God the Son teaches about adultery (HINT: He disapproves)

[johnnyc176]

Fr. Z’s sermon notes for the 6th Ordinary Sunday’s Gospel…

wdtprs.com/blog/2017/02/god-the-son-teaches-about-adultery-hint-he-disapproves/

 

[Abba]

I hold a different understanding than Fr. John Zuhlsdorf (a.k.a. Father Z) on the Holy Father’s exhortation Amoris Laetitia. Contrary to ( Cardinal Burke and) Father Z’s position with Amoris Laetitia I understand that as a Catholic I need to give intellectual assent to the teachings provided in Amoris Laetitia.

To arrive at my understanding I considered the points made by Padre Salvador Pie-Ninot and Padre Ignotus - amongst other considerations.

** Padre Salvador Pie-Ninot ** notes:

Father Pie-Ninot said he examined the document in light of the 1990 instruction from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the vocation of the theologian.
The instruction – issued by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now-retired Pope Benedict XVI – explained three levels of church teaching with the corresponding levels of assent they require. The top levels are: “Infallible pronouncements,” which require an assent of faith as being divinely revealed; and teaching proposed “in a definitive way,” which is “strictly and intimately connected with revelation” and “must be firmly accepted and held.”
A teaching is an example of “ordinary magisterium,” according to the instruction, “when the magisterium, not intending to act ‘definitively,’ teaches a doctrine to aid a better understanding of revelation and make explicit its contents, or to recall how some teaching is in conformity with the truths of faith, or finally to guard against ideas that are incompatible with these truths, the response called for is that of the religious submission of will and intellect.”
“Amoris Laetitia” falls into the third category, Father Pie-Ninot said, adding the 1990 instruction’s statement that examples of ordinary magisterium can occur when the pope intervenes “in questions under discussion which involve, in addition to solid principles, certain contingent and conjectural elements.”
The instruction notes that “it often only becomes possible with the passage of time to distinguish between what is necessary and what is contingent,” although, as the Spanish priest said, the instruction insists that even then one must assume that “divine assistance” was given to the pope.
Accepting “Amoris Laetitia” as authoritative church teaching, Father Pie-Ninot said, applies also to the document’s “most significant words” about the possibility of people divorced and remarried without an annulment receiving Communion in limited circumstances.

catholicnews.com/services/englishnews/2016/vatican-newspaper-amoris-laetitia-is-authoritative-church-teaching.cfm

** Padre Ignotus** notes:

(1) At the very least, the form of Amoris Laetitia is that of a “Pontifical Letter,” in which:

“… the Sovereign Pontiff explains Catholic doctrine, gives instructions, or in which, as Father, Teacher and Doctor, he exhorts, admonishes, condemns and expresses congratulations, benevolences, et cetera. At the end is added the clause ‘Datum Romae apud S. Petrum’ together with the date.” (Cicognani, Canon Law, p.84)

Obviously, this is exactly what Amoris Laetitiae purports to do – to explain doctrine, instruct, exhort, admonish – and it even includes the final closing formula. It is an official document, issued by the Holy See, and obviously intended to teach. It is makes no sense for Cardinal Burke to say it is “non-magisterial,” or merely “personal.”

(2) The cardinal’s commentary, unfortunately, also blurs the traditional distinctions applied to the term “magisterium.”

In general, “magisterium” simply means “the function of instructing others.” When it comes to the Church, her teaching magisterium (=docens) is directed at imparting the knowledge of sound doctrine and good morals to all the faithful.

Now, in the minds of most Catholics, the word magisterium is automatically linked to the word infallible, as in something such as, “The magisterium of the pope is infallible when he issues an ex cathedra definition about faith or morals.” The popular perception, though, is that, if a papal teaching does not meet the ex cathedra standard, there’s no obligation to believe it or to submit to the teaching.

But this idea is completely false, at least according to the pre-Vatican II theologians, for in addition to infallible magisterium, a Catholic is also bound by what is called “authentic magisterium.” This is the way the pope usually teaches Catholic doctrine and moral principles.

It is explained this way: A pope has the “power and office to teach doctrine” and, as a Catholic, you have “the obligation and the right to receive instruction.” The teaching of a pope is authentic in the strict sense, “because of the authority of God’s delegation that the teacher uses.” You would therefore “be bound to give it assent of the intellect,” because his teaching authority is founded in “a mission received from God, to which is attached divine assistance.” (Salaverri, De Ecclesia 1:503ff. His emphasis)

So by this standard, one could hardly dismiss Amoris Laetitia as “non-magisterial” or refuse “to give it assent of the intellect.”

(3) And, indeed, Francis himself has stated that his public statements, including his apostolic exhortations, are “magisterium.” In January 2015, he said:

“Somebody did say to me once, ‘Of course, of course. Discernment is so good for us, but we need much clearer things.’ And I answered: Look, I wrote an encyclical – true enough, it was by four hands [with Benedict XVI] – and an apostolic exhortation. I’m constantly making statements, giving homilies. That’s magisterium. That’s what I think, not what the media say that I think. Check it out; it’s very clear.”

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/04/amoris-laetitia-is-non-magisterial-not.html

 

[Abba]

According to the National Catholic Register Father Z’s page is amongst The Best In Catholic Blogging. ncregister.com/blog/tito-edwards/amoris-laetitia-and-the-progressive-pope-myth-did-the-office-really-say-tha

I disagree. It seems to me that a sabbatical from blogging may do Father Z good. It’s good to refresh ourselves to recognize the original reason we have taken on a position, job or task. Sometimes, as Pope Francis points out (with the curia), we can forget the original reason we were given or have taken a post, as we get involved with the position and forget that it was and is to serve the Lord and shepherd His people.

I find it intellectually dishonest to use an argumentum ad hominem against those who hold a differing view than that being promoted in the article. To refer to those who uphold Amorist Laetitia* Kasperites* and the ones who do not accept it as *Catholics * makes it difficult for a self-respecting person to take the article seriously.

Weeding out comments that are contrary is not good either. [QUOTEI urge people who don’t want to think, or who don’t want to consider the lead up and the view to the future, not to comment here or elsewhere.]

Finally, I do not think that it is intellectually correct, to place to the right of the article the following quote:

Some words of wisdom…

The more vigorously the primacy was displayed, the more the question came up about the extent and limits of [papal] authority, which of course, as such, had never been considered. After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the pope really could do anything in liturgical matters, especially if he were acting on the mandate of an ecumenical council. Eventually, the idea of the givenness of the liturgy, the fact that one cannot do with it what one will, faded from the public consciousness of the West. In fact, the First Vatican Council had in no way defined the pope as an absolute monarch. On the contrary, it presented him as the guarantor of obedience to the revealed Word. The pope’s authority is bound to the Tradition of faith. … The authority of the pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of Sacred Tradition.

Joseph Ratzinger
in The Spirit of the Liturgy

As if to point that the Pope has limited authority and according to the author of the article Pope Francis has overextended this authority and based on this statement by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI it would be smooth to think that the Pope Emeritus probably holds the same view as the author in regards to Amoris Laetitia. When in fact, the contrary is true. Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI made a vow to Pope Francis when leaving which was to be faithful, loyal and obedient to him. Actions speak louder than words; Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI is being obedient as we are all called to be and many of us need to learn that including some Princes of the Church.

 

[Stat_Crux]

I hold a different understanding than Fr. John Zuhlsdorf (a.k.a. Father Z) on the Holy Father’s exhortation Amoris Laetitia. Contrary to ( Cardinal Burke and) Father Z’s position with Amoris Laetitia I understand that as a Catholic I need to give intellectual assent to the teachings provided in Amoris Laetitia.

This is too simplistic a vision of what it means to be Catholic. If it were so then our faith would be a tyranny under which we were called to blindly obey without seeking a true understanding and interior conversion.

Such “blind” obedience would also mean:

• We would all need to be circumcised and observe the Mosaic Law, as St Paul would never have rebuked St Peter “to his face” in Galatians 2:11-12 for his giving a bad example in refusing to sit with gentiles.
• We would all be Monothelite heretics, as Pope Honorius I taught this heresy and was subsequently anathematised after his death. Unchallenged, this would have meant that we today would fundamentally misunderstand the nature of God.
• We would all believe that the Beatific Vision does not occur until the Day of Judgement, as Pope John XXII taught publicly and for which he was rebuked and subsequently recanted. Again, unchallenged this would have meant that there would be no Intercession of the Saints (as nobody would be in heaven, but stuck queuing outside until Judgement Day), no Indulgences, no Purgatory (as we understand it anyway).
• We would still believe that everything in the Americas west of Brazil belongs to Spain, as Pope Alexander VI instructed in the Papal Bull Inter Cetera.
• We would still believe that it is acceptable to enslave “Saracens” in accordance with the teaching of Pope Nicholas V in the Papal Bull Dum Diversas.

Not to mention that your position would not have held if you had been born and died during the western schism from 1378 to 1417, in which there were three people simultaneously claiming to be Pope. We know in retrospect who the true Pope was now that the lineage has been defined. But had you existed in that time, you choice for who to support would likely have been totally dependent on where you were born, your social status, language and whether you could read. Indeed the Avignon Papacy came to an end with the aid of St Catherine of Siena who wrote to the Pope criticising him for not doing the right thing, saying “I beg of you, on behalf of Christ crucified, that you be not a timorous child but manly. Open your mouth and swallow down the bitter for the sweet.” By anyone’s measure that’s a lot less respectful that the Five Dubia which have been asked of the Pope and remain unanswered.

None of these points above can or should be used as an excuse to attack the present Pope or especially his office, which deserves and demands respect. But it would be wrong to suggest our faith is one of automatic acquiescence when valid questions have been raised. It is apparent to all that the liberal interpretation of AL represents a dramatic change in direction from the teaching for the previous 2,000 years, and was also explicitly condemned by the Church in Familiaris Consortio paragraph 84. It’s therefore not unreasonable to ask for an explanation to resolve the difficulties millions of Catholics are having in reconciling some interpretations of AL with the Church’s Magisterium.

If you’re supporting the liberal interpretation of AL, that the conscience of a civilly divorced and remarried Catholic can “morally justify” sex outside of marriage, you should surely realise that you’re also teaching that individual conscience is sovereign over the Church’s constant objective teaching since it was revealed to us by Christ himself.

That would also remove any argument you have in suggesting people’s consciences have to submit to your interpretation of AL. If there’s no longer an objective teaching, or that conscience is now free to contradict it as and when it chooses, what are you arguing against?

 

[Stat_Crux]

I hold a different understanding than Fr. John Zuhlsdorf (a.k.a. Father Z) on the Holy Father’s exhortation Amoris Laetitia. Contrary to ( Cardinal Burke and) Father Z’s position with Amoris Laetitia I understand that as a Catholic I need to give intellectual assent to the teachings provided in Amoris Laetitia.

Whilst your obvious devotion is admirable, it fundamentally seems to be based on a misunderstanding of how Papal Infallibility works and how it has been defined. In fact, those teachings which one must hold in order to call oneself Catholic can only be taught “Ex Cathedra”.

“Ex Cathedra” means “from the chair”, and is when a declaration is made by the Pope, acting formally in his capacity as the successor of St Peter in exercising that authority given to him. In the 1950 apostolic constitution of Pope Pius XII Munificentissimus Deus, in which the dogma of The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary was solemnly defined, the document ends with the following “formal” infallible assertion:

"44. For which reason, after we have poured forth prayers of supplication again and again to God, and have invoked the light of the Spirit of Truth, for the glory of Almighty God who has lavished his special affection upon the Virgin Mary, for the honor of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages and the Victor over sin and death, for the increase of the glory of that same august Mother, and for the joy and exultation of the entire Church; by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

1. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.
2. In order that this, our definition of the bodily Assumption of the Virgin Mary into heaven may be brought to the attention of the universal Church, we desire that this, our Apostolic Letter, should stand for perpetual remembrance, commanding that written copies of it, or even printed copies, signed by the hand of any public notary and bearing the seal of a person constituted in ecclesiastical dignity, should be accorded by all men the same reception they would give to this present letter, were it tendered or shown.
3. It is forbidden to any man to change this, our declaration, pronouncement, and definition or, by rash attempt, to oppose and counter it. If any man should presume to make such an attempt, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."

At Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 25 goes into further detail about how we are to understand infallibility, with a wider explanation including the Bishops:

“Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively.”

So a single idea or concept has to be defined fully, formally and conclusively, without dispute, as being a fundamental tenet of the Catholic faith, which must be held everywhere, always and universally if one is to define themselves as Catholic.

The liberal interpretation of AL has not been formally taught, but instead construed from the footnotes of the document itself and from certain private letters of the Pope and the public comments of those thought to be close to him. The Pope has refused any attempt to define this interpretation infallibly, and as we see from the quote of Lumen Gentium, the Bishops and Cardinals do not “concur on a single viewpoint”. It is also interesting to note that paragraph 3 of Amoris Laetitia even says “not all discussions of doctrinal, moral or pastoral issues need to be settled by interventions of the magisterium”.

In the absence of anything definitive to suggest the Church’s teaching regarding mortal sin, conscience, adultery, the Sacraments of Eucharist and Confession and culpability have changed, we cannot help but only interpret Amoris Laetitia in the context of 2,000 years of rich pastoral theology. Amoris Laetitia has pastoral worth and should be received graciously, but its conversational writing style, as opposed to a legal or technical style, should not be used as an excuse to make forays beyond the scope of the Church’s constant moral teachings. We have the witness of 266 Popes, countless Saints and 2,000 years of teaching to fall back on to give us confidence in what the Church actually teaches on this subject.