Cardinal Marx: Pope’s Line in Amoris Laetitia is “Very Clear” (National Catholic Register/EWTN)

[JPUSC]

Cardinal Marx: Pope’s Line in Amoris Laetitia is “Very Clear”

Defends German bishops’ guidelines on document as Cardinal Walter Kasper says allowing intercommunion with Protestants in some cases is the “position of the current Pope.”

Cardinal Reinhard Marx has said he “cannot understand” why there should be different interpretations of Amoris Laetitia to the one favored by the German bishops as he believes the line taken by the Pope in the apostolic exhortation is “very clear.”

In brief comments to the Register Feb. 6 in Rome after accompanying an ecumenical delegation to the apostolic palace to mark the 500th anniversary of the Reformation, the Archbishop of Munich dismissed concerns about lack of clarity in the Pope’s apostolic exhortation on the family.

“I think, in our conference, there was unanimity”, he said. “Some bishops were asking [questions], but I think there is a clear position and the line of the Pope is very clear.”

Among the passages considered ambiguous is whether some remarried divorcees should be admitted to Holy Communion. Last week, the German bishops’ conference released guidelines on Amoris Laetitia in which they controversially allowed some civilly remarried divorcees to receive Holy Communion on a case by case basis.

German Church sources, however, say there wasn’t strict unanimity, and possibly the cardinal meant something else by the word “unanimity” as German has the two similar words for it: einhellig and einstimmig. They say that, on good authority, several bishops had “serious reservations” about the guidelines.

The German bishops’ published interpretation is at odds with that expressed by Cardinal Gerhard Müller, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who upheld the Church’s teaching on restrictions to admitting Holy Communion to remarried divorcees, telling the Italian monthly Il Timone that Amoris Laetitia must be interpreted in the light of the whole doctrine of the Church, that there cannot be “a contradiction between doctrine and personal conscience”, and that “the task of priests and bishops is not that of creating confusion, but of bringing clarity.” Thousands of priests have also publicly expressed the same concerns.

But Cardinal Marx pointed out he was a “member of two synods, and the discussions between the synods, and the discussion in the synod, and then I read Amoris Laetitia and I said that it is in this line.” He added that he “cannot understand” why there are other interpretations. “The answer is, I think, clear.”

He said he hadn’t received any letters from other cardinals about the German bishops’ guidelines. “We decided to underline some points, not because the Pope wasn’t clear, but to underline, for example, preparation for marriage, to go with the couples and to look at special situations of irregularity.” He said they added “no other points” that were not in Amoris Laetitia already.

As president of the German bishops’ conference, Cardinal Marx, who is also a member of the Pope’s “C9” group of cardinals advising the Holy Father on curial reform, attended both synods. Along with the president of the French bishops’ conference, he was also instrumental in holding a controversial “shadow synod” in Rome in 2015, during which participants pushed for admission of remarried divorcees to the sacraments and acceptance of those living in same-sex unions.

ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/cardinal-marx-popes-line-in-amoris-laetitia-is-very-clear

 

[Cathoholic]

Amoris Laetitia must be interpreted in the light of the whole doctrine of the Church, that there cannot be “a contradiction between doctrine and personal conscience”

Thanks for bringing this important point in your quote to light JPUSC.

So no doctrinal change, but just keep applying this “no change”, on a more direct level.

A level with the priest and penitant which is a pastoral change that presevres doctrinal uniformity with the past.

Good reminder.

God bless.

Cathoholic

 

[josh987654321]

The corruption of the best is the worst.

“For the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.”

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Pulvis]

So, the more liberal Cardinals and Bishops see no conflict or issues of interpretation as they establish a much more open Communion requirement while the more conservative Cardinals and Bishops request a clear interpretation and keep the traditional requirements for presenting oneself for Communion? And yet we are to believe there is no division?

I fear, as we observe the 500th anniversary of the Schism that began the reformation we could be headed for another split. I pray that I am wrong.

 

[RCinMT]

Thanks for bringing this important point in your quote to light JPUSC.

So no doctrinal change, but just keep applying this “no change”, on a more direct level.

A level with the priest and penitant which is a pastoral change that presevres doctrinal uniformity with the past.

Good reminder.

God bless.

Cathoholic

This insistence that this isn’t a change in doctrine has certainly been met with a lot of discussion, debate, a book, etc. If nothing is changing then why all this?

I keep thinking that the only analogy I can make is that this situation is like President Obama instructing customs and immigration officials to stop enforcing parts of certain laws. No change in the law, just in practice. In which case one wonders, what’s the difference? A law ignored by those charged with providing and enforcing the laws is no law at all. I don’t see how this doesn’t apply to doctrine as well.

 

[Cathoholic]

If nothing is changing then why all this?

That’s probably WHY it is also reasonable to ask for formal clarification (as Cardinal Burke and others) have done RCinMT.

If I were a Cardinal, I’d like to think I’d ask for clarification too.

But without it, and with the statement of “no changes” doctrinally, if I were a Priest, I would implement no changes doctrinally.

 

[Constantin]

This does not come as a surprise to those following the statements of cardinal Marx more closely. It is also in line with what the DBK stated a few days ago. This is just where Germany is heading. I wonder what the *papa emeritus * thinks about it, though…

 

[ChurchSoldier]

I fear, as we observe the 500th anniversary of the Schism that began the reformation we could be headed for another split. I pray that I am wrong.

I pray you are wrong too. Heck, I just came over to get away from the division and splits!

Regardless, we need to work within the Church to uphold true doctrine and fight error whatever the level. If we have learned anything from Luther, Henry, Calvin, LeFebvre, et al, it is that splitting doesn’t resolve the issues. In fact, it just leaves those teaching error to have a larger majority.

Our solution is to build Christians strong in the Catholic faith who will expect (demand?) right teaching from their leaders.

 

[Constantin]

Leaning towards tradition, it makes me sad to see bishop Marx taking the lead in this mess.
After all, he is my bishop, commemorated each Sunday.
Maybe it is good for something, who knows.

 

[pnewton]

I fear, as we observe the 500th anniversary of the Schism that began the reformation we could be headed for another split. I pray that I am wrong.

No, I do not think this issue will lead to any split. There is too much room for disagreement. If an individual does not agree with whatever the Pope, his bishop or his priest says, he can simply not receive communion if he is in one of these situations. Likewise, there is no way a priest can be made to give spiritual direction contrary to his conscience. The only way this could be an issue would be if an individual chose not to receive communion because parishioner Smith was also receiving and he thought he didn’t deserve it. I cannot imagine many will think like that.

 

[Randolph]

[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB][SIGN][/SIGN]

So, the more liberal Cardinals and Bishops see no conflict or issues of interpretation as they establish a much more open Communion requirement while the more conservative Cardinals and Bishops request a clear interpretation and keep the traditional requirements for presenting oneself for Communion? And yet we are to believe there is no division?

I fear, as we observe the 500th anniversary of the Schism that began the reformation we could be headed for another split. I pray that I am wrong.

The Holy Spirit will protect the Church from the gates of hell as promised by our Lord. At the prompting of the Holy Spirit, Catholic faithful–cardinals, bishops, priests, religious and laity–will rise (under great distress and suffering) to ensure the Church remain Christ’s only faithful bride and obedient to the gospels and Tradition. I am sure of it.

AL has been thoroughly debated in this forum and throughout the Church. Although most of the contents in AL is excellent, the doctrinal ambiguity indicated in the footnote is too great to ignore. As a result, ambiguity, at best, is the only common and rational conclusion. To pretend otherwwise is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.

… And it will get much, MUCH worse. In time, citing the footnote in AL, we will see even more people–cardinals, bishops and priest–coming up with more outrageous doctrinal positions using primacy of conscience and pastoral accompaniment BEYOND communion for the re-married. We have already heard prominent Cardinals saying: “AL changes everything.” And “AL is a game changer.” The debate will subsequently be: “If primacy of conscience and pastoral accompaniment on a case by case basis can be applied to re-married people without repentence and committing to “sin no more”, why can’t it also be applied to other UNREPENTED and repeated mortal sins or infidelity?” Sins and infidelity will then become individualistic, arbitrary and subjective. They are simply in the domain of my conscience and pastoral accompaniment. Catholicism can be reduced to what my conscience and what certain individual priest tell me. To be more precise, what Christ and the Church teach–really don’t matter. As a result, we will likely see a betrayal against Christ and the Church.

Ambiguity, confusion and division are unacceptable to our Lord because they rip the Church apart. The Church is one, holy, Catholic and apostolic. She answers only to our Lord–never to the changing times or to the desires of the mortals. To this end, a pope–be it Pope Francis himself or his successors–will clarify the ambiguity in AL. As always, the Holy Spirit will intervene and protect the Church.

 

[Randolph]

[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB][SIGN][/SIGN]

The Holy Spirit will protect the Church from the gates of hell as promised by our Lord. At the prompting of the Holy Spirit, Catholic faithful–cardinals, bishops, priests, religious and laity–will rise (under great distress and suffering) to ensure the Church remain Christ’s only faithful bride and obedient to the gospels and Tradition. I am sure of it.

AL has been thoroughly debated in this forum and throughout the Church. Although most of the contents in AL is excellent, the doctrinal ambiguity indicated in the footnote is too great to ignore. As a result, ambiguity, at best, is the only common and rational conclusion. To pretend otherwwise is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.

… And it will get much, MUCH worse. In time, citing the footnote in AL, we will see even more people–cardinals, bishops and priest–coming up with more outrageous doctrinal positions using primacy of conscience and pastoral accompaniment BEYOND communion for the re-married. We have already heard from prominent Cardinals. From Cardinal Kasper: “AL changes everything.” From Cardinal Cupich: “AL is a game changer.” The debate will subsequently be: “If primacy of conscience and pastoral accompaniment on a case by case basis can be applied to re-married people without repentence and committing to “sin no more”, why can’t it also be applied to other UNREPENTED and repeated mortal sins or infidelity?” Sins and infidelity will then become individualistic, arbitrary and subjective. They are simply in the domain of my conscience and pastoral accompaniment. Catholicism can be reduced to what my conscience and what certain individual priest tell me. To be more precise, what Christ and the Church teach–really don’t matter. As a result, we will likely see a betrayal against Christ and the Church.

Ambiguity, confusion and division are unacceptable to our Lord because they rip the Church apart. The Church is one, holy, Catholic and apostolic. She answers only to our Lord–never to the changing times or to the desires of the mortals. To this end, a pope–be it Pope Francis himself or his successors–will clarify the ambiguity in AL. As always, the Holy Spirit will intervene and protect the Church.

 

[FollowChrist34]

So, the more liberal Cardinals and Bishops see no conflict or issues of interpretation as they establish a much more open Communion requirement while the more conservative Cardinals and Bishops request a clear interpretation and keep the traditional requirements for presenting oneself for Communion? And yet we are to believe there is no division?

I fear, as we observe the 500th anniversary of the Schism that began the reformation we could be headed for another split. I pray that I am wrong.

I hope you are wrong too. But look at it this way. At what point do we begin to consider what we owe to the Gospel, Christ? What are the consequences for acquiescence to a distortion of the Gospel if we stay out of politeness, obedience, laziness, fear? In full knowledge that we are doing this? Does God forgive us? I would imagine so. I am not planning on going anywhere but I do wonder about this more and more. At some point I am going to have to deal with it.

 

[TCEL]

I hope you are wrong too. But look at it this way. At what point do we begin to consider what we owe to the Gospel, Christ? What are the consequences for acquiescence to a distortion of the Gospel if we stay out of politeness, obedience, laziness, fear? In full knowledge that we are doing this? Does God forgive us? I would imagine so. I am not planning on going anywhere but I do wonder about this more and more. At some point I am going to have to deal with it.

There’s obedience and then there’s obedience. For myself, staying out of obedience is a statement of faith in Christ. I always recall Peter’s statement, “To whom shall we go?” Those are words, I think, of faithful obedience. I also think of Teresa of Avila’s statement that if the Inquisition found anything heretical in her writings, she would want them to throw her writings in the fire.

I have faith that God will put things right. It’s a perennial question, the question of compromise and conscience. I don’t think things are that bad yet, and I guess I believe there are a few holy souls who hold the Church together with their prayers. There’s actually a pious Jewish thought that in every generation, there are a handful of righteous people who support the rest of the world. Maybe my sentiment spins off from that.

 

[TMC]

I think Cardinal Marx is correct. I have said all along that most of the “confusion” is really disagreement.

 

[Abba]

I have said all along that most of the “confusion” is really disagreement.

Seconded.

+++

Here is a nice article written by Rocco Buttiglione , The Endowed Chair of John Paul II in Philosophy and the History of European Institutions and published in the Osservatore Romano. I thought some of you may like to read it.
The joy of love and the consternation of theologians
·Some comments on the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia ·
osservatoreromano.va/en/news/joy-love-and-consternation-theologians

 

[Randolph]

I think Cardinal Marx is correct. I have said all along that most of the “confusion” is really disagreement.

Cardinals and bishops of the Church “disagree” with Christ and the Magisterium on the doctrine of indissolubility of marriage and the worthiness reception of holy communion. Mortal sins and infidelity, on case by case basis, can possibly be decided by personal conscience and pastoral accompaniment without repentance.

Nothing more than a disagreement really… Seriously, who are they trying to fool?

 

[Justin_Swanton]

I tend to agree with Cardinal Marx. If there was any uncertainty in AL it has been more than dispelled by the Argentinian bishops’ guidelines in Sept 2016 and their clear, unequivocal, unambiguous approbation on the same day by Pope Francis.

Point though is that even if AL is clear it is not official. The bit about giving Communion to remarried divorcees is in a footnote and a footnote is not part of the official document. With an issue as massive as this, AL’s refusal to give a definitive decision at least a couple of paragraphs long in the main body of the text is indication in itself that the Pope was not prepared to use the full weight of his authority to endorse something he personally approves of.

Hence the confusion.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

Cardinals and bishops of the Church “disagree” with Christ and the Magisterium on the doctrine of indissolubility of marriage and the worthiness reception of holy communion. Mortal sins and infidelity, on case by case basis, can possibly be decided by personal conscience and pastoral accompaniment without repentance.

Nothing more than a disagreement really… Seriously, who are they trying to fool?

Yep. It is impossible to find some sort of compromise or common ground between the two outlooks, and they concern something too radical to ignore - something that strikes at the vitals of Catholic morality.

Only the Pope can end this crisis with something like a Papal Bull that unsays the problematic passages in AL and reaffirms the constant teaching of the Church. Until then…vive la difference! (actually, not, not at all)

 

[TMC]

Cardinals and bishops of the Church “disagree” with Christ and the Magisterium on the doctrine of indissolubility of marriage and the worthiness reception of holy communion. Mortal sins and infidelity, on case by case basis, can possibly be decided by personal conscience and pastoral accompaniment without repentance.

Nothing more than a disagreement really… Seriously, who are they trying to fool?

I am not sure your point. Cardinals and bishops disagree with each other about the proper application of the doctrine of indissolubility of marriage and its relationship to the reception of the sacraments. Most believe the Pope has it right. A vocal minority insist they are correct. Discussion of doctrine is not always comfortable, but it is sometimes necessary. My point is that it is more healthy and productive to discuss the actual disagreement, than to talk about “confusion.”