Amoris laetitia heresy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Struggling1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
To me, “inspired” means the Bible is free of theological error, not that it is historically accurate to the last detail.
 
We agree on that…

My rebuttal was in response to a closed ended post by another commenter where a single bible verse was used as an unequivocal, Black/white proof text… my point was that using bible verses to support arguments is more complicated than that… as it can be confusing when some verses seem to contradict each other … it is complicated, just like the situations Pope Francis is teaching us to address as a Church through AL
 
Last edited:
You’ll need to defend a lot more than the accuracy of Matt. 16:18 to get there.
 
It’s so sad that there are probably more Catholics than Protestants currently protesting Pope Francis and his words. :roll_eyes:
 
You must have me confused with someone else…I never mentioned infallibilty? Or am I missing something…?
 
Then I misunderstood our exchange in posts #48 and #49. My apologies.
 
I recommend reading the catechism on the Church teaching of divorce and remarriage here. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P87.HTM

Code of Canon Law 915 also says,
Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.
Click to expand...
Preceding popes have also had different opinions than Pope Francis as far as communion for the divorced and remarried goes.

In 1994, Cardinal Josef Ratzinger, then Prefect of the Congregation For The Doctrine Of The Faith, addressed this issue in a pastoral way that agrees with the doctrine on marriage and divorce. Here is an excerpt from that letter:
“In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ(5), the Church affirms that a new union cannot be recognised as valid if the preceding marriage was valid. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Holy Communion as long as this situation persists(6).

“This norm is not at all a punishment or a discrimination against the divorced and remarried, but rather expresses an objective situation that of itself renders impossible the reception of Holy Communion: “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 his 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”(7).
Click to expand...
St. Pope John Paul II also says in his apostolic exhortation, 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.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I recommend reading the Catechism on ‘mortal sin’.

1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: “Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.”

1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.
 
Amoris Laetitia may or may not be heretical. I think the main reason that we have not heard Cardinal Burke accuse Pope Francis of heresy is due to the fact that he has not answered the dubia. Had he answered in a certain way, it may have been more clear if the Pope was promoting heresy or not, but we will likely never know. I predict that a future Pope will clear up the matter of AL since it appears that no clarification will ever be made in this pontificate.

As for the document itself, it can be read in completely orthodox manner, and it can be read in a heretical matter on some points. The implication is that divorced and remarried (without annulments) Catholics can receive communion because their sin (adultery) is not mortal is dubious at best and even if some real world examples did exist, would likely apply only to such a small number of people that it hardly merits devoting so much time and effort to in two synods and a papal document.

The more concerning implication in the document is that it suggests in one section that it is sometimes impossible for some couples to abstain from sexual intercourse and thus avoid sin. This would indeed be heresy as the Church teaches that with God’s grace it is always possible to make a moral choice, even if it is extremely difficult.

But the bottom line is that it is not known whether or not the Pope means to promote heresy. Some Catholic theologians believe that the document is heretical, some do not. Is Pope Francis intentionally promoting heresy? We will likely never know.
 
If one is remarried, it is a situation that is grave and as long as it persists it is grave. So if someone were to go to a priest, and that priest were to inform them it is grave, until that situation is put to an end, they cannot receive communion.
 
misstherese said:
If one is remarried, it is a situation that is grave and as long as it persists it is grave
Click to expand...
Grave sin is not always mortal to one’s soul. Grave sin is always objectively gave; a mortal sin assumes personal culpability with full knowledge and deliberate consent.
 
Last edited:
Yes but the main thing here is that I cannot see a situation where a person who is divorced and remarried can receive communion.

I may have explained it pretty poorly so let me try and it explain it better.

A person who is divorced and remarried goes to see a priest to work out how to go about being on good terms with God. That person is informed by the priest that their situation is grave matter. They did not know this before. Now they know this. They go home, think it over, and come back the next day. They still aren’t sure what to do but decide they are going to abstain from sex while they decide how to go about ending this marriage (they have no kids). The priest allows them to receive communion in the meantime.

Do you see the issue here? Perhaps they didn’t know before, but as long as the situation persists, they cannot receive communion.
 
misstherese said:
Yes but the main thing here is that I cannot see a situation where a person who is divorced and remarried can receive communion
Click to expand...
An abusive husband threatens to kill his wife if she leaves him or seeks an annulment.

A misinformed wife was not aware of the grounds for what makes a marriage sacramental.

Those are just two examples that would allow a divorced and remarried person to receive communion. There are many more real life situations.
 
AugustTherese said:
An abusive husband threatens to kill his wife if she leaves him or seeks an annulment.

A misinformed wife was not aware of the grounds for what makes a marriage sacramental.
Click to expand...
  1. That would require law enforcement first. She would definitely need to find some way to get the police involved first and foremost if her life is in danger, then seek an annulment.
  2. Is this misinformed wife not sure if her first marriage was sacramental? She needs to take that to her priest and ask him about it. When it is concluded whether it was or was not sacramental, either an annulment for the first marriage should be sought (if it was not a true marriage) or if it was a true marriage, the second marriage should be looked over carefully with a priest to determine what to do next.
That does not include taking part in communion until the situation is fixed.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top