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

[otjm]

what do you mean by this? Is it imperative that someone confess and repent of relations after civil remarriage with no annulment before receiving the Eucharist? Do you understand this to be established doctrine or do you find it open to change in practice as Cardinal Kasper does?

I find it interesting that Christ only asked her one question, and it wasn’t “Do you repent?”

If you don’t find that interesting, that is okay.

By the way, Cardinal Muller made the following remarks about 3 days ago:

“If Amoris Laetitia intended to rescind such a deeply rooted and such a weighty discipline, it would have expressed itself in a clear manner and it would have given the reasons for it. However, such a statement with such a meaning is not to be found in [Amoris Laetitia]. Nowhere does the pope put into question the arguments of his predecessors. They are not based upon the subjective guilt of these our brothers and sisters, but, rather, upon the visible, objective way of life which is in opposition to the words of Christ.”

Speaking directly to footnote 351, the cardinal stated that the footnote was not speaking specifically about situations of remarried divorcees.

“Without entering into this question in a deeper way, it is sufficient to point out that this footnote refers in a general way to objective situations of sin, and not to the specific cases of the civilly remarried divorcees,” he stated. “Because this latter situation has its own distinctive characteristics which differentiate it from other situations.”

From an article in lifesitenews.com, referring to an interview translated in 1peter5 by Maike Hickson.

Last I checked, the good Cardinal was not on the best favored list of liberals.

 

[kyrie03]

I find it interesting that Christ only asked her one question, and it wasn’t “Do you repent?”

If you don’t find that interesting, that is okay.

By the way, Cardinal Muller made the following remarks about 3 days ago:

“If Amoris Laetitia intended to rescind such a deeply rooted and such a weighty discipline, it would have expressed itself in a clear manner and it would have given the reasons for it. However, such a statement with such a meaning is not to be found in [Amoris Laetitia]. Nowhere does the pope put into question the arguments of his predecessors. They are not based upon the subjective guilt of these our brothers and sisters, but, rather, upon the visible, objective way of life which is in opposition to the words of Christ.”

Speaking directly to footnote 351, the cardinal stated that the footnote was not speaking specifically about situations of remarried divorcees.

“Without entering into this question in a deeper way, it is sufficient to point out that this footnote refers in a general way to objective situations of sin, and not to the specific cases of the civilly remarried divorcees,” he stated. “Because this latter situation has its own distinctive characteristics which differentiate it from other situations.”

From an article in lifesitenews.com, referring to an interview translated in 1peter5 by Maike Hickson.

Last I checked, the good Cardinal was not on the best favored list of liberals.

Interesting anecdotal information but you avoided answering questions.

How do you know Christ didn’t ask her directly to repent? Gospels aren’t transcripts.

Understanding of Church Fathers was that Christ, in writing in dirt the sins of the accusers, He was detailing their own just as grievous and maybe even more so, sins. Not wanting the truth about their own sins to be made manifest, they left the scene and no longer wished to accuse the woman. In telling the woman to “go, sin no more” the Church Fathers understood repentance was a requirement. If one isn’t sorry, there would be no impetus to sin no more. Do you have a different understanding of Christ’s recorded words?

I asked you, if you think repentance is necessary? Giving ambiguous answers and quoting Cd Muller is irrelevant.

 

[otjm]

Interesting anecdotal information but you avoided answering questions.

How do you know Christ didn’t ask her directly to repent? Gospels aren’t transcripts.

Understanding of Church Fathers was that Christ, in writing in dirt the sins of the accusers, He was detailing their own just as grievous and maybe even more so, sins. Not wanting the truth about their own sins to be made manifest, they left the scene and no longer wished to accuse the woman. In telling the woman to “go, sin no more” the Church Fathers understood repentance was a requirement. If one isn’t sorry, there would be no impetus to sin no more. Do you have a different understanding of Christ’s recorded words?

I asked you, if you think repentance is necessary? Giving ambiguous answers and quoting Cd Muller is irrelevant.

The comments by Cardinal Muller are the most relevant information on this entire thread.

Furthermore, you and I are starting to take this thread off topic. Read what the Cardinal says, and then maybe we can get back on topic.

 

[pnewton]

Papal teaching documents, encyclicals, apostolic letters, apostolic exhortations, and “motu proprio” documents expound or explain existing law.

Although the Exhortation is labeled as “pastoral” instead of “doctrinal” it still has the power to change practices in the Church. Just look at how the “pastoral” Vatican II changed the landscape of the Church. If one from the 1920s were transported into a modern Church of today, I dare say, he/she wouldn’t recognize or be familiar with the building structure, orientation of priest facing people, demeanor of faithful, or even some of the liturgical prayers. Same cannot be said for one transported in time who attends Eastern rite Liturgy…

Is that a good thing or bad thing? Doesn’t this depend on whether one thinks the one liturgy today is “better” than the other, something that perhaps explains some of this dialogue. Now something that is unarguably a discipline is criticized (I use this because of the scare quotes on pastoral).

It is good to have more than one liturgy, seeing as people are not categories, but individuals.

 

[kyrie03]

Culpability is not a card. It is one of the elements of mortal sin. As to which of us is right as regard to this letter, we shall see.

I will at least not say that those who disagree with me can’t think.

what was once considered mortally sinful (receiving Communion as D&R w/o annulment and without living chastely -Exhortation is confusing as to this teaching) can evolve to become not mortally sinful? This is how some are interpreting the Exhortation and I am requesting it be clarified so as not to lead faithful to perdition.

 

[kyrie03]

The comments by Cardinal Muller are the most relevant information on this entire thread.

Furthermore, you and I are starting to take this thread off topic. Read what the Cardinal says, and then maybe we can get back on topic.

topic of thread is AL footnote contradicts Church’s Tradition… To forgive sin without requiring repentance does change a tradition which is why I asked you if you thought repentance necessary?

Yes, I read Cardinal Muller’s statements. I can understand why he is saying the footnote doesn’t contradict established Tradition -he is in difficult position of convincing his flock in Germany that prohibition for D&R to partake in Eucharist is still necessary while at same time maintaining agreement with Pope Francis who may decide to sideline him -like he has done with Cardinal Burke. I don’t KNOW this is why he is speaking thus, I am merely guessing. My personal opinion is that this is only adding to the confusion of the faithful.

All of the discussions and maneuvering, while they may be interesting to sit back and watch, aren’t helpful for clarifying the confusion for the faithful or for the pastors who counsel souls. Traditions were instituted and refined, as authorized by Christ and protected by the Holy Spirit, to teach and help the faithful practice what is necessary for their salvation. To have the Magesterium practice prohibition of Communion for D&R without annulment and without repentance for 2,000 years and then -not only to discuss but also to issue an Exhortation that is ambiguous about the continued prohibition is harmful to the faithful. In the confusion, people may feel justified to sacreligiosly partake of the Eucharist. (This isn’t my opinion -it’s what past popes have taught).

Do you agree with past papal teaching and practice universally held or do you believe this particular practice can be changed?

 

[kyrie03]

Is that a good thing or bad thing? Doesn’t this depend on whether one thinks the one liturgy today is “better” than the other, something that perhaps explains some of this dialogue. Now something that is unarguably a discipline is criticized (I use this because of the scare quotes on pastoral).

It is good to have more than one liturgy, seeing as people are not categories, but individuals.

Off topic
As side note, I attend the Byzantine Liturgy and while I may find it more appealing and think it better suited to me than another form, the Liturgy wasn’t instituted by Christ and developed by the apostles and their successors to please me, but to give God the glory, honor and worship that is due Him.

Reason “pastoral” is in quotes is to draw attention to argument that it is different from “doctrinal”. No scare intended. I don’t make such a strong differentiation because I understand that the practices or traditions that directly affect doctrine are doctrinal even if they are labeled pastoral. Pope John Paul II also saw the reality when he explained prohibition of D&R from partaking in Eucharist in his Apostolic Exhortation.

 

[pnewton]

…, the Liturgy wasn’t instituted by Christ and developed by the apostles and their successors to please me, but to give God the glory, honor and worship that is due Him.

off topic, so I will not debate it, but will note that I believe this to be untrue, at least from the stand point of immediate causality, or at least, it is an incomplete statement of Sacramental theology.

It would make for an enlightening thread discussion, as I think this is a matter of emphasis more that disagreement.

 

[TMC]

off topic, so I will not debate it, but will note that I believe this to be untrue, at least from the stand point of immediate causality, or at least, it is an incomplete statement of Sacramental theology.

It would make for an enlightening thread discussion, as I think this is a matter of emphasis more that disagreement.

I think this question is answered by Mark 2:27.

 

[pnewton]

I think this question is answered by Mark 2:27.

What part of, “off topic, so I will not debate it,” did you fail to grasp?

 

[otjm]

Yes, I read Cardinal Muller’s statements. I can understand why he is saying the footnote doesn’t contradict established Tradition -he is in difficult position of convincing his flock in Germany that prohibition for D&R to partake in Eucharist is still necessary while at same time maintaining agreement with Pope Francis who may decide to sideline him -like he has done with Cardinal Burke. I don’t KNOW this is why he is speaking thus, I am merely guessing. My personal opinion is that this is only adding to the confusion of the faithful.

He is not speaking about any flock in Germany. He is speaking as the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. And when he speaks publicly, he has the approval of the Pope, your comment about Cardinal Burke notwithstanding.

Do you agree with past papal teaching and practice universally held or do you believe this particular practice can be changed?

Why would you ask me? I already told you I am not a theologian; and I also told you that I follow the Magisterium of the Church, so your questions have been asked and answered; you cannot seem to calm down and read what is written.

It is clear this has you in a tail spin; I have done the best I can to try to show you that you are exceedingly misunderstanding the Pope, the document, and the whole matter contained therein.

I will repeat again - nothing has changed (as the Cardinal also pointed out, but after I had said it); no rules have been revoked; no new rules have been placed; practice - viz Communion has not been changed; no doctrine has been denied or overruled or changed.

I don’t know how old your children are - you have alluded to them, so my comment is a bit without any foundation as to how old they are; but you can keep teaching them what the Church has taught, without fear of being at odds with the Church. There are German bishops - not all, but some - who have been at odds with the Church on the issue of Communion. Unless you live in Germany, it is a non-issue.

I will say again: if I was to guess why the Pope chose to write an Exhortation, I would suspect that in partdue to the chatter going around about a possible schism - meaning in Germany. It helps to keep in mind that all reports I have seen indicate that Francis and Benedict have a close relationship - and Benedict probably knows Germany better than someone from Argentina. I am not a prognosticator of things Roman, but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that some of those bishops are, to put it politely, on a ragged edge and in danger of falling off.

If you cannot accept the comments by Cardinal Muller for what they are - about as official an answer as one can get, than I really can’t help you.

God bless. I hope that you can find some peace.

And you would do well to have fewer personal opinions when the head of the dicastery speaks.

 

[kyrie03]

Why would you ask me? I already told you I am not a theologian; and I also told you that I follow the Magisterium of the Church, so your questions have been asked and answered; you cannot seem to calm down and read what is written.
.

Let me rephrase as my initial question seems so irritating. What do you, otjm, understand the Magisteriem to clearly teach about the D&R receiving Communion? Specifically, do you understand it is still prohibited or do you agree with Cardinal Kasper that “It seems clear to me as to many other observers, that there can be situations of divorced and remarried where on the way of inclusion, absolution and communion become possible,”. The retired cardinal has been influential on Francis’ thinking on marriage and those living in “irregular situations” and it was he who the Pope asked to address a consistory of cardinals in February 2014 on how communion might be given to divorced and remarried couples.
From onepeterfive.com/kasper-amoris-laetitia-changes-everything/

 

[otjm]

Let me rephrase as my initial question seems so irritating. What do you, otjm, understand the Magisteriem to clearly teach about the D&R receiving Communion? Specifically, do you understand it is still prohibited or do you agree with Cardinal Kasper that “It seems clear to me as to many other observers, that there can be situations of divorced and remarried where on the way of inclusion, absolution and communion become possible,”. The retired cardinal has been influential on Francis’ thinking on marriage and those living in “irregular situations” and it was he who the Pope asked to address a consistory of cardinals in February 2014 on how communion might be given to divorced and remarried couples.
From onepeterfive.com/kasper-amoris-laetitia-changes-everything/

I already answered you, and I presume you know as well as I do what the Magisterium teaches; and I am aware of what went on since the beginning. I also told you what I think may be an underlying reason as to how things have proceeded - to which I readily admit as to not having a crystal ball.

If you don’t like my answers, feel free to carry on the conversation with someone else.

And by the way, I disagree with your most recent link, to the extent that the good Cardinal was already far down that road; and if I read the last 3 papacies, Popes pretty much let the CDF handle matters; so I do not expect that the Pope will personally wade in on the Cardinal, but rather Cardinal Muller - whom, contrary to your fears, does not seem to be on the way out the door. Nor does he seem to be unable to articulate the Church’s position.

The Cardinal is happy? I have lived through 5 prior papacies and was born during the 6th, and I have seen all sorts of priests and bishops run off the rails on all sorts of issues, so the Cardinal, and bishops in the Philippines and other odd and assorted characters don’t surprise me in the least; neither am I so naive as to believe that they all of a sudden took this turn because of the Exhortation. They were already there, and I suspect Francis knew this.