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

[edwayne]

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.

With this reasoning, why are they (the irregulars accused of adultery who are innocent of moral evil) barred from entering into a second sacramental marriage?

 

[TMC]

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?

Happy to. Their is a lot going on in AL, and a lot of good stuff. But the issue that is getting all the attention is the development of doctrine regarding proper administration of the Sacraments. The Pope is teaching that under some circumstances individuals in irregular marital situations may be admitted to the Sacraments after a sufficient and serious review, and under the guidance and direction of their priest and bishop. There is a lot more in AL than that, but that it is the part that is causing consternation.

Of course, we all already knew that.

 

[Stat_Crux]

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.

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.

 

[Stat_Crux]

Happy to. Their is a lot going on in AL, and a lot of good stuff. But the issue that is getting all the attention is the development of doctrine regarding proper administration of the Sacraments. The Pope is teaching that under some circumstances individuals in irregular marital situations may be admitted to the Sacraments after a sufficient and serious review, and under the guidance and direction of their priest and bishop. There is a lot more in AL than that, but that it is the part that is causing consternation.

Of course, we all already knew that.

Thank you. I agree that the “meat” of the debate surrounding AL seems to be focusing on chapter 8. I suppose a valid question ask in this situation is how are we (everyone in general) to understand the difference between a genuine, faithful development of a doctrine and an “corruption” of doctrine if you will. How would you tell the difference, and have confidence in that position?

 

[Wandile]

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?

And to add onto this, do they know that development of doctrine does not mean change

 

[TMC]

Thank you. I agree that the “meat” of the debate surrounding AL seems to be focusing on chapter 8. I suppose a valid question ask in this situation is how are we (everyone in general) to understand the difference between a genuine, faithful development of a doctrine and an “corruption” of doctrine if you will. How would you tell the difference, and have confidence in that position?

I don’t think that is an easy thing to determine. The answer is study and prayer, which I realize is perhaps too general to be helpful. It is easy for me to say because this development makes sense to me and seems correct. I realize others feel differently. But I also think that developments take time, and that we may need to sit with any doctrinal development for some time before we decide what it even really means, let alone whether we fully agree with it. I suspect that the Pope has been dwelling and praying on this for many years, and we may just need to catch up to him.

 

[Stat_Crux]

I don’t think that is an easy thing to determine. The answer is study and prayer, which I realize is perhaps too general to be helpful. It is easy for me to say because this development makes sense to me and seems correct. I realize others feel differently. But I also think that developments take time, and that we may need to sit with any doctrinal development for some time before we decide what it even really means, let alone whether we fully agree with it. I suspect that the Pope has been dwelling and praying on this for many years, and we may just need to catch up to him.

I’d agree. It’s not easy by any means. “Development of Doctrine” as a theological principle is widely accepted, so it’s generally pretty clear cut that such a concept exists. Cardinal Newman was one of the first who codified exactly what a Development is, and how to tell it from a “corruption” (his terminology).

The book was written in the 19th century when the Anglican church was wracked by some fundamental questions over its identity, about whether it was protestant, “catholic” or something in between. The Anglican church is referred to as a “broad church” because it generally has an accommodating style towards different styles and beliefs. Cardinal Newman, who was then an Anglican priest, wrote the book “An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine”. This was done to try to outline a method that we might use to understand, amongst all of the confusion of the various Christian faiths, all of whom claim to be the correct interpretation of God’s will, who really is the inheritor of the Gospels and who teaches the truth Christ intended in an uncorrupted form.

With that in mind, he proposed a series of criteria to understand the difference between a “development” of Doctrine, and a “corruption”. Briefly, they are:

1. Preservation of Type - A valid development preserves the essential form and structure of what came before. If that type is undermined, we are dealing with a corruption.
2. Continuity of Principles - It must preserve the principle with which it started. While doctrine may grow and develop, principles are permanent.
3. Power of Assimilation - Just as a healthy organism can take in what it can from its environment, even as it resists what it must, so a sane and lively idea can take to itself what is best in the intellectual atmosphere, even as it throws off what is noxious.
4. **Logical Sequence **- A doctrine that’s defined and professed by the Church at a point historically distant from its original founding can be considered a development, and not a corruption, if it can be shown to be the logical outcome of the original teaching.
5. Anticipation of Its Future - Doctrines in some way imply or allude to their later development. So authentic developments will have some logical connection to the original deposit of faith.
6. Conservative Action upon Its Past - An evolution that simply reverses or contradicts what came before it is necessarily a corruption and not a development.
7. Chronic Vigour - As long as a doctrine maintains its life and vigor, its ongoing development is assured. However, once a corruption enters into the process, it leads, by its nature, to death and decay. Corrupted doctrines fail to display much historical longevity and ultimately die off.

Ultimately, Fr Newman the Anglican priest converted to Catholicism, which was an enormous scandal in England at the time. He then later became a Cardinal for his efforts in defending the faith in the face of increasing secular attacks. His books are very good, albeit the language is sometimes difficult because he uses a very “high” style of English. But once you get used to it, and see what he’s driving at, it’s well worth the effort.

 

[Wandile]

Thank you. I agree that the “meat” of the debate surrounding AL seems to be focusing on chapter 8. I suppose a valid question ask in this situation is how are we (everyone in general) to understand the difference between a genuine, faithful development of a doctrine and an “corruption” of doctrine if you will. How would you tell the difference, and have confidence in that position?

Just to touch up, a currption would be called “evolution of doctrine”.

Pope St Pius X condemned evolution of doctrine in The Oath Against the Errors of Modernism:

"Fourthly, I accept sincerely the doctrine of faith transmitted from the apostles through the orthodox fathers,* always in the same sense and interpretation***, even to us; and so I reject the heretical invention of the evolution of dogmas, passing from one meaning to another, different from that which the Church first had; and likewise I reject all error whereby a philosophic fiction is substituted for the divine deposit, given over to the Spouse of Christ and to be guarded faithfully by her, or a creation of the human conscience formed gradually by the efforts of men and to be perfected by indefinite progress in the future.
(Henry Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, trans. Roy J. Deferrari, Thirtieth Ed. [Powers Lake: Marian House, published in 1954 by Herder & Co., Freiburg], # 2145, p. 550)

Many people say “development of doctrine” but what they mean is evolution of doctrine and not Cardinal Newmans development of doctrine.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Happy to. Their is a lot going on in AL, and a lot of good stuff. But the issue that is getting all the attention is the development of doctrine regarding proper administration of the Sacraments. The Pope is teaching that under some circumstances individuals in irregular marital situations may be admitted to the Sacraments after a sufficient and serious review, and under the guidance and direction of their priest and bishop. There is a lot more in AL than that, but that it is the part that is causing consternation.

Of course, we all already knew that.

This is reporting on what Cardinal Muller has said regarding the development in doctrine:

rightly sees that doctrinal development has to be homogeneous with the essential principles of the teaching. Thus, doctrinal development, according to Müller, cannot be legitimate when it occurs “in a way that contradicts basic principles [of the teaching] . . .] that would conclude or affirm the contrary.”

goo.gl/FsjyDN

(Bold text my emphases)

Regarding giving Communion to the divorced and remarried… is that affirming or contradicting doctrine? Because if it contradicts, it is not a development of doctrine.

 

[TMC]

I’d agree. It’s not easy by any means. “Development of Doctrine” as a theological principle is widely accepted, so it’s generally pretty clear cut that such a concept exists. Cardinal Newman was one of the first who codified exactly what a Development is, and how to tell it from a “corruption” (his terminology).

The book was written in the 19th century when the Anglican church was wracked by some fundamental questions over its identity, about whether it was protestant, “catholic” or something in between. The Anglican church is referred to as a “broad church” because it generally has an accommodating style towards different styles and beliefs. Cardinal Newman, who was then an Anglican priest, wrote the book “An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine”. This was done to try to outline a method that we might use to understand, amongst all of the confusion of the various Christian faiths, all of whom claim to be the correct interpretation of God’s will, who really is the inheritor of the Gospels and who teaches the truth Christ intended in an uncorrupted form.

With that in mind, he proposed a series of criteria to understand the difference between a “development” of Doctrine, and a “corruption”. Briefly, they are:

1. Preservation of Type - A valid development preserves the essential form and structure of what came before. If that type is undermined, we are dealing with a corruption.
2. Continuity of Principles - It must preserve the principle with which it started. While doctrine may grow and develop, principles are permanent.
3. Power of Assimilation - Just as a healthy organism can take in what it can from its environment, even as it resists what it must, so a sane and lively idea can take to itself what is best in the intellectual atmosphere, even as it throws off what is noxious.
4. **Logical Sequence **- A doctrine that’s defined and professed by the Church at a point historically distant from its original founding can be considered a development, and not a corruption, if it can be shown to be the logical outcome of the original teaching.
5. Anticipation of Its Future - Doctrines in some way imply or allude to their later development. So authentic developments will have some logical connection to the original deposit of faith.
6. Conservative Action upon Its Past - An evolution that simply reverses or contradicts what came before it is necessarily a corruption and not a development.
7. Chronic Vigour - As long as a doctrine maintains its life and vigor, its ongoing development is assured. However, once a corruption enters into the process, it leads, by its nature, to death and decay. Corrupted doctrines fail to display much historical longevity and ultimately die off.

Ultimately, Fr Newman the Anglican priest converted to Catholicism, which was an enormous scandal in England at the time. He then later became a Cardinal for his efforts in defending the faith in the face of increasing secular attacks. His books are very good, albeit the language is sometimes difficult because he uses a very “high” style of English. But once you get used to it, and see what he’s driving at, it’s well worth the effort.

Fr. Newman’s principles can be helpful, thanks for posting them. I actually think they apply fairly well to the current situation. Unfortunately, many of them are very subjective. For example, many Catholics would say that the developments in EENS in the last century or so violate Newman’s 2, 5 and 6. I do not, but I have heard those arguments made (in other words). The same goes for some other developments in doctrine. Perhaps the most helpful is 7 - which is similar in some ways to the principle of sensum fideum. But it will take time to see how 7 plays out as to recent developments.

 

[Wandile]

This is reporting on what Cardinal Muller has said regarding the development in doctrine:

goo.gl/FsjyDN

(Bold text my emphases)

Regarding giving Communion to the divorced and remarried… is that affirming or contradicting doctrine? Because if it contradicts, it is not a development of doctrine.

It’s a blatant contradiction. It is not a development at all but one of the heads of the modernist heresy condemned by Pope St Pius X.

Further and Ecumenical council has already decided this matter, why are we still discussing this? The only people who try to open up closed matters are innovators and heretics.

 

[Stat_Crux]

Part of the problem with us suggesting that a change in teaching to allow those who continue to engage in sexual activity outside of a valid marriage to Communion, is that it would seem to contradict the Church’s teaching before now on it being a mortal sin and the teaching of past Magisterial documents on access to Communion (Familiaris Consortio, Veritatis Splendor and the 1994 CDF letter etc). Some have also taken the argument further and asked if the “liberal” interpretation of AL can be applied to all in “irregular marriages”, including homosexual or polygamous marriages.

The issue I have with us suggesting that particular interpretation of AL is a development of doctrine is that it appears to fall foul of what Cardinal Newman said when he defined the concept.

Namely:
Continuity of principles - The principle is that those divorced and remarried who did not “live as brother and sister” were in a state of mortal sin. And that because they had no intention to stop having sex they could not Confess their sin, as without a firm purpose of amendment (to try not to do it again) one cannot be absolved of that sin.
**Logical sequence **- There is nothing in the historical teachings which suggest this is a logical development. Indeed Familiaris consortio and the 1994 CDF letter explicitly rejected Communion for the civilly divorced and remarried who refused to practice chastity.
Anticipation of future - Past teaching does not allude to the proposed teaching coming out of AL. As stated above, what some are now suggesting is the official teaching, was explicitly condemned in the past. What has changed since the previous, at least equally “Magisterial”, teachings and documents condemned the proposed practice?
Conservative action upon its past - This is the rule of non-contradiction. If we are the interpret AL as providing “an opening” to Communion, it would appear to contradict what has gone before, rather than just present it in a different light. No would become yes, and what was considered an evil action (sex outside of marriage) would in some cases now not be considered an evil action. No argument appears to have been put forth yet to reconcile how these contradictions can be resolved.

Essentially, it seems the only safe way to interpret a teaching is in the light of the constant teaching of the Church. We have an incredibly rich intellectual heritage as Catholics, something the secular world likes to overlook. Catholic theologians and philosophers have been asked relevant questions about human existence and daily life since the start, and particularly how we are to apply the Gospel to our lives. It’s with that in mind that it appears, unless there’s a convincing argument to the contrary, that we can only interpret AL taking into account all of the teaching of the Church on the subject, otherwise we risk ignoring what has gone before and not reconciling it to the present. If we were to lose our connection to our past teaching, we would be stumbling into the unknown, with no way of knowing the difference between a “development” and a “corruption”.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Fr. Newman’s principles can be helpful, thanks for posting them. I actually think they apply fairly well to the current situation. Unfortunately, many of them are very subjective. For example, many Catholics would say that the developments in EENS in the last century or so violate Newman’s 2, 5 and 6. I do not, but I have heard those arguments made (in other words). The same goes for some other developments in doctrine. Perhaps the most helpful is 7 - which is similar in some ways to the principle of sensum fideum. But it will take time to see how 7 plays out as to recent developments.

According to the article linked at the bottom of this post, 'in 1989, the International Theological Commission accepted the validity of Newman’s criteria in a document titled “The Interpretation of Dogma”. ’

This was written before Amoris Laetitia was released. Rev. Juan R. Velez applied the seven tests for development of doctrine by Cardinal Newman on the Kasper proposal/Communion for the divorced and remarried:

Although marriage situations vary, the following is an application of Newman’s tests to the general consideration of the proposed doctrine of Communion of divorced and remarried persons.

1. Acceptance of Communion for divorced and remarried persons does not preserve the type of marriage, which entails indissolubility. The type of marriage with Christ’s permanent love for the Church, his bride, is broken.

1. This new doctrine establishes a new principle, namely that in some cases marriage is dissoluble; marriage is not permanent. There is thus a discontinuity with earlier doctrine.

1. The proposed doctrine seems to assimilate the Christian practice of mercy and forgiveness, but it contradicts others such as justice with regard to the obligations that derive from the nature of marriage. It is doubtful that it can pass the test of assimilative power.

1. Communion in these circumstances does not follow the penitential practice present since the early Church by which a person in a state of sin must leave the situation of sin and follow a path of conversion before being reconciled to the Church, thus coming into Communion.

1. Christ’s teaching about the permanence of marriage and the sin of adultery does not anticipate in any way this new doctrine of divorce and remarriage, and less of Communion for those who are sadly in this situation.

1. Admission to Communion of divorced persons who have entered a second bond does not have a protective action on the practice of marriage in the Church. Instead of having a conservative action, it weakens marriage by removing one of the consequences to divorce and remarriage.

1. Newman would also argue that the proposed doctrine would not add vitality to the Christian reality of sacramental marriage. On the contrary, the practice of divorce and remarriage, and in some places of Communion for persons divorced and remarried, have become more accepted.

Given this analysis, it is very doubtful that the doctrine on Communion for divorced and remarried persons proposed by Cardinal Walter Kasper can be considered authentic development of doctrine.

catholicworldreport.com/Item/3490/cardinal_newman_the_synod_and_the_kasper_proposal.aspx

 

[Thomas_White]

And to add onto this, do they know that development of doctrine does not mean change

development: a significant event, occurrence or change

Development of doctrine: “the understanding of the things and words handed down grows, through the contemplation and study of believers…(which) tends continually towards the fullness of divine truth” (Constitution on Revelation, article 8).

If AL is a development of doctrine, as Cardinal Schonborn said it is, then this means something, and this something is change of existing doctrine. And I believe we would do well to accept this reality and that those who resist this change ought to at least develop their own understanding of it.

 

[TMC]

According to the article linked at the bottom of this post, 'in 1989, the International Theological Commission accepted the validity of Newman’s criteria in a document titled “The Interpretation of Dogma”. ’

This was written before Amoris Laetitia was released. Rev. Juan R. Velez applied the seven tests for development of doctrine by Cardinal Newman on the Kasper proposal/Communion for the divorced and remarried:

catholicworldreport.com/Item/3490/cardinal_newman_the_synod_and_the_kasper_proposal.aspx

One can just as easily write ways in which this development meets those seven criteria. Beside, the statements on 2 and 3 are simply wrong, the statements on 5 and 6 are at best opinion, and the statement on 7 is pure speculation. Also, it wrongly attributes the “proposal” to Cardinal Kasper, when it is the teaching of the Pope.

 

[Thomas_White]

One can just as easily write ways in which this development meets those seven criteria. Beside, the statements on 2 and 3 are simply wrong, the statements on 5 and 6 are at best opinion, and the statement on 7 is pure speculation. Also, it wrongly attributes the “proposal” to Cardinal Kasper, when it is the teaching of the Pope.

Indeed. See #2, Continuity of principles, from Cardinal Newman’s test for the development of doctrine. What is quoted above, in #722, concerning the develop of doctrine is dogma.

 

[ProdigalSun]

I believe there will come a day that things we believed were sins will become acceptable. The seven deadly sins will become things we shouldnt judge people over.

Oh, there will be new Seven deadly sins, Like being judgemental or some other things liberals hate. Being a conservative could be another one.

It is like that already!

 

[edwayne]

development: a significant event, occurrence or change

Development of doctrine: “the understanding of the things and words handed down grows, through the contemplation and study of believers…(which) tends continually towards the fullness of divine truth” (Constitution on Revelation, article 8).

If AL is a development of doctrine, as Cardinal Schonborn said it is, then this means something, and this something is change of existing doctrine. And I believe we would do well to accept this reality and that those who resist this change ought to at least develop their own understanding of it.

Development of doctrine can never mean a contradiction or flip-flop. Development of doctrine means a fuller understanding of what we already knew to be true and were taught in the past. Even those who favor a liberal or more progressive interpretation of Amoris Laetitia are not in agreement on this matter… with some saying that it is a change and development of doctrine while others say it is not a change in doctrine but only a change in discipline.

 

[Wandile]

development: a significant event, occurrence or change

Development of doctrine: “the understanding of the things and words handed down grows, through the contemplation and study of believers…(which) tends continually towards the fullness of divine truth” (Constitution on Revelation, article 8).

If AL is a development of doctrine, as Cardinal Schonborn said it is, then this means something, and this something is change of existing doctrine. And I believe we would do well to accept this reality and that those who resist this change ought to at least develop their own understanding of it.

Development of doctrine does not mean change of doctrine. It means a deeper undertanding of what has already been believed. Example : The holy trinity, was never taught explicitly until the second century (from the evidence we have), but was always believed and implicit in the faith found in tradition and scripture (evidenced by St justin Martyr who coined the term Trinity to define this implicit faith). By the time of the Councol of Nicaea the fathers of the church had studied the matter so in depth that they could formulate the truth of the holy trinity in a new manner, that is more precisely and explicitly. But see what happened here was not a change of teaching but a deeper understanding of it. Another development is that the Filioque is necessitated by the Holy Trinity logically, that was a development. It was always believed but after thorough study was taught explicitly and officially. It never resulted in a change in the doctrine of holy trinity but a better understanding reinforcing the Holy Trinity.

Again see Cardinal Henry Newmans explanation of development of doctrine as he was the first theologian to actually explicitly teach it.

And if you are faithful to the popes then you should follow them and follow Pope st Pius X

**“I accept sincerely the doctrine of faith transmitted from the apostles through the orthodox fathers, always in the same sense and interpretation, even to us; and so I reject the heretical invention of the evolution of dogmas, passing from one meaning to another, different from that which the Church first had;**and likewise I reject all error whereby a philosophic fiction is substituted for the divine deposit, given over to the Spouse of Christ and to be guarded faithfully by her, or a creation of the human conscience formed gradually by the efforts of men and to be perfected by indefinite progress in the future.”

This was he oath that all priests had to take.

Change is bad if it means doctrine can change and the prelates pushing Communion for the divorced and remarried knew that saying doctrine had changed would be tantamount to heresy. Hence at the Synods of 2014 and 2015 they openly said they were not changing the “indissolublity of marriage” but rather developing it (gaining a deeper undertanding). But clearly even you see what they are advocating is a change when you said

And I believe we would do well to accept this reality and that those who resist this change ought to at least develop their own understanding of it.

So clearly what they teach is heresy since it’s a change of doctrine and not merely a deeper undertanding.

It’s sad today that many Catholics today have forgotten that the highest authority in the church is the faith taught in tradition and the Pope is subject to this not above it. He cannot change it (something explicitly mentioned at the recent synod). Saint Vincent of Lerins says it best :

"**Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. **(Commonitory ch. II, §6; NPNF Series II Vol. XI p. 132)

 

[Stat_Crux]

development: a significant event, occurrence or change

Development of doctrine: “the understanding of the things and words handed down grows, through the contemplation and study of believers…(which) tends continually towards the fullness of divine truth” (Constitution on Revelation, article 8).

If AL is a development of doctrine, as Cardinal Schonborn said it is, then this means something, and this something is change of existing doctrine. And I believe we would do well to accept this reality and that those who resist this change ought to at least develop their own understanding of it.

I don’t know, it sounds a bit of a circular argument. What was going through his head at the time of him saying it, before he has the evidence of him saying it on which to base his argument? Maybe something like…

“What I’m about to say may not appear to be supported by past Magisterial documents, but it’s about to become Magisterial after I say it, therefore I’m allowed to say it because once I have said it, it will be and is Magisterial. Therefore I am right in saying it because I said/will say it.”

Part of the problem, from my perspective is that we see eminent, respected Cardinals such as Cardinal Schonborn saying things which, from the perspective of many Catholics who were formerly secure in their faith, seem to contradict past Magisterial teachings of the same or greater weight or at least are difficult to reconcile with the clear teaching till now. I say that not as an insult to the Cardinal, but as an expression that some, including myself, can’t quite follow his logic.

Simply to say “because person X said it, it must be true” doesn’t sound like a very firm foundation for judging the truth of something. Isaac Newton was undeniably more intelligent and knowledgeable than I, but he was still factually incorrect about a great number of things as subsequent events have shown. Those mathematical ideas of his which are still accepted as true to this day are seen as true because he demonstrated them to be true using a rigorous process that could be repeated and demonstrated to others, and not because Isaac Newton was the one who said it.

However the argument, demonstrating with patience and charity, step-by-step how we get from the Magisterial teaching of Familiaris Consortio and Veritatis Splendor to the “liberal” interpretation of Amoris Laetitia hasn’t yet been put forward. If it is put forward, the idea and the reasoning can be respectfully discussed and debated in order to arrive at the truth of the matter. That would be a robust way of giving confidence that we have genuinely arrived at the truth.

Instead it feels like there isn’t transparency in why or how such an interpretation could be possible. We’re just told to smile, stop asking questions and ignore the problem that some are seeing. Certainly in my experience, including with some on these forums, if you question how a change such as some are proposing is possible, you’re automatically labelled as “anti-Francis” for asking honest questions.

If the “liberal” interpretation of AL is correct, and that those who hold that position are confident enough to bet their souls and the souls of others that they are following the will of God, then I’d hope for more confidence in putting their cards on the table so that we can have an open debate to arrive at the truth of the matter. If the “liberal” interpretation of AL is true, and that those who have sex outside of marriage may receive Communion (with more or less restrictive criteria depending on the specific liberal interpretation), then that position would have to be demonstrably correct if we could ever again expect to have confidence that the will of God can be communicated from one person to another.