Four Cardinals Formally Ask Pope for Clarity on Amoris Laetitia

[Convert_in_99]

We need to realize that LA is a Magistarial document and when you attack it, you are attacking the two synods that went into creating it.

Yep. Saint John Paul II included.

 

[patricius79]

I am gravely troubled by the idea that the Pope should be viewed as an absolute monarch who can rule by whim. Popes are not impeccable. They are only infallible under very limited circumstances when teaching on faith and morals in accord with what has always been held by the Church.

If a Pope was to act unjustly and dictatorially, against the Laws and Traditions of the Church, I believe he should be opposed, by bishops, clergy, and laypeople alike.

As I understand it, you are right in saying that the Popes are infallible only under very limited circumstances when teaching on faith or morals in accord with constant Church belief.

But the Catechism says that the authority of the Pope is full, supreme, and immediate, and can always be excercised unhindered. It also says that Bishops should listen to their flocks.

And according to what I’ve read, Canon law provides that Cardinals have the right to do just what Burke and them did in making their concerns public.

So I’m struggling to reconcile all that.

 

[pnewton]

Yes we do. He is the Vicar of Christ. And we owe him our prayers and respect. But is every sentence of AL to be understood as being infallible?

I think you hit the core of the problem. Most of what is causing all the stir is proper Church doctrine, which no one would dispute. The part that is causing all the problem is discipline, exhortation and instruction to which the term “infallible” cannot even apply. Now one can believe the Pope is making a big error in judgment. If one believe he is acting in contradiction to Church teaching though, the “Church teaching” has to be defined as one’s own opinion of Church teaching. There is some latitude for disagreement on this topic and remain orthodox. The mistake is to question the Holy Father orthodoxy because his actions may go against your own leaning in this matter, as opposed to his understanding.

Yet even then, his instructions do not make his opinion on this matter doctrine. It is still just instruction. If you want a parallel, study extra ecclessia nulla salus. History is often the key to understanding the present.

 

[patricius79]

We need to realize that LA is a Magistarial document and when you attack it, you are attacking the two synods that went into creating it.

Is it wrong to think that there are defects in AL, or that the synods did not approve of Communion for those unwilling to live in continence?

 

[pnewton]

You guys are making me sick. Leave the Pope alone already.

The moderators have made some indication that this topic may be shut down. I do not envy them the position of the balance between keeping dialogue open for those that need it as it is one of the more momentous events of the last few years.

But I think most of us can handle it, most of the time. It is hard, but good can come of hard work. It is not the work for everyone. Just pray for the people that “make you sick” and understand with the eyes of charity that they too are doing the best they can. I guess I am sympathetic because of my own disagreements with the Church that I have struggled with for years (including this topic).

 

[pnewton]

Is it wrong to think that there are defects in AL, or that the synods did not approve of Communion for those unwilling to live in continence?

This is an argument from silence. The synods did not** mention** living in continence at all. That was not their task. Here is what was said:

Moreover, one cannot deny that in some circumstances “imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified” (CCC, 1735) due to several constraints. Accordingly, the judgment of an objective situation should not lead to a judgment on “subjective imputability” (Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Declaration of 24 June 2000, 2a). Under certain circumstances people find it very difficult to act differently. Therefore, while supporting a general rule, it is necessary to recognize that responsibility with respect to certain actions or decisions is not the same in all cases. Pastoral discernment, while taking into account a person’s properly formed conscience, must take responsibility for these situations. Even the consequences of actions taken are not necessarily the same in all cases.

1. The path of accompaniment and discernment guides the faithful to an awareness of their situation before God. Conversation with the priest, in the internal forum, contributes to the formation of a correct judgment on what hinders the possibility of a fuller participation in the life of Church and Church practice which can foster it and make it grow. Given that gradualness is not in the law itself (cf. FC 34), this discernment can never prescind from the Gospel demands of truth and charity as proposed by the Church. This occurs when the following conditions are present: humility, discretion and love for the Church and her teaching, in a sincere search for God’s will and a desire to make a more perfect response to it.

 

[bilop]

As I understand it, you are right in saying that the Popes are infallible only under very limited circumstances when teaching on faith or morals in accord with constant Church belief.

But the Catechism says that the authority of the Pope is full, supreme, and immediate, and can always be excercised unhindered. It also says that Bishops should listen to their flocks.

And according to what I’ve read, Canon law provides that Cardinals have the right to do just what Burke and them did in making their concerns public.

So I’m struggling to reconcile all that.

I believe the Cathechism can only be speaking of the Pope’s legitimate authority, which is structly constrained by Tradition, Scripture, and Doctrine.

If the Pope were to say that the Eucharist is now to be confected using rice cakes and grape juice, that would not be a legitimate exercise of his authority, and should not be obeyed. Likewise, if the Pope were to try and change the words of institution of the Eucharist, that would be illegitimate, and not to be obeyed. No Pope, bishop, or Council has the authority to change those things.

The Pope has absolute authority to change the things he is allowed to change, and zero authority to change the things defined as immutable by Scripture, Tradition, and Doctrine.

Drawing the line between the two is the hard part, and the crux of the current debate.

God Bless

 

[patricius79]

The moderators have made some indication that this topic may be shut down. I do not envy them the position of the balance between keeping dialogue open for those that need it as it is one of the more momentous events of the last few years.

But I think most of us can handle it, most of the time. It is hard, but good can come of hard work. It is not the work for everyone. Just pray for the people that “make you sick” and understand with the eyes of charity that they too are doing the best they can. I guess I am sympathetic because of my own disagreements with the Church that I have struggled with for years (including this topic).

If AL does not state that a person may receive Communion without the willingness to live in continence, how would this be a question of “disagreements with the Church”?

 

[patricius79]

I believe the Cathechism can only be speaking of the Pope’s legitimate authority, which is structly constrained by Tradition, Scripture, and Doctrine.

If the Pope were to say that the Eucharist is now to be confected using rice cakes and grape juice, that would not be a legitimate exercise of his authority, and should not be obeyed. Likewise, if the Pope were to try and change the words of institution of the Eucharist, that would be illegitimate, and not to be obeyed. No Pope, bishop, or Council has the authority to change those things.

The Pope has absolute authority to change the things he is allowed to change, and zero authority to change the things defined as immutable by Scripture, Tradition, and Doctrine.

Drawing the line between the two is the hard part, and the crux of the current debate.

God Bless

Thank you bilop.

My understanding is that the Holy Spirit would simply not allow the Pope to define error ex cathedra. For example, if a Pope wanted to define that adultery is not intrinsically evil, God would prevent him from making such a definitive statement. Is that right.

 

[Pulvis]

Not to be snarky, but is it curious to anyone else that this is coming to a head as we approach the 500th anniversary of Luther and Wittenberg?

 

[bilop]

Thank you bilop.

My understanding is that the Holy Spirit would simply not allow the Pope to define error ex cathedra. For example, if a Pope wanted to define that adultery is not intrinsically evil, God would prevent him from making such a definitive statement. Is that right.

Many great theologians have struggled with this issue, including Suarez, and St. Robert Bellarmine.

There is no consensus on whether it could happen, but there seems to be a consensus that if it did, that man would have Ipso Facto ceased to be Pope, and should not be obeyed, and would need to be replaced.

God Bless

 

[exnihilo]

The church is the “pillar and foundation of truth”…Or supposed to be.

If Cardinal Burke is ostracized, then what happened to the pillar and foundation of truth"?
Cardinal Burke represents the Truth when he asked the questions. And there is a lot more wrong with AL then just the questions he asked. I think he was being polite in not raising all the questions - yet.

No sir for me, if they strip Cardinal Burke, then there is no longer any “Pillar and Foundation of Truth”…

Your approach to the foundation of the Faith seems to me somewhat like many Protestants and likewise subject to an attack that could easily undermine it. Many Protestants found their faith so much in the Bible that if some difficulty with Scripture comes along, such as a seemingly contradictory passage, they apostatize. This is what I understood happened to Bart Ehrman.

My faith is founded on a general belief in a personal God. This belief is supported philosophically and is not reliant on the Catholic Faith. I then believe that God choose a people to reveal himself to man. This is supported by history including books that we call Holy Scripture. I believe God incarnated in the man Jesus. This is supported by eye witness testimony some of which was recorded in the Bible and is carried on in the tradition of the Church. The foundations of my faith which refer to Holy Scripture are not reliant on them being in any way considered inspired. Just the straightforward accounts viewed as historical records is sufficient. So for me even if I somehow doubted the Church as the pillar and foundation of truth then I wouldn’t become an atheist. I’d still be a theist and still believe God became man in Jesus.

I’d suggest rethinking how you view the Faith. I certainly understand how one can feel their faith is threatened when the leaders of the Church appear to them to be not upholding the Faith. The bold claims of the Catholic Church open her up to all sorts of avenues of doubt if one perceives her to not be holding fast to Apostolic Faith. But in such circumstances the problem isn’t the constancy of the Church but the individual misunderstanding what that constancy really is. Church history is full, from the start, of bad churchmen and bad laity. At various times in church history leaders supported bad doctrine. But that some or even many did didn’t threaten the truth of the Church because the Church doesn’t claim that every leader will at all times and in all ways support only the truth. It seems to me you are saying you may abandon the Faith because the Faith fails to uphold something she doesn’t say she will. That doesn’t seem like a wise position.

 

[Xystus]

Just curious - has a Pope ever stripped a Cardinal of being a Cardinal before? I have heard of a Cardinal resigning his position before but I am not familiar with one being stripped. I’m not doubting the Popes authority to do so, just looking for a historical example of this happening.

 

[patricius79]

You guys are making me sick. Leave the Pope alone already.

Do you think it’s disrespectful of our Holy Father to believe that Chapter Eight of AL may be a chapter that can too easily be interpreted as containing some relativism, despite Our Holy Father’s protests to the contrary even in that chapter?

 

[pnewton]

If AL does not state that a person may receive Communion without the willingness to live in continence, how would this be a question of “disagreements with the Church”?

I do not understand the question. In my case, my *point of disagreement *is that it is the objective nature of sin, or in the case of whether a marriage is a re-marriage or first marriage, it is the canonically presumed state of sin that makes one unworthy to receive communion. This has always gone against a plain understanding of 1 Corinthians 12, so I never understood the Church’s discipline in this area. I have always believed doctrine needs to fit all the data we have from divine revelation. I think I have been discussing this same issue here for over a decade.

 

[pnewton]

Do you think it’s wrong to believe that Chapter Eight of AL may be a chapter that can too easily be interpreted as containing some relativism, despite Our Holy Father’s protests to the contrary even in that chapter?

I do not think it is ever wrong to believe what we believe, as long as we are open to the probability we are wrong. In this case, however, I think there is a mislabeling. An understanding of the subjective nature of sin is not relativism. Pope Francis wrote seven chapters before chapter 8 to give the objective teaching of the Church. Chapter 8, might be misinterpreted as relativism if separated from the rest of the document.

 

[patricius79]

I do not think it is ever wrong to believe what we believe, as long as we are open to the probability we are wrong. In this case, however, I think there is a mislabeling. An understanding of the subjective nature of sin is not relativism. Pope Francis wrote seven chapters before chapter 8 to give the objective teaching of the Church. Chapter 8, might be misinterpreted as relativism if separated from the rest of the document.

I understand that subjective factors can mitigate responsibility for adultery. As I understand it, Chapter 8 is about integrating people in objectively sinful situations into the Church. Does Chapter 8 or any chapter affirm that in order for a person in a second “marriage” to be reconciled with the Church one must be willing to live in continence?

Also, here’s a sentence I don’t understand:

*A subject
may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty
in understanding “its inherent values”,339 or
be in a concrete situation which does not allow
him or her to act differently and decide otherwise
without further sin. *
w2.vatican.va/content/dam/francesco/pdf/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20160319_amoris-laetitia_en.pdf

Is our Holy Father saying that in some situations, the 6th commandment doesn’t bind because the situation doesn’t allow a person to keep it?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I think too much is being read into this. It would be opposite the message if this papacy to rigidly prevent questioning and unmercifully castigating those who disagree.

Perhaps some on both sides need to honestly look at the themes of this papacy and apply them until the next.

 

[pnewton]

Also, here’s a sentence I don’t understand:

*A subject
may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty
in understanding “its inherent values”,339 or
be in a concrete situation which does not allow
him or her to act differently and decide otherwise
without further sin. *

What this applies is the basic principles of conscience, formation of conscience in culpability that we readily accept with all other sins, yet never seem to apply to remarriage.

Let us take another sin, that of rejection of the Catholic Church, for example. A Baptist my well understand the teaching of the Catholic Church, yet not appreciate the value, and must act in accordance to his conscience, even if it is objectively sinful, by remaining true to his faith tradition.

Now this doesn’t mean this Baptist could receive communion, but it is not because he is a state of mortal sin. Likewise, a remarried person may not be in a state of mortal sin, that is, that they have an active spirituality, but that doesn’t mean he or she can receive communion. It means that they do not need to be ostracized as a mortal sinner. They may not be.

 

[patricius79]

What this applies is the basic principles of conscience, formation of conscience in culpability that we readily accept with all other sins, yet never seem to apply to remarriage.

Let us take another sin, that of rejection of the Catholic Church, for example. A Baptist my well understand the teaching of the Catholic Church, yet not appreciate the value, and must act in accordance to his conscience, even if it is objectively sinful, by remaining true to his faith tradition.

Now this doesn’t mean this Baptist could receive communion, but it is not because he is a state of mortal sin. Likewise, a remarried person may not be in a state of mortal sin, that is, that they have an active spirituality, but that doesn’t mean he or she can receive communion. It means that they do not need to be ostracized as a mortal sinner. They may not be.

I agree. And I think that lots of people who believe Chapter Eight is partly defective agree. But why is so much space given to a discussion of mitigating factors, while there is no statement about how a pastor must help them to develop the will–not that they won’t ever sin, but that they have the genuine will-- to keep the commandments (basic moral absolutes) before they may receive Reconciliation and Communion?

And what would be a concrete situation which would not allow a person to keep the 6th commandment without sinning?