I know it. As you may recall, I noted this in several earlier threads, quoting the applicable verses from the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. It would be an understatement to say this was not well received. :tiphat:By the way, the Scriptures says only that the one who put their spouse away and married another. That is, it only says that the one leaving is the one committing adultery. I don’t think anyone here has argued that dumping your spouse for another person is anything but adultery.
Just to be clear, you understand that the actual head of the Catholic Church is Pope Francis, don’t you? With all the CapLocks and excess of exclamation points, I wasn’t sure.I am in total support of these courageous Cardinals for asking for clarification as IS their duty!!! Praise God for their leadership!
I believe that is the point I disagree with, as did the synod and did Pope Francis. Annulments and tribunals are not doctrine and never were. They are a practice, like that of living in continence. St. John Paul said it was a practice that the Church was to observe, not a doctrine.We have heard over and over that the document A.L. 'does not contradict the Magisterium". We have also heard what Pope St. John Paul II directly stated regarding the admission of civilly-remarried-but-divorced-without-decree-of-nullity to communion --that it is not possible unless the couple either separates, if possible, or if not possible, lives in continence as brother-and-sister.
There can be no development of the above (which teaching is traced directly back to Jesus Himself) to add on ‘OR if continence is not possible and will continue without repentance and a desire to abide by continence, IF the person sincerely in his or her conscience is SURE this is a valid marriage but simply cannot have a Tribunal pronounce it as such, then the person may receive as the relations, being in a ‘true marriage’ are thus not sinful.’
Because that development goes beyond discipline and directly into doctrine. AND it contravenes previous defined doctrine.
By “The Catechism” I trust you mean the 1992 Vatican Catechism?I have already given you the Catechism but I’ll do it again.
When I was in the Dominican Master of philosophy/theology program Fr Hardon was never mentioned by the Vatican licensed professors. Aquinas was the preferred text to cite when defining Catholic concepts.When I was in the Diaconate program, the Fr Hardon’s ‘Modern Catholic Dictionary’ was a required text at Sacred Heart Major Seminary. It was the preferred text to cite when defining at Catholic term. It still is so today.
Fair enough, I appreciate the aside.It is just my problem. Maybe I shouldn’t have mentioned it. I guess what grinds my gears is how the word is used, even correctly, when it doesn’t really matter. I think we have lost a sense of authority, as well as what it means to be a disciple. We are supposed to be students. I get the back and forth among ourselves. I also understand trying to come to terms with something we do not understand from the Pope. I do not understand how anyone can think they know better than the Pope though. It is in light of this that I have too often seen the word “prudential” used as an excuse to disregard what we are being taught.
Maybe we need a little prudence.
Yes, think that is a fair summary - though polar opposites may be over stating the “contradiction”.I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but I am not in any way claiming that I think I know 'better than the Pope.'
What I want to know is exactly what the Pope has said/meant, because it is obvious that certain individuals claim what he has said/meant is X, and others that what he has said/meant is not-X.
Since X and not-X are polar opposites, they cannot both be correct.
That seems a somewhat strange way of putting things if I am a theologically untrained Catholic layperson looking for practical certitude. The current living Pope is the flag that indicates where correct Church Teaching resides.And in order to follow the Catholic Church whose head is the Pope, I want to be sure I am following what the Church teaches.
I think that if you need an outside authority to convince you of this then you may not have the requisite skills needed to navigate your way to safe waters. In which case I think the wisest thing is that we simply go with the Pope even if we don’t understand, and mind our own business. Even should he be mistaken we will have done all that God requires of us as non theologically, non pastorally trained lay persons.We have heard over and over that the document A.L. 'does not contradict the Magisterium".
There is also another solution you may not have thought of. We lay people may not have the depth of theological education and pastoral experience needed to see how there is actually no rupture between Pope Francis and Tradition.There can be no development of the above (which teaching is traced directly back to Jesus Himself) to add on ‘OR if continence is not possible and will continue without repentance and a desire to abide by continence, IF the person sincerely in his or her conscience is SURE this is a valid marriage but simply cannot have a Tribunal pronounce it as such, then the person may receive as the relations, being in a ‘true marriage’ are thus not sinful.’ Because that development goes beyond discipline and directly into doctrine. AND it contravenes previous defined doctrine.
Certainly.There is also another solution you may not have thought of. We lay people may not have the depth of theological education and pastoral experience needed to see how there is actually no rupture between Pope Francis and Tradition.
You are correct that there is actually no rupture between Pope Francis and Tradition.We lay people may not have the depth of theological education and pastoral experience needed to see how there is actually no rupture between Pope Francis and Tradition.
the statement I have bolder is absurd. if Catholic teaching is unchanged lie, one should be able to look to *any *pope for Church teaching, no?Yes, think that is a fair summary - though polar opposites may be over stating the “contradiction”.
That seems a somewhat strange way of putting things if I am a theologically untrained Catholic layperson looking for practical certitude. The current living Pope is the flag that indicates where correct Church Teaching resides.
think that if you need an outside authority to convince you of this then you may not have the requisite skills needed to navigate your way to safe waters. In which case I think the wisest thing is that we simply go with the Pope even if we don’t understand, and mind our own business. Even should he be mistaken we will have done all that God requires of us as non theologically, non pastorally trained lay persons.
There is also another solution you may not have thought of. We lay people may not have the depth of theological education and pastoral experience needed to see how there is actually no rupture between Pope Francis and Tradition.
Nor is mine unique.That is of course your prerogative, but it is hardly my opinion alone.
I said terms. For example, where does Aquinas give a definition for ‘Annulment’?. Or define what “Pastoral Theology” means, in Catholic termsWhen I was in the Dominican Master of philosophy/theology program Fr Hardon was never mentioned by the Vatican licensed professors. Aquinas was the preferred text to cite when defining Catholic concepts.
During the time of the synod, I believed that a divorced and remarried Catholic who had not obtained an annulment could possibly reconcile with the Church, through the ‘inner forum’, as the result of the certain judgment of conscience. I also raised on several threads what appears to be an exception to the teaching on adultery, provided for in each of the synoptic Gospels, for the spouse that is “put away”. The language is consistent. It would not be unreasonable, I think, to conclude that AL–and though it is not directly stated as such–addresses this very issue.You are correct that there is actually no rupture between Pope Francis and Tradition.
But, if you also are correct that A.L. permits the reception of Communion by certain people who were not allowed to do so by Church teaching pre-A.L., then that would in fact be a rupture requiring action-- either a correction by the College of Cardinals and/or the Pope, or a universally accepted, significantly clarified and defined development of doctrine without any contradiction of existing doctrine.
The latter seems to be impossible due to Our Lords clearly stated teaching. It’s up to the Holy Spirit to decide, but Christ’s well-known instruction seems to be clear that I there will be no more exceptions:
They said to him, ‘Then why did Moses command that a writ of dismissal should be given in cases of divorce?’
He said to them, 'It was because you were so hard-hearted, that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but it was not like this from the beginning.
Now I say this to you: anyone who divorces his wife – I am not speaking of an illicit marriage – and marries another, is guilty of adultery.’
SAINT MOTHER TERESA’S HUMILITY LIST
- Speak as little as possible about yourself.
- Keep busy with your own affairs and not those of others.
- Avoid curiosity.
- Do not interfere in the affairs of others.
- Accept small irritations with good humor.
- Do not dwell on the faults of others.
- Accept censures even if unmerited.
No, it really isn’t.This is major!
Why so?No, it really isn’t.
In the body of the article, it is noted that these scholars warn that “the Church may be entering “a gravely critical moment” comparable with the Arian crisis.”This is major! Excerpt from following article:
‘A gravely critical moment’: Catholic scholars call on bishops to support the four cardinals
The 23 scholars include members of pontifical institutions and major universities
Twenty-three Catholic scholars and pastors, three of them Oxford University academics, have given their names to a statement in support of the “four cardinals”, after the cardinals’ request to Pope Francis to clarify his apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia.
The scholars include Dr Robert Beddard, the former Vice-Provost of Oriel College, Oxford; Professor Luke Gormally, a member of the Pontifical Academy for Life; Dr Nicholas Richardson, Sub-Warden of Merton College, Oxford; and the philosophy professors Carlos A Guerra, Paolo Pasqualucci and Claudio Pierantoni.
Most of the 23 signatories also signed a previous letter to the College of Cardinals, asking them to request clarification of Amoris Laetitia.
The statement says that the four cardinals raise “pertinent and searching questions” about whether Church teaching on the sacraments and the moral law is to be upheld. They say that if the Pope fails to reaffirm Church teaching, it may be necessary for the cardinals to “collectively approach him with some form of fraternal correction, in the spirit of Paul’s admonition to his fellow apostle Peter at Antioch”. Cardinal Burke, one of the four cardinals, has indicated that such a move might be necessary.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/12/08/a-gravely-critical-moment-catholic-scholars-call-on-bishops-to-support-the-four-cardinals/
Agreed. Ambiguity cannot be clarified by further ambiguity.In the body of the article, it is noted that these scholars warn that “the Church may be entering “a gravely critical moment” comparable with the Arian crisis.”
It seems to me that at some point, the ambiguities will have to be clarified, if not by Pope Francis, then by a future pope. But the longer the confusion drags on, the worse the situation becomes.
The Arian crisis dealt with the nature of Jesus. This is no way comparable, and any scholar should know that.In the body of the article, it is noted that these scholars warn that “the Church may be entering “a gravely critical moment” comparable with the Arian crisis.”
.