Fr. Zuhlsdorf on Cardinal Muller

[pnewton]

Thank you for an inspirational passage from St. Faustina. It was beautiful.

I think I will stick with the canons from the Council of Trent and Holy Scripture – these are a much firmer foundation than the writings of a single Pope who contradicts 2,000 years of Catholic Church history and teaching ***or ***the writings of a Saint taken out of context.

Jesus’ mercy cannot be separated from his judgment and his holiness. And forgiveness cannot be separated from faith and repentance. Repentance includes a firm resolution to, as Jesus said to the woman caught in adultery, “go and sin no more.”

If I erred in context, please show where the context means something different that I inferred.

I believe you are in error in accusing Pope Francis of contradicting 2000 years of Church history and teaching. In fact, I have found that most of the time the 2000 years is mentioned, most people do not account for all the changes in practice that have happened over the last 2000 years.

So, stick with your version of history. You may be right or wrong. I doubt I am the expert at Church history you are. Yet in the end, to keep us all from interpreting either the Bible for ourselves, or our understanding of history for ourselves, Jesus left us an authoritative representative on Earth. I will continue and wait to see how this works out. I will be the first to admit I do not know more that Pope Francis. If you do, the good luck with that. However, considering the statement he has more mercy than Jesus, I think there is at least on basic error.

 

[3_Dog_Night]

The words of St. Faustina that you quoted:

“All grace flows from mercy, and the last hour abounds with mercy for us. Let no one doubt concerning the goodness of God; even if a person’s sins were as dark as night, God’s mercy is stronger than our misery. One thing alone is necessary; that the sinner set ajar the door of his heart, be it ever so little, to let in a ray of God’s merciful grace, and then God will do the rest.”

“‘Oh how much I am hurt by a soul’s distrust! Such a soul professes that I am Holy and Just, but does not believe that I am Mercy and does not trust in My Goodness. Even the devils believe in My Justice, but do not glorify My Goodness. My Heart rejoices in this title of Mercy.’”

The words of St Faustina say what they say. The problem is that you take them out of context by implying that Jesus/ God will forgive unrepented and continuing mortal sin. You are using the quote to imply a “universalist” type of theology (God will forgive; all will be saved because of God’s great goodness and mercy). Christ never says that and if you look at Matthew 7 and Matthew 25, it says clearly that not all will be saved and many will say, "Lord, Lord … " and Christ will respond, “depart from me for I never knew you.”

Yes, Christ gave us Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and Sacred Authority (the Magisterium). And to the extent that Pope Francis departs from the historic and infallible teaching of the Magisterium, he is no longer standing upon the deposit of faith and the rock that is Christ Jesus himself. I reject your strawman argument that I am all wise and all knowledgeable about Church history. What we are talking about here is not an evolution of doctrine issue. No pope can go against the infallible teaching of the Church.

On one of these threads, I provided a discussion of infallibility and authority, Peter and the deposit of faith and St. Augustine’s commentary on these matters. I will not repeat it here and I am sure it could be easily found by tracking my posts. I do not have to be a theologian or a canon lawyer or an expert in Church history to know that Pope Francis is deviating from the apostolic faith. I can be like the child in the Emperor’s New Clothes, tugging on her father’s coat sleeve and saying, “But daddy, the Emperor has no clothes.”

 

[exnihilo]

Yes, that is what it means. However, what little we know of the interview with Cardinal Muller, the words quoted used the phrase “mortal sin” as the objective act only. Jimmy Akin said this was a puzzle. The act does not mean one has lost sanctifying grace, not unless two other conditions are met. That is why we take interviews with a grain of salt. The interview might be done dishonestly by the media, phrase and context omitted, or it might even catch the one questioned being inexact. Interviews with journalist are not the mechanism of Church communication.

I think I understand what you are saying. You are referring to this quote?

It cannot be said that there are circumstances according to which an act of adultery does not constitute a mortal sin. For Catholic doctrine, it is impossible for mortal sin to coexist with sanctifying grace.

If so then yes, the first sentence is a bit problematic. However, I would point out he used the word adultery. Many people don’t view sex with person who was, really is, married as adultery. If a person did view a sex act as adultery then I think it fair to say they know it to be wrong. Then the only question left to determine if it is a mortal sin is did they freely consent to the act. I would think in the vast majority of cases they did. But I would agree the quoted answer really does need clarification.

 

[Thomas_White]

Yes, that is what it means. However, what little we know of the interview with Cardinal Muller, the words quoted used the phrase “mortal sin” as the objective act only. Jimmy Akin said this was a puzzle. The act does not mean one has lost sanctifying grace, not unless two other conditions are met. That is why we take interviews with a grain of salt. The interview might be done dishonestly by the media, phrase and context omitted, or it might even catch the one questioned being inexact. Interviews with journalist are not the mechanism of Church communication.

Yes, the traditional teaching is that there are three conditions that must be met for a sin to be a mortal sin. Is this recognized in the interview cited in the OP?

From the OP: “Cdl. Muller noted that much of the confusion stems from a rejection of the Church’s ‘clear doctrine of intrinsic evils’ as presented in John Paul II’s 1993 encyclical Veritatis Splendor (VS)”–that is, the intention (subjective) of any intrinsically evil act is, in itself, an objective sin. If “intrinsic evil” is always a sin that is a mortal sin, then it seems there is nothing to question.

But what of intentionality? The intended end and the moral object are not necessarily the same, though intention cannot change the nature of the moral object of an intentional act. (It is what it is, good or evil.) However, the intentional determination (the goal) of an intentional act is subjective. The act itself is deliberate or voluntary and differs from the intentional determination, in itself, of an act of a particular moral nature. Its moral object, however, also differs from this subjective intention that determines the subjective nature of the act (while recognizing that the good intention itself cannot alter a moral object from evil to good). This is the difficulty, a confusion of intention, the act, and the objective moral object, where the nature of the goal (the intent) is confused with both the act and its object. It does not logically follow that the intent of an intrinsically evil act is always a subjective mortal sin (what really matters), even when the intended end (the subjective goal) is good–that is, that the determination (the goal), in itself (subjective), is an objective sin. But this is the premise of the OP, if it is correctly provided. It cannot be true that the subjective and the objective are one and the same.

 

[pnewton]

The words of St Faustina say what they say. The problem is that you take them out of context by implying that Jesus/ God will forgive unrepented and continuing mortal sin.

I did not say that.

Yes, Christ gave us Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and Sacred Authority (the Magisterium). And to the extent that Pope Francis departs from the historic and infallible teaching of the Magisterium, he is no longer standing upon the deposit of faith and the rock that is Christ Jesus himself.

IN your opinion, your sola opinion he is.

I reject your strawman argument that I am all wise and all knowledgeable about Church history.

I did not say that. Straw man indeed. The question is not what I think about you, but whether an individual, anyone, has enough confidence in their own knowledge of Church history to determine the Pope is teaching contrary to Catholic Church. That either takes great knowledge or great hubris. There are people with both.

Just to be clear, no one is saying that forgiveness comes with out repentance. The whole point of pastoral discernment is to understand our our position before God, which surely must come with repentance. Today, I thought of three situations in the Bible. The first you mentioned, the woman caught in adultery was forgiven by God before he told her to go and sin no more and there is no record of her response. This example is often used to show the need for resolution to not sin for forgiveness, but it does not show this at all. The second was Zaccheues who Jesus went to see before he repented. The third was the prodigal son, the ultimate image of the mercy of God. The Father went down to meet the son and restored him to his sonship before he gave his spiel about repentance. Even then, the repentance of the son was that of a practical nature. He was hungry. I could also mention that even on the cross, Jesus forgave the unrepentant soldiers crucifying.

I am not down playing the role of repentance, but the forgiveness of God is not like I have seen portrayed on this thread in regards to Amoris Laeititia, where on must first reach a certain level of resolution to be forgiven. God is much more merciful that the older son could understand, both in the parable, and here today.

Here is a question to ponder. Do we only forgive other people if the apologize?

 

[RPRPsych]

The words of St. Faustina that you quoted:

“All grace flows from mercy, and the last hour abounds with mercy for us. Let no one doubt concerning the goodness of God; even if a person’s sins were as dark as night, God’s mercy is stronger than our misery. One thing alone is necessary; that the sinner set ajar the door of his heart, be it ever so little, to let in a ray of God’s merciful grace, and then God will do the rest.”

“‘Oh how much I am hurt by a soul’s distrust! Such a soul professes that I am Holy and Just, but does not believe that I am Mercy and does not trust in My Goodness. Even the devils believe in My Justice, but do not glorify My Goodness. My Heart rejoices in this title of Mercy.’”

The words of St Faustina say what they say. The problem is that you take them out of context by implying that Jesus/ God will forgive unrepented and continuing mortal sin. You are using the quote to imply a “universalist” type of theology (God will forgive; all will be saved because of God’s great goodness and mercy). Christ never says that and if you look at Matthew 7 and Matthew 25, it says clearly that not all will be saved and many will say, "Lord, Lord … " and Christ will respond, “depart from me for I never knew you.”

Yes, Christ gave us Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and Sacred Authority (the Magisterium). And to the extent that Pope Francis departs from the historic and infallible teaching of the Magisterium, he is no longer standing upon the deposit of faith and the rock that is Christ Jesus himself. I reject your strawman argument that I am all wise and all knowledgeable about Church history. What we are talking about here is not an evolution of doctrine issue. No pope can go against the infallible teaching of the Church.

On one of these threads, I provided a discussion of infallibility and authority, Peter and the deposit of faith and St. Augustine’s commentary on these matters. I will not repeat it here and I am sure it could be easily found by tracking my posts. I do not have to be a theologian or a canon lawyer or an expert in Church history to know that Pope Francis is deviating from the apostolic faith. I can be like the child in the Emperor’s New Clothes, tugging on her father’s coat sleeve and saying, “But daddy, the Emperor has no clothes.”

Oh yes, keep up your Montanist whining.

I know traditional, pro-SSPX forums which would ban you for this kind of nonsense.

Apparently CAF has no moderation rules when it comes to the Pope or President Trump.

 

[Wandile]

Oh yes, keep up your Montanist whining.

I’m not sure you know what Montanism is

 

[3_Dog_Night]

I’m not sure you know what Montanism is

That’s what makes his statement so very amusing. It would be downright hilarious if the issues at stake weren’t so grave. Irony, anyone?

**
RPRPsych Quote:
I know traditional, pro-SSPX forums which would ban you for this kind of nonsense. Apparently CAF has no moderation rules when it comes to the Pope or President Trump.**

There are many voices these days that call for banning any dissenting voice or anything that causes them to feel uncomfortable or anything that they disagree with. We have lived with political correctness for eight long years. Freedom of speech is permitted as long as it agrees with certain platforms and agendas. That isn’t the way the real world works.

As for moderation, I would not want to be a moderator on CAF no matter what you paid me. The moderators on this forum are smack in the middle of “irreconcilable differences.”

Mark my words, this level of discourse and division will not only split/ schism the Catholic Church (as has been foretold by Our Lady of Fatima and others), it will also bring civil unrest, riots and burnt cities to the US. No, I am not a prophet and my statement is not a revelation. This is a matter of common-sense and cause and effect and history itself.

As for the topic at hand: My point about the Emperor’s New Clothes was that one can be as simple as a child to see what all the “adults” have closed their eyes to, refuse to see, and/or cannot or will not see because they believe to do so would be somehow disloyal, unfaithful or disrespectful. Again, see my earlier post on papal authority, infallibility, etc.

If it is a matter of arrogance and hubris to speak truth, then I am guilty of both of these. I understand there are those, including the Pope, who very much want to redefine marriage, remarriage, adultery, confession, communion. I also understand there are many Catholics who are eager for these new definitions and will embrace them with open arms.

I get it: pastoral discernment, accompaniment, complex situations, peace with God, mercy and a whole host of flowery words. Can we spell: situation ethics, relativism, continuing in adultery, firm intent of resolution, the Council of Trent, Matthew 19 and anathema. The wheat and tares and the sheep and the goats are now being separated.

Do you truly think the Lord will accept: “the Pope said that continuing in adultery wasn’t a mortal sin as long as I was at peace with God and had a clear conscience”? Seriously!

If it salves your conscience to call me “the older brother in the Story of the Prodigal Son” then by all means, please do so. For 2,000 years, the Catholic Church has understood marriage, divorce, remarriage, communion and confession a certain way. Pope Francis now comes to announce the God of Surprises and that the Church has had it all wrong.

Mercy me.

 

[Pulvis]

That’s what makes his statement so very amusing. It would be downright hilarious if the issues at stake weren’t so grave. Irony, anyone?

**
RPRPsych Quote:
I know traditional, pro-SSPX forums which would ban you for this kind of nonsense. Apparently CAF has no moderation rules when it comes to the Pope or President Trump.**

There are many voices these days that call for banning any dissenting voice or anything that causes them to feel uncomfortable or anything that they disagree with. We have lived with political correctness for eight long years. Freedom of speech is permitted as long as it agrees with certain platforms and agendas. That isn’t the way the real world works.

As for moderation, I would not want to be a moderator on CAF no matter what you paid me. The moderators on this forum are smack in the middle of “irreconcilable differences.”

Mark my words, this level of discourse and division will not only split/ schism the Catholic Church (as has been foretold by Our Lady of Fatima and others), it will also bring civil unrest, riots and burnt cities to the US. No, I am not a prophet and my statement is not a revelation. This is a matter of common-sense and cause and effect and history itself.

As for the topic at hand: My point about the Emperor’s New Clothes was that one can be as simple as a child to see what all the “adults” have closed their eyes to, refuse to see, and/or cannot or will not see because they believe to do so would be somehow disloyal, unfaithful or disrespectful. Again, see my earlier post on papal authority, infallibility, etc.

If it is a matter of arrogance and hubris to speak truth, then I am guilty of both of these. I understand there are those, including the Pope, who very much want to redefine marriage, remarriage, adultery, confession, communion. I also understand there are many Catholics who are eager for these new definitions and will embrace them with open arms.

I get it: pastoral discernment, accompaniment, complex situations, peace with God, mercy and a whole host of flowery words. Can we spell: situation ethics, relativism, continuing in adultery, firm intent of resolution, the Council of Trent, Matthew 19 and anathema. The wheat and tares and the sheep and the goats are now being separated.

Do you truly think the Lord will accept: “the Pope said that continuing in adultery wasn’t a mortal sin as long as I was at peace with God and had a clear conscience”? Seriously!

If it salves your conscience to call me “the older brother in the Story of the Prodigal Son” then by all means, please do so. For 2,000 years, the Catholic Church has understood marriage, divorce, remarriage, communion and confession a certain way. Pope Francis now comes to announce the God of Surprises and that the Church has had it all wrong.

Mercy me.

 

[pnewton]

If it is a matter of arrogance and hubris to speak truth, then I am guilty of both of these

But do you not see that this begs the question? You are in a continuing loop of circular logic. Of course it is not hubris to speak the Truth.

However, if you accuse the Holy Father of moral relativism and situational ethics, you have misunderstood what he has said, or what these two terms mean.

If it salves your conscience to call me “the older brother in the Story of the Prodigal Son” then by all means, please do so

I would never do that. That would be extremely uncharitable. If I said something wrong about the parable, what was it? If what I was said was true, then why did you post thus?

Again, do you ever forgive anyone who has not apologized?

 

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR NOTE

Everyone take a breath!

1. Be very careful when posting about controversial issues
2. Always be charitable
3. Do not accuse anyone of anything
4. Do not use derogatory terms towards anyone
5. Charitably discuss the issues, not each other

 

[jeannetherese]

The second was Zaccheues who Jesus went to see before he repented. The third was the prodigal son, the ultimate image of the mercy of God. The Father went down to meet the son and restored him to his sonship before he gave his spiel about repentance. Even then, the repentance of the son was that of a practical nature. He was hungry.

From Bible Gateway- my Bolding
17** “When he came to his senses**, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired servants have food to spare, and here I am starving to death! 18 I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. 19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired servants.’ 20 So he got up and went to his father.

“But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him. I could also mention that even on the cross, Jesus forgave the unrepentant soldiers crucifying. "
The moment of conversion/repentence may be prompted by suffering in the parable and precedes the return to the Father. At times our suffering/hunger lead us to reconsider our actions and attitudes.

In the case of the soldiers at the cross, Jesus speaks to their ignorance (one of the conditions considered relative to mortal sin and cries) Father forgive them, they know not what they do".

One of the issues revolving around discussions of AL seems to be that of choosing to sin.
Another seems to be about conditions for the reception of communion.
We learn that God makes the first move towards relationship in our catechism, and see it exemplified in the stories of Adam and Moses. To accept this outreach does not conflict with the traditional teaching that one should refrain from the Eucharist when in a state of mortal sin; rather, we can reach back to God asking for strength and requesting spiritual communion as we work to reconcile ourselves to Him and to live in accordance with his teachings.
To choose to knowingly persist in mortal sin, seems a rejection of His mercy, but does not preclude his continuous pursuit of us. He can still come after us, as he did Zacchaeus and we can still turn to him, repent, and be reconciled into His communion.

 

[Ginny89]

That’s what makes his statement so very amusing. It would be downright hilarious if the issues at stake weren’t so grave. Irony, anyone?

**
RPRPsych Quote:
I know traditional, pro-SSPX forums which would ban you for this kind of nonsense. Apparently CAF has no moderation rules when it comes to the Pope or President Trump.**

There are many voices these days that call for banning any dissenting voice or anything that causes them to feel uncomfortable or anything that they disagree with. We have lived with political correctness for eight long years. Freedom of speech is permitted as long as it agrees with certain platforms and agendas. That isn’t the way the real world works.

As for moderation, I would not want to be a moderator on CAF no matter what you paid me. The moderators on this forum are smack in the middle of “irreconcilable differences.”

Mark my words, this level of discourse and division will not only split/ schism the Catholic Church (as has been foretold by Our Lady of Fatima and others), it will also bring civil unrest, riots and burnt cities to the US. No, I am not a prophet and my statement is not a revelation. This is a matter of common-sense and cause and effect and history itself.

As for the topic at hand: My point about the Emperor’s New Clothes was that one can be as simple as a child to see what all the “adults” have closed their eyes to, refuse to see, and/or cannot or will not see because they believe to do so would be somehow disloyal, unfaithful or disrespectful. Again, see my earlier post on papal authority, infallibility, etc.

If it is a matter of arrogance and hubris to speak truth, then I am guilty of both of these. I understand there are those, including the Pope, who very much want to redefine marriage, remarriage, adultery, confession, communion. I also understand there are many Catholics who are eager for these new definitions and will embrace them with open arms.

I get it: pastoral discernment, accompaniment, complex situations, peace with God, mercy and a whole host of flowery words. Can we spell: situation ethics, relativism, continuing in adultery, firm intent of resolution, the Council of Trent, Matthew 19 and anathema. The wheat and tares and the sheep and the goats are now being separated.

Do you truly think the Lord will accept: “the Pope said that continuing in adultery wasn’t a mortal sin as long as I was at peace with God and had a clear conscience”? Seriously!

If it salves your conscience to call me “the older brother in the Story of the Prodigal Son” then by all means, please do so. For 2,000 years, the Catholic Church has understood marriage, divorce, remarriage, communion and confession a certain way. Pope Francis now comes to announce the God of Surprises and that the Church has had it all wrong.

Mercy me.

Ignore the tyrants. Truth has no use for darkness and the itch to silence the opposition or emotional hysterionics. There are things you have said I disagree with but my approach would be to point them out and counter them with facts and argument. But some desperately itch for the ability to persecute and punish. Thank God they have neither the ability nor the right or authority. So let them scream and demand your removal from a religion they apparently think they own. You know they dont. Thats what matters.

 

[pnewton]

“But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him.

This was my point. The response of the Father preceded the apology. Then when the son did make his statement, the Father ignored it, overcome with joy at seeing his son.

In the case of the soldiers at the cross, Jesus speaks to their ignorance (one of the conditions considered relative to mortal sin and cries) Father forgive them, they know not what they do".

I think the difference between mortal sin, actual mortal sin with all three conditions met, and mortal sin when used to refer only to the matter of a thing (as in, adultery is a mortal sin), is why we have a difference of opinion. I have consistently see these two concepts interchanged when they are very difference ideas. I think this is also where the misconception of moral relativism comes in. I understand this confusion, and it is why Pope Francis spoke of a process of discernment, and perhaps an exceptional circumstance that doesn’t fit in a well-defined category. Also, this is why we consistently here that Amoris Laetitia does not permit the civilly remarried to receive communion. It doesn’t. That would be a permission not granted. Yet there is a recognition that there is more to mortal sin, and the subsequent loss of grace than the matter of an act alone.

Another seems to be about conditions for the reception of communion.

Yes. I think this is another point of disagreement. Doctrinally, the only thing that should make us unworthy for communion is a loss of grace, the actual mortal sin. However, mortal sin is more than just about our state, but also about a relationship with the Church. This is why non-Catholics who are not in a state of mortal sin cannot licitly receive communion. The question of what is licit, not what is contrary to doctrine. There can be a good argument made on the relationship with the Church alone to not allow communion in both situations.

And to answer my own question that was unanswered, I know that I sometimes need to forgive those who are unable, or even unwilling, to apologize. I think we all know this as part of our being made in the image of God. There is one sin that cannot be forgiven; that of final unrepentance. This is where the justice of God meets His infinite mercy. However, for the soul that desires repentance and reconciliation for a life of sin, I have to think for myself that God is there prior to our reaching a sinless state.

 

[pnewton]

… emotional hysterionics. So let them scream and demand your removal from a religion they apparently think they own.

Pot meet kettle.

 

[jeannetherese]

This was my point. The response of the Father preceded the apology. Then when the son did make his statement, the Father ignored it, overcome with joy at seeing his son.

I think the difference between mortal sin, actual mortal sin with all three conditions met, and mortal sin when used to refer only to the matter of a thing (as in, adultery is a mortal sin), is why we have a difference of opinion. I have consistently see these two concepts interchanged when they are very difference ideas. I think this is also where the misconception of moral relativism comes in. I understand this confusion, and it is why Pope Francis spoke of a process of discernment, and perhaps an exceptional circumstance that doesn’t fit in a well-defined category. Also, this is why we consistently here that Amoris Laetitia does not permit the civilly remarried to receive communion. It doesn’t. That would be a permission not granted. Yet there is a recognition that there is more to mortal sin, and the subsequent loss of grace than the matter of an act alone.

Yes. I think this is another point of disagreement. Doctrinally, the only thing that should make us unworthy for communion is a loss of grace, the actual mortal sin. However, mortal sin is more than just about our state, but also about a relationship with the Church. This is why non-Catholics who are not in a state of mortal sin cannot licitly receive communion. The question of what is licit, not what is contrary to doctrine. There can be a good argument made on the relationship with the Church alone to not allow communion in both situations.

And to answer my own question that was unanswered, I know that I sometimes need to forgive those who are unable, or even unwilling, to apologize. I think we all know this as part of our being made in the image of God. There is one sin that cannot be forgiven; that of final unrepentance. This is where the justice of God meets His infinite mercy. However, for the soul that desires repentance and reconciliation for a life of sin, I have to think for myself that God is there prior to our reaching a sinless state.

My apologies, pnewton. I forgot to respond to your final question, but I am in agreement with your answer to the unanswered question.
With the prodigal son, however, I bolded the part about coming to his senses because I think the parable is pointing to this as his repentance. I see the suffering of the prodigal as, perhaps, helping him to come to h is senses, and be able to contrast his pride and selfishness with the love and generosity of his father. From this recognition, comes repentence.
The enduring compassion of the father meets the son as her returns home, repentant, in my reading of the parable.
May God bless you and all who visit this thread.
Amen.

 

[3_Dog_Night]

Of course we are dealing with situational ethics – when we begin to talk about “special cases” and “exceptions” and “discernment” and “sacraments as ideals” where the traditional teachings of the Church do not (or may not) apply, then we are into situational ethics. Why, then, isn’t every case “special” and every situation “exceptional.”

In Malta and Germany, I can joyfully continue in adultery in my second marriage (whereby my first marriage was not annulled) and receive communion and in Poland and Kazakhstan, I cannot do that or I will have committed a mortal sin. These are not the teachings of the same church. These are the teachings of two different churches.

If reference to Matthew 19 and the Canons of Trent (as well as 2,000 years of infallible Magisterial Teachings) are circular arguments and question begging as to truth, then I stand guilty. My problem is not that I don’t understand the Pope; my problem is that I do understand the Pope. It is telling that he does not answer the dubai.

Do I forgive anyone who has not apologized? Yes, of course. Why? Because the Lord commands this of all of us and because it is beneficial to my soul (as well as my emotions). The question you skip over, however, is whether one has restored relationships with all whom one has forgiven. And the answer to that question is “no, not necessarily.”

I hope you don’t think the Prodigal Son repented, returned home, was loving embraced by his father and then continued in riotous living while at home. What AL would have us do is repent, return home, be lovingly embraced by God the Father and then continue in a life of adultery and receipt of communion in an unworthy manner.

It is unlikely that anything I say will cause you to reconsider your point of view about AL and what it means. I suspect this is an issue where we will need to “agree to disagree.”

 

[pnewton]

It is unlikely that anything I say will cause you to reconsider your point of view about AL and what it means. I suspect this is an issue where we will need to “agree to disagree.”

I believe this is true, but I also note that we are still sort of new in this process. Time might give all greater understanding.

 

[RPRPsych]

Of course we are dealing with situational ethics – when we begin to talk about “special cases” and “exceptions” and “discernment” and “sacraments as ideals” where the traditional teachings of the Church do not (or may not) apply, then we are into situational ethics. Why, then, isn’t every case “special” and every situation “exceptional.”

In Malta and Germany, I can joyfully continue in adultery in my second marriage (whereby my first marriage was not annulled) and receive communion and in Poland and Kazakhstan, I cannot do that or I will have committed a mortal sin. These are not the teachings of the same church. These are the teachings of two different churches.

If reference to Matthew 19 and the Canons of Trent (as well as 2,000 years of infallible Magisterial Teachings) are circular arguments and question begging as to truth, then I stand guilty. My problem is not that I don’t understand the Pope; my problem is that I do understand the Pope. It is telling that he does not answer the dubai.

Do I forgive anyone who has not apologized? Yes, of course. Why? Because the Lord commands this of all of us and because it is beneficial to my soul (as well as my emotions). The question you skip over, however, is whether one has restored relationships with all whom one has forgiven. And the answer to that question is “no, not necessarily.”

I hope you don’t think the Prodigal Son repented, returned home, was loving embraced by his father and then continued in riotous living while at home. What AL would have us do is repent, return home, be lovingly embraced by God the Father and then continue in a life of adultery and receipt of communion in an unworthy manner.

It is unlikely that anything I say will cause you to reconsider your point of view about AL and what it means. I suspect this is an issue where we will need to “agree to disagree.”

Dear 3 Dog Night,

All things considered, I think I was disrespectful to your viewpoint and this was wrong on my part.

I hereby offer you an unconditional apology for any “cracks” I may have taken at you, either personally or in terms of your opinions on the Pope.

Rest assured that I have the highest respect for your zeal for Truth and Tradition, which I share; our disagreement is simply with regards to the means we use to defend them.

The fact is that Amoris Laetitia is not the document most of us on the “Traditional” side wanted. It can honestly be stated that it makes Gaudium et Spes look like the Syllabus of Errors. (And for that matter, Gaudium et Spes, read on its own, has many wonderful and orthodox things to say on the topics that Amoris tried to cover.)

These are confusing times, but I’m not ready to press the panic button yet. The Church has survived any number of blows, both external and internal, and she will survive them in future. (My most pragmatic guess is that a future CDF decree under a future Papacy will “clarify” the questionable passages, but I can’t rule out anything more drastic. It is in His hands.)

Fight the good fight as you know best, and do not abandon ship as some on these threads seem to advise. So will I (and millions of Catholics around the world) in our own way. You are in my prayers, and so are our Pope, Bishops and clergy.

 

[KSU]

Only Cardinal Muller, speaking as head of the CDF, and the Pope can give the whole Church an authoritative, doctrinal interpretation of A L.

Since the good Cardinal has spoken and has not been corrected by Pope Francis it must be assumed that the Cardinal and Pope are in substantial agreement.

Thanks be to God.