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

[Wandile]

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.

Just a correction,“Development of Doctrine” is doctrine not dogma.

 

[kyrie03]

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

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

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

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

Don’t know what is making me cringe more….the manner you address a fellow Christian or your likening original sin to mortal sin. There is a HUGE difference. Never heard of “innocent sin” or “corresponding sinful states” –has this really been taught by the Church? And is this the reason certain interpretations of AL are compatible with Church teaching?

Original sin is lack of the divine energies/life of God/grace that comes to us through our origin or descent from Adam. Innocents don’t incur it – we have NO RIGHT to the free gifts Adam lost through the fall! But in his mercy, God sent His Only Begotten Son to provide the ordinary means (sacraments) through which we can attain the life of grace and enter into heaven. Baptism is the ordinary means to rectify original sin. The soul in original sin isn’t committing a moral offense nor is it a victim.

Mortal or deadly sin is a willful, grievous offence against the law of God. It deprives the sinner of grace, makes it an enemy of God, takes away merit of all good actions, deprives it of right to everlasting happiness in heaven, and makes it deserving of everlasting punishment in hell. Confession is the ordinary means to rectify mortal sin. To make a worthy confession, the sinner must examine the conscience (call to mind Commandments of God and of the Church and the duties particular to state of life and determine how he may have transgressed), be sorry for sins, have firm purpose o sinning no more, and be willing to perform penance the priest gives. The Church operates through the sacraments instituted by Christ to give grace. She is incapable of changing the Commandments of God or the requirements inherent to the sacraments as Christ instituted them. She isn’t the creator of doctrine –only the keeper: the one who guards it and hands it down for all peoples in all times. Christ founded the Church to be THE means for souls to attain heaven –through the sacraments. Christ poured out every last drop of blood to show his love for us and the evil of sin. Seems pretty darn important to not mess up our understanding of the sacraments!

Those you reason could be innocent victims of adultery commit no offense if they refrain from conjugal relations with anyone other than the spouse that God has joined together in the sacrament of Marriage. This Church teaching was made clear by Pope JPII. Did he misunderstand the Scriptures and Church teaching regarding the sacraments?

What do you mean by irregulars accused of adultery but innocent of what they do - "victims of adultery? Do they lack understanding the indissolubility of marriage? Are they unaware that sex outside of marriage is a serious offense against the law of God? Or have they determined within their conscience that they are not bound by the Commandments or don’t need repentance and confession prior to the Eucharist? There are just too many holes.

 

[Thomas_White]

Just a correction,“Development of Doctrine” is doctrine not dogma.

Rather than making your own unsupported proclamations, I urge you to first read Chapter II, Article 8 of the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation ‘Dei Verbum’, Solemnly Promulgated by His Holiness Pope Pius VI on November 18, 1965:

“This tradition [apostolic preaching] which comes from the Apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit.”

emphasis added

 

[Ginny89]

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

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

You have not pointed to the teaching. You KNOW you have not. You pointed to private letters and cardinal Kasper and not ONE citation to a public teaching by the pope. You also know that AL is a problem because of what people like you and Maltese Bishops USE it to do. It is a problem, because it is being used to create the biggest scandal to faithful believers ever.

The main issue here is a new ecclessiology. Actually an old but rejected ecckessiology now errupting again. Some people believe in a catholicism that allows them to ignore magisterial documents because a sitting pope privately agrees with them. They forget thatvPope Honorius also sent private letters to heretics that supported their position. Just like today, his words were cited by the orthodox and the heretics alike to support their contradictory positions. He did nothing to stop the spread of that heresy and for that his successors and succeeding councils condemned him. My point is that this ecclessiology where a pope’s private positions is used as authority has already been rejected by the church. We are not to follow anyone’s private positions, not even St. Peter’s himself. Only the truth BOLDLY and PUBLICLY preached by the church as truth. The only person whose private wishes bind us is our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ, our KING. His wish is our command. Not any wish of any one of his many servants.

 

[Stat_Crux]

A Priest in Colombia has apparently been suspended for raising concerns about the application of Amoris Laetitia. Here’s a link to the original article, which broke the story, in Spanish. Google translate, while not perfect, should give the gist of the details.

adelantelafe.com/exclusiva-suspendido-divinis-sacerdote-colombia-discrepar-francisco/

As I said earlier, we can try to discuss this civilly here on this forum, and I believe we should always try to. But ultimately it’s exercises of power like this in the real world which will poison the debate over AL in the months and years ahead. It’s hard to trust someone when they are threatening to ruin your life if you disagree with them or ask the wrong questions.

Whilst the story is still in its early stages, rightly or wrongly Colombia now has one less Priest for apparently having continued to practice the traditional teaching that, before 2016, he would have been commended for doing.

 

[edwayne]

I think we all understand the reasons for requesting “clarification”

Yes, it should be obvious the reasons for requesting the clarifications… basically, to understand how Amoris Laetitia is to be interpreted in continuity with previous magisterial teachings on this matter.

 

[TMC]

You have not pointed to the teaching. You KNOW you have not. You pointed to private letters and cardinal Kasper and not ONE citation to a public teaching by the pope. You also know that AL is a problem because of what people like you and Maltese Bishops USE it to do. It is a problem, because it is being used to create the biggest scandal to faithful believers ever.

The main issue here is a new ecclessiology. Actually an old but rejected ecckessiology now errupting again. Some people believe in a catholicism that allows them to ignore magisterial documents because a sitting pope privately agrees with them. They forget thatvPope Honorius also sent private letters to heretics that supported their position. Just like today, his words were cited by the orthodox and the heretics alike to support their contradictory positions. He did nothing to stop the spread of that heresy and for that his successors and succeeding councils condemned him. My point is that this ecclessiology where a pope’s private positions is used as authority has already been rejected by the church. We are not to follow anyone’s private positions, not even St. Peter’s himself. Only the truth BOLDLY and PUBLICLY preached by the church as truth. The only person whose private wishes bind us is our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ, our KING. His wish is our command. Not any wish of any one of his many servants.

The teaching is there for those that have ears to hear and eyes to see. Have you not read AL? Have you read any of the statements by the Pope or Cardinal Kasper on AL? If you have, you have the teaching. I can not point you to what you refuse to see.

 

[edwayne]

The teaching is there for those that have ears to hear and eyes to see. Have you not read AL? Have you read any of the statements by the Pope or Cardinal Kasper on AL? If you have, you have the teaching. I can not point you to what you refuse to see.

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.

 

[Thomas_White]

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.

But does AL necessarily contradict past Magisterial teachings? Here is an example: It seems that a significant issue that AL addresses is “manifest grave sin”, a concept I can’t see holding up to reasoned analysis. The current teaching is that those in manifest (or objective) grave sin should not be permitted to receive communion, and those in an “irregular” marriage are deemed to be in manifest grave sin for the reason of the irregular marriage alone. But this is a presumption. There are three conditions for a sin to be a mortal sin: its object must be grave matter, and it must be committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent. How would “deliberate consent” be manifest? Or “full knowledge”? It would not be necessary to contradict the teaching about “manifest grave sin”. It could be developed to mean what it actually says: manifest–readily perceived by the eye; evident. As it is, the teaching has an unspoken subjective component.

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.

Yes, but what if Jesus said it? Or Pope Paul VI? Faith and belief differ importantly from empirical fact and scientific rigor, do they not?

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.

I have made every effort to put forward facts by quoting verbatim from AL and dogma (e.g., “Dei Verbum”) and have said again and again that I am not advancing my own position and am only providing my understanding of AL. But I suppose it is fair to argue with it. Either way, I am not going to lose faith in the Church, not when I already know that a vast amount of data reveals that for the past half century a great many Catholics have rejected Humanae Vitae. In that way, I really don’t understand the current uproar. But I do think that if the ad hominem remarks by one or two others don’t cease, the thread will be closed. And that would be unfortunate.

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.

Who said to stop asking questions? It is what these many threads are about. I don’t know, but perhaps Pope Francis believes it would be good for us to figure this out for ourselves. For sure, I do not know my understanding of AL is correct.

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.

I thought this very thread was an open debate. As to what will unfold in the official Church, we will have to wait and see.

 

[Ginny89]

The teaching is there for those that have ears to hear and eyes to see. Have you not read AL? Have you read any of the statements by the Pope or Cardinal Kasper on AL? If you have, you have the teaching. I can not point you to what you refuse to see.

I have read AL. It does not say anywhere that remarried can receive communion without annulment or continence. Again, you KNOW this. This is why you “cannot point to” it. It’s not because you “have eyes to see and ears to hear”. It’s because all you have are innuendos and a private letter.

 

[Ginny89]

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.

It genuinely seems like many people believe they are not bound to all popes. Just the one they believe would support them even though he apparently has refused to state this “agreement” they rely on publicly even in answer to dubia, perhaps because the pope indeed cannot and will not ever contradict catholic teaching. Who knows, I might stick around in the church after all.

 

[Abba]

A Priest in Colombia has apparently been suspended for raising concerns about the application of Amoris Laetitia.

For raising concerns? Were you there? Try reading your own posts and see how you justify, rationalize, and re-paint everything and anything to promote this very sad situation in the Church. Really? That’s all the priest did? Do you know what he was telling the faithful? Tell us a little more about it.

Hat’s off to the Bishop of Pereira, Colombia, Monseñor Rigoberto Corredor .:tiphat: The priest needs to be in communion with the Pope in order to be in communion with the Church? Didn’t you know that? Perhaps, the priest will join Cardinal Burke when he declares himself head of his schism.

As I said earlier, we can try to discuss this civilly here on this forum, and I believe we should always try to. But ultimately it’s exercises of power like this in the real world which will poison the debate over AL in the months and years ahead. It’s hard to trust someone when they are threatening to ruin your life if you disagree with them or ask the wrong questions.

It would seem as though Cardinal Burke and his followers have ex-communicated themselves. However, the Pope is not using his authority to declare it so. Pope Francis is patient and a man of prayer - a servant of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Yet, Cardinal Burke, who was not invited to the second synod - because it’s his way or the highway; tried to corner the Holy Father into stating what he wanted him to say in his Quinque Insidias (Five Traps for the Holy Father). When the Holy Father did not dignify his disrespect; he went public and tried to gather more followers. In the beginning of December he said that no schism was a threat , by the 23rd of the December " And if it’s not clarified soon, it could develop into a formal schism." Cardinal Burke claims that he is not calling the Pope a heretic but that is exactly what he has done. Cardinal Burke said that he read the book published from the synod even though he did not participate. Oh, dear, I have read a lot of books I did not contribute to, I don’t just think my own writing is worthy of my attention. He needs to work on humility and obedience. I hope people stop following him and continue to follow Pope Francis; Pope Francis is the real Pope.

If my Bishop supported Cardinal Burke, I would move from my diocese as I want to be in communion with my priest, who is in communion with the my Bishop who is in communion with the Pope.

Whilst the story is still in its early stages, rightly or wrongly Colombia now has one less Priest for apparently having continued to practice the traditional teaching that, before 2016, he would have been commended for doing.

A lot of sentiments for the priest who was misguiding the faithfuls and abandoned his parish without notifying the Bishop. Do you have any ‘sentiments’ for the eternal salvation of souls?

 

[pnewton]

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

Dan

The urim and thummim, of course. I could also point out that it made sense once to decide who would be an apostle on the role of the dice.

 

[Vico]

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.

There in Familaris Consortio were described several cases:

80 Trial Marriages (CCC 2391 Some today claim a “right to a trial marriage” where there is an intention of getting married later.)
…people today would like to justify by attributing a certain value to them. But human reason leads one to see that they are unacceptable…

81 De Facto Free Unions (CCC 2390 In a so-called free union, a man and a woman refuse to give juridical and public form to a liaison involving sexual intimacy.)

1. Those almost forced into a free union by difficult economic, cultural or religious situations, on the grounds that, if they contracted a regular marriage, they would be exposed to some form of harm, would lose economic advantages, would be discriminated against, etc.
2. In other cases, however, one encounters people who scorn, rebel against or reject society, the institution of the family and the social and political order, or who are solely seeking pleasure.
3. Then there are those who are driven to such situations by extreme ignorance or poverty, sometimes by a conditioning due to situations of real injustice, or by a certain psychological immaturity that makes them uncertain or afraid to enter into a stable and definitive union.
4. In some countries, traditional customs presume that the true and proper marriage will take place only after a period of cohabitation and the birth of the first child.

…above all there must be a campaign of prevention

82 Catholics in Civil Marriages
Catholics who for ideological or practical reasons, prefer to contract a merely civil marriage, and who reject or at least defer religious marriage. … not even this situation is acceptable to the Church.

84 Divorced Persons Who Have Remarried

1. those who have sincerely tried to save their first marriage and have been unjustly abandoned.
2. those who through their own grave fault have destroyed a canonically valid marriage.
3. those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children’s upbringing, and who are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably destroyed marriage had never been valid.

…
With firm confidence she believes that those who have rejected the Lord’s command and are still living in this state will be able to obtain from God the grace of conversion and salvation, provided that they have persevered in prayer, penance and charity.

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

During the meeting with clergy in the Diocese of Aosta, which took place 25 July 2005, Pope Benedict XVI spoke of this difficult question: “ those who were married in the Church for the sake of tradition but were not truly believers, and who later find themselves in a new and invalid marriage and subsequently convert, discover faith and feel excluded from the Sacrament, are in a particularly painful situation. This really is a cause of great suffering and when I was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, I invited various Bishops’ Conferences and experts to study this problem: a sacrament celebrated without faith. Whether, in fact, a moment of invalidity could be discovered here because the Sacrament was found to be lacking a fundamental dimension, I do not dare to say. I personally thought so, but from the discussions we had I realized that it is a highly complex problem and ought to be studied further. But given these people’s painful plight, it must be studied further.”

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19980101_ratzinger-comm-divorced_en.html

 

[pnewton]

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

How can the word development be used without any change?

 

[pnewton]

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.

You use the h word a lot. It sounds like you are accusing Cardinal Mueller of heresy. I guess that is your prerogative, but it puts your opinion outside what I care to consider, as he is speaking for the Pope. I had enough of people accusing the pope of heresy back when it was Pope John Paul II. Ironically, a lot of the same radical traditionalists that accused Pope John Paul II of heresy hold him up today as a paragon of orthodoxy.

Has anyone else noticed this?

 

[jeannetherese]

Either way, I am not going to lose faith in the Church, not when I already know that a vast amount of data reveals that for the past half century a great many Catholics have rejected Humanae Vitae.

This argument seems confusing; are you contending that the fact that some Catholics act in oppositon to Humanae Vitae supports or increases your faith?

 

[Wandile]

Rather than making your own unsupported proclamations, I urge you to first read Chapter II, Article 8 of the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation ‘Dei Verbum’, Solemnly Promulgated by His Holiness Pope Pius VI on November 18, 1965:

“This tradition [apostolic preaching] which comes from the Apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit.”

emphasis added

De Verbum is not a dogmatic pronouncement. Vatican II was purely a pastoral council as Pope St John XCIII clearly stated and made no dogmatic statements to promulgate dogma at all nor did it wish to.

This wasn’t a definition taught ex cathedral at all. The only to times in recent history this has happened is the Papp proclamations of Munificentismus dues and Inefibilis Deus. Again I read the document and nowhere does it teach doctrinal development is a dogma. Honestly asking, do you know what a dogma is?
Doctrinal development is a doctrine.

Nobody here denies it, but we have all shown you how it cannot be a change in understanding as Pope St Pius taught as well as Cardinal Henry Newman (The man from which the church gets her teaching of development from). I have not made a single thing up but only used the testimony of the popes and saints. The faith does not change , develops in that it gets a deeper understanding, YES, but it does not change.

By your reasoning that it can change, you are pretty much saying we can deny the holy trinity tomorrow and call that a development.

 

[Thomas_White]

This argument seems confusing; are you contending that the fact that some Catholics act in oppositon to Humanae Vitae supports or increases your faith?

Neither. What I meant by “either way” was that whether or not AL permits communion for those in “irregular marriages”, it will not affect my Catholic faith–not anymore than what Cardinal Kasper has referred to as a “virtual schism” given the vast numbers of Catholics who have rejected Humanae Vitae during the past half century but have nevertheless continued to receive communion.

I can see I should have made this clearer.

 

[pnewton]

This wasn’t a definition taught ex cathedral at all. The only to times in recent history this has happened is the Papp proclamations of Munificentismus dues and Inefibilis Deus. Again I read the document and nowhere does it teach doctrinal development is a dogma. Honestly asking, do you know what a dogma is?
.

I could ask the same thing of everyone. (hint: it is the root of the word “dogmatic”,as in a dogmatic constitution issued by the universal Church meeting in council, from Jerusalem, to and through Vatican II, as the part that was quoted.

When the Church speaks in council and claims it dogmatic, that really should not be debated.