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

[OraLabora]

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

But not its exclusion from possible mitigating factors that can potentially reduce culpability from mortal to venial in some circumstances. That strikes me as clearly contradictory to established doctrine on the three elements of mortal sin: grave matter, full knowledge, and full consent of the will.

The Holy Father in fact points this out in Amoris Laetitia.

 

[kyrie03]

But not its exclusion from possible mitigating factors that can potentially reduce culpability from mortal to venial in some circumstances. That strikes me as clearly contradictory to established doctrine on the three elements of mortal sin: grave matter, full knowledge, and full consent of the will.

The Holy Father in fact points this out in Amoris Laetitia.

So whose Apostolic Exhortation is correct in the way Catholics should practice the doctrine, Pope John Paul II (FM-see above post where I quote his words) or Pope Francis? One pope explains 2 reasons why divorced and remarried are not to partake of the Eucharist and another pope suggests the opposite
Are you suggesting the Church hasn’t practiced the doctrine on 3 elements of mortal sin correctly for 2,000 years?
What GOOD for the faithful is accomplished in changing the practice? Purpose of traddition is to form faithful so that how they worship forms how they believe so that they can attain eternal salvation in the way they live…Lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi. It’s not so that the way we live forms the way we believe and the way we give God what is his due

 

[dmar198]

So whose Apostolic Exhortation is correct in the way Catholics should practice the doctrine, Pope John Paul II (FM-see above post where I quote his words) or Pope Francis? One pope explains 2 reasons why divorced and remarried are not to partake of the Eucharist and another pope suggests the opposite

Part of the answer to this is that neither pope teaches the opposite. As I pointed out in post #6, Amoris Laetitia says the same thing as Familiaris Consortio: the divorced and remarried cannot ordinarily receive Communion, only in certain cases. The difference is simply that Familiaris Consortio states what those cases are: the couple must be living as brother and sister and/or have an annulment. Thus there is no contradiction, and Pope Francis did not suggest that people can receive Communion except under the circumstances expressed by St. John Paul 2, whom he frequently quoted (including the document Familiaris Consortio among his quotations and referrals).

 

[kyrie03]

Part of the answer to this is that neither pope teaches the opposite. As I pointed out in post #6, Amoris Laetitia says the same thing as Familiaris Consortio: the divorced and remarried cannot ordinarily receive Communion, only in certain cases. The difference is simply that Familiaris Consortio states what those cases are: the couple must be living as brother and sister and/or have an annulment. Thus there is no contradiction, and Pope Francis did not suggest that people can receive Communion except under the circumstances expressed by St. John Paul 2, whom he frequently quoted (including the document Familiaris Consortio among his quotations and referrals).

Actually, Pope Francis in AL does find that those in what used to be called “adulterous relationships” can abstain from sexual relations for a time and live as brother and sister…and he references Guadium et Spes allowing a married couple to periodically live as brother and sister (practice NFP) for purposes of spacing children due to grave reasons.

The Church acknowledges situations “where, for serious reasons, such as the children’s upbringing, a man and woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate”. (298)

This sentence then cites footnote 329, which reads:

John PauL II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio (22 November 1981), 84: AAS 74 (1982), 186. In such situations, 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).

Pope Francis likens abstaining from adulterous relations to abstaining from marital relations when abstaining would endanger faithfulness or the good of the children might suffer. Planning to periodically abstain from sexual relations if one is divorced and civilly remarried is not firm purpose of amending one’s life and nullifies absolution. Notice that Pope Francis explains that there are serious reasons why the divorced and remarried can sometimes NOT seperate.

 

[Lumen_Pro_Via]

But not its exclusion from possible mitigating factors that can potentially reduce culpability from mortal to venial in some circumstances. That strikes me as clearly contradictory to established doctrine on the three elements of mortal sin: grave matter, full knowledge, and full consent of the will.

The Holy Father in fact points this out in Amoris Laetitia.

The Church has never said that the sin of adultery resulting from remarriage must be mortal, only objectively grave. That is the criterion upon which the divorced and civilly remarried are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.

 

[Pulvis]

[31]And it hath been said, whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a bill of divorce. [32] But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting for the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery. Gospel of St. Matthew, ch. 5 drbo.org

[36] But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil. Gospel of St. Matthew, Ch 5

It never ceases to amaze me how people complicate the Gospel and the perennial teachings of the Church in an attempt to justify deviant beliefs. We create these grey areas by refusing to live to the standards given By God and the Church. And using pretzel logic and contorted theology in an attempt to assuage those who have made the decision to obstinately live in sin damages the rest of the Faithful. Pope St. Pius X warned of the modernist tendencies to water down, obfuscate and contort the teachings of the Church to the detriment of the Faithful practice. That was in the late 1800’s. Some things never change.
The culture should adapt to the Faith…not the other way around.

 

[TMC]

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?

Yes, I believe he does, and has at other times in the past.

 

[OraLabora]

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? ]

He certainly has more authority than anyone on this forum calling his authority into question.

 

[irenaeus1]

He certainly has more authority than anyone on this forum calling his authority into question.

I don’t believe anyone is questioning Pope Francis’ authority… perhaps the reach of his authority. Obviously, past popes have more authority than anyone on this forum as well. That is not the issue. The issue is if this pope appears to contradict another pope, is the contradiction real or apparent? If the contradiction is not real and only apparent, how are the two positions reconcilable? If the contradiction is real, then is the position articulated by one or more authorities simply imprudent or erroneous?.. and if so, how?

 

[RPRPsych]

[31]And it hath been said, whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a bill of divorce. [32] But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting for the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery. Gospel of St. Matthew, ch. 5 drbo.org

[36] But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil. Gospel of St. Matthew, Ch 5

It never ceases to amaze me how people complicate the Gospel and the perennial teachings of the Church in an attempt to justify deviant beliefs. We create these grey areas by refusing to live to the standards given By God and the Church. And using pretzel logic and contorted theology in an attempt to assuage those who have made the decision to obstinately live in sin damages the rest of the Faithful. Pope St. Pius X warned of the modernist tendencies to water down, obfuscate and contort the teachings of the Church to the detriment of the Faithful practice. That was in the late 1800’s. Some things never change.
The culture should adapt to the Faith…not the other way around.

Considering that St Pius X only became Pope in 1903, that sounds rather unlikely. Perhaps you were thinking of Blessed Pius IX and the Syllabus of Errors?

 

[Pulvis]

Considering that St Pius X only became Pope in 1903, that sounds rather unlikely. Perhaps you were thinking of Blessed Pius IX and the Syllabus of Errors?

Nope, Pius X. Wrong date is due in large part to being old.
papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10pasce.htm 1907. Thanks for the correction.

 

[RPRPsych]

Nope, Pius X. Wrong date is due in large part to being old.
papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10pasce.htm 1907. Thanks for the correction.

Hey, it happens to the best of us. Errare humanum est. Thanks for the link.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

It strikes me the strategy of making us all scuttle around comparing all sorts of documents minutely with all sorts of other documents - which will of course “prove” at the end of the day to be “water-tight” at the same time as feeling to be full of holes - owes too much to sentimentality about the Eucharist.

Being a lateral and not head-on thinker I intuit that an “unquestionable” over-attachment to Catholics’ “entitlement” to every eucharist as a sine qua non means that more underlying essentials lose their place. Very sad to say the Pope appears to be falling for it (don’t underestimate how much Popes get their arms twisted, look at JP II, Leo XIII and many others) - not exactly on the face of it but simply by not countering loud and clear the 0th Commandment.

The 0th Commandment (which is of course both unwritten, and far firmer than if it had been written) reads:

“Thou shalt not ask any Catholic to do anything except join the communion queue, except insofar as to imply that his place in the communion queue is irrevocable.”

I’m not knocking frequent communion per se but we need to put some more diverse actions on the map, model them, for people to see they are also the done thing.

We need to demonstrate by our actions that there is such a real thing as happy, integrated Catholics who don’t go to communion for a period.

Put on the map = model to be seen = demonstrate the acceptability of.

Sitting out, grinning beatifically in our Spiritual Communion, is also acceptable!

If it takes people months to sort out penances for non-textbook history and years for people to sort out their marriages, stop hassling them about Communion. Saying “Oh it’s so gorgeous to go to Communion” amounts to hassling in these circumstances. It’s more appropriate to stress how your faith swells from sharing in existential, Scriptural catechesis with your fellows for years on end so you can teach each other to trust in God in life’s ups and downs (a spiritual work of mercy incidentally). That will take their minds off insisting on being readmitted to Communion.

(Say “it’s so gorgeous to go to Communion” in a thread clearly addressed to a different class of people where it would of course be extremely beautiful.)

The oblique is more direct really, and is God’s way. Since when was He ever head-on? One day He will be (towards us foremost), and it’s not for us to usurp that beforehand.

The communion God is looking for is how Christians and catechumens help make each others’ lives productive, draw the gifts out of each other. Those are the talents and the “hard man” is going to ferret out which ones have been “buried”!

 

[pnewton]

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?

Annulments is not a tradition that is 2000 years old. The rules concerning reception communion are likewise not 2000 years old. I think Pope Francis is quite well versed in what it doctrinal history and is comfortable that he is not contradicting any tradition that is established doctrine. So you question if the Pope can change a practice that is 2000 years old, and is a tradition founded in doctrine, just begs the question.

 

[pnewton]

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

Of course it is doctrinal. I said it is* uniquely* addressed by the Church, in many ways. In fact, I think this document is the first time I have ever seen the concept of culpability applied to someone who is remarried, acknowledging that not all who are remarried have committed a mortal sin. Culpability is also doctrine, as is the role of the conscience. I have never seen anywhere, prior to this document where these two issues have been used in the context of a second marriage, even though they are used in every other area of moral theology.

 

[kyrie03]

Annulments is not a tradition that is 2000 years old. The rules concerning reception communion are likewise not 2000 years old. I think Pope Francis is quite well versed in what it doctrinal history and is comfortable that he is not contradicting any tradition that is established doctrine. So you question if the Pope can change a practice that is 2000 years old, and is a tradition founded in doctrine, just begs the question.

The tradition that is being changed, the doctrine that is being rejected in at least some cases, is the prohibition for the divorced and civilly remarried to partake in Communion.

Here is what Pope John Paul II said in his apostolic exhortation, Familiaris Consortio, paragraph 84:

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.
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."

Contrast that to what Pope Francis says apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia, paragraph 298 and its footnote 329:

The divorced who have entered a new union, for example, can find themselves in a variety of situations, which should not be pigeonholed or fit into overly rigid classifications leaving no room for a suitable personal and pastoral discernment. One thing is a second union consolidated over time, with new children, proven fidelity, generous self giving, Christian commitment, a consciousness of its irregularity and of the great difficulty of going back without feeling in conscience that one would fall into new sins. The Church acknowledges situations “where, for serious reasons, such as the children’s upbringing, a man and woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate”.329
329 John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio (22 November 1981), 84: AAS 74 (1982), 186. In such situations, 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).

Tradition or practice, according to Pope John Paul II, does not allow for ANY reception of Communion based on Sacred Scripture’s clear teaching on what constitutes adultery and grave scandal to the faithful. New practice according to Pope Francis is to not pigeonhole divorced into overly rigid classifications (such as how Pope John Paul II classified them?). Pope Francis says the Church acknowledges situations when the divorced remarried cannot separate and goes on to justify keeping the second union intact by referencing Gaudium Spes allowing married couples to periodically live as brother and sister when woman is fertile. Paragraph 84 of FC stating that “complete continence” is one of necessary requirements for D&R to receive Communion is completely ignored. Instead, D&R are exhorted to practice “periodic continence” like those who practice NFP for grave reasons.

pnewton, is this not changing the practice of an established tradition based on clearly defined doctrine? Which Pope is correct in exhorting the faithful to live in a particular manner that accurately reflects the perfection we are called to attain before we can enter heaven?

 

[pnewton]

The tradition that is being changed, the doctrine that is being rejected in at least some cases, is the prohibition for the divorced and civilly remarried to partake in Communion.

Why do you call it a doctrine? Even the quote you used to supposedly support it being a doctrine argues against this. St. John Paul called it a practice, and a practice he felt he needed to affirm.

The context, this paragraph open, “However,** the Church reaffirms her practice.**…”

The opening is what should have been in bold, if anything. That is how paragraphs work.

 

[otjm]

The tradition that is being changed, the doctrine that is being rejected in at least some cases, is the prohibition for the divorced and civilly remarried to partake in Communion.

Here is what Pope John Paul II said in his apostolic exhortation, Familiaris Consortio, paragraph 84:

Contrast that to what Pope Francis says apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia, paragraph 298 and its footnote 329:
Tradition or practice, according to Pope John Paul II, does not allow for ANY reception of Communion based on Sacred Scripture’s clear teaching on what constitutes adultery and grave scandal to the faithful. New practice according to Pope Francis is to not pigeonhole divorced into overly rigid classifications (such as how Pope John Paul II classified them?). Pope Francis says the Church acknowledges situations when the divorced remarried cannot separate and goes on to justify keeping the second union intact by referencing Gaudium Spes allowing married couples to periodically live as brother and sister when woman is fertile. Paragraph 84 of FC stating that “complete continence” is one of necessary requirements for D&R to receive Communion is completely ignored. Instead, D&R are exhorted to practice “periodic continence” like those who practice NFP for grave reasons.

pnewton, is this not changing the practice of an established tradition based on clearly defined doctrine? Which Pope is correct in exhorting the faithful to live in a particular manner that accurately reflects the perfection we are called to attain before we can enter heaven?

You seem to be missing something, and that is that the Church has also permitted divorced and remarried couples to go to Communion when they live as brother and sister - a point that Pope Francis makes (again).

And frankly, if such a couple were to go to Communion, it is not your business or mine to be inquiring, either with them or with the priest, as to their status. As in, absolutely no business whatsoever. That is between them and their confessor and God.

 

[kyrie03]

You seem to be missing something, and that is that the Church has also permitted divorced and remarried couples to go to Communion when they live as brother and sister - a point that Pope Francis makes (again).

And frankly, if such a couple were to go to Communion, it is not your business or mine to be inquiring, either with them or with the priest, as to their status. As in, absolutely no business whatsoever. That is between them and their confessor and God.

Did you read footnote referencing Gaudium Spes? Go back and read what GS is talking about….it doesn’t discuss unmarried couples living as brother and sister. It is talking about married couples practicing NFP -periodic continence….not complete continence that Pope John Paul II said is necessary for the D&R. A married couple practicing NFP is not objectively wrong. However, an unmarried couple practicing periodic continence is objectively wrong according to (not me) the Church.
Please try to understand that I am not inserting myself into anyone else’s business nor attempting to act as an authority figure. I am merely trying to uphold the doctrines as the Church has always understood them. Re-read what Pope John Paul II said regarding Communion for D&R. He says the state and condition of their life objectively contradicts the union of love between Christ and his Church. He goes on to say that pastorally, to allow D&R to receive Communion would scandalize the faithful leading them into error and confusion.

 

[kyrie03]

Why do you call it a doctrine? Even the quote you used to supposedly support it being a doctrine argues against this. St. John Paul called it a practice, and a practice he felt he needed to affirm.

The context, this paragraph open, “However,** the Church reaffirms her practice.**…”

The opening is what should have been in bold, if anything. That is how paragraphs work.

Practices uphold the doctrines. How one lives or practices reflects their belief. Pope John Paul II is unambiguously clear that D&R not scandalize the faithful by partaking in the Eucharist without sacramental confession and repentance (changing their relationship to either separate or live in complete continence if separation isn’t possible).