Do you consider it out of line with AL? If so, shouldn’t that confusion be addressed? Isn’t clarification precisely the point of the dubia? Have the Maltese bishops rejected church teaching, or have they simply misunderstood what AL said…or is their interpretation the right one? Is asserting there is “no need to clarify Amoris Laetitia” a reasonable position in light of the colossal differences in the way it has been interpreted?Assuming that the Maltese position is in line with the pope’s views is quite an assumption. Do you have a reference for it?
Doesn’t your position conflict with the pope’s assertion that doctrine has not changed? Cardinal Muller stated that: “At no point has Pope Francis called the arguments of his predecessors into question.” So, if Francis has left “the arguments of his predecessors” unchanged, what doctrinal change are you referring to?My point is that this much smaller change in doctrine is also understandable (more easily understandable) than those much larger changes.
Ender–No, I do not consider the Maltese bishop’s guidelines at all out of line with AL, and there appears no significant difference between it and what is said in the Argentine bishop’s letter. Really, the comment was a question in reply to another person’s comment, and that was its context. I later provided a link to those guidelines, and I think the media has in cases misrepresented what it actually says. As a result, readers were misled.Do you consider it out of line with AL? If so, shouldn’t that confusion be addressed? Isn’t clarification precisely the point of the dubia? Have the Maltese bishops rejected church teaching, or have they simply misunderstood what AL said…or is their interpretation the right one? Is asserting there is “no need to clarify Amoris Laetitia” a reasonable position in light of the colossal differences in the way it has been interpreted?
Ender
My position is that AL represents a development of previous doctrine. It is not a repeal in the same way that change to EENS and usury are not repeals. The problem lies in how one looks at the doctrine. People once believed that EENS was about condemning those outside the formal structure of the Church. We now understand the doctrine to be about how the Church works to provide the possibility of salvation to all. Usury was once understood to be about banning interest. It is now understood to be about protecting the less powerful in financial transactions. This doctrine was once understood to be about barring certain people from the Sacraments. It is now understood to be about accompanying people to find their way back to the Church and the Sacraments. Whether something is “repealed” depends on understanding what is really at issue in the doctrine, and sometimes that is not clear until the doctrine has been further developed.You have rather substantially misunderstood my point. First, as to whether doctrine can change, that word is too ambiguous to be helpful. Yes, doctrine can “change” if we mean grow and develop, but no, it cannot change if what is meant is it has reversed itself. (And even this is a bit over broad as what is taught by the ordinary Magisterium is not held to be infallible and may contain errors of some degree.)
This is precisely the concern about the way some have interpreted AL: it says yes today where it said no in the past. Can this be considered development?
The second point was about the extent of papal authority. It is assuredly not accurate to say that truth is whatever the pope says it is. Of course he has the power to express doctrine in his terms, and to expand its meaning. He does not, however, have the authority to create new doctrine. He is bound by truth; he is not freed by inclination. It is dangerous and harmful to believe that doctrines are merely papal innovations.
Is it your position that AL represents a reversal of previous doctrine? After all, if what was banned before is permitted now, how is that not a repeal of what was taught?
Ender
No, it does not. First, you have probably heard the old joke that when the Church promulgates a new doctrine, it begins with “as we have always taught.” More seriously, this is the same point that I made in my last post. The doctrine has not changed, but our understanding of what is truly at issue in the doctrine has developed. To paraphrase another old joke, when a blind man first feels an elephant’s tail, and believes the elephant is like a rope, and then its side, and believes the elephant is like a wall, the elephant has not changed. Nor was his previous observation really wrong. Its about understanding better and knowing more, not about contradiction.Doesn’t your position conflict with the pope’s assertion that doctrine has not changed? Cardinal Muller stated that: “At no point has Pope Francis called the arguments of his predecessors into question.” So, if Francis has left “the arguments of his predecessors” unchanged, what doctrinal change are you referring to?
Ender
At the presentation of *Amoris Latitia * to the media, Cardinal Schoenborn said there “is an organic development of doctrine” in AL when compared to Familiaris Consortio. Here again is the link:Another interesting article on the current issue from Fr. Alexander Lucie-Smith;
catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2017/01/23/the-maltese-bishops-cannot-alter-st-john-paul-iis-teaching-but-they-can-damage-church-unity/
“The Criteria are problematic, to say the least. Firstly, they say – claiming to follow Amoris Laetitia – that if “a separated or divorced person who is living in a new relationship manages, with an informed and enlightened conscience, to acknowledge and believe that he or she are at peace with God, he or she cannot be precluded from participating in the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.” In other words, the Maltese Criteria make explicit something that is only hinted at in Amoris Laetitia; moreover, the Criteria give permission for something that is specifically forbidden in Familiaris Consortio, the very clear teaching of St John Paul II, not to mention the very clear teaching of the Church up to now.”
It certainly appears, at least so far, that Pope Francis would not agree with Cardinal Muller’s position that nothing has changed or that clarification of AL is needed. Obviously, the controversy involves the differing interpretations of Chapter 8 of AL. So, as a matter of faith, who are we to believe if not the pope?Well, getting back to the thread title, Cardinal Gerhard Müller seems to agree that there is no need to clarify A.L., since in his view, nothing has changed! Problem is, others think something has changed! Thus, clarification might be needed after all.
Interesting, what is an infallible condemnation or have I misunderstood your wording?Although there is no canonical penalty, the anathemas issued by all councils are infallible, that is, the canons retain their infallible status.
I have always wondered about this myself.I don’t believe that is correct. The anathemas from the Council of Trent remain valid today and are condemning positions that are contrary to the catholic and apostolic faith.
I could be wrong, but I presume in all this time since Amoris Latetia has been released, that Pope Francis and Cardinal Muller would have discussed it in some capacity? I know that the CDF did ask for numerous corrections in Amoris Latetia.It certainly appears, at least so far, that Pope Francis would not agree with Cardinal Muller’s position that nothing has changed or that clarification of AL is needed. Obviously, the controversy involves the differing interpretations of Chapter 8 of AL. So, as a matter of faith, who are we to believe if not the pope?
It is complex, I suppose, and too complex to explain here, but there is an implicit preference by the last two popes, and by Pope Francis as well, of Aquinas in favor of Augustine. (I know this remark will not go over well, but there is good reason to say it.) It concerns the notion that God and Absolute Truth can be known by Reason alone, given the limitations of human language and understanding. This is why an understanding of Revelation is so important and why faith and belief are important. I am sorry if this is not understood but is why I have said that not everyone of each generation is prepared to accept what is unveiled to it. And so it is with AL, I think.
The ultimate meaning of obedience to God is to avoid sinning (moral fault) and grow in His grace…not to never transgress the letter of the law.You missed the point of my post. CCC 1735 does not have anything to do with expressing the impossibility of a person in the state of grace obeying God’s Commandments. I am presuming for the moment, for the sake of argument, that such a person is indeed justified and in the state of grace, and therefore, can receive holy communion. The question is, if they are in the state of grace, how is it impossible for them to obey the moral commands of God?
But if even the Prefect of the Doctrine of the Faith doesn’t understand what AL says how is it possible to assert clarification is not needed?It certainly appears, at least so far, that Pope Francis would not agree with Cardinal Muller’s position that nothing has changed or that clarification of AL is needed. Obviously, the controversy involves the differing interpretations of Chapter 8 of AL. So, as a matter of faith, who are we to believe if not the pope?
Again, if you recognize that things are not understood, why do you turn around and claim that people in fact do understand but simply refuse to accept AL? Really, if people say they cannot understand how to reconcile certain interpretations of AL, why would you disbelieve them? You have an obligation to interpret what people say in the best possible light, and in this case it means accepting that they mean what they say.I am sorry if this is not understood but is why I have said that not everyone of each generation is prepared to accept what is unveiled to it. And so it is with AL, I think.
Can you recommend resources for the differences of the two on this point?It certainly appears, at least so far, that Pope Francis would not agree with Cardinal Muller’s position that nothing has changed or that clarification of AL is needed. Obviously, the controversy involves the differing interpretations of Chapter 8 of AL. So, as a matter of faith, who are we to believe if not the pope?
It is complex, I suppose, and too complex to explain here, but there is an implicit preference by the last two popes, and by Pope Francis as well, of Aquinas in favor of Augustine. (I know this remark will not go over well, but there is good reason to say it.) It concerns the notion that God and Absolute Truth can be known by Reason alone, given the limitations of human language and understanding. This is why an understanding of Revelation is so important and why faith and belief are important. I am sorry if this is not understood but is why I have said that not everyone of each generation is prepared to accept what is unveiled to it. And so it is with AL, I think.
I did not say that Cardinal Muller does not understand AL, only that it appears Pope Francis would not agree with his interpretation. But I don’t know it for a fact, and it would seem nobody else does either unless they are to believe what Cardinal Schoenborn has said with respect to the development of doctrine together with what the letter of the Argentine bishops says. I believe both. Call it faith.But if even the Prefect of the Doctrine of the Faith doesn’t understand what AL says how is it possible to assert clarification is not needed?
Again, if you recognize that things are not understood, why do you turn around and claim that people in fact do understand but simply refuse to accept AL? Really, if people say they cannot understand how to reconcile certain interpretations of AL, why would you disbelieve them? You have an obligation to interpret what people say in the best possible light, and in this case it means accepting that they mean what they say.
Ender
I think this is spot on. If conscious is elevated to mitigate or be co-equal with defined Church teaching (based on the individual “feeling” their state of conscious is clear), then why would this not apply to abortion, contraception, end of life issues (the Atlantic Canadian bishops seem to be opening a door there to a fuller understanding of the teaching)?From the National Catholic Register:
The Maltese guidelines may be the first time that bishops have officially taught that the moral law is impossible to observe, contradicting the plain teaching of the Council of Trent. Their guidelines expose the very shaky foundation of Amoris Laetitia, which is why it will not long endure.
But in raising the stakes to include the fullness of the Church’s teaching on conscience, it is more likely now that a great crisis will occur before Amoris Laetitia is set aside.
Amoris Laetitia, Malta, and Conscience
I go beyond that and in earnest I ask why we need doctrine at all? Like I said before, sola scriptura is even out the window: it’s sola conscientia.I think this is spot on. If conscious is elevated to mitigate or be co-equal with defined Church teaching (based on the individual “feeling” of their state of conscious), then this why would this not apply to abortion, contraception, end of life issues (the Atlantic Canadian bishops seem to be opening a door there to a fuller understanding of the teaching)?
This could transform how de fide issues are looked at and lived out among the everyday Catholic in the pew. Development of doctrine ultimately can go beyond doctrine as lived out in the Church.
Only generally. In Augustine there is the unmediated distinction of sin and grace and of reason and faith, where the natural world is without real substance; whereas in Aquinas the natural world has a theoretical differentiation and real substance, solidity and laws. It is, very generally, the philosophical difference between Plato and Aristotle and concerns the dichotomy of reason and belief, of the head and the heart, of being and becoming, of the sacred and profane. It is my belief that an understanding of AL is more open to the former.Can you recommend resources for the differences of the two on this point?
Yes, in the sense that only a Saint could have true knowledge of God. This again concerns the dichotomy of reason and belief (or faith).I guess you are saying that Augustine would hold only a lover can have true knowledge of God?
Perhaps, but to assert that reason alone can know God is no minor point. Immanence, in the sense that God can be known by reason alone, has not been a serious concept in philosophy since the end of the scholastic period and the beginning of modern philosophy. In Catholicism, God and his essence are incomprehensible and transcendent, although Christ and the Holy Spirit imminently reveal themselves.I don’t think Aquinas would disagree. Even he states that rational knowledge is fairly thin and penetrates little beyond certainty over the existence of God.
I went back to the article and did not see where Cardinal Muller said nothing changed, getting back to the original post, but I know how easy it is to get lost on these longer threads.Well, getting back to the thread title, Cardinal Gerhard Müller seems to agree that there is no need to clarify A.L., since in his view, nothing has changed! Problem is, others think something has changed! Thus, clarification might be needed after all.