Four Cardinals Formally Ask Pope for Clarity on Amoris Laetitia

[twf]

The reference to the earlier German plan, which the CDF rejected, just adds more confusion it seems to me. The Diocese of Rome itself, in its new guidelines, does allow for the possibility of certain couples in extraordinary circumstances to receive communion while remaining in an illicit / irregular union.

 

[Convert_in_99]

Finally:

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=30101

I don’t know why there was any doubt as to where our Pope’s heart was in this in the first place.

 

[OraLabora]

In this way. In stating the Pope’s power is absolute. I view that as faulty ecclesiology.

I respect your service and holy orders, but I don’t really view appeals to authority as persuasive. Many highly educated professors have taught erroneously on theology and religion. The faculties of American Catholic Universities are littered with them.

And your specific qualifications to argue against a priest and a professor are?

It’s only fair to the rest of us that if you are going to argue against Fr. Ruggero, you at least tell us on what grounds you are qualified to do so.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Then I hope Pope Francis gives the CDF instruction to answer.

 

[patricius79]

And your specific qualifications to argue against a priest and a professor are?

It’s only fair to the rest of us that if you are going to argue against Fr. Ruggero, you at least tell us on what grounds you are qualified to do so.

Are there priests and professors which would disagree with Fr. Ruggero?

I’m not sure that there is agreement about the meaning of some things in AL. For example, when the Holy Father says that a person may know the rule but be in a concrete situation which makes them unable to take a different action without further sin.

Do you know what the Holy Father means?

Also, according to what I’ve read, Canon law allows Cardinals the right to do what Cardinal Burke and others have done.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Let’s say a couple gets married in their early 20’s. They divorce a couple of years later. Over the years they end of living in two different countries, get remarried and have several children with their new spouses and have no idea whatever happened to their former spouses.

An annulment may not be possible due to lack of witnesses or any real way of contacting the former spouse.

Is ripping apart the current families really a moral solution? Is living as brother and sister realistic expectation for them?

We can argue all we want about the theology and such, but these are real people struggling to live their lives in the best way they see possible. The more hoops and burdens we place on them the more they feel pushed away by the Church.

I don’t think Pope Francis is talking about blanket ignoring divorce and remarriage but a realistic recognition that our system falls short at addressing certain situations and we need to find ways to prevent them from falling through the cracks.

But in this scenario, if it has not been firmly established that the former marriage was invalid, that means that the former marriage could be valid, despite the difficulties their may be in trying to establish that because of distance between the former spouses etc? So surely the remarried couple should live as brother and sister to receive Communion?

The current family doesn’t have to be ripped apart, but they have to adapt and change, the remarried couple should live as brother and sister. This may be difficult but they are not alone. There are other couples that live as brother and sister and presumably they have made that sacrifice in order to abide by the Church in regards to this and these couples are willing to sacrifice a sexual relationship in order for a higher good and that should be a motivater for all couples who can not attain an annulment because of whatever reason.

 

[fin]

Of which he hasn’t, or has it occurred? It’s easier to be passive and aggressive and attack the Cardinals using a fake Twitter account, I guess. Very dignified behavior.

Then it should be very easy for Father Spadaro to point to those answers.

 

[OraLabora]

Are there priests and professors which would disagree with Fr. Ruggero?

I’m not sure that there is agreement about the meaning of some things in AL. For example, when the Holy Father says that a person may know the rule but be in a concrete situation which makes them unable to take a different action without further sin.

Do you know what the Holy Father means?

Also, according to what I’ve read, Canon law allows Cardinals the right to do what Cardinal Burke and others have done.

The specific disagreement that bilop had with Fr. Ruggero was not about AL, but about the authority of the Holy Father in disciplinary matters. He claims that Fr. Ruggero’s understanding of papal authority is flawed. Fr. Ruggero is a retired seminary professor and taught this subject matter. I think it is fair to Fr. Ruggero, and the rest of us, that bilop tells us on what grounds he is qualified to refute Fr. Ruggero.

 

[fin]

Good grief, is it rocket science to abstain from sex? Single people, priests and professed celibate do it all the time. Yes, it’s hard of course, but possible.

 

[fin]

Why not just stop engaging in sex with someone who is not their spouse, so that they can receive Communion? Which is more important, being in a state of grace, or being able to have sex? Which one do they prioritize?

The answer is simple.

Father, isn’t the traditional solution to this that these people are welcome in the Church, should attend Mass, but simply should not receive Holy Communion until their marriage situation can be sorted out? I’ve seen several poster on this and other Catholic sites talk about parents and grandparents who entered into what they knew were irregular marriages who did just that. They attended Mass, raised their children as Catholics, but simply abstained from Holy Communion.

God Bless

 

[patricius79]

The specific disagreement that bilop had with Fr. Ruggero was not about AL, but about the authority of the Holy Father in disciplinary matters. He claims that Fr. Ruggero’s understanding of papal authority is flawed. Fr. Ruggero is a retired seminary professor and taught this subject matter. I think it is fair to Fr. Ruggero, and the rest of us, that bilop tells us on what grounds he is qualified to refute Fr. Ruggero.

There isn’t any need, because being a priest and retired seminary professor who taught this subject matter is not proof that one is right.

Or do you claim that there aren’t people with equal or better credentials who disagree with Fr. Ruggero?

 

[OraLabora]

But in this scenario, if it has not been firmly established that the former marriage was invalid, that means that the former marriage could be valid, despite the difficulties their may be in trying to establish that because of distance between the former spouses etc? So surely the remarried couple should live as brother and sister to receive Communion?

The current family doesn’t have to be ripped apart, but they have to adapt and change, the remarried couple should live as brother and sister. This may be difficult but they are not alone. There are other couples that live as brother and sister and presumably they have made that sacrifice in order to abide by the Church in regards to this and these couples are willing to sacrifice a sexual relationship in order for a higher good and that should be a motivater for all couples who can not attain an annulment because of whatever reason.

Everybody has different strengths and weaknesses. I’m an avid cyclist, but just because you tell me I should be able to win the Tour de France because some other cyclists have done so, doesn’t mean I could win the Tour de France!

The Rule of St. Benedict is full of making allowances for the weak, but also encouraging the strong.

Living a conjugal life of, say, 20 years doesn’t mean that they can stop just like that, just because Abyssinia says that because other couples can do it, they can do it.

Other couples can be held as an example of course. And the couple that has difficulty stopping should certainly be taught that stopping would be preferable. But they shouldn’t be cut off from God’s mercy if they, at this point in their lives, are unable to. Of course no human has the ability or authority to cut anyone off from God’s mercy. The Church can suggest what she thinks is the best path towards it, and she can lead and encourage, but she must also always accompany even those who fail and reassure the couple that God is merciful and loves them.

Monks take a lifetime to reach their ideal of Christian perfection. It’s not much different for the rest of us.

 

[bilop]

And your specific qualifications to argue against a priest and a professor are?

It’s only fair to the rest of us that if you are going to argue against Fr. Ruggero, you at least tell us on what grounds you are qualified to do so.

One needs no qualifications to argue the truth. It should be self-evident to any Catholic that anyone who teaches against the unvarying Tradition and Doctrine of the Catholic Church is not to be obeyed. That any legislator who governs against justice, is not a legitimate legislator.

If you want a citation, I suggest you read St. Robert Bellarmine, the great Jesuit theologian, on the possibility of heresy from the Papacy, and the necessary consequences.

novusordowatch.org/de-romano-pontifice-book2-chapter30/

If I have to choose between the opinion of one priest in an internet forum, and a great St. and theolgian, the choice is not hard.

God Bless

 

[Thomas_White]

It would probably be very difficult to further clarify AL: The status of the divorced and remarried who have not obtained a Decree of Nullity of their first marriage, so far as it concerns their receiving communion, is described as a subjective ‘gray’ area requiring ‘discernment’. In particular instances, such individuals will indeed be permitted to receive communion. However, it would not seem possible to explain generally how, in any particular case, this process would unfold. But it seems if a person believes their first marriage is null, it is sufficient.

What I think is that in the current era this is a mistake, particularly if the period of ‘discernment’ is brief. This is only my opinion.

 

[OraLabora]

There isn’t any need, because being a priest and retired seminary professor who taught this subject matter is not proof that one is right.

Or do you claim that there aren’t people with equal or better credentials who disagree with Fr. Ruggero?

No, it’s not proof that he is right. But I’d bet dollars to donuts that a retired seminary professor has a better shot at being right than an anonymous Internet poster. Unless said poster can show similar credentials, in which case I would at least be disposed to listen to his arguments, as I’m sure Fr. Ruggero would be. After all it’s not unusual for orthodox theologians in good standing with the Church and with advanced degrees to disagree!

Look at it this way: would you rather have surgery from a trained, experienced surgeon and professor from a teaching hospital, or someone who claims to know surgery because he learned about it on the Internet? Would you take your next flight somewhere with an experience captain in the cockpit, or someone who has played Microsoft Flight Simulator for many years and just knows where all the buttons are?

From whom then, would you prefer learning about the Church?

All I am asking bilop is basically: where are you coming from on this?

 

[1Lord1Faith]

I’m not sure that there is agreement about the meaning of some things in AL. For example, when the Holy Father says that a person may know the rule but be in a concrete situation which makes them unable to take a different action without** further sin**.

Do you know what the Holy Father means?

I’ll take a stab at this.

Person M is married in the Catholic Church to person F1. F1 wants a divorce after several years of a decent, but temped, marriage. M gets divorced and civilly remarried to F2 (who may or may not be Catholic) but does not bother trying to get an annulment. M has a loving marriage to F2 and has four children. M and F2 want to “return” to the Church and raise their children in the Catholic faith. If M cannot get an annulment, what is M to do? Never receive the Eucharist again? M cannot stop being intimate with his wife, that would be disproportionately uncharitable to an otherwise loving family. He cannot leave his family or cease being intimate with his wife, which I think is the “further sin” that AL refers to. It would be sinful for M to stop loving his wife and family.

Feel free to pick this apart.

 

[bilop]

Everybody has different strengths and weaknesses. I’m an avid cyclist, but just because you tell me I should be able to win the Tour de France because some other cyclists have done so, doesn’t mean I could win the Tour de France!

The Rule of St. Benedict is full of making allowances for the weak, but also encouraging the strong.

Living a conjugal life of, say, 20 years doesn’t mean that they can stop just like that, just because Abyssinia says that because other couples can do it, they can do it.

Other couples can be held as an example of course. And the couple that has difficulty stopping should certainly be taught that stopping would be preferable. But they shouldn’t be cut off from God’s mercy if they, at this point in their lives, are unable to. Of course no human has the ability or authority to cut anyone off from God’s mercy. The Church can suggest what she thinks is the best path towards it, and she can lead and encourage, but she must also always accompany even those who fail and reassure the couple that God is merciful and loves them.

Monks take a lifetime to reach their ideal of Christian perfection. It’s not much different for the rest of us.

But how is this different from any sinner? It is hard to stop many sins. It’s hard for a fornicator to stop. It’s hard for a thief to stop. It’s hard for a gangster to stop. It’s hard for a homosexual to stop. No one argues that these people should be considered in a state of grace, and worthy to receive communion while still sinning.

God bless

 

[fin]

No one told M to stop loving 'F2" and his children. Just stop engaging in sex in they’re not validly married to each other.

Being perfect is not a prerequisite to receiving the Eucharist. Being in a state of grace is.

You are wrong. For M to stop having sex with ‘F2’ is not uncharitable. If they’re not validly married to each other, then stop having sex!

I’ll take a stab at this.

Person M is married in the Catholic Church to person F1. F1 wants a divorce after several years of a decent, but temped, marriage. M gets divorced and civilly remarried to F2 (who may or may not be Catholic) but does not bother trying to get an annulment. M has a loving marriage to F2 and has four children. M and F2 want to “return” to the Church and raise their children in the Catholic faith. If M cannot get an annulment, what is M to do? Never receive the Eucharist again? M cannot stop being intimate with his wife, that would be disproportionately uncharitable to an otherwise loving family. He cannot leave his family, which I think is the “further sin” that AL refers to. It would be sinful for M to stop loving his wife and family.

Feel free to pick this apart.

 

[bilop]

All I am asking bilop is basically: where are you coming from on this?

I’m coming from my reading of the great Saints and Theologians of the Church.

There is ample precedent for a Pope who teaches error being corrected by other clergy and even lay people. There is significant learned opinion that a Pope who fell into formal heresy would cease to be Pope. see Suarez and St. Robert Bellaramine.

God Bless

 

[OraLabora]

One needs no qualifications to argue the truth. It should be self-evident to any Catholic that anyone who teaches against the unvarying Tradition and Doctrine of the Catholic Church is not to be obeyed. That any legislator who governs against justice, is not a legitimate legislator.

If you want a citation, I suggest you read St. Robert Bellarmine, the great Jesuit theologian, on the possibility of heresy from the Papacy, and the necessary consequences.

novusordowatch.org/de-romano-pontifice-book2-chapter30/

If I have to choose between the opinion of one priest in an internet forum, and a great St. and theolgian, the choice is not hard.

God Bless

Reported to the moderators. Your link is to a sedevacantist site and the implications related to this thread are beyond the pale and have no place on a Catholic forum.