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

[JPUSC]

Everyone chill. We can enjoy life now. No more rules!

:egyptian:

 

[Ginny89]

Everyone chill. We can enjoy life now. No more rules!

:egyptian:

Hahaha!

 

[dans0622]

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.

Perhaps you can point to a scriptural example of the urim and thummim being used to decide the existence of a contract (since that is what we’re talking about). I’m not a scripture expert and can’t recall any such occurrence but your use of “of course” suggests otherwise.

Dan

 

[Ginny89]

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

I see it as much worse actually. Considering it was Jesus who changed the more “merciful” allowance of Moses and introduced the new stringent rule, the implication goes to Jesus himself, not just the church.

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

It confirms every protestant/fundamentalist argument against the papacy. All these centuries they have been accusing our religion of consisting in blindly following every whim of the pope, all these years we have been defending the church by explaining precisely the limits of papal infallibility and that we dont blindly follow the pope and that the pope can only bind the church when he teaches ex-cathedra…they’ve been right all along!!!

If it does turn out that this brand new version of catholicism is the real one, I imagine very many people will be forced by their God-given reason and conscience to cease being catholic for it will no longer be a religion based on truth but a personality cult. What keeps me in still is the chance that this may turn around very quickly to the surprise of the small but growing number of tyrants in the catholic church who seem to itch to start persecuting their brethren in a misguided belief that they are defending the holy father from dissent.

 

[Kliska]

It confirms every protestant/fundamentalist argument against the papacy.

It hasn’t confirmed that sort of thing yet, but it may. Those protestants like me who are finally looking at the CC through learning about it firsthand (instead of believing misinformation) are now seeing this confusion unfold and to be honest, it does indeed make one hesitate more from seriously considering joining the CC. From my POV, what AL suggests is indeed unclear and it could indeed be applied in different ways. The problem is, if certain things are not clarified, some of those ways do contradict not just practice but doctrine, and if doctrine is contradicted and that is supported… well, then, welcome to the confusion of subjectivism and church shopping, and yes, some of the arguments against the CC would be supported.

It’s not an attack… it all actually makes me very sad, but I’m definitely watching how it will play out before judging anything.

 

[JPUSC]

It hasn’t confirmed that sort of thing yet, but it may. Those protestants like me who are finally looking at the CC through learning about it firsthand (instead of believing misinformation) are now seeing this confusion unfold and to be honest, it does indeed make one hesitate more from seriously considering joining the CC. From my POV, what AL suggests is indeed unclear and it could indeed be applied in different ways. The problem is, if certain things are not clarified, some of those ways do contradict not just practice but doctrine, and if doctrine is contradicted and that is supported… well, then, welcome to the confusion of subjectivism and church shopping, and yes, some of the arguments against the CC would be supported.

It’s not an attack… it all actually makes me very sad, but I’m definitely watching how it will play out before judging anything.

Funny how someone once enthusiastic about joining the Catholic Church is now hesitant to join while a once devout Catholic (me) is now on the way out.

 

[TCEL]

It hasn’t confirmed that sort of thing yet, but it may. Those protestants like me who are finally looking at the CC through learning about it firsthand (instead of believing misinformation) are now seeing this confusion unfold and to be honest, it does indeed make one hesitate more from seriously considering joining the CC. From my POV, what AL suggests is indeed unclear and it could indeed be applied in different ways. The problem is, if certain things are not clarified, some of those ways do contradict not just practice but doctrine, and if doctrine is contradicted and that is supported… well, then, welcome to the confusion of subjectivism and church shopping, and yes, some of the arguments against the CC would be supported.

It’s not an attack… it all actually makes me very sad, but I’m definitely watching how it will play out before judging anything.

Thank you for your honesty. I think this needs to be heard.

 

[TCEL]

Funny how someone once enthusiastic about joining the Catholic Church is now hesitant to join while a once devout Catholic (me) is now on the way out.

I feel like Peter. To whom would I go? I have no desire to leave. The Church is Christ’s bride, and he will not abandon her.

 

[Ender]

A person in a totally valid marriage, marginal Catholic married to marginal Catholic, becomes a classic prodigal son, running off with his mistress. Ten years later, a serious emotional events brings that person back to the Church, now married to this mistress with a couple of kids that need to be raised. His annulment is either denied, or he does not apply as it is obvious it should be denied. Through the counseling time, the priest understands the man earnestly desires communion with Christ (even more than receiving communion). He really wants the Sacrament of Reconcilliation for his adultery. Yet he just can’t wrap his head around the Church’s teaching that he is still committing adultery, as he still is intimately in love with his wife and family.

Understand what you are proposing here. It is a requirement of reconciliation that one reject the sins he has committed and intend not to repeat them. That is, he must have contrition. This is an irreplaceable component of confession and absolution yet you are suggesting that it be ignored in this case where the individual wants to be absolved of the accountability for his adultery without having to give it up.

I am still on the fence as to whether the law of gradualness might permit the desire to make this commitment because of a desire to put Christ above all, including family might allow the Sacrament of Reconcilliation and admittance to communion.

How do you maintain that he has a desire to put Christ above all when in fact his desire is to continue committing adultery even at the expense of his relation with Christ? The “Law of Gradualness” cannot mean we are free of the effects of the sins we commit today merely because we intend to give them up some time in the indeterminate future.

I do believe some things are close enough to be humanly impossible to consider them so, Trent not withstanding…

It requires tremendous effort and sacrifice to live as brother and sister, but who would even try if he was told it wasn’t necessary?

Ende

 

[Wandile]

Funny how someone once enthusiastic about joining the Catholic Church is now hesitant to join while a once devout Catholic (me) is now on the way out.

Leaving the Church is not an answer. That only damns our soul (something most priests are scared to say these days). If people cannot stand what the church looks like during a crisis of heresy (not the first at all) then was their faith ever secure? I pray you don’t. The church needs faithful soldiers.

St Athanasius is the example of our times. During and age when everyone was compromisng the faith around him and growing hostility to anyone who held orthodox catholic doctrine was growing and reaching fever pitch, he chose to stay in the church and fight! He lost everything but one thing they could not take away was his faith!

Keep your faith and believe in God. There is no other church but the Catholic Church.

 

[Ender]

Ender your obsession with sin having to always be voluntary is clouding your understanding.

That’s what I believe because that is what the church teaches. *the evil of sin (malum culpae) is a disorder in a free action or omission *(Suarez)

I would like to allieve you of this with well sourced reading material but why should I?

If you had sources to support your contentions you would have cited something. Inasmuch as you have yet to cite anything at all the most reasonable assumption is that you are working from memory and simply cannot substantiate your claims.

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.

I think I have twice mentioned that original sin is no part of this discussion. It is an irrelevancy to this topic. The issue we’re dealing with is divorce and the reception of communion and the sacrament of reconciliation. Original sin affects us all equally. Divorce and remarriage does not.

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.

I wonder how you can maintain this fiction in the face of a citation from the catechism that explicitly denies it. How are you able to simply ignore what the church teaches in favor of your own (mis)perceptions? *2383 *…If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.

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…

It is not a sin to be a victim.

… and become a victim of a sinful juridical state which Divorce objectively is…

Divorce cannot be objectively sinful given the church has explicitly stated otherwise (see 2383 above).

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”.

I don’t know what you mean by innocent sin unless you are referring to sins for which we are not culpable, that is, material sins. Which, by the way, is still a sin we have committed; it is not the effect of a sin someone else commits. And yes, I believe that a sin must be a moral offense. *sin is a moral evil… *(Catholic encyclopedia)
No, I don’t believe there is such a thing as an innocent victim sinner, and I challenge you to provide a citation to support your comments.

Ender

 

[Wandile]

It confirms every protestant/fundamentalist argument against the papacy. All these centuries they have been accusing our religion of consisting in blindly following every whim of the pope, all these years we have been defending the church by explaining precisely the limits of papal infallibility and that we dont blindly follow the pope and that the pope can only bind the church when he teaches ex-cathedra…they’ve been right all along!!!

Though I can sympathize with this paragraph, the Protestants were wrong about the Catholic Church. No where in any church document is this weird papolatry taught. In fact Vatican I and Blessed Pope Pius IX taught explicitly against it and so have many popes and saints. Notice this papolatry ionly exists amongst Catholics who don’t know their faith. How they fill the vacuum where their knowledge of the faith should be is an overreliance on the Pope. IOW the Protestants are still wrong and the only thing it shows is that many Catholics have poor to non-existent Catechisis.

If it does turn out that this brand new version of catholicism is the real one, I imagine very many people will be forced by their God-given reason and conscience to cease being catholic for it will no longer be a religion based on truth but a personality cult. What keeps me in still is the chance that this may turn around very quickly to the surprise of the small but growing number of tyrants in the catholic church who seem to itch to start persecuting their brethren in a misguided belief that they are defending the holy father from dissent.

The gates of hell will not prevail. The Arian crisis lasted for about 2 centuries. Monophysitism and Nestorianism for about 3 centuries combined. Monothelitism for half century.
I have a feeling this crisis won’t last beyond this century or even the year 2050 but you never know. Just keep the faith and pray, go to confession, go to mass and be the best catholic you can be.

 

[Wandile]

“But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.”

• Galatians 1:8

This applies more to today. This speaks to the fact that we cannot contradict established teaching no matter who is proposing the change.

 

[edwayne]

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

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

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

 

[Wandile]

Don’t ignore the writings of the saints and their inspired prophecies like Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774-1824). She had the stigmata and was beautified by Pope St John Paul II . She prophesied about the future of the church saying:

*"I had another vision of the great tribulation. **It seems to me that a concession was demanded from the clergy which could not be granted… It was as if people were splitting into two camps…

I saw also the relationship between the two popes***… I saw how baleful would be the consequences of this false church… I saw that the Church of Peter was undermined by a plan evolved by the secret sect… They built a large, singular, extravagant church which was to embrace all creeds with equal rights: Evangelicals, Catholics, and all denominations, a true communion of the unholy with one shepherd and one flock… I saw the fatal consequences of this counterfeit church: I saw it increase; I saw heretics of all kinds…

When the (true) Church had been for the most part destroyed, and when only the sanctuary and altar were still standing, I saw the wreckers enter the Church with the Beast (antichrist)… I see the Holy Father in great anguish. He lives in a palace other than before… I saw a strange church being built against every rule… the new heterodox Church of Rome… Everything was being done, according to human reason. I saw all sorts of people, things, doctrines, and opinions. There was something proud, presumptuous, and violent about it, and they seemed to be very successful…. The (true) Church is completely isolated and as if completely deserted. It seems that everyone is running away. Everywhere I see great misery, hatred, treason, rancor, confusion and utter blindness. O city! O city! What is threatening thee? The storm is coming, do be watchful!

I also saw the various regions of the earth. My Guide (Jesus) named Europe and pointing to a small and sandy region, He uttered these words: ‘Here is Prussia (East Germany), the enemy.’ Then He showed me another place, to the north, and He said: ‘This is Moskva, the land of Moscow, bringing many evils’."

Emphasis/bolding and brackets added are mine

This concession could be communion for the divorced and remarried. Notice she mentions the relationship between the two popes, a situation that has never happened in the church history except for today. Read it and make of it what you will.

Since it is private revelation , though approved, it’s not necissary for belief but this is from a beatified person after all so it has some credibility.

Our Lady of Akita (Approved, 1973-79) stated about these times:

"The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, and bishops against other bishops. The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their Confreres. The churches and altars will be sacked. The Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord."

Again this is approved private revelation so it’s not necessary to believe but so worthy of belief.

I urge everybody to pray for the church in these trying times.

 

[Thomas_White]

Okay I urge everybody to consult church history especially on Vatican II.

The dogmatic constitution De Verbum was a reaffirmation of a dogmatic proposition I.e. Something already defined as dogmatic. That proposition was “the truth of scripture”. Doctrinal development Has never ever been defined as dogmatic so Vatican II could not teach it as dogmatic , nor did it. Vatican II was a pastoral council and didn’t define anything dogmatically. It only reaffirmed established dogmatic positions. Doctrinal development, as I said earlier, has never been defined by a Pope or previous dogmatic council for Vatican II to teach it as dogmatic.

See the problem here is not De Verbum but rather your reading of the document. In dogmatic pronouncements and the documents that’s detail the dogmatic constitutions, it is necissary to know which dogma is being spoken of. Not everything in the document is dogma. See the decree on the immaculate conception for example which is a long document but the dogma itself is only a few lines in that document

Further :

Pope Paul VI: "In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it has avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogma carrying the mark of infallibility.`` --Pope Paul VI, Audience of 12 January, 1966

Pope Paul VI: "The magisterium of the Church did not wish to pronounce itself under the form of extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements…`` -Pope Paul VI, discourse closing Vatican II, 7 December, 1965

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

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

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

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

 

[edwayne]

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

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

Apostolic Exhortation
Familiaris Consortio

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.

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

Apostolic Exhortation
Reconciliation and Penance

“Basing herself on these two complementary principles (between mercy and truth), the church can only invite her children who find themselves in these painful situations to approach the divine mercy by other ways, not however through the sacraments of penance and the Eucharist until such time as they have attained the required dispositions.”

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

Concerning the Reception of Holy Communion by Divorced and Remarried Members of the Faithful
Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

"At the same time it confirms and indicates the reasons for the constant and universal practice, “founded on sacred Scripture, of not admitting the divorced and remarried to holy communion.” The structure of the exhortation and the tenor of its words give clearly to understand that this practice, which is presented as binding, cannot be modified because of different situations.”

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

“This norm is not at all a punishment or a discrimination against the divorced and remarried, but rather expresses an objective situation that of itself]/I] renders impossible the reception of holy communion.”

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

 

[Tantum_ergo]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Idolatry of the Pope when it comes to Pope Francis (perceived, I am not saying it actually exists) would be a relatively new phenomenon. I certainly did not see such a rush of papal support from the majority of those who now support Pope Francis as ‘supreme’ (and as Vicar of Christ, he is certainly Supreme Pontiff), when Pope BENEDICT was Pope. Far from it.

 

[edwayne]

You stated “they cannot both be correct” suggesting it must therefore be the case that one is right and one is wrong and there are no other possibilities
.
My small point is that your logic is not irrefutable, there actually are other hypotheses along with yours.
Just as the above two other valid possibilities suggest .

Of course yours is possible…but you give every impression any other hypothesis is impossible. Apologies if that was not what you were trying to say…

No one here advocates (b), else all bets are off. Also, in this example I’m not sure how (b) is even an option - ‘A’ is true and ‘not A’ is true cannot both be wrong unless ‘A’ does not even exist.

 

[Vico]

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

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

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

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

In Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott explains the development with this pattern:

Material dogma

Revelation grew until the concluding apogee in Christ.

Formal dogma

1. Truths formerly implicitly believed are proposed for belief.
2. Material dogmas are raised to formal dogmas.
3. Ancient truths are reformulated in new sharply defined concepts.
4. Former disputes are settled, and heritical propositions condemned.
5. The confession of faith of the individual believer progresses through extension and deepening.