Cardinal Muller: no need to clarify Amoris Laetitia [CC]

[Blue_Horizon]

We are “victims” of original sin only to the extent that we don’t receive free gifts that weren’t ours by “right” to begin with. Adam’s descendants come into the world deprived of sanctifying grace and we inherit his punishments as we would have inherited his gifts had he remained faithful to God.

We don’t have actual sin (any thought, word, action, or omission forbidden by the law of God) - only the deprivation of free gifts to which we have no inherent right.

I’m confused as to what you mean by we are “put into sinful states”?

Our fathers ate sour grapes and the children’s teeth are stained (your “bastard” example) doesn’t mean that children have additional sin -only that the sinful actions of parents makes the children’s life in harmony with God more difficult to achieve.

Yes I think most of what you say is spot on.
What is the difficulty with “put into sinful states”?
That is exactly what some interpret Jesus to say in Mt 5:32 (made adulterers without actually marrying again), what Adam did to us (are not unbaptized babies in a state of mortal sin insofar as they are deprived of sanctifying grace by Adam’s fault and can do nothing of themselves to repair that state), and the various legal states civil and canonical (illegitimacy, adultery, divorce) incurred by even the innocent for the fault of others.

These deprived states are also included in the Church’s use of the word sin.
Though of course moral evil (ie voluntary sin) is the proper and more usual use of the word.

 

[MaryT777]

My thoughts*exactly. What is considered an act of Mercy in one diocese isconsidered an act of Sacrilege in another, even if it was the same couple and the same priest.

Is it too much to ask for the Church to make clear distinctions between the two.

This lead people to “parish shop” for a priest that meets their needs regarding an issue sadly.

Mary.

 

[TMC]

Dont play games. Its beneath you to pretend you have teachings you can point to. What you have is “familiarity” with what Pope Francis wants from his private letters and the conduct of the synod and third-party reports from people like Cardinal Kasper. Catholicism is not guessing what a pope wishes but following what the church teaches. Until Pope Francis TEACHES something contradicting John Paul II you are disobeying papal authority and ecumenical councils by going against familiaris consortio and Trent (and frankly, the Bible too).

Again with the allegations that the Pope and the bishops are going against the Church and the Bible. Read AL. Read what the Pope and Cardinal Kaspar have said about it. Read what the bishops are putting out on the topic. There has been an incredible amount of information and teaching put forth on this Exhortation. Not liking the teaching is not grounds to reject it.

 

[TMC]

You are mistaken. I joined my signature to thousands asking Pope Francis for clarification. Are the signers of the Dubia playing games? Are the theologians who sent an appeal playing games? Is it possible that those who express confusion about how to reconcile FC and various interpretations of AL are sincere?

When has the Pope spoken authoritatively about this is my honest question.

It’s disheartening to read various interpretations and speculations that divide Catholics from each other. The lack of clarification is destructive to charity and unity amongst the faithful. We NEED the voice of Peter to confirm the brethren in the truth.

Forum rules prevent me from speculating on the motives of the retired Cardinals who have publically challenged the Pope. Your own motivations are only known to you.

The Pope has spoken, for those that choose to hear him.

 

[Ginny89]

Again with the allegations that the Pope and the bishops are going against the Church and the Bible. Read AL. Read what the Pope and Cardinal Kaspar have said about it. Read what the bishops are putting out on the topic. There has been an incredible amount of information and teaching put forth on this Exhortation. Not liking the teaching is not grounds to reject it.

You are the one who believes the Pope has taught something contrary to previous teaching. Otherwise, why support practice that contradicts Familiaris Consortio and claim to base it on familiarity with Pope Francis’ teaching? Kyrie said Familiaris is clear and therefore still operational whereas AL is at best ambiguous and non-cobtradictory to FC therefore the former still applies. You claimed familiarity with positions that somehow leave us free to ignore FC. The problem is that you cannot cite ONE thing to support this.

 

[Ender]

Oh dear…sin is bigger than this Ender. In fact we are victims of others actual sins and can be put into sinful states by others. Such sinful states may have little to do with personal responsibility.

Instead of merely asserting things how about citing something that supports your position, for while it is obvious that one can suffer because of someone else’s sin how can one be in a “state of sin” because of a sin someone else has committed?

If you cannot accept or understand this ancient reality that the Church has always accepted (eg the stain of original sin, the old legal canonical consequences of being a bastard etc etc) then you cannot get too far in understanding these issues I suggest.

Please, original sin is no part of this discussion. Nor are old legal canonical consequences. Find something relevant to the discussion instead of trying to show us the extent of your arcane knowledge that has no connection to the debate.

Ender

 

[dans0622]

It contradicts common sense, at least in this day and age, though not natural law. There is no natural law for a procedure to determine validity of marriage. The paragraph from the catechism you gave did not address procedures of validity at all.

“In this day and age”? In your opinion, in what day and age would subjecting the existence (or not) of a contract to a roll of the dice be seen as not against common sense?

The passage of the Catechism says the natural law “provides the indispensable moral foundation for building the human community.” The foundation of the human community is marriage and family. To say that the existence of the foundation of the human community is as random as a roll of the dice militates against the moral foundation of the human community.

Besides that, saying a marriage can be said to be invalid based only on random chance obviously prevents a party to the marriage from defending himself and his rights. That, in itself, is a violation of the natural law. I wonder what other contract you would think the Church could say can be subjected to a roll of the dice.

One would think, further, that the words of the Lord regarding “what God has joined together” would require something more than a flip of a coin.

It is one thing (and correct) to say that a particular, legal process can be changed without any harm being done to doctrine. What you said is essentially different.

Dan

 

[graciew]

I was thinking this afternoon how much I would like to hear what Pope John Paul would say. He established the devotion of Divine Mercy for this century, balancing both orthodox doctrine and the endless mercy of God. I

Duc in altum!,and hope !and a very missionary time for me.
Out to the crossroads!
Memory of the good…
Service and mission.
Sharing with you,Mr Newton,not that it may have necessarily to do. But you will forgive my sharing with you a sparkle of light.

 

[Wampa]

FYI, in this thread I have posted a video of 90 minute, 3-way Amoris Laetitia/dubia debate that I recently attended. Check it out if you’re interested.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

This lead people to “parish shop” for a priest that meets their needs regarding an issue sadly.

Mary.

I find this approach to the purpose of the Church hard to understand. Are we the thought police where we must catch out every manipulative sinner lest somehow divine justice is not seen to be working on earth? Why cannot we leave that to God who is the one to judge the heart and so get a good night’s sleep. Haven’t we got better things to do than worry about people getting away with things?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Instead of merely asserting things how about citing something that supports your position, for while it is obvious that one can suffer because of someone else’s sin how can one be in a “state of sin” because of a sin someone else has committed?
Please, original sin is no part of this discussion. Nor are old legal canonical consequences. Find something relevant to the discussion instead of trying to show us the extent of your arcane knowledge that has no connection to the debate.

Ender

Ender your obsession with sin having to always be voluntary is clouding your understanding.
I would like to allieve you of this with well sourced reading material but why should I? Your mildly pugnacious and unlistening tone make you unworthy of me gifting so much of my time and education to do so.

Any intelligent person can see that original sin is an obvious example of sin that innocents incurred due to the moral fault of others. Something you vociferously deny as all sin must for you be a moral evil, a voluntary choice. You therefore know your position is inconsistent…yet still you argue instead of listening and reflecting.

And this principle I argue is very important for more fully understanding some of the finer points of how the, for example, unmarried put aways may yet be said to be victims of adultery.
It also gives insight into what the Church may really mean to say that Divorce alone is also a sin even for the innocent party. Sure the innocent is guilty of no voluntary moral offence, but that does not mean they cannot yet be a victim of the others moral offence and become a victim of a sinful juridical state which Divorce objectively is…as is a remarriage.

There are many levels to this AL issue worth exploring…but that is not possible if you will not accept that there can be innocent victim sin and corresponding sinful states. Such is the nature of human solidarity either with Adam or those we contract our bodies to.
Hence we can innocently “contract” the sin of Adam and even the sin of those we marry.
I may be mistaken applying this principle to divorce but it does fit like a glove and does seem to have been the mindset in older times before we got used to divorce. In any case the principle of innocent sin is very old and accepted Church teaching obviously. You only reject it due to your mistaken understanding of human conduct and some sort of Protestant individualism leading you to believe all sin must be moral offence and there are no innocent victim “sinners”.
Clearly I am suggesting some irregulars accused of adultery are in this boat and may well be innocent of what they do so far as moral offence is concerned. Should they be barred from Communion if their “sin” is innocent of moral evil.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

“In this day and age”? In your opinion, in what day and age would subjecting the existence (or not) of a contract to a roll of the dice be seen as not against common sense?

The passage of the Catechism says the natural law “provides the indispensable moral foundation for building the human community.” The foundation of the human community is marriage and family. To say that the existence of the foundation of the human community is as random as a roll of the dice militates against the moral foundation of the human community.

Besides that, saying a marriage can be said to be invalid based only on random chance obviously prevents a party to the marriage from defending himself and his rights. That, in itself, is a violation of the natural law. I wonder what other contract you would think the Church could say can be subjected to a roll of the dice.

One would think, further, that the words of the Lord regarding “what God has joined together” would require something more than a flip of a coin.

It is one thing (and correct) to say that a particular, legal process can be changed without any harm being done to doctrine. What you said is essentially different.

Dan

Dan most Catholics understand the Church has the authority to decide what criteria makes for a valid Catholic marriage ceremony. Those conditions (e.g. the witness of a priest) have nothing to do with natural law directly do they. It’s a purely arbitrary matter and the Church could decide the priest must wear a pink tutu when doing so for validity I suppose.

So what pnewton is saying is not a big deal in my book even if about other aspects.

 

[edwayne]

Logic suggests:
(a) They can all be “wrong” (i.e. making applied, prudential disciplinary rulings) OR
(b) they are reconcilable but you do not yet have the education or intellectual octane rating to see it.

You left out (c) where one is correct and the other is wrong, which I believe is the case here. No need for the condescending attitude of my educational or intellectual ability to grasp. I am apparently in very good company with the numerous scholars, canon lawyers, theologians, bishops and laypersons petitioning for clarity, who’s educational and intellectual octane I am sure is more than sufficient.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Maltese bishop denies he will suspend priests who don’t give Communion to the remarried

The Church teaches that the remarried cannot receive Communion except in some cases where they endeavour to live “as brother and sister”.

Several priests outside Malta said they would be unable to follow the guidelines if their own bishops imposed them. Yesterday, it was rumoured that Bishop Grech had threatened to force Malta’s clergy to do so, and that if they refused he would suspend them a divinis* – a canonical penalty which can be used to exclude a priest from celebrating Mass and the other sacraments.

But the bishops have denied the rumours. A statement on the Facebook page of the Diocese of Gozo said: “What is being stated by certain sections of the (international) media with reference to Bishop Mario Grech, namely that he ‘threatens priests will be suspended a divinis for refusing Communion to divorced/remarried’, is absolutely false.”

catholicherald.co.uk/news/2017/01/20/maltese-bishop-denies-he-will-suspend-priests-who-dont-give-communion-to-the-remarried/

 

[Wandile]

Logic suggests:
(a) They can all be “wrong” (i.e. making applied, prudential disciplinary rulings) OR
(b) they are reconcilable but you do not yet have the education or intellectual octane rating to see it.

your arrogance never ceases to show itself

 

[Thomas_White]

Maltese bishop denies he will suspend priests who don’t give Communion to the remarried

catholicherald.co.uk/news/2017/01/20/maltese-bishop-denies-he-will-suspend-priests-who-dont-give-communion-to-the-remarried/

I believe we may soon see why the primacy of conscience is so important a teaching.

 

[TMC]

You are the one who believes the Pope has taught something contrary to previous teaching. Otherwise, why support practice that contradicts Familiaris Consortio and claim to base it on familiarity with Pope Francis’ teaching? Kyrie said Familiaris is clear and therefore still operational whereas AL is at best ambiguous and non-cobtradictory to FC therefore the former still applies. You claimed familiarity with positions that somehow leave us free to ignore FC. The problem is that you cannot cite ONE thing to support this.

The Pope’s teaching is an extension and development of existing doctrine. Change does not always mean contradiction. And I have pointed to the teaching many times over. Read AL. Read the Pope and Cardinal Kaspers comments on AL. Read what the various bishops and bishops’ conferences are saying about AL.

If you don’t believe that AL means anything, why are you so worked up about it?

 

[Abba]

I have actually come to appreciate the decision of the moderator to keep all these threads together. That’s where they belong as it is all on one topic and there is no reason to promote it. I actually see this whole thing as demonic.

The cardinals are very aware of the meaning of the word ‘confusion’ in the spiritual realm and yet, they chose to use that word to refer to the Holy Father’s exhortation. In essence, they are calling the Pope’s letter demonic.

Meanwhile, they have created scandal and confusion and have people throwing stones at each other. We shouldn’t allow ourselves to be so manipulated and tone this subject down and not put fuel in the fire.

Maybe it would be best to take some time to reflect and pray on it. Has anyone actually read the whole letter? Maybe, we all should. Maybe we should contemplate on those who are being spoken for and for whom there has been a concern for decades upon decades.

I don’t want to throw stones and be greedy with the Eucharist. I am a great sinner and to be able to receive the Eucharist is such a divine and wonderful gift. I feel so fortunate to be able to receive it and I am glad I somehow did not end up in a situation where I would have been unable. The Pope is upholding the doctrines of the Church and with** love **is addressing the problems of those who are outside of the Church. Are there ways to evangelize them back into practicing the faith and to minister to them?

Brothers and Sisters, the people who are being addressed in this exhortation are our own family members, distant relatives, neighbors etc… I was really happy when the synod opened and eagerly awaited the results. I am satisfied with Amoris Laetitia. It upholds what Jesus taught about marriage and is an act of love acting on what Jesus told us: loving one another as ourselves.

No one is watering anything here, that would not be a loving thing to do but instead harmful and detrimental. The cardinals and those claiming not to understand need to work on humility and put their swords down. People are taking advantage of the situation to created confusion and dissension and even to come out looking good at the end. They do this as if God was not watching.

Don’t let the smoke of Satan blind you nor suffocate you.

 

[Stat_Crux]

The Pope’s teaching is an extension and development of existing doctrine. Change does not always mean contradiction. And I have pointed to the teaching many times over. Read AL. Read the Pope and Cardinal Kaspers comments on AL. Read what the various bishops and bishops’ conferences are saying about AL.

If you don’t believe that AL means anything, why are you so worked up about it?

I keep hearing this phrase “development of doctrine” being used in the context of Amoris Laetitia, but nobody seems to want to be specific about exactly which doctrine is being developed.

Can you be more specific exactly which one you’re referring to?

 

[Stat_Crux]

Logic suggests:
(a) They can all be “wrong” (i.e. making applied, prudential disciplinary rulings) OR
(b) they are reconcilable but you do not yet have the education or intellectual octane rating to see it.

Why do you consistently take the approach of patronising other posters in such an arrogant manner whenever you disagree with them? This is, by far, not your first time. There’s a way to present your argument in a convincing manner, but that’s definitely not it.