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

[Stat_Crux]

Two examples of the sort of active irregulars the new initiatives in AL are aimed at.
Pretty much exactly what some of us have been discussing here:

Written by Dominical theologian Jean-Miguel Garrigues, Professor of Patristics and Dogmatics at the Institut Supérieur Thomas d’Aquin, at the Dominican House of Studies in Toulouse. He and his confrère, Cardinal Cristoph Schönborn, the current Archbishop of Vienna, composed the Catechism of the Catholic Church prepared under the supervision of the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.

You’re using a false argument from authority. Just because Cardinal Schonborn was involved in compiling the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and just because you name drop that then Cardinal Ratzinger was involved in the process, doesn’t mean that every subsequent word of Cardinal Schonborn in the 20 years following has the same Magisterial weight as the CCC. I can point to at least four Cardinals whose personal opinions have exactly the same weight as his.

That and, as you well know, the CCC that Cardinal Schonborn was involved in writing also states:

1650 Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ - "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery"160 the Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists. For the same reason, they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities. Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence.

 

[Stat_Crux]

There is only one way to read AL since the ArgDraft.

Where exactly does controversial ambiguity remain for you re the pastoral bottom lines?

Or alternatively:

There is only one way to read AL since the Portland/Philadelphia/Ordinariate document

Where exactly does controversial ambiguity remain for you re the pastoral bottom lines?

Neither the Pope nor the CDF have condemned any of the “traditional” interpretations of AL which interpret its application as being in continuity with the pastoral practice used for the last 2,000 years, namely that sex outside of marriage is a mortal sin and that the Church does not teach a subjectivist vision of morality. Indeed, in refusing the answer the Dubia, there is no official direction as to how it is to be applied.

All we have to support the “liberal” interpretation of AL is seemingly the documents vague wording (which also supports the traditional interpretation btw), some media interviews, some personal comments, avoidance of open debate and strong language, ad-hominem attacks and a refusal to answer the Dubia.

Supporting the “traditional” interpretation of AL are the Magisterial documents of the Church:
Familiaris Consortio (chapter 84 in particular, written after Cardinal Kasper made his proposal for the first time)
Veritatis Splendor (presenting the Church’s teaching of morality)
the 1994 CDF letter (specifically written to answer the Kasper Proposal when proposed for the second time in the 1990’s)
the Catechism of the Catholic Church
the 2000 Declaration of the Pontifical Council for legislative texts
and of course the Bible, containing the words of Christ himself.

We also have the witness and teaching of 265 Popes as well as Saints and Martyrs beyond number. Here are a few:

St John Fisher: Sole Bishop who refused to take the oath accepting Henry’s supremacy. Far less cautious than St Thomas More, he spoke at once in defence of the Church’s teachings on the Sacrament of Marriage with no regard for his own safety. Before that time, he was widely renowned as one of the holiest men in England, and when made a Bishop he only accepted the role if he were made Bishop of the poorest Diocese in the country (Rochester). Martyred for his belief in the Sacrament and the Church’s constant Scriptural teaching.

St Thomas More: Resigned as Chancellor of England rather than take an oath declaring Henry supreme head of the Church in England or recognising his new marriage as legitimate. He refused to take the Oath for a long time, while refusing the state his reasons, in the hope of surviving on the grounds that he hadn’t stated treasonous opinions. But when subjected to a mock trial he finally confessed publicly his belief in the validity of Henry’s marriage and the Church’s teaching on the Sacrament as indissoluble. Martyred for his belief in the Sacrament and the Church’s constant Scriptural teaching.

Blessed Otto Neururer: First Priest to die in the Nazi concentration camps. Imprisoned after advising a Catholic girl not to marry a divorcee. Martyred for his belief in the Sacrament and the Church’s constant Scriptural teaching.

We also have had a number of scholarly responses on how AL is to be interpreted in line with the Church’s constant teaching. In all cases their arguments have been openly put forth for transparency, scrutiny and debate on a reasoned foundation firmly fixed in the Church’s constant practice and teaching.

The best response from the other “side” so far seems to be that of Fr Antonio Spadaro who said this profound statement on twitter:

Theology is not #Mathematics. 2 + 2 in #Theology can make 5. Because it has to do with #God and real #life of #people…

 

[_Abyssinia]

And which of the above did Pope Francis write a letter about stating “there is no other interpretation of Amoris Laetitia other than that contained in the document drafted by the bishops of Buenos Aires?”

Yet post the letter Pope Francis sent in response to the Argentine Bishops, the Anglican Ordinariate released their guidelines with a traditional respective on Amoris Laetitia. Bishop Egan tweeted out the letter he wrote after Amoris Laetitia was released within the past week or so, which again has a traditional perspective on Amoris Latetia and I doubt the letter has changed since the letter that Pope Francis wrote in response to the Argentine Bishops was released.

Since the Pope Francis letter was released there are still differing interpretations on the part of the clergy in regards to Amoris Laetitia.

 

[TMC]

O the irony!

The true irony is your statement that we must follow the teachings of all the Popes, while simultaneously ignoring the teaching of the current Pope.

 

[TMC]

I provided both Gospel accounts to show you that He really did say that.

Here’s your single sentence: "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her, and if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”

Where did Jesus say that the remarried should be denied the Sacraments? The hubris of those willing to put those words in Jesus’ mouth is, frankly, astounding.

 

[Stat_Crux]

Where did Jesus say that the remarried should be denied the Sacraments? The hubris of those willing to put those words in Jesus’ mouth is, frankly, astounding.

Was St Paul rigid, unmerciful or outright wrong when he said the following in 1 Corinthians?

26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. 27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves. 30 For this reason many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.

 

[TMC]

Was St Paul rigid, unmerciful or outright wrong when he said the following in 1 Corinthians?

You are reading a lot into 1 Corinthians to use those words to justify barring all the remarried from the Sacraments forever in a blanket fashion. Of course, the Church has sometimes made that blanket application, which was within the Church’s teaching authority. The Church is now moving away from that blanket approach, which is also within the Church’s teaching authority. But neither approach is expressly mandated by Scripture.

 

[Ginny89]

The true irony is your statement that we must follow the teachings of all the Popes, while simultaneously ignoring the teaching of the current Pope.

I suppose it makes much more sense to ignore the teaching of all the popes on the basis of a private letter and cardinal Kasper!

 

[Vico]

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.

From article 2016 Sep, 18 – Buenos Aires Bishop Guidelines On Amoris Laetitia

After receiving the guidelines on September 5, Pope Francis wrote back approvingly. “The document is very good and completely explains the meaning of Chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia,” he told them, adding: “There are no other intepretations.”

cvcomment.org/2016/09/18/buenos-aires-bishops-guidelines-on-amoris-laetitia-full-text/

That is in reference to the letter to Mons. Sergio Alfredo Fenoy Delegado de la Region Pastoral Buenos Aires

The guideline translation includes guidelines referring to footnotes of Amoris laetitia Nos. 329, 336, 351:

Basic criteria for the implementation of chapter VIII of Amoris laetitia

Dear priests,

We have received with joy the exhortation Amoris Laetitia, which calls us, above all, to encourage the growth of love between spouses and to motivate young people to opt for marriage and a family. These are important issues that should never be disregarded or overshadowed by other matters. Francis has opened several doors in pastoral care for families and we are called to take advantage of this time of mercy with a view to endorsing, as a pilgrim Church, the richness offered by the different chapters of this Apostolic Exhortation.

We will focus for now on chapter VIII, since it refers to the “guidelines of the bishop” (300) in order to discern the possibility of access to the sacraments of the “divorced who have entered a new union”. We deem it convenient, as Bishops of the same Pastoral Region, to agree on some minimal criteria. We present them without prejudice to the authority that each Bishop has in his own Diocese to clarify, complete or restrict them.

…

1. Whenever feasible, and depending on the specific circumstances of a couple, and especially when both partners are Christians walking together on the path of faith, the priest may suggest a decision to live in continence. Amoris Laetitia does not ignore the difficulties arising from this option (cf. footnote 329) and offers the possibility of having access to the Sacrament of Reconciliation if the partners fail in this purpose (cf. footnote 364, recalling the teaching that Saint John Paul II sent to Cardinal W. Baum, dated 22 March, 1996).
2. In other, more complex cases, and when a declaration of nullity has not been obtained, the above mentioned option may not, in fact, be feasible. Nonetheless, a path of discernment is still possible. If it comes to be recognized that, in a specific case, there are limitations that mitigate responsibility and culpability (cf. 301-302), especially when a person believes they would incur a subsequent wrong by harming the children of the new union, Amoris Laetitia offers the possibility of access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and Eucharist (cf. footnotes 336 and 351). These sacraments, in turn, dispose the person to continue maturing and growing with the power of grace.

 

[_Abyssinia]

From article 2016 Sep, 18 – Buenos Aires Bishop Guidelines On Amoris Laetitia

After receiving the guidelines on September 5, Pope Francis wrote back approvingly. “The document is very good and completely explains the meaning of Chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia,” he told them, adding: “There are no other intepretations.”

cvcomment.org/2016/09/18/buenos-aires-bishops-guidelines-on-amoris-laetitia-full-text/

That is in reference to the letter to Mons. Sergio Alfredo Fenoy Delegado de la Region Pastoral Buenos Aires

The guideline translation includes guidelines referring to footnotes of Amoris laetitia Nos. 329, 336, 351:

Basic criteria for the implementation of chapter VIII of Amoris laetitia

Dear priests,

We have received with joy the exhortation Amoris Laetitia, which calls us, above all, to encourage the growth of love between spouses and to motivate young people to opt for marriage and a family. These are important issues that should never be disregarded or overshadowed by other matters. Francis has opened several doors in pastoral care for families and we are called to take advantage of this time of mercy with a view to endorsing, as a pilgrim Church, the richness offered by the different chapters of this Apostolic Exhortation.

We will focus for now on chapter VIII, since it refers to the “guidelines of the bishop” (300) in order to discern the possibility of access to the sacraments of the “divorced who have entered a new union”. We deem it convenient, as Bishops of the same Pastoral Region, to agree on some minimal criteria. We present them without prejudice to the authority that each Bishop has in his own Diocese to clarify, complete or restrict them.

…

1. Whenever feasible, and depending on the specific circumstances of a couple, and especially when both partners are Christians walking together on the path of faith, the priest may suggest a decision to live in continence. Amoris Laetitia does not ignore the difficulties arising from this option (cf. footnote 329) and offers the possibility of having access to the Sacrament of Reconciliation if the partners fail in this purpose (cf. footnote 364, recalling the teaching that Saint John Paul II sent to Cardinal W. Baum, dated 22 March, 1996).
2. In other, more complex cases, and when a declaration of nullity has not been obtained, the above mentioned option may not, in fact, be feasible. Nonetheless, a path of discernment is still possible. If it comes to be recognized that, in a specific case, there are limitations that mitigate responsibility and culpability (cf. 301-302), especially when a person believes they would incur a subsequent wrong by harming the children of the new union, Amoris Laetitia offers the possibility of access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and Eucharist (cf. footnotes 336 and 351). These sacraments, in turn, dispose the person to continue maturing and growing with the power of grace.

Regarding Pope Francis’ letter to the Argentine Bishop, here are some excerpts from a post by Fr. Zuhlsdorf:

A careful and thoughtful reading of this letter produces neither heat nor light.

First, this is not to the bishops of Latin America, but to one bishop. It seems that in Buenos Aires they are giving Communion to the divorced and remarried. But that isn’t really addressed in the letter, except by some sort of inference. This isn’t a smoking gun either for the liberals or conservatives, for dissidents or the faithful. It is written in a code. For example, “Simplemente acoger, acompañar, discernir, integrar.” What do those words really say? They are simply not so simple.

As I have stated before, those who are faithful to the Church’s teachings will probably continue to do what they did before the advent of Amoris laetitia and dissenters and liberals will continue in their own way as well.

**The Pope doesn’t not change doctrine or discipline in letters to individual bishops nor in off-the-cuff remarks during airplane pressers. **

After all, as Card. Müller stated both clearly and accurately in a speech in Madrid, Pope Francis did not intend in any way to cancel the previous discipline, because “if he had wanted to eliminate such a deeply rooted and significant discipline (i.e., no Communion for those living in manifestly, objectively sinful situations), he would have said so clearly and presented supporting reasons,” … something he did not do. In other words, if the Pope wants to change something, he knows how to do it properly.

Remember: Our study of Amoris laetitia must be done through the lens of the Church’s whole magisterial body of perennial, previous teaching, including but not limited to the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Familaris consortio.

wdtprs.com/blog/2016/09/pope-francis-writes-to-a-bishop-about-the-proper-interpretation-of-chapter-8-of-amorislaetitia/

(Bold text my emphases)

I wrote before on this thread that the letter was to the Argentine Bishops, but I now know from Fr Zuhlsdorf that the letter from Pope Francis was to one bishop.

 

[Stat_Crux]

You are reading a lot into 1 Corinthians to use those words to justify barring all the remarried from the Sacraments forever in a blanket fashion. Of course, the Church has sometimes made that blanket application, which was within the Church’s teaching authority. The Church is now moving away from that blanket approach, which is also within the Church’s teaching authority. But neither approach is expressly mandated by Scripture.

Apologies if this sounds a bit blunt, but I have read no more into 1 Corinthians than the Church has over the last 2,000 years of consistent teaching on the subject of the dangers of receiving Communion in a state of mortal sin.

That passage of 1 Corinthians, along with other passages of Scripture, is not only the reason why the Church has taught that those who have sex outside of marriage cannot receive Communion without Confession, but why the Church has a general prohibition on Communion for all those who are burdened by unconfessed mortal sin. It is not a lack of mercy, but exactly because of pastoral mercy that we do not encourage people to commit sacrilege and instead encourage them to be converted and reconciled to God through the Sacrament of Confession. It is also one of the reasons why the Catholic Church does not practice open Communion with non-Catholics given that they reject the Church’s teachings, which we believe as Catholics to be the Church founded by Christ through the first Pope, St Peter. If you want a crude metaphor, the Church is like a gym, training us in our spiritual lives that we might better follow the Gospel and grow in holiness. Sure, sometimes it hurts and sometimes we don’t feel like we can do what it asks of us, sometimes we may even dislike the trainer telling us to try harder, but by the Grace of God nothing is impossible if we trust in Him and dedicate our lives to His service. For me it’s a matter of confidence in God’s plan for the Church and for our salvation.

I’m always at a loss to understand why people do not see the inherent problem in a suggestion that “the Church founded by God himself has fundamentally misunderstood the Gospel the last 2,000 years, and instead taught an erroneous interpretation.” I’m not sure it’s done with conscious awareness, but it’s troubling to suggest that the Catholic Church has somehow strayed over the centuries from “the original, pure interpretation of the Gospel”.

There are ways of re-presenting the Church’s teachings in today’s world or communicating them in a new way which don’t have to contradict what has gone before and which build on, and compliment, the Church’s rich pastoral tradition rather than knocking it down and trying to start again.

I find it shocking that some people openly state that they think the Church before 2016 wasn’t merciful, or that in an age in which our society offers an almost unrestricted freedom to sin that we should be converted by the world and not try to convert it. Again, not sure that people do this consciously, but that’s how it comes across. What ever happened to preaching Matthew 5:13-16?

13 “You are the salt of the earth; but if salt has lost its taste, how can its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything, but is thrown out and trampled under foot.

14 “You are the light of the world. A city built on a hill cannot be hid. 15 No one after lighting a lamp puts it under the bushel basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven.

 

[Thomas_White]

From article 2016 Sep, 18 – Buenos Aires Bishop Guidelines On Amoris Laetitia

After receiving the guidelines on September 5, Pope Francis wrote back approvingly. “The document is very good and completely explains the meaning of Chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia,” he told them, adding: “There are no other intepretations.”

cvcomment.org/2016/09/18/buenos-aires-bishops-guidelines-on-amoris-laetitia-full-text/

That is in reference to the letter to Mons. Sergio Alfredo Fenoy Delegado de la Region Pastoral Buenos Aires

The guideline translation includes guidelines referring to footnotes of Amoris laetitia Nos. 329, 336, 351:

Basic criteria for the implementation of chapter VIII of Amoris laetitia

Dear priests,

We have received with joy the exhortation Amoris Laetitia, which calls us, above all, to encourage the growth of love between spouses and to motivate young people to opt for marriage and a family. These are important issues that should never be disregarded or overshadowed by other matters. Francis has opened several doors in pastoral care for families and we are called to take advantage of this time of mercy with a view to endorsing, as a pilgrim Church, the richness offered by the different chapters of this Apostolic Exhortation.

We will focus for now on chapter VIII, since it refers to the “guidelines of the bishop” (300) in order to discern the possibility of access to the sacraments of the “divorced who have entered a new union”. We deem it convenient, as Bishops of the same Pastoral Region, to agree on some minimal criteria. We present them without prejudice to the authority that each Bishop has in his own Diocese to clarify, complete or restrict them.

…

1. Whenever feasible, and depending on the specific circumstances of a couple, and especially when both partners are Christians walking together on the path of faith, the priest may suggest a decision to live in continence. Amoris Laetitia does not ignore the difficulties arising from this option (cf. footnote 329) and offers the possibility of having access to the Sacrament of Reconciliation if the partners fail in this purpose (cf. footnote 364, recalling the teaching that Saint John Paul II sent to Cardinal W. Baum, dated 22 March, 1996).
2. In other, more complex cases, and when a declaration of nullity has not been obtained, the above mentioned option may not, in fact, be feasible. Nonetheless, a path of discernment is still possible. If it comes to be recognized that, in a specific case, there are limitations that mitigate responsibility and culpability (cf. 301-302), especially when a person believes they would incur a subsequent wrong by harming the children of the new union, Amoris Laetitia offers the possibility of access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and Eucharist (cf. footnotes 336 and 351). These sacraments, in turn, dispose the person to continue maturing and growing with the power of grace.

So…"After receiving the guidelines on September 5, Pope Francis wrote back approvingly. ‘The document is very good and completely explains the meaning of Chapter VIII of Amoris Lateria. There are no other interpretations.’ "

The language is plain, clear and unambiguous: “There are no other interpretations.” This is surely why some (myself included) believe no further clarification of AL is necessary.

 

[JPUSC]

Where did Jesus say that the remarried should be denied the Sacraments? The hubris of those willing to put those words in Jesus’ mouth is, frankly, astounding.

Seriously?

Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:1–17, Deuteronomy 5:6–21)
6. Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Matt. 5:19
Whoever then relaxes (breaks) one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

James 2:10-11
For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it. For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” said also, “Do not kill.”

Matthew 5:22
But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell.

Revelation 21:8
But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars–they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.

Matthew 15:18-20
18 But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20 These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them.

Ephesians 5:3
But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people.

Colossians 3:5-6
…whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. 6 Because of these, the wrath of God is coming.

Galatians 5:19-21
19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers…will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Personally speaking, I can’t really say that I like these verses, now that I’m reading them. They came from Catholic Answers, by the way, in an article about mortal sins. But this is the source of your Catholic teaching…

 

[Vico]

Regarding Pope Francis’ letter to the Argentine Bishop, here are some excerpts from a post by Fr. Zuhlsdorf:

wdtprs.com/blog/2016/09/pope-francis-writes-to-a-bishop-about-the-proper-interpretation-of-chapter-8-of-amorislaetitia/

(Bold text my emphases)

I wrote before on this thread that the letter was to the Argentine Bishops, but I now know from Fr Zuhlsdorf that the letter from Pope Francis was to one bishop.

Yes, it was to Mons. Sergio Alfredo Fenoy Delegado de la Region Pastoral Buenos Aires as given in the article, and sates that the guidelines are the proper interpretation: El escrito es muy bueno y explicita cabalmente el sentido del capitulo VIII de Amoris laetitia. No hay otras interpretaciones.

It is proper for each bishop to implement Amoris Laetitia so to do so some of the bishops developed the guidelines and Mons. Sergio Alfredo Fenoy sent as the delegate for them, the response is a valid response to all those bishops that he represented. Approval was given not on a provisional basis but on a*** minimum consensus basis***. The Pastoral Region of Buenos Aires has eleven dioceses, the Military Bishopric, the Oriental Ordinariate, and eastern Catholic eparchies: Armenian, Maronite, Ukrainian, and Melkite exarchate.

 

[TMC]

Apologies if this sounds a bit blunt, but I have read no more into 1 Corinthians than the Church has over the last 2,000 years of consistent teaching on the subject of the dangers of receiving Communion in a state of mortal sin.

That passage of 1 Corinthians, along with other passages of Scripture, is not only the reason why the Church has taught that those who have sex outside of marriage cannot receive Communion without Confession, but why the Church has a general prohibition on Communion for all those who are burdened by unconfessed mortal sin. It is not a lack of mercy, but exactly because of pastoral mercy that we do not encourage people to commit sacrilege and instead encourage them to be converted and reconciled to God through the Sacrament of Confession. It is also one of the reasons why the Catholic Church does not practice open Communion with non-Catholics given that they reject the Church’s teachings, which we believe as Catholics to be the Church founded by Christ through the first Pope, St Peter. If you want a crude metaphor, the Church is like a gym, training us in our spiritual lives that we might better follow the Gospel and grow in holiness. Sure, sometimes it hurts and sometimes we don’t feel like we can do what it asks of us, sometimes we may even dislike the trainer telling us to try harder, but by the Grace of God nothing is impossible if we trust in Him and dedicate our lives to His service. For me it’s a matter of confidence in God’s plan for the Church and for our salvation.

I’m always at a loss to understand why people do not see the inherent problem in a suggestion that “the Church founded by God himself has fundamentally misunderstood the Gospel the last 2,000 years, and instead taught an erroneous interpretation.” I’m not sure it’s done with conscious awareness, but it’s troubling to suggest that the Catholic Church has somehow strayed over the centuries from “the original, pure interpretation of the Gospel”.

There are ways of re-presenting the Church’s teachings in today’s world or communicating them in a new way which don’t have to contradict what has gone before and which build on, and compliment, the Church’s rich pastoral tradition rather than knocking it down and trying to start again.

I find it shocking that some people openly state that they think the Church before 2016 wasn’t merciful, or that in an age in which our society offers an almost unrestricted freedom to sin that we should be converted by the world and not try to convert it. Again, not sure that people do this consciously, but that’s how it comes across. What ever happened to preaching Matthew 5:13-16?

Pardon me if I am being blunt, but you are saying that you can read Matthew and Corinthians and use your reading of those passages to countermand the Pope and resist his teaching. That is your right, certainly. But how is that different than any Protestant? Do you reject the authority of the Church to teach today? At what date in history did the Church lose her authority?

 

[TMC]

Seriously?

Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:1–17, Deuteronomy 5:6–21)
6. Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Matt. 5:19
Whoever then relaxes (breaks) one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

James 2:10-11
For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it. For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” said also, “Do not kill.”

Matthew 5:22
But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell.

Revelation 21:8
But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars–they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.

Matthew 15:18-20
18 But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20 These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them.

Ephesians 5:3
But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people.

Colossians 3:5-6
…whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. 6 Because of these, the wrath of God is coming.

Galatians 5:19-21
19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers…will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Personally speaking, I can’t really say that I like these verses, now that I’m reading them. They came from Catholic Answers, by the way, in an article about mortal sins. But this is the source of your Catholic teaching…

And in none of those passages does Jesus say that the remarried must be excluded from the Sacraments. Those are words that a few are putting in the Lord’s mouth to advance their own agenda against the Pope.

 

[JPUSC]

And in none of those passages does Jesus say that the remarried must be excluded from the Sacraments. Those are words that a few are putting in the Lord’s mouth to advance their own agenda against the Pope.

Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying. If we discerned ourselves, we would not be under judgment; but since we are judged by (the) Lord, we are being disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world (1 Cor 11:27-31)

 

[Vico]

So…"After receiving the guidelines on September 5, Pope Francis wrote back approvingly. ‘The document is very good and completely explains the meaning of Chapter VIII of Amoris Lateria. There are no other interpretations.’ "

The language is plain, clear and unambiguous: “There are no other interpretations.” This is surely why some (myself included) believe no further clarification of AL is necessary.

Since there are something on the order of 3000 Catholic jurisdictions in the world, there could be that number of guidelines established by the ordinaries, all with reference to Amoris Laetitia without additional clarification.

 

[JPUSC]

So…

Jesus Himself defines divorce and remarriage as adultery.

Adultery is specifically mentioned in the Ten Commandments and by Jesus multiple times.

And 1 Cor 11 says, “Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.”

“Whoever then relaxes (breaks) one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
Matthew 5:19

 

[JimG]

I can’t help but think that underlying the whole controversy about divorce and remarriage, there lies an unspoken perhaps unrealized rejection of Jesus’ teaching on the matter and the Church’s adherence to it. We are like Jesus’ apostles who said “If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” The idea of permanence in marriage has become nearly unacceptable to us, and we have the idea that if a first marriage fails, it must have been null from the beginning. It simply must have been.