Does Amoris Laetitia have heritical statements in it?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chipper
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Chipper

Guest
It would seem that Chapter 8, has a lot more wrong with it then just simply divorced and remarried catholics.
Here is a link to the totality of what I am questioning: dici.org/en/documents/the-apostolic-exhortation-amoris-laetitia-a-theological-critique/
The cited essay lists 19 possible heritical and or anathema statements in it.
Here is a partial list of the possibly heretical propositions.
1. AL 83 "The church…firmly rejects the death penalty.
2) AL 156 : ‘Every form of sexual submission must be clearly rejected.’
3) AL 159 : Understood as denying that a virginal state of life consecrated to Christ is superior considered in itself to the state of Christian marriage:
4) AL 295 Understood as meaning that a justified person has not the strength with God’s grace to carry out the objective demands of the divine law, as though any of the commandments of God are impossible for the justified; or as meaning that God’s grace, when it produces justification in an individual, does not invariably and of its nature produce conversion from all serious sin, or is not sufficient for conversion from all serious sin:
5) AL 297 : ‘No one can be condemned for ever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel!’
If understood as meaning that no human being can or will be condemned to eternal punishment in hell:
6) AL 299 : If understood as meaning that the divorced and civilly remarried who choose their situation with full knowledge and full consent of the will are not in a state of serious sin, and that they can receive sanctifying grace and grow in charity:
7) AL 301 Understood as meaning that a Catholic believer can have full knowledge of a divine law and voluntarily choose to break it in a serious matter, but not be in a state of mortal sin as a result of this action:
8) AL 301 Understood as saying that a person with full knowledge of a divine law can sin by choosing to obey that law:
9) AL 303 : Understood as meaning that conscience can truly judge that actions condemned by the Gospel, and in particular, sexual acts between Catholics who have civilly remarried following divorce, can sometimes be morally right or requested or commanded by God:
—Okay that’s enough for now-- I don’t want to let this post get to long.
This group of theologians has requested the Pope update and correct these statements. And as I understand it Cardinal Burke has also suggested that this document needs correcting. But this doesn’t seem to be happening. I find this particularly troubling.

:confused:
 
If it is heretical, which seems to be the case, then eventually it will be overturned by the Church.
 
Chipper said:
5) AL 297 : ‘No one can be condemned for ever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel!’
If understood as meaning that no human being can or will be condemned to eternal punishment in hell …
Click to expand...
I heard part of a sermon by a “traditional” priest who brought this very quote up. I have to admit that, after looking it up, I was livid, sinner that I am, at the way in which this quote was totally taken out of context to somehow insinuate that the document is teaching that there is no eternal damnation. How dare such a person scandalize their own flock and turn them against the Pope? I’m sorry, but even a college freshman taking an English Composition class knows better than to treat quotes like this.

First of all, it was evident to me that the priest in question probably did not read the full context of this quote. If he had, it would have been utterly, absolutely, and even painfully obvious that the Holy Father wasn’t speaking about eternal damnation at all. He was speaking of certain persons being, in some way, integrated into a particular parish. Just read the section:
It is a matter of reaching out to everyone, of needing to help each person find his or her proper way of participating in the ecclesial community and thus to experience being touched by an “unmerited, unconditional and gratuitous” mercy. No one can be condemned for ever, be-cause that is not the logic of the Gospel! Here I am not speaking only of the divorced and re-married, but of everyone, in whatever situation they find themselves. Naturally, if someone flaunts an objective sin as if it were part of the Christian ideal, or wants to impose something other than what the Church teaches, he or she can in no way presume to teach or preach toothers; this is a case of something which separates from the community (cf.Mt18:17). Such a person needs to listen once more to the Gospel message and its call to conversion. Yet even for that person there can be some way of taking part in the life of community, whether in social service, prayer meetings or another way that his or her own initiative, together with the discernment of the parish priest, may suggest.
Click to expand...
How on earth can someone read this and dare to judge the Pope as teaching heresy? What sort of stupidity can look at this and conclude that the Pope is secretly trying to overturn the Church’s doctrine on hell? Let me blunt: I don’t believe people DO read the full context. Why is there an animus against the Holy Father, wherein some people—not you, OP—seem to WANT there to be problematic statements coming from the Pope? It’s absolutely mind-boggling.

The fact that some theologian or group of theologians thinks they have found some way to interpret these statements in a problematic manner is their own problem. Maybe they think the Holy Father needs their approval for what he says or doesn’t say? And I want to wake you up a bit, OP: stop taking scandal, because it’s sinful.
 
This is all the medias fault. They want to trick the public into thinking Pope Francis is pro-gay so as to get catholics more used to the pro-gay agenda and get them to support the pro-gay agenda. They play portions of Pope Francis’ speeches to make it sound like he is pro-gay and then when he makes a blatant statement that he is anti-gay, the media is silent.

This has been going on with pro-gay agenda, pro-atheist agenda (you don’t need to believe in God to go to heaven) and now hell doesn’t exist at all. The media is using trickery to help destroy the church.

And might I say, its working!
 
Doesn’t part of being an orthodox Catholic include believing that the pope can never err in matters of faith and morals? Wouldn’t that mean if you think there’s a heretical statement in AL, you are wrong?

I mean, both you and I can read Unam Sanctum and then read Vatican II and think, wow, those say different things. But, at the end of the day, if the Church says that you must read one document with a different understanding and that it’s meaning is more nuanced than you first thought, that’s what you do. Right?

An orthodox Catholic should never look at what a pope did and say “He changed doctrine!” Rather, you should say “I must not understand something, because the Holy Spirit ensures that a pope never teaches in error on matters of faith and morals”. Isn’t doing otherwise heresy?
 
carefullytread said:
Doesn’t part of being an orthodox Catholic include believing that the pope can never err in matters of faith and morals? Wouldn’t that mean if you think there’s a heretical statement in AL, you are wrong?

I mean, both you and I can read Unam Sanctum and then read Vatican II and think, wow, those say different things. But, at the end of the day, if the Church says that you must read one document with a different understanding and that it’s meaning is more nuanced than you first thought, that’s what you do. Right?

An orthodox Catholic should never look at what a pope did and say “He changed doctrine!” Rather, you should say “I must not understand something, because the Holy Spirit ensures that a pope never teaches in error on matters of faith and morals”. Isn’t doing otherwise heresy?
Click to expand...
A Pope can err in his personal opinion.
 
carefullytread said:
Is AL a personal opinion? I know that some like Cdl Burke say that, but it seemed to me be more than personal opinion. But I stand to be corrected.
Click to expand...
There are different levels to the Magisterium. The teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium are not guaranteed from error.
 
In terms of the death penalty, it cites the Relatio Finalis, which cites CCC 2258 which says, “Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being”.

Later in the Catechism, it says that the Church does not “exclude recourse to the death penalty” for legitimate state authorities, although it says that such cases today are rare to non-existent.

So I would say that yeah, the Church does not want the death penalty to be used. Only under extreme cases which itself says nowadays is almost nonexistent, so AL looks OK with that. 🙂
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top