Breaking: pope declares troubling interpretation of al ‘authentic magisterium’

  • Thread starter Thread starter theCardinalbird
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Church Militant is not a Catholic apostolate and has no standing to confirm or deny anything.
RandomAlias said:
So far all I’m seeing is tabloid-grade gossip.
Click to expand...
I just finished tracing the source of this back three websites before it was reported without any sort of reference. Too often these web bloggers borrow heavily from each other and call it confirmed. This is not how the Catholic Church operates. For the Catholic Church, charity and truth take precedence over clicks, hype and shock.

I finished the first article. It is so fraught with error and logical fallacies as to be of no use.
 
Last edited:
RandomAlias said:
40.png
Cruciferi:
Things are heating up on this Thread! Deploying countermeasures!
Click to expand...
Countermeasures? You got it! Time for a prayer!

May the Holy Spirit continue to bless and guide the Catholic Church and all the faithful always toward faith, holiness, truth, and love.
Click to expand...
Amen, and yet again amen.
 
Sounds like hysteria to me. I’m nearly halfway through the Novena for Pope Francis that Fr. Heilman is running. Think I’ll just continue with that…I usually throw in a prayer for Pope Emeritus Benedict too.
 
There is not heresy, only hysteria. The article has zero. Nada.
 
That is from Revelation. It has nothing to do with this, unless you are calling the Pope the great apostate. If you are, then that would be schismatic, faithless and devoid of charity. If this is the fruit of Church Militant, that it is most definitely not the fruit of the Holy Spirit.
 
Last edited:
I am somewhat confused too.
The interpretation of the AL from the Buenos Aires bishops is as it was. No surprise there for me.
The Pope’s approval of this interpretation of AL is not surprising.

What I think I saw in the document was the following:
I have been taught concerning the deposit of the faith and the practices of the church. I will use the terms I was invited to understand, “divine law” and “ecclesiastical law.” “Divine law” cannot be changed (or so I have been taught). It is the deposit of the faith. “Ecclesiastical law” can change. Priest could one day be married or bishops might now need to be 35 where previously they only needed to be 30 years old. This is “Ecclesiastical law” and it can change.
“Church Militant” is saying that the Pope has approved of the interpretation of AL as “authentic Magisterium” thus making it part of “faith and morals” or “divine law” and not merely part of “pastoral discipline” or “ecclesiastical law.”
  1. Is this website correct in that Pope Francis has made it clear that it is his position that this interpretation of AL is part of the “divine law.”
  2. Is the website possible correct in that what Pope Francis has done is normally done concerning “divine law” but it is not always or solely done concerning “divine law?” (where I Catholic and knew only what I know now, I think I would choose this, but more research would be in order).
  3. Or is it wrong? And I am looking for WRONG because Pope Francis has claimed that he has no intention of changing “divine law” or WRONG because his elevation of this interpretation of AL does not remotely mean what “Church Militant” claims it means.
I am not interested in hearing that Church Militant is wrong because the universal teaching of the Catholic Church is that “divine law cannot change,” because this leaves open the real possibility the Pope Francis is not the Pope (as evidenced by his non-Catholic understanding of the Catholic Church) or the Catholic Church is not anything like what most educated Catholics claim it is (as evidence by the fact that Pope Francis shows little regard for what Catholic Answers claims Catholicism is). Time and time again the Catholic Church Pope Francis acts within and leads is not the Catholic Church I learned about when I began my research during JPII’s pontificate.

Charity, TOm
 
I seriously don’t understand why anyone on this thread is surprised. Like it or not, +Francis’ understanding of AL has been very clear for a very long time. Not only did he affirm, in writing, the practice of communing certain divorced and civilly remarried persons in his letter to the Argentine bishops, but his own diocese, Rome itself, changed its disciplinary practice to accommodate the provisions of AL.
That being said, until now, the Holy Father hasn’t sought to bind the universal Church to this new practice. I’m not sure if that’s changing now.
I personally find it hard to reconcile with, say, the magisterium of St John Paul II… but in the early Church there were definitely Fathers who tolerated second civil marriages in certain circumstances. Pope St Gregory I comes to mind.
 
More on the declaration of something “authentic magisterium:”

On this point the Second Vatican Council taught in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium,
[Lumen gentium 25] (bolding mine)
This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme Magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.
Click to expand...
Do Catholics owe the “religious submission of mind and will in a special way” to changes in “ecclesiastical law?”
I would like to perfectly know the answers to this, but I doubt I will.
Charity, TOm
 
Herein is the problem. Theology is not always basic. Armchair would-be popes judge the Holy Father based on an understanding of Theology 101, as opposed to a doctorate in the field. It is like a guy who did well in biology deciding he know medicine better than a surgeon.

To answer the question, heresy only exist in contradiction to doctrine. The Pope has never contradicted the permanence of marriage, or that one in an actual state of mortal sin is unworthy for communion. These two doctrines are not contradicted.
 
Breaking: opponents of the Pope continue trying to sow discord among the faithful.
 
Let us wait for more information.

Do not make such hasty judgements I would say.

I know that many things reported of Pope Francis are often not accurate or misrepresentative. The fact that this is so quickly reported means it is less likely to be accurate as it is rushed.

Further, what are the specific cases mentioned I wonder.
 
RedDuke said:
In case anyone wants to reference a different article on the subject, OnePeterFive has this article: Pope’s Letter on Argentinian Communion Guidelines for Remarried Given Official Status

In it, Dr. John Joy, a specialist in Magisterial authority, is quoted saying that this doesn’t necessarily make the letter from Pope Francis a part of the Magisterium.
Click to expand...
I think OnePeterFive speaks against the certainty (or close to certainty) Church Militant offered. Thank you very much for the link.
Charity, TOm
 
Are you distinguishing between material and formal? Are you aware that grave matter alone does not constitute mortal sin? THIS is basic Catholic theology.
 
RandomAlias said:
I trust Pope Francis a lot more than I trust whoever wrote that article.
Click to expand...
Precisely.
RandomAlias said:
In other words, I suspect that the article is misrepresenting, sensationalizing, stirring up trouble, trying to get attention, and just plain wrong.
Click to expand...
Which is the entire mode of operation of that website. I don’t read anything they publish. I would have more confidence in news published by a tabloid.
 
The churchmilitant is to catholic websites what fox news is to unbiased journalism.
 
I’m not aware of people’s free will being taken away on a large scale, and presumably most if not all Catholics have read the 10 commandments and know what adultery is…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top