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

[edwayne]

Many of us here see that there are a number of solutions where continuity is not denied.
Strange how those Cardinals cannot see them if we laity can.

D’oh, I just realised… maybe they are covertly expressing their disagreement with Pope Francis’s new pastoral direction and initiating some sort of popularist groundswell to influence Pope Francis to withdraw.

Then there are of course the dubia which had as their objective a request for clarification to ensure that past magisterial teachings are still valid and, therefore, would ensure the interpretation of Amoris Laetitia would be consistent and continuous with former said teaching.

 

[Thomas_White]

There really is a disturbing trend amongst today’s more “liberal” Catholics. They seem to pretend as if the church, the bride of Christ, didn’t know what mercy was for 2000 years and only after pope Francis came along, did the church finally discover what mercy really is. Up until Pope Francis, the church was a merciless and pharisaical institute that sought to burden believers with rules because they were just being merciless legalists. In fact I just saw a debate recently where one liberal catholic apologist openly said the church was merciless in the past.

The church cannot be said to have been wrong on this issue for 2000 years because that would mean the Catholic Church is not the true church since it officially taught error dogmatically. Obviously then it logically has to be assumed that if the Church is the the true church and the pillar and foundation of the truth, then all that she has taught dogmatically as necissary for salvation, that includes the traditional interpretation of the indosllubility of marriage, must also be true. Any deviation, even slightly, is an error and the author of error is not God.

The second biggest problem with the liberal Catholics is the idolatry of the pope through an innocently misguided understanding of obedience to the Pope. It seems hat obedience to the pope comes first before obedience to God yet the pope is only the Vicar of God and not God himself. Blind obedience to the pope is never a good thing. If people blindly followed pope John XXII in his error the church would have taught something heretical and the gates of hell would have prevailed. However the promise of Christ remains true, and through the courage of a few university professors of theology, religious clerics and cardinals they resisted pope John XXIIs and formally corrected him until he recanted of his opinion before his death.

Another example of the dangers of blind obedience is the case of Pope Sixtus V who wished to publish and horribly erroneous translation of the Bible as the official inerrant bible to be used forever. Many were too scared to speak up and others supported the pope out of blind obedience. However , Cardinals like St Robert bellarmine who is now a doctor of the church and NOT Pope Sixtus V had the courage to speak up against the pope and desperately pleaded with the pope to let more competent men translate the Bible or rather leave the project entirely. The Pope refused and on the night before he was to promulgate dogmatically his translation as the definitive bible to be used the the church that is without error forever, he died through natural causes despite being of perfect health and mind that night. God intervened when the Pope would not listen to counsel by the brave cardinals. Thus, Our Lords promise remained true again.

The most famous case is one found scripture. When the first Pope St Peter, was discriminating against the gentiles and saying they are not clean and worthy enough to sit with the Jewish Christians, St Paul courageously resisted him to his face and Peter being humble, accepted the correction.

What people need to understand is that fraternal correction of a pope is NOT an act arrogance, it’s is an act of mercy and love. The four cardinals today principally seek an unambiguous explicit statement on what is the correct interpretation of Amoris Laetitia. The Catholicity of the church is being destroyed through the multiple interpretations and rules being applied in different places. Additionally catholicity does not only relate to beings uniform with those in our present but with all believers of all time since the beginning for he church. A destruction of catholicity can never be tolerated because this would destroy one of the four marks of the church (One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic) and such a thing is not from Christ but from the devil. As such it’s is prudent and urgent that Pope Francis clarifies that the document means so that there is no confusion as scripture testifies confusion is from Satan.

If Pope Francis’s clarification contradicts church teaching which I has always been established truth, a formal correction as an act of love and mercy is necissary for the salvation of souls. We cannot tolerate heresy for the sake of emotions. The pathway to hell is paved with good intentions.

The problem is as Cardinal Walter Brandmuller said; a church that ignores doctrine for the sake of mercy is not a more merciful church, it is a more ignorant church. Souls will perish for this error.

In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit
Amen

The great difficulty with this diatribe is your applying the term liberal to Catholic and your use of terms like “heretic”, “work of the devil”, “the problem with liberal Catholics”, “idolatry of the pope”, “up until Pope Francis”, and so forth–need I go on? All of it transgresses forum rules.

This is setting up the very dichotomy you presume to oppose. In this dichotomy, what is the dual concept? “Real” or “true” Catholics, I suppose? Or is it that you are imposing political concepts into Catholicism in a way that is certain to prove divisive?

 

[Tobias2]

If indeed the Pope does not respond to the dubia or the question by an African bishop if AL can be interpreted to apply to polygamous couples too, then it seems there is a definite change in doctrine. Whether this change is a development of doctrine or not will be debated going forward…

If this is indeed a development of doctrine, it seems this could be applied to those who practice contraception and to other situations.

In any case, it is a break in the unity of the church in the sense that some bishop groups will permit the broader interpretation of AL while others will uphold the position of Pope JP2.

 

[Vico]

If indeed the Pope does not respond to the dubia or the question by an African bishop if AL can be interpreted to apply to polygamous couples too, then it seems there is a definite change in doctrine. Whether this change is a development of doctrine or not will be debated going forward…

If this is indeed a development of doctrine, it seems this could be applied to those who practice contraception and to other situations.

In any case, it is a break in the unity of the church in the sense that some bishop groups will permit the broader interpretation of AL while others will uphold the position of Pope JP2.

The doctrine is certain!

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott, p. 463.

The essential Properties of Marriage are unity (monogamy) an indissolubility. (Sent. certa.) CIC 1013, Par. 2.

The Council of Trent declared against Luther, who, invoking the example of the Old Testament, recognised the double marriage of the Landgraf Philip of Hessen:

“Christians are forbidden by Divine law to have several wives at the one time.” Denzinger 972.

The canon was directed against the usual form of simultaneous polygamy, namely polygyny (having several women). Polyandry (having several men) is prohibited by the natural law. as it hinders or at least gravely endangers the primary purpose of marriage. Cf. Denzinger 969, 2231 et seq.; S.c.G. IIl 124.​

Denzinger:

**Council of Trent, Session XXIV (Nov. 11, 1563)

Doctrine (Concerning the Sacrament of Matrimony) * **

969 The first parent of the human race expressed the perpetual and indissoluble bond of matrimony under the influence of the divine Spirit, when he said: “This now is bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh. Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother and shall cleave to his wife’ and they shall be two in one flesh” Gen. 2:23 f.; cf.Eph. 5:31].

But that by this bond two only are united and joined together, Christ the Lord taught more openly, when referring to those last words, as having been uttered by God, He said: “Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh” [Matt. 19:6 ], and immediately ratified the strength of this same bond, pronounced by Adam so long ago in these words: “What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder” Matt. 19:6; Mark10:9].

But the grace which was to perfect that natural love, and confirm the indissoluble union, and sanctify those united in marriage, Christ Himself, institutor and perfecter of the venerable sacraments, merited for us by His passion. The Apostle Paul intimates this, when he says: “Men, love your wives as Christ loved the Church, and delivered himself up for it” [Eph. 5:25], directly adding: “This is a great Sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the Church” [Eph. 5:32].

972 Can. 2. If anyone says that it is lawful for Christians to have several) wives at the same time, and that it is not forbidden by any divine law Matt. 19:4 f.]: let him be anathema [cf. n.969 f.].

*Christian Marriage

[From the Encyclical, “Casti Connubii,” Pius Xl, Dec. 31, 1930]**

2231 [2] Another blessing of matrimony which we have spoken of as mentioned by Augustine, is the blessing of faith, which is the mutual fidelity of spouses in fulfilling the marriage contract, so that what by this contract, sanctioned by divine law, is due only to one spouse, cannot be denied him nor permitted to anyone else; nor is that to be conceded to the spouse, which can never be conceded, since it is contrary to divine rights and laws and is especially opposed to conjugal faith.

Thus this faith demands in the first place the absolute unity of marriage, which the Creator Himself established in the matrimony of our first parents when He willed that it exist only between one man and one woman And although afterwards God, the supreme legislator, somewhat relaxed this primeval law for a time, nevertheless there is no doubt that the Evangelical Law entirely restored that original and perfect unity and did away with all dispensations, as the words of Christ and the uniform way either of teaching or acting on the part of the Church plainly show [see note 969]. . . .

Nor did Christ the Lord wish to condemn only polygamy and polyandry, whether successive * or simultaneous, as they are called, or any other dishonorable act; but, in order that the sacred bonds of marriage may be absolutely inviolate, He forbade also even the willful thoughts and desires about all these things: “But I say to you that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her hath already committed adultery with her in his heart” Matt. 5:28]. These words of Christ the Lord cannot become void even by the consent of one spouse; for they express the law of God and of nature, which no will of man can ever break or bend. *

Even mutual familiar intercourse between spouses, that the blessing of conjugal faith may shine with due splendor, should be so distinguished by the mark of chastity that husband and wife conduct themselves in all things according to the law of God and of nature, and strive always to follow the will of the most wise and most holy Creator, with great reverence for the work of God.

patristica.net/denzinger

 

[Wandile]

Let’s get back to the question of the development of doctrine.

Fine by me

A dogmatic constitution is the highest level of decree issue by the pope. Chapter II, Article 8 of Dei Verbum provides the following: “And so apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved by an unending procession of preachers until the end of time…This tradition, which comes from the Apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit.”

Apostolic preaching is the preaching of God’s word, and it develops until the end of time.

Ineffabilis Deus was Pope Leo IX’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Immaculate Conception of Mary.

Again nobody denies doctrinal development. But it is a doctrine and not a dogma. The dogma of De Verbum (which means the word of God) is the fact of truth of scripture. Not everything is such documents are dogmatic.

De Verbum also is conciliar document and not a papal bull

 

[Thomas_White]

OR your assumption that “grave sin” is the same as “mortal sin” (where mortal sin as you say must be both with full understanding and consent) is mistaken.

Have you wondered why the most recent Code and CCC changed the wording in this area from “mortal sin” to “grave sin”? Canon Lawyers and Moral Theologians do not make changes in important articles lightly.

Aquinas makes clear the severity of sin can be expressed in two different ways:
(a) by the degree of culpability (which clearly is about consent and understanding as in mortal sin)
(b) by the degree of evil in the material font (which is not about consent or understanding) as in “grave matter”

Now if the severity of the sin is to be “manifest” which meaning of “severity” do you think we are talking about?

Did I not ask this question: “…does AL necessarily contradict past Magisterial teaching?” This was with respect to the development of doctrine. It is understood that AL presents such a development.

As you know, it is not certain that your long quote from the Summa was even written by Aquinas. Nevertheless, it is understood that a given sin may be more or less grave. The term “accident” is from Aristotle, and it refers to quality in the way red or blue is an “accidental” quality of a rubber ball. It is thus neither material nor formal cause. To wit:

III,80,5: I answer that, As stated in the FS, Q[73], AA[3],6; SS, Q[73], A[3], one sin can be said to be graver than another in two ways: first of all essentially, secondly accidentally. (a) Essentially, in regard to its species, which is taken from its object: and so a sin is greater according as that against which it is committed is greater. …
(b) Accidentally, one sin can be graver than another on the sinner’s part. for example, the sin which is the result of ignorance or of weakness is lighter than one arising from contempt, or from sure knowledge; and the same reason holds good of other circumstances. And according to this, the above sin can be graver in some, as happens in them who from actual contempt and with consciousness of sin approach this sacrament: but in others it is less grave; for instance, in those who from fear of their sin being discovered, approach this sacrament with consciousness of sin…

 

[Thomas_White]

Fine by me

Again nobody denies doctrinal development. But it is a doctrine and not a dogma. The dogma of De Verbum (which means the word of God) is the fact of truth of scripture. Not everything is such documents are dogmatic.

De Verbum also is conciliar document and not a papal bull

Good grief. A dogmatic constitution, such as Dei Verbum, is a papal bull. They are one and the same. I suggest you do a search of papal bulls.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Many of us here see that the number of solutions proposed that supposedly demonstrate continuity with past magisterial teachings as being maintained fails actually to do so.

Strange how those Cardinals along with many theologians, bishops, canon lawyers, and laity can see that as well.

So as I say then, as they see no possible harmony with the past there doubts must be interpretted as denials…which is effectively how Pope Francis has treated them.

Perhaps Pope Francis should pen Dubia re their Dubia .

 

[Wandile]

Good grief. A dogmatic constitution, such as Dei Verbum, is a papal bull. They are one and the same. I suggest you do a search of papal bulls.

I actually never knew it was papal bull like the bulls issued by Pope Eugene at the Council of Florence. I thought that the council issued them like the other documents of the council

This fact , however, does nothing to confirm your assertion of development of doctrine being a dogma.

You first tried to prove this by using the document, assuming everything in it is dogmatic and that it was a definition of the council. So I proved to you that the council defined nothing at all and never intended to. The only dogmatic statements that were made were mere reaffirmatons of previously defined dogmatic teachings i.e. before Vatican II

So I ask you, where is the dogmatic definition requiring the religious assent as necessary for salvation, that all believers must hold that doctrine develops? where is this binding definition?

This is why I asked if you knew what dogma was ? Because if you did, you would know that development of doctrine is a doctrine and not a dogma at all.

 

[Stat_Crux]

So as I say then, as they see no possible harmony with the past there doubts must be interpretted as denials…which is effectively how Pope Francis has treated them.

Perhaps Pope Francis should pen Dubia re their Dubia .

He is welcome to, that is his prerogative as Pope. Although Dubia are typically written with a yes/no answer in mind, there’s actually no prescribed format and nothing to stop the response from being “yes, but…” or “no, because…”

Cardinal Burke actually provided comments on AL after it was initially released (months before the Dubia were sent to the Pope and the CDF in private) in which he stated that his interpretation is that AL rightly draws attention to the need to pastorally accompany divorced and remarried Catholics, but that there is no change in teaching with regards to access to Communion without the commitment to live as brother and sister. It’s only subsequently that there have been several notable examples of divergent or contradictory interpretations published since he made those statements that the Dubia have been raised to clarify what the actual interpretation should be. So, although one might say that the wording of AL isn’t particularly precise in some areas, the debate is mostly about clarifying how we are meant to interpret it rather than the document itself.

The problem of course comes when there is no attempt to engage in a discussion and instead the four Cardinals are subjected to partisan attacks by those who support a change in teaching, even going as far as to suggest that they are/should be excommunicated for asking the Dubia. To me, looking on it from the outside, it doesn’t seem very fair or merciful. I have many of the same questions as the Cardinals and I certainly don’t feel like I’m “anti-Francis” and am not trying to be divisive in asking questions; so would I too deserve to be put through a “trial by media” for raising questions? What kind of pastoral charity is that to ordinary Catholics in the pews?

 

[edwayne]

So as I say then, as they see no possible harmony with the past there doubts must be interpretted as denials…which is effectively how Pope Francis has treated them.

Perhaps Pope Francis should pen Dubia re their Dubia .

No. By them asking “how?” does not necessarily mean they believe it can’t. I believe it can be interpreted in harmony, but I would like to confirm how (I.e., upon what basis) because some interpretations being provided are clearly not in harmony and so I would like to know what the clear and unambiguous basis is for saying there is harmony and continuity.

Of course, Pope Francis may now realize that he has to deny portions of Veritatis Splendor in order to allow such liberal and progressive interpretations of Amoris Laetitia. I would welcome Pope Francis penning a dubia provided it was more clear than AL.

 

[Stat_Crux]

Just to say, for those who are interested, you can download a PDF copy of the Ordinariate’s Amoris Laetitia application guidance using a link provided by the Australian district here:

dropbox.com/s/rn1mi7x67a4wonj/170117%20OCSP_Pastoral_Letter.pdf?dl=0

It’s on dropbox, so if you don’t have an account try clicking the triangle next to “download” in the top right and choose “direct download” to save a PDF copy onto your computer.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

A problem is that it isn’t as though the Church hasn’t had some difficulties in the past that are remarkably similar. . .and the funny thing is, every time either a group of bishops, or even a Pope himself, espoused questionable teachings, or insisted that Catholic teaching had to be interpreted in a way that contradicted previous teaching (think the Arian heresy, and Pope John XXII. The first episode had a majority of bishops deciding that Christ no longer was consubstantial with the Father, but came into existence ‘after’ and was subordinate to the Father, and they had Scripture to back it up, and they had plenty of theologians and leaders and teachers who explained this as a development of doctrine that was ‘more deeply understood’ this way. . .but who’s Arian now? The second had a POPE whose personal teachings regarding the Beatific Vision were (he thought) a perfectly logical development of doctrine and hey, he was the Pope, right? And he tried to spread those teachings, and surely one listened to a Pope, who was the leader of the Church and had the responsibilities of teaching, and all. . but what happened to him?)

I am not equating Pope Francis with either except to state that given that those examples (and I’m sure others) existed, it is possible that out of sincerity and a deep concern for the suffering, and drawing on ‘modern ideas’ regarding the nature of sin etc (ideas which themselves are not proven and not magisterial teaching, i.e. it is entirely possible that the same kind of ‘imperfect understanding’ which supposedly drove earlier Catholic theologians to not realize that things like ‘habituation’ or ‘fear’ could mitigate to some degree, and of course, ‘some’ will invariably lead to ‘all’ objective evils, could itself turn out to be an imperfect understanding.)

IOW, it could be that the older understanding that God will always give sufficient grace to reject performance of an objective evil, even if in accepting that grace one opens oneself to temporal pain, suffering, and even death, is itself correct and that rather than being some rigid ideal that is too hard for humans today, it’s THE way in which Christ, in an era of hedonism and muddled thinking, has given in order to bring salvation. He suffered on a cross Himself, after all. And that instead of ‘mitigating’ to a point of making objective mortal sin into a venial sin (if that), our pastoral guidance should instead be to assess how difficult it is for the person to reject the evil and to make it if not easier, at least ‘accompany’ him or her in rejecting the evil, making the hard choice. Instead of making it ‘no sin’ to remain in an illicit union because, “if I don’t have sex, he’ll leave me and the kids”, the parish priest could offer counseling, helping the one partner understand the gravity, steering him or her into a devotional atmosphere, being sympathetic and welcoming but at the same time not trying to take the cross away.

I’m sure this is going to go over so well and once again I’ll be the rigid old witch who wants everybody to be miserable and suffer instead of giving them luv and fluffy bunnies and freedom, but God gave us crosses for a reason, and the reason was not to reject them, whittle them down, pretend they aren’t there, etc. They’re to be taken up and our responsibility is to both carry our own and help others carry theirs. Help them bear it, not help them ‘beat it’.

 

[Thomas_White]

A dogma is a definitive article of faith (de fide) that has been solemnly promulgated by the pope following approval by the assembled bishops during an ecumenical council or by the pope when speaking in a statement ex cathedra.

The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation was approved by the assembled bishops during Vatican II and was solemnly promulgated by Pope Paul VI on November 18, 1965. It is a papal bull and the definitive teaching on divine revelation.

“…following in the footsteps of the Council of Trent and the First Vatican Council, this council wishes to set forth authentic doctrine on divine revelation and how it is handed on, so that by hearing the message of salvation the whole world may believe…” (From the preface of Dei Verbum.)

Call it what you will. All dogma is doctrine and so is Dei Verbum, the definitive teaching on the development of doctrine. Developmemt entails change, and that it does is what is important in this discussion of AL.

 

[Thomas_White]

I actually never knew it was papal bull like the bulls issued by Pope Eugene at the Council of Florence. I thought that the council issued them like the other documents of the council

This fact , however, does nothing to confirm your assertion of development of doctrine being a dogma.

You first tried to prove this by using the document, assuming everything in it is dogmatic and that it was a definition of the council. So I proved to you that the council defined nothing at all and never intended to. The only dogmatic statements that were made were mere reaffirmatons of previously defined dogmatic teachings i.e. before Vatican II

So I ask you, where is the dogmatic definition requiring the religious assent as necessary for salvation, that all believers must hold that doctrine develops? where is this binding definition?

This is why I asked if you knew what dogma was ? Because if you did, you would know that development of doctrine is a doctrine and not a dogma at all.

Lumen Gentium and Dei Verbum were the two dogmatic constitutions of Vatican II, and they are not “like the other documents of the council”. The two were approved by the assembled bishops and promulgated by the Pope Paul VI. Therefore, they are dogma. It is why they are called dogmatic constitutions, and I would have thought this was obvious. All dogma is doctrine. Is this what has confused you?

But it is enough, and I see no good reason to continue this diversion. See my comment #801 above.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Here are a few specifics that many of us are trying to get our heads around with regard to continuity:

But the teaching proposed now is that they are able regardless of their objective state.

But now the teaching is overturned… now they (the divorced and civilly remarried) can approach divine mercy through receiving holy communion.

But now the proposed teaching is that it is no longer binding and can be modified because of different situations.

But now the proposed teaching is that the objective situation of itself no longer renders impossible (i.e., it’s actually now possible) for the reception of holy communion by the divorced and civilly remarried.

This issue is very simple to me.
Wise, educated and sincere Catholics see no necessary loss of continuity with tradition.
These same Catholics (which happen to include the current Pope) have no issue with Catholics of equal wisdom, education and sincerity holding the opposite opinion. Individuals, Cardinals Dioceses of Bishops Conferences can therefore choose whether or not to take advantage of the new pastoral possibilities offered.

This tolerance cannot be said to exist of many who hold the opposing view to Pope Francis. No, they want it all, they not only cannot see a continuity with tradition but on account of their absolute certainty they also appear to want to disallow annihilate all contrary views and practises to their position as heterodox…including a retraction of AL by the Pope, refusal of conferences/dioceses to implement the novelties allowed by the Guidelines and presumably, at an individual level, they will shun as unworthy or unclean any irregular adulterers who might be allowed to Communicate by any PP who might fully implement the ArgDraft proposals.

Am I mistaken in observing this somewhat unCatholic distinction between the two different camps re AL?

 

[JPUSC]

This issue is very simple to me.
Wise, educated and sincere Catholics see no necessary loss of continuity with tradition.
These same Catholics (which happen to include the current Pope) have no issue with Catholics of equal wisdom, education and sincerity holding the opposite opinion. Individuals, Cardinals Dioceses of Bishops Conferences can therefore choose whether or not to take advantage of the new pastoral possibilities offered.

This tolerance cannot be said to exist of many who hold the opposing view to Pope Francis. No, they want it all, they not only cannot see a continuity with tradition but on account of their absolute certainty they also appear to want to disallow annihilate all contrary views and practises to their position as heterodox…including a retraction of AL by the Pope, refusal of conferences/dioceses to implement the novelties allowed by the Guidelines and presumably, at an individual level, they will shun as unworthy or unclean any irregular adulterers who might be allowed to Communicate by any PP who might fully implement the ArgDraft proposals.

Am I mistaken in observing this somewhat unCatholic distinction between the two different camps re AL?

If Jesus Himself wasn’t the one who said it then we wouldn’t have any problem.

 

[Abba]

I respect your position, whilst not agreeing with you on the interpretation of AL. I’d prefer that this debate was conducted in a more charitable fashion on both sides, but I’m sure we all recognise that it won’t play out like that in the real world regardless of how we behave here. Bishops in different Diocese will produce application guidance which is, as we are already seeing, contradictory to one anothers’ and presenting contradictory understandings of Catholic teaching. Priests and laity are going to be called to obedience in following their Diocese’s interpretation even if it goes against their conscience; conscience which is now apparently sovereign. Every time a young man applies for the seminary; AL will be the question asked of them. Every time a lay Catholic asks to become involved in parish catechism; AL will be the question asked of them. Along the same lines every time someone is chosen to become a Bishop, or Cardinal or even Pope, AL and its interpretation will be the question.

One final thing I would say, respectfully, is that from my perspective you’ve misunderstood the Cardinals’ Dubia and the reasons for them. They haven’t used the word “confusion” when referring to the Holy Father’s exhortation itself. All four Cardinals, as have several other Bishops and Cardinals, stated that AL can be interpreted in line with the Church’s constant teaching and in a manner which they wouldn’t question.

Their concerns are that the wording of AL is so broad, because it is written in a conversational style, that one can draw several possible interpretations, with varying degrees of orthodoxy. What the Cardinals refer to as “confusion” is instead a confusion of how to officially interpret AL. Regardless of which side of the debate on which one finds oneself, surely we agree there must be an intended way to interpret the document. The Dubia were written to ask what the official interpretation is, including in relation to the pre-existing teaching in Familiaris Consortio and Veritatis Splendor. It is not an attack on the Holy Father, and it is unfair to suggest they consider the Holy Father or AL “demonic”.

I worry that your use of the term “Don’t let the smoke of Satan blind you nor suffocate you” could be misinterpreted to insinuate that this “smoke” is only coming from the four Cardinals. Instead as Catholics we must understand that we are all equally vulnerable at times like this.

You are not accepting my peace branch, but instead, attack my position to later try to use my position to shut me up from defending my position. Why should that make sense and be acceptable?

You try to water down the fact that the cardinals chose to use the word ‘confusion’ in addressing their problem with Amoris Laetitia. The cardinals did what they did, and in order to have an honest dialogue sincerity and openness is required. You can not pretend to be having an honest dialogue when you try to rationalize behavior that are not pro your position and this has been the tendency.

I read the ‘dubia’ which I have renamed Quinque Insidias as it is a more appropriate name. The reason for this is that when I read it I walked away from it as if from a very threatening, blackmail, cornering document - and this address to the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church by no more and no less than four cardinals. Scandalous! How can based on that document one take their concern serious, whether the concern is worthy that document should certainly not represent it as it is disrespectful. Then, since the Pontiff did not do as they demanded; they rebelliously went public. Then, Cardinal Burke started talking about how it is not a schism (Dec 3) and weeks later how it may develop into a formal schism then how corrective measures will be taken if the Pontiff does not answer before Christmastide and then he takes a question under this situation about what will be done if the Pope is found to have committed heresy and he responds that the See automatically is declared vacant and the College of Bishop will elect a new pope.

The above aggressive and disrespectful behavior seems to be fine with most of you and not even worthy of addressing and if a person points it out, principally me in no matter what thread, the person is attacked as if by a pack of wolfs.

The Pope is being threatened with his position in a very disrespectful situation and this is all fine and dandy and if you don’t like it - shut up. It is exactly this aggressive threatening behavior that is being used against the Pope which forbids him from answering out of the dignity of the position he holds.

what I have described above, I believe is a situation that should make the hair stand up on all Catholics. Can further abuse be tolerated? How far is too far with disrespecting the Holy Father?

+++

In an interview with a Spanish newspaper El Pais on Friday 20 January, Pope Francis did not discard the possibility of resigning and noted that Pope Benedict XVI has shown him it is possible by having retired himself. He also quotes Matthew 25 and notes that what Jesus would find wrong is that we did not come close to the people. He said and I am liberally paraphrasing, something to the effect of pastors being pastors from some office etc… instead of being close to the people and their problems. He did not use the phrase but it brings to mind - smelling like the sheep. I understand this is what he has tried to do with AL. internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2017/01/21/actualidad/1485022162_846725.html

+++

 

[Abba]

Well, the guidelines of the Bishops from Malta were published in L’Observatore Romano - the Vatican Newspaper. I guess this makes it the official interpretation of the Vatican.
Amoris Laetitia: L’Osservatore Romano publishes guidelines offered by Maltese bishops lastampa.it/2017/01/14/vaticaninsider/eng/the-vatican/amoris-laetitia-losservatore-romano-publishes-guidelines-offered-by-maltese-bishops-NKDB1a4zGGAeM2m6o7AztK/pagina.html

Theologian to La Civiltà Cattolica: “Yes” to exceptions for divorce and remarriage

“Francis’s vision is that of a Church for all, because Christ really did die for all men, without exception, not just for some.” The “law of gradualness” does not mean “gradualness of the law” or relativism. It is possible to consider exceptions on a case-by-case basis, admitting remarried divorcees to the sacraments, without changes to the doctrine. This is according to Dominical theologian Jean-Miguel Garrigues, Professor of Patristics and Dogmatics at the Institut Supérieur Thomas d’Aquin, at the Dominican House of Studies in Toulouse and at the Seminaire International St Cure’d Ars. He and his confrère, Cardinal Cristoph Schönborn, the current Archbishop of Vienna, composed the Catechism of the Catholic Church prepared under the supervision of the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. Fr. Garrigues discussed the issues of the Synod with Fr. Antonio Spadaro, Editor-in-Chief of La Civiltà Cattolica and the transcription of their conversation appears in the latest issue of the periodical. Although he does not refer to him directly, at one point the Dominican theologian pulls apart the theory put forward by US Jesuit Joseph Fessio, who wrote that contraception can be more serious that abortion.
lastampa.it/2015/05/28/vaticaninsider/eng/the-vatican/theologian-to-la-civilt-cattolica-yes-to-exceptions-for-divorce-and-remarriage-LlGfEFFhS3gDkh53gU7izH/pagina.html

“Communion for remarried divorcees does not affect doctrine but discipline”
“The Sacred Tradition, as the Word says, is the oral and faithful transmission of the divine revelation and the apostolic preaching of the Word of God throughout history, is a living Magisterium, assisted by the Holy Spirit. Christ entrusted the apostles and their successors with the transmission of the faith, under Peter’s guidance, from generation to generation, right up until today, right up until Francis’ pontificate and until the end of the world…"
lastampa.it/2015/10/16/vaticaninsider/eng/the-vatican/communion-for-remarried-divorcees-does-not-affect-doctrine-but-discipline-hTBt3I10pUIQB16OVZWS4L/pagina.html

As for me and my family we will follow the Vicar of Christ on earth, Pope Francis.

 

[TMC]

Have you not read the clear magisterial documents from John Paul II and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith? If you have, you have the teaching.

Yes, of course I have. But the Church has not lost teaching authority, and has not stopped teaching, so I have also read the teachings that have been promulgated by the current Pope.