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

[edwayne]

I find it utterly fascinating that should one remind a contributor of the possibility that he is a fallible human being with limited understandings of the world and what other people (who may be far more highly educated or intelligent than them in the field they are “confused” about) may actually mean … then they are being condescended.
Truly fascinating.

You know good and well that by your words, you were more than merely reminding someone of the possibility that they are mistaken. The words you chose to me and others posters were condescending and arrogant. No need for the fascination… truly.

 

[TMC]

Exactly, I totally agree with you. St. John Paul explained explicitly what those circumstances are:

AL has not abrogated or changed this restriction. As Cardinal Muller said, FC and other magisterial documents such as Sacramentum Caritatis and the CDF’s 1994 letter concerning the reception of Holy Communion by the divorced and civilly remarried remain in force. So to say (as some interpretations of AL do) that one can receive absolution and the Eucharist without firmly resolving not to commit sin (that is, sexual relations/fornication with someone who is not their true spouse) contradicts the above teaching of the Church.

But I believe that AL is a completely orthodox document, and can certainly be read as such. However, it has changed nothing regarding this “practice of the Church” that St. John Paul speaks of in FC 84. Pope Francis is a “son of the Church”, as he has often said, and I take him at his word. I do not believe our Holy Father has contradicted anything his predecessors have said. However, interpretations such as the Maltese directive, and the statements of Bishop McElroy in San Diego, among others, do seem to contradict what was said in FC 84, SC 29, and the CDF’s 1994 letter. If you believe AL has changed Church teaching, and maybe you’ll find this redundant, can you spell out specifically what has changed?

Maybe some are (I don’t know who you’re referring to though), but I am not claiming this.

I’m sorry if this wasn’t clear. You said, “And in none of those passages [posted by JP] does Jesus say that the remarried must be excluded from the Sacraments. Those are words that a few are putting in the Lord’s mouth to advance their own agenda against the Pope.”

I asked you who you think those “few” are. Do you believe the four cardinals, Archbishops Sample and Chaput, Bishop Lopes, the bishops of Kazakhstan, and others are among those “few”? That’s what I was assuming, so my appeal to the authority of the Church is the same appeal that these bishops have made. These bishops have made clear that the teaching regarding the divorced and civilly remarried receiving the Eucharist is based on the teaching handed down by the Church throughout the ages.

You, and a few others, talk of how certain Scripture passages pointing to this constant practice of the Church never came from Jesus’ lips. And my response to that is “So what?” If the Apostle or someone else other than Jesus said something explicitly regarding adultery in the New Testament,we should realize this is the word of our God, Jesus Christ. “When the Sacred Scriptures are read… Christ, present in his word, proclaims the Gospel.” This applies to the letters of Paul and the other books of the New Testament.

Furthermore, the Church has been sent the Holy Spirit so that He may guide the Church into all truth. If the Church has made the declaration that the divorced and civilly remarried who did not receive a decree of nullity cannot, in any circumstance, receive the Eucharist while living more uxorio, then we accept that that teaching comes from Jesus Himself, even though he never spoke those explicit words before He ascended into Heaven. And the Church has made that declaration throughout the centuries, most recently in FC 84, SC 29, and was reaffirmed in AL since it must be read in continuity with past magisterial teaching. Again, as Cardinal Muller pointed out, AL has changed nothing, and I agree.

The bishops of Kazakhstan made a good point in their letter regarding those interpretations of AL that differ from their own and the four cardinals, emphasis mine:

So you are saying that AL didn’t change anything, is that right? How do you square that with the Pope’s statement that it did make changes, and with the way it is being implemented (with the Pope’s approval)?

 

[TMC]

Pardon granted, an absolutely reasonable question and one I’m happy to try and clarify.

I do not deny the authority of the Pope, Pope Francis is my Pope. I also do not deny the Dogma of Papal Infallibility as we have been taught it and as it has been defined in precise terms. I have enormous respect for the Pope. Given the bad image the Church had after the sex abuse scandals he has done enormous good in re-engaging both Catholics and non-Catholics alike in the central message of mercy contained in the Gospels. However, that does not mean that everything said is infallible. I say that not as an insult or criticism, but as a stated fact which he has said he agrees with on several occasions. It is also why he has asked and continues to ask us to pray for him, which we gladly do at every Mass we attend, that he may be strengthened in his teaching ministry. If I am wrong to think that, I pray for God’s correction and the wisdom to see that correction for what it is.

With AL, no formal clarification has yet been offered, and nothing meeting the criteria of the Dogma of Papal Infallibility as understood when it was defined. However, Cardinals have asked for a formal clarification on what is being taught and how we must interpret it, to which no response (supporting one way or the other) has been given, instead there is in effect an “abstention” from a response. Yes, AL has some Magisterial weight, that is undeniable given that it comes from two Synods and bears the Pope’s name, but the wording is such that a number of interpretations may be made, including an interpretation entirely in harmony with the Church’s teaching on sexual morality and the Sacraments of Marriage, Eucharist and Confession.

Is it a troubling situation? Of course, I’m sure it is on both “sides”. Am I “sure” of my reasoning? Not at all absolutely. But it’s for that very reason that I follow the Church’s constant and consistent teaching, not only on the specific question of Communion for the divorced and remarried, but moral theology and practice in general. The difference with the protestant argument used by Martin Luther wasn’t simply that he thought “the Pope was wrong”, but that he thought “the Catholic Church was not given authority by Christ, and had departed from the “true” Christian teaching as expressed in the Bible and introduced error into its teachings”. My position is the other way around, I hold that the Church has been right on this issue of moral teaching since the beginning because I firmly believe it was instituted by Christ himself as the Ark of Salvation to teach the means of our salvation. Is the situation in this current moment confusing for all involved? Yes. However, looked at against the teaching for 2,000 years it’s clearer what God wanted from us when he revealed his teaching to us.

It is critical that we do not allow this situation to cause harm to the Church or divide us. Today’s Epistle (Sunday 22 January 2017) was especially pertinent to the present situation (funny how the readings are always the right thing at the right time…). I pray that this is all eventually resolved in a manner which is to God’s greater glory

I understand that this can be troubling to some, but it seems very clear to me that the intent and effect of AL is to make a change (development if you prefer) in the teaching on the administration of the Sacraments in some very narrow circumstances. That doesn’t trouble me in the least, and I find it to me a much smaller development than other doctrinal developments in the past 200 years or so. I think the Church will come to grips with this teaching and development, although it will take some time (as has been true with other changes.)

 

[edwayne]

I personally see no intrinsic oppositions above.
If the Popes implicitly agree that some who commit what is adultery are not actually adulterers then you have one possible solution to your logical impossibility.
The real issue is being an “adulterer” not engaging in “adultery”.

God isn’t really interested in colliding bodies…but rather the reasons and motives for same surely.
Of course you personally disagree, it is quite possible the Popes do not.
Someone may be short on octane, probably not Pope Francis.

Your rationale makes no sense since one cannot tell what any past pope implicitly believed about someone who commits adultery without being an adulterer, especially within the citations that were provided. The quotes that were presented from the Church explicitly speak of the objective situation precluding one from receiving holy communion… using words like ‘binding’, ‘can only’, ‘unable’, ‘renders impossible’, etc. So how can you see no opposition when some are now presenting that the previous teaching is ‘not binding’, ‘can not only’, ‘is now able’, ‘now renders as possible’, etc.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

And. . .He never (to our knowledge) said they should not be barred, did He?

I’ll call “garbage” on that response sorry.

Does anyone even need to be told that the presumption re fellow adult Catholics “in communion” with the Church is that they should not be barred except with very good reason .

Just as Augustine and Aquinas well summarised 800 and 1500 years ago:

Whether the priest ought to deny the body of Christ to the sinner seeking it?
But if they be not open sinners, but occult, the Holy Communion should not be denied them if they ask for it. For since every Christian, from the fact that he is baptized, is admitted to the Lord’s table, he may not be robbed of his right, except from some open cause.

Hence on 1 Corinthians 5:11, “If he who is called a brother among you,” etc., Augustine’s gloss remarks: “We cannot inhibit any person from Communion, except he has openly confessed, or has been named and convicted by some ecclesiastical or lay tribunal.”

It is of great interest to this discussion to note that in those times the external barring was done on legal/disciplinary grounds only. No doubt considerations of scandal and severity of sin would be discussed, but in the end it is a juridical decision not some sort of doctrinal automatic self-excommunication.

Hence Pope Francis’s giving over of this authority to decide to a PP is perfectly in accord with tradition.

 

[Thomas_White]

Please explain the basis of “Come on” because your remark does not seem to me to follow logically upon what I posted.

I see. My apologies. I misunderstood your comment.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

AL has not abrogated or changed this restriction.

How could one read the ArgDraft otherwise then?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

…a priest, who can somehow be just as capable to discern validity as a tribunal (this is very, very, very iffy…

And this may be the major flaw in your reasoning.

Nobody said either a Tribunal or an Accompanying Priest can access what God sees.
But given that different levels of evidence and different degrees of personal scrutiny are involved in each juridical approach why would you think a Tribunal must always be the better path to the probable truth that both seek to ascertain?

 

[Stat_Crux]

I understand that this can be troubling to some, but it seems very clear to me that the intent and effect of AL is to make a change (development if you prefer) in the teaching on the administration of the Sacraments in some very narrow circumstances. That doesn’t trouble me in the least, and I find it to me a much smaller development than other doctrinal developments in the past 200 years or so. I think the Church will come to grips with this teaching and development, although it will take some time (as has been true with other changes.)

I can’t see how it could be a “development” if it contradicts the past teaching (“no” is now apparently “yes”), and none of the arguments used to expressly forbid this proposed teaching have been negated, reconciled or explained away. I’ve gone into detail in other threads about how this proposed interpretation could be said to violate some of the criteria Cardinal Newman defined when he wrote the book on the development of doctrine.

We must also recall that there aren’t simply two interpretations of AL; one “liberal” and one “traditional”. Instead there are a whole spectrum of interpretations, of varying degrees of apparent orthodoxy. Two theologians, John Finnis and Germain Grisez outline some of the apparent interpretations possible given the lack of definitive wording in certain critical sections of AL:

catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/12/09/two-leading-philosophers-ask-pope-to-condemn-errors-from-misuse-of-amoris-laetitia/

It’s apparent that they can’t all be true simultaneously, and can’t all represent the same coherent theology in applying the same philosophy or principles. Therefore some must be in error and some must be correct when compared to the intentions of the author or Catholic theology.

With specific regard to the Argentinian document, it suggests pastoral accompaniment and a mutual decision between the couple and a Priest and applicability in only a few select cases. On the other hand, the Maltese document suggests no such limit, and instead broadens the application to anyone “who considers themselves at peace with God” (itself shocking wording considering the parable of the pharisee and the tax collector) with the decision resting solely with the individual. The Maltese document also suggests broader application beyond the specific circumstances of those divorced and remarried Catholics to include other sins.

Whilst both of these interpretations were explicitly condemned by the teaching before now (most specifically in familiaris consortio paragraph 84). One can see how the Maltese document goes far beyond the Argentinian document, to essentially eliminate the Priest’s involvement in the decision process and establish a form of open Communion. However, we see no official qualification or condemnation of interpretations of AL which are apparently more lax than some might argue were intended by the authors. Remember how quickly Cardinal Sarah’s informal suggestion (which is really all it was) that Priests celebrate the Mass ad orientem was shot down? I seem to recall it was less than 24 hours before an official announcement was made that stated that his suggestion wasn’t policy. Now we have a situation where an interpretation is put about which enables de-facto open Communion, and… nothing?

I find it hard to believe that Rome consciously agrees with the full implications of the Maltese document, but in not condemning it in effect encourages the efforts of those who support such interpretations. The synod process was undeniably messy given the reports and analysis at the time, and produced a document without firm definition or precision in key areas. As a result, we now see the effect that Cardinals, Bishops and Priests are being left to “go it alone” in how they interpret the document. Whilst you state “it will take some time” to settle down, assuming the next Pope isn’t more definitive in his teachings, how much damage will be done by the confusion in the meantime? Is this situation good for evangelisation? Vocations? Will the secular world hesitate in its advances against the Church in public life? Or will it instead smell blood and carry on with a renewed vigour once the seed of subjectivism has taken hold?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

However, the second example given is problematic in that, if the divorced and remarried couple believed their first marriage was indeed valid (and sacramental) but now find themselves in a second union with children and cannot thereby separate, and they find living in continence too difficult, …

Yes this is the more problematic example.

holy communion is still not to be permitted…

Why do you say this…the Arg Draft makes this a sanctioned possibility and the Pope agreed didn’t he?

The question is asked “should continence be demanded of them, a continence that would be rash without a special charisma from the Holy Spirit?” Of course it should demanded of them…

Well nobody disagrees that it should be seriously **asked **of them… but “demanded”…well the Arg Bishops don’t seem to agree with this interpretation of AL.

just as …a person whose spouse is away for long durations for a job

This is not a comparable dynamic, the irregular couple closely cohabit so the psychosexual dynamics are completely different.

Is this rash?

Its a prudential decision about lived sexuality that thank God some celibate priests do understand. Personally I think it is rash if not psychologically very dangerous forcing some legitimately cohabiting couples (for the sake of the kids) to stay together and yet abstain. Cruel and unusual punishment in my book. It may well be better to counsel they separate than require them to cohabit yet abstain. I think St Paul had a lot to say about human weakness and impossibilities for some in the area of sexual restraint.

Difficulty in complying with God’s will regarding the moral demands of the gospel is not an excuse or license to disobey them.

This to me makes as much sense as God demanding we never sin venially under pain of mortal sin. It just doesn’t go anywhere meaningful but makes an imperfect reality even more messy and unlikely to work.

Nobody said adultery is good news or a sign of “obedience”. But its a fact even in the lives of otherwise good people who are in all likelihood doing their best in a messy situation they regrettfully got themselves into but which now limits their freedom of choice.

We are not barred from Communion simply by disobeying the letter of the law.
If that were true Catholic Marines would not be allowed to Communicate due to killing.

Just as not all those who commit what is called killing are killers, so it seems that not all who commit what is called adultery are adulterers.

…ultimately it is the couple who determines that being ‘at peace with God’ decides their legitimate admission to holy communion.

I do not believe that is explicitly so at all, can you quote specifics?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

You know good and well that by your words, you were more than merely reminding someone of the possibility that they are mistaken. The words you chose to me and others posters were condescending and arrogant. No need for the fascination… truly.

By all means recraft my sentence in words that do not cause offence yet retain the same observation that confusion can be caused by lack of specialist education or understanding or comparable intelligence to understand anothers alleged “contradictions”.
I am always willing to learn more politer ways of communicating my logical observations.

However it is my experience on CAF that there are some neutrally motived observations that are never acceptable to some of the more vocal personalities here because they do not accept the possibility .

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Your rationale makes no sense since one cannot tell what any past pope implicitly believed

.

I assure you my rationale is perfectly logical and consistent and is in fact what happens all the time in Church history and indeed why later pronouncements only seem to be at odds with those of the past. Technically material versus formal understandings.

You may not accept the validity of this “excuse” but it does solve the alleged contradictions over time in a reasonable manner.

Alternatively you can just accept that both JPII and Pope Francis were speaking prudentially or personally and can be mistaken.
So we go with the flow as loyal Catholic always do.

It isn’t a big drama or logical contradiction to me - but then I have no real axe to grind re who is currently allowed to come to Communion or not so I have no face to lose.
Unlike some Cardinals.

 

[TMC]

I can’t see how it could be a “development” if it contradicts the past teaching (“no” is now apparently “yes”), and none of the arguments used to expressly forbid this proposed teaching have been negated, reconciled or explained away. I’ve gone into detail in other threads about how this proposed interpretation could be said to violate some of the criteria Cardinal Newman defined when he wrote the book on the development of doctrine.

This is not really a large development. The core teaching on marriage remains the same, this is merely a development in how that teaching impacts the administration of the Sacraments. There have been MUCH larger developments in doctrine fairly recently. EENS is the most obvious example. Compared to that, this is nothing.

We must also recall that there aren’t simply two interpretations of AL; one “liberal” and one “traditional”. Instead there are a whole spectrum of interpretations, of varying degrees of apparent orthodoxy. Two theologians, John Finnis and Germain Grisez outline some of the apparent interpretations possible given the lack of definitive wording in certain critical sections of AL:

catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/12/09/two-leading-philosophers-ask-pope-to-condemn-errors-from-misuse-of-amoris-laetitia/

It’s apparent that they can’t all be true simultaneously, and can’t all represent the same coherent theology in applying the same philosophy or principles. Therefore some must be in error and some must be correct when compared to the intentions of the author or Catholic theology.

Well, as I have said, differing interpretations and applications don’t trouble me as they seem to trouble you. Bishops will work out their implementations. Over time there will likely be some commonalities, but some differences between communities and cultures is not troubling to me.

With specific regard to the Argentinian document, it suggests pastoral accompaniment and a mutual decision between the couple and a Priest and applicability in only a few select cases. On the other hand, the Maltese document suggests no such limit, and instead broadens the application to anyone “who considers themselves at peace with God” (itself shocking wording considering the parable of the pharisee and the tax collector) with the decision resting solely with the individual. The Maltese document also suggests broader application beyond the specific circumstances of those divorced and remarried Catholics to include other sins.

Whilst both of these interpretations were explicitly condemned by the teaching before now (most specifically in familiaris consortio paragraph 84). One can see how the Maltese document goes far beyond the Argentinian document, to essentially eliminate the Priest’s involvement in the decision process and establish a form of open Communion. However, we see no official qualification or condemnation of interpretations of AL which are apparently more lax than some might argue were intended by the authors. Remember how quickly Cardinal Sarah’s informal suggestion (which is really all it was) that Priests celebrate the Mass ad orientem was shot down? I seem to recall it was less than 24 hours before an official announcement was made that stated that his suggestion wasn’t policy. Now we have a situation where an interpretation is put about which enables de-facto open Communion, and… nothing?

Again, some differences in application do not trouble me. I would not say that both of these approaches were “explicitly condemned” in the past, but I would agree that both are inconsistent with past practice, and would not have been accepted. But that has changed, obviously.

I find it hard to believe that Rome consciously agrees with the full implications of the Maltese document, but in not condemning it in effect encourages the efforts of those who support such interpretations. The synod process was undeniably messy given the reports and analysis at the time, and produced a document without firm definition or precision in key areas. As a result, we now see the effect that Cardinals, Bishops and Priests are being left to “go it alone” in how they interpret the document. Whilst you state “it will take some time” to settle down, assuming the next Pope isn’t more definitive in his teachings, how much damage will be done by the confusion in the meantime? Is this situation good for evangelisation? Vocations? Will the secular world hesitate in its advances against the Church in public life? Or will it instead smell blood and carry on with a renewed vigour once the seed of subjectivism has taken hold?

I don’t find it at all hard to believe. It is not like the Vatican is slow or shy about correcting priests and bishops. Look what happens whenever there is a whisper of support for women priests, for example. Nor are bishops “going it alone”. Why would you think that? They have much to work with, each other to lean on and discuss with, and so forth. The Argentinian example makes it clear that bishops can reach out directly to the Pope for guidance - and that at least some do.

As to the secular world - I don’t really think they care much how the Church administers its Sacraments. Even most Catholics I know don’t know much about AL, and few are troubled at all by it. Almost no non-Catholics I know have heard of the issue. Why would they?

 

[Stat_Crux]

By all means recraft my sentence in words that do not cause offence yet retain the same observation that confusion can be caused by lack of specialist education or understanding or comparable intelligence to understand anothers alleged “contradictions”.
I am always willing to learn more politer ways of communicating my logical observations.

However it is my experience on CAF that there are some neutrally motived observations that are never acceptable to some of the more vocal personalities here because they do not accept the possibility .

Ah, there it is again. I was thinking that attitude was overdue making an appearance today.

 

[Vico]

I see. My apologies. I misunderstood your comment.

Difficult topic.

 

[Stat_Crux]

Again, some differences in application do not trouble me. I would not say that both of these approaches were “explicitly condemned” in the past, but I would agree that both are inconsistent with past practice, and would not have been accepted. But that has changed, obviously.

You state they were not “explicitly condemned”, but in fact any practice which admits those engaging in sexual activity outside of marriage to Communion was condemned, regardless of whether it was the Argentinian or the Maltese proposal. Just considering Familiaris Consortio paragraph 84 for example:

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.

Their state and condition remains an objective contradiction. “Objective” means true, now and always. It doesn’t get subsequently explained away, otherwise it’s not objective but subjective.

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.

I know that AL reiterates the indissolubility of the original Marriage, even if the “liberal” interpretations then proceed to ignore this and proceed as though it no longer exists. However, FC here identifies no difference between practices which deny or affirm the indissolubility of Marriage. Instead the condemnation is equally applicable for any practice in which “people were admitted to the Eucharist”. Are the faithful now no longer going to be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage? What has changed to explain away this very serious reason? Are we now somehow better Catechised than Catholics in 1981?

Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage.

Again, this is simply reiterating the requirements for a valid Confession. Why is repentance no longer necessary? This isn’t simply a matter of Church law and practice, but the fundamental understanding of the Sacraments. What has changed since 1981 in that we no longer need to repent or have a firm purpose of amendment in order to receive absolution?

In all of the above cases, nothing has been stated to explain why the reasons given in FC84 for rejecting Communion for those remarried Catholics who were sexually active have been resolved or removed. It isn’t sufficient to simply state “it can no longer be said that…”; why can it no longer be said? If these reasons are the foundation of Church teaching, then why are they suddenly cast aside so arbitrarily without consideration or concern to explain why?

The Argentinian example makes it clear that bishops can reach out directly to the Pope for guidance - and that at least some do.

They didn’t “reach out” to the Pope, he obtained a draft working document and wrote a letter to the Bishops about it. When people actually write to him directly asking for guidance, using Dubia for example, he refuses to respond.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I’ll call “garbage” on that response sorry.

Does anyone even need to be told that the presumption re fellow adult Catholics “in communion” with the Church is that they should not be barred except with very good reason .

Just as Augustine and Aquinas well summarised 800 and 1500 years ago:

It is of great interest to this discussion to note that in those times the external barring was done on legal/disciplinary grounds only. No doubt considerations of scandal and severity of sin would be discussed, but in the end it is a juridical decision not some sort of doctrinal automatic self-excommunication.

Hence Pope Francis’s giving over of this authority to decide to a PP is perfectly in accord with tradition.

Garbage? My, how reasoned.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

And this may be the major flaw in your reasoning.

Nobody said either a Tribunal or an Accompanying Priest can access what God sees.
But given that different levels of evidence and different degrees of personal scrutiny are involved in each juridical approach why would you think a Tribunal must always be the better path to the probable truth that both seek to ascertain?

Why would YOU think a priest is better? One person as opposed to several? Do we let juries consist of ONE person?

Plus as I went on to say, we have a situation now where we don’t even have ‘one person’ in the priest, we have the parties THEMSELVES allowed to be the judges of their actions.

 

[Thomas_White]

I can’t see how it could be a “development” if it contradicts the past teaching (“no” is now apparently “yes”), and none of the arguments used to expressly forbid this proposed teaching have been negated, reconciled or explained away. I’ve gone into detail in other threads about how this proposed interpretation could be said to violate some of the criteria Cardinal Newman defined when he wrote the book on the development of doctrine.

Whether AL contradicts past teaching is arguable (I don’t believe it does), but in any event Cardinal Newman did not provide the last word on revelation. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger’s theory of revelation holds that God reveals Himself in history and throughout history, and not just once to the authors of the Bible (Ratzinger, Aus meinem Leben, p. 84, 1997). In God and the World, Ratzinger explains that a bit more of revelation is revealed to each generation and that this will continue until the end of time.

Do we suppose the earliest Christians upon first hearing the Apostolic preaching fully understood it? Does a young child fully understand the teachings of the catechism? Or is it that a deeper understanding can develop? So it is for each generation through the ages, Ratzinger maintained, as revelation continues until the end of time.

“Scripture and tradition are for us sources from which we know revelation, but they are not in themselves its sources, for revelation is, in itself, the source of Scripture and tradition.”

Here is a link that provides information about Ratzinger’s critical contribution to Dei Verbum as well as info about his theory of revelation.

hprweb.com/2014/06/the-understanding-of-revelation-in-dei-verbum-and-the-response-of-faith/

 

[Ginny89]

Whether AL contradicts past teaching is arguable (I don’t believe it does), but in any event Cardinal Newman did not provide the last word on revelation. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger’s theory of revelation holds that God reveals Himself in history and throughout history, and not just once to the authors of the Bible (Ratzinger, Aus meinem Leben, p. 84, 1997). In God and the World, Ratzinger explains that a bit more of revelation is revealed to each generation and that this will continue until the end of time.

Do we suppose the earliest Christians upon first hearing the Apostolic preaching fully understood it? Does a young child fully understand the teachings of the catechism? Or is it that a deeper understanding can develop? So it is for each generation through the ages, Ratzinger maintained, as revelation continues until the end of time.

Here is a link that provides information about Ratzinger’s critical contribution to Dei Verbum as well as info about his theory of revelation.

hprweb.com/2014/06/the-understanding-of-revelation-in-dei-verbum-and-the-response-of-faith/

The Catechism states very clearly that upon the death of the Apostle John there was no more public revelation, only private. I wonder why those who take the leaked letter to the Argentinians as definitive about there being “no other interpretation” seem so “flexible” with the rest of the magisterium.