with the pope, he added these words: “I told this to the pope and he confirmed my attitude [with the following words]: ‘That is where the pastor has to make the decision.’” Kasper concludes: “There is now a tail wind to help solve such situations in a humane way.”

Kasper also says in this interview with regard to the admittance of “remarried” divorcees to the Sacraments: “The door is open. … There is also some freedom for the individual bishops and bishops’ conferences. … Not all Catholics think the way we Germans think.” And he concludes: “Here [in Germany,]something can be permissible which is forbidden in Africa. Therefore, the pope gives freedom for different situations and future developments.”*

Seems the German Cardinal doesn’t agree with your understanding.

 

[kyrie03]

Well, from what I read, it is my understanding that Cardinal Kapser has acknowledged that nothing has changed - to wit: without a decree of nullity, divorced and remarried Catholics cannot receive Communion, unless they live as brother and sister. So you are correct that liberals have claimed that nothing has changed.

Here is from Cardinal Kasper…commonwealmagazine.org/interview-cardinal-walter-kasper

*To live together as brother and sister? Of course I have high respect for those who are doing this. But it’s a heroic act, and heroism is not for the average Christian. That could also create new tensions. *
Living as brother and sister isn’t attainable for the average Catholic, only the heroic, is what I understand Kasper to be saying.

 

[commenter]

• Many, perhaps most divorced/remarried Catholic couples don’t even go to church at all;
• Many divorced/remarried couples that do go to church have been going to Holy Communion all along anyway, either because they don’t agree with the Church’s teaching on Marriage, or don’t agree with the Church’s teaching on Holy Communion, or - and this is a huge and growing number - they don’t really know the current teaching on either or both.
• The kind of priests who would “abuse” that footnote to counsel couples to receive Holy Communion when they should not, were already counseling couples to go to Communion if their conscience guides them to, anyway.
• The number of additional couples, and the number of additional priests, who would now initiate new imprudent advice or action based only on footnote 351, who would have otherwise been prudent without that famous footnote, is likely very tiny; maybe nobody.
• I can sympathize with any philosopher who says that the marital situation in the Catholic Church (and everywhere else) is now “chaos”. I would just add it was “chaos” for years.
• I think posters forget the people Pope Francis probably has in mind: the people I mentioned in my first point. What about* them*?

 

[pnewton]

No, the Catholic Church views Tradition to be a part of Sacred Revelation.Those CAN be changed. Sacred Tradition, like Sacred Scripture, cannot change.

Tradition can be changed, when it is not doctrine. We have many more traditions that are not doctrine than we do Sacred Tradition, which has been defined as doctrine. What this philosopher is saying is that the Pope has contradicted the latter, as he calls it traditional teaching. It is easy enough for me to just call his opinion hooey and move on. I will even go so far as to say that he commits and intellectual error, or even dishonesty that even a first year philosophy student should know when he calls it a "direct contradiction, " which it clearly is not. I question why, if he is this great philosopher, he would make such an untrue rhetorical statement.

At the very least, it is clear that the Holy Father, in addition to being more authoritative, has the intellectual upper hand.

 

[kyrie03]

Tradition can be changed, when it is not doctrine. We have many more traditions that are not doctrine than we do Sacred Tradition, which has been defined as doctrine. What this philosopher is saying is that the Pope has contradicted the latter, as he calls it traditional teaching. It is easy enough for me to just call his opinion hooey and move on. I will even go so far as to say that he commits and intellectual error, or even dishonesty that even a first year philosophy student should know when he calls it a "direct contradiction, " which it clearly is not. I question why, if he is this great philosopher, he would make such an untrue rhetorical statement.

At the very least, it is clear that the Holy Father, in addition to being more authoritative, has the intellectual upper hand.

Why do you assume the tradition of Holy Communion for D&R is not doctrine? Is it because it hasn’t been infallibly defined as such?

If every Catholic has distinctly, consistently, and universally practiced a tradition (such as receiving Holy Communion only if they are “in Union” -attempting to live in authentically Catholic manner: confessed and repented of any grave sin) we can be certain that the Holy Spirit is the author and preserver of such a tradition. Never in Church history has this practice been allowed. The Holy Father is the guardian of tradition, not the owner.
The pope is authoritatively superior? Has the intellectual upper hand? Tradition as revealed and guided by the Holy Spirit for 2,000 years is worthy of being preserved unchanged precisely because the way we live forms the way we believe and right belief is necessary for salvation. His Holiness’ duty is to explain and preserve what is necessary for the salvation of the faithful, not change or confuse us. The pope is the highest authority on earth, and is worthy of the highest degree of veneration above any other person on the earth. It is extremely difficult expressing what the Church has always taught in a manner that respects both the office of the papacy and the veneration that is also due to God’s revealed Truths.
I respect your defense of the Pope. It is good. But please try to understand that defense of tradition is also good. How I wish there wasnt an apparent conflict!

 

[pnewton]

Why do you assume the tradition of Holy Communion for D&R is not doctrine? Is it because it hasn’t been infallibly defined as such?

I do not assume either way. My evidence that it is not doctrine is:

1. The specifics of reception of communion in every other instance is a matter of discipline. (For example, at what age, what constitutes an emergency, the RCIA, first communion requirements)
2. The conflict at the last synod over this very issue, where the majority did not want this in the final document as a doctrine.
3. The uniqueness of the remarried state which is treated as a sin, with no parallel in the rest of moral theology.
4. Pope Francis does not treat it as a doctrine.

Balance against this, the evidence of the minority voice in the Church that believe this is a doctrine, using a syllogism of established doctrine, with what I consider to be logical inconsistencies within the broader context of moral theology.

The pope is authoritatively superior?

Yes. He has more authority than a lay philosopher.

Has the intellectual upper hand?

In my opinion, this is true, but it is based only on this one article. So it may be only in this limited area that I can comment. I believe this because the philosopher in question called a “direct contradiction” something that was not a philosophical direct contradiction. A direct contradiction is where one person says “A” and another says “not A”, where “A” is the* exact* same thing. What this guy did was akin to the lady in Walmart say, “I** literally** starved to death waiting in line.” Obviously this person would not know what the word “literally” means, like this philosopher was loose with the word “direct”.

Not everyone has the intellectual discipline required of the Jesuits.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

As Genesis315 points out in post 7, there are good rules for not acting like worldly corporations that constantly tell us not to read the small print.

To that extent it would have been better if the HF had proved his point with explicit comparisons. But the Vatican is a government after all

 

[kyrie03]

I do not assume either way. My evidence that it is not doctrine is:

1. The specifics of reception of communion in every other instance is a matter of discipline. (For example, at what age, what constitutes an emergency, the RCIA, first communion requirements)
2. The conflict at the last synod over this very issue, where the majority did not want this in the final document as a doctrine.
3. The uniqueness of the remarried state which is treated as a sin, with no parallel in the rest of moral theology.
4. Pope Francis does not treat it as a doctrine.

Balance against this, the evidence of the minority voice in the Church that believe this is a doctrine, using a syllogism of established doctrine, with what I consider to be logical inconsistencies within the broader context of moral theology.

Yes. He has more authority than a lay philosopher.

In my opinion, this is true, but it is based only on this one article. So it may be only in this limited area that I can comment. I believe this because the philosopher in question called a “direct contradiction” something that was not a philosophical direct contradiction. A direct contradiction is where one person says “A” and another says “not A”, where “A” is the* exact* same thing. What this guy did was akin to the lady in Walmart say, “I** literally** starved to death waiting in line.” Obviously this person would not know what the word “literally” means, like this philosopher was loose with the word “direct”.

Not everyone has the intellectual discipline required of the Jesuits.

You have misunderstood my post. My question is whether or not a Pope has authority to change a tradition that has been practiced since the Church’s foundation? (Theologians aren’t looking to their own authority or fallible reasoning…they are pointing out the infallibly guided practice of all Christians throughout all times until the present). Is any Pope intellectually superior to what the Church has consistently believed and practiced at all times and in all countries? Does a pope have the right to contradict what his predecessors have clearly taught? Example: Familiaris Consortio “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.”

 

[Lumen_Pro_Via]

1. The uniqueness of the remarried state which is treated as a sin, with no parallel in the rest of moral theology.

The issue of adultery surrounding remarriage following a divorce from a valid marriage is clearly doctrinal.