Pope endorses Argentine bishops' document on Amoris Laetitia

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CrossofChrist said:
My question is how is this all to be understood? I got the impression from what Cardinal Muller has said (see the bottom of this post) that the unchaste divorced/remarried can’t receive in principle. Does this endorsement by the Pope mean that Cardinal Muller is wrong? Also, while not necessarily contradictory in principle (but ISTM in practice/discipline), Cardinal Ratzinger as Prefect of the CDF clearly rejected the proposal from bishops Kasper, Lehmann, and Saier concerning complex individual cases by saying there can’t be modifications. Is this discipline no longer in effect because of the Pope’s comments (“no other interpretation”)?

If this means Cardinal Muller is wrong and current discipline has changed I gladly accept that, but I would appreciate answers to these questions if anyone has them because I am confused.

Here’s the quote from Cardinal Muller I mention earlier (bold mine):

The principle is that no one can really want to receive a Sacrament – the Eucharist – without having at the same time the will to live according to the other Sacraments, among them the Sacrament of Marriage. Whoever lives in a way that contradicts the marital bond opposes the visible sign of the Sacrament of Marriage. With regard to his existence in the flesh, he turns himself into a “counter-sign” of the indissolubility, even if he subjectively is not guilty. Exactly because his life in the flesh is in opposition to the sign, he cannot be part of the higher Eucharistic sign – in which the incarnate Love of Christ is manifest – by receiving Holy Communion. If the Church were to admit such a person to Holy Communion, she would be then committing that act which Thomas Aquinas calls “a falseness in the sacred sacramental signs.”
Click to expand...
Join the club, my friend. This is how the American bishops concluded their response to the Vatican’s request for a report on the reception and implementation of Amoris Laetitia:

“Respondents indicated that further resources on the application of some aspects of Amoris Laetitia, such as those treating the internal forum and reception of the sacraments with regard to persons in irregular marital situations, would be helpful. The same was mentioned about some of the key terms and concepts such as discernment, integration, gradualness, conscience, and mercy.”
catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=29469
 
CrossofChrist said:
The only reason I could see this as an issue for all times is if the unchaste but subjectively innocent divorced/remarried could not receive Communion in principle, somewhat similar to how a subjectively innocent but unbaptized person may not receive any sacrament before Baptism. If a subjectively innocent but unchaste divorced/remarried person may receive Communion at least in theory, even if not in recent practice, then I don’t see why a change would be an issue.

My question is how is this all to be understood? I got the impression from what Cardinal Muller has said (see the bottom of this post) that the unchaste divorced/remarried can’t receive in principle. Does this endorsement by the Pope mean that Cardinal Muller is wrong? Also, while not necessarily contradictory in principle (but ISTM in practice/discipline), Cardinal Ratzinger as Prefect of the CDF clearly rejected the proposal from bishops Kasper, Lehmann, and Saier concerning complex individual cases by saying there can’t be modifications. Is this discipline no longer in effect because of the Pope’s comments (“no other interpretation”)?

If this means Cardinal Muller is wrong and current discipline has changed I gladly accept that, but I would appreciate answers to these questions if anyone has them because I am confused.

Here’s the quote from Cardinal Muller I mention earlier (bold mine):

The principle is that no one can really want to receive a Sacrament – the Eucharist – without having at the same time the will to live according to the other Sacraments, among them the Sacrament of Marriage. Whoever lives in a way that contradicts the marital bond opposes the visible sign of the Sacrament of Marriage. With regard to his existence in the flesh, he turns himself into a “counter-sign” of the indissolubility, even if he subjectively is not guilty. Exactly because his life in the flesh is in opposition to the sign, he cannot be part of the higher Eucharistic sign – in which the incarnate Love of Christ is manifest – by receiving Holy Communion. If the Church were to admit such a person to Holy Communion, she would be then committing that act which Thomas Aquinas calls “a falseness in the sacred sacramental signs.”
Click to expand...
I think it is an established principle that one can have the intent to do something even while choosing, due to conflicting circumstances, an action that in fact appears to deny the original intent.

Such is the justification for sometimes legitimately breaking the 5th Commandment to protect ones family. It hinges on the philosophy of man of Aquinas which holds a man is capable of choosing two things at the same time that militate against each other. In the above example the higher act of will directly chooses the good but only indirectly chooses the grave matter of killing.

Yes, in the light of AL and the Popes letter to the ABS…the sincere but less able and less infallible Cardinal took the wrong tack.
 
pnewton said:
Yes, the canon is closed. 🤷 I am completely lost though as to what that has to do with anything.

You couldn’t have thrown me more than if you mentioned that Mary was immaculately conceived. Yes, but what does that have to do with this?
Click to expand...
Well, I apologize for jumping off topic. I thought I was responding to your comment from before 339

I started a new thread about 2nd Peter in the Sacred Scripture forum. 👍
 
Blue_Horizon said:
I think it more likely Fr. Raymond de Souza will soon be forgotten.
Click to expand...
Harsh words against a priest.
Will St John Paul soon be forgotten as well? It’s his teaching that is inspiring some to take issue with some of these recent developments.
 
twf said:
Harsh words against a priest.
Will St John Paul soon be forgotten as well? It’s his teaching that is inspiring some to take issue with some of these recent developments.
Click to expand...
I do not know that it was very harsh as much as it is inaccurately worded. If these words are harsh, then the article is harsh, as the same phrasing is used. I will only say that the article lacks considerable less heft that a papal exhortation and out of the billions of blog articles, the *article *will fade quicker. But yes, the article was definitely opinionated. I find it ironic that the article says the exhortation “seeks to obscure the clarity.” What in the world does airing these personal contradictory opinions on the internet do?
 
pnewton said:
I do not know that it was very harsh as much as it is inaccurately worded. If these words are harsh, then the article is harsh, as the same phrasing is used. I will only say that the article lacks considerable less heft that a papal exhortation and out of the billions of blog articles, the *article *will fade quicker. But yes, the article was definitely opinionated. I find it ironic that the article says the exhortation “seeks to obscure the clarity.” What in the world does airing these personal contradictory opinions on the internet do?
Click to expand...
Well, there have been numerous opinions on Amoris Laetitia published. What I got from the article is that it will fade in importance because of its ambiguity.

“Amoris Laetitia itself was deliberately ambiguous on the most controverted question of whether the traditional teaching and practice related to marriage and the Eucharist remained. In the absence of any clear teaching to the contrary, the presumption would be that traditional teaching held. Ambiguity – all the more so when deliberately chosen – cannot be retroactively clarified by means of private letters, no matter how cleverly leaked. The magisterium is a public act; there is no magisterium by stealth.”
 
JimG said:
Well, there have been numerous opinions on Amoris Laetitia published. What I got from the article is that it will fade in importance because of its ambiguity.

“Amoris Laetitia itself was deliberately ambiguous on the most controverted question of whether the traditional teaching and practice related to marriage and the Eucharist remained. In the absence of any clear teaching to the contrary, the presumption would be that traditional teaching held. ”
Click to expand...
I sometimes wonder how many actually have read it. It is a well-written, easily understood and quite clear through the entire body. It is only when it comes to the end where it simply does not address specifics. I do not agree that it is ambiguous. The last part, the part that people claim is ambiguous, is general, not ambiguous. So, did everyone actually read the first hundred pages? I do not see how they considered of lesser weight in the history of the Church.
 
pnewton said:
It is a well-written, easily understood and quite clear through the entire body. It is only when it comes to the end where it simply does not address specifics. I do not agree that it is ambiguous.
Click to expand...
Yes, there are many parts of AL that are well-written. Much of Chapter 4 is excellent. The problem is that there are some things in AL that are quite difficult to understand and even more difficult to square with past magisterial statements. Specifically, Chapter 8 offers much that appears (whether general or ambiguous, take you pick) to be problematic with regard to its presentation and application of moral theology.
 
twf said:
Harsh words against a priest.
Will St John Paul soon be forgotten as well? It’s his teaching that is inspiring some to take issue with some of these recent developments.
Click to expand...
I really don’t get this.
When I make the same observation against Fr. De Souza that he makes against our Pope you call my words harsh but his not. 🤷.
 
JimG said:
Well, there have been numerous opinions on Amoris Laetitia published. What I got from the article is that it will fade in importance because of its ambiguity.

“Amoris Laetitia itself was deliberately ambiguous on the most controverted question of whether the traditional teaching and practice related to marriage and the Eucharist remained. In the absence of any clear teaching to the contrary, the presumption would be that traditional teaching held. Ambiguity – all the more so when deliberately chosen – cannot be retroactively clarified by means of private letters, no matter how cleverly leaked. The magisterium is a public act; there is no magisterium by stealth.”
Click to expand...
Jesus was intentionally indirect and ambiguous many times…his parables have not faded.

Anyways I have found him Crystal on the major issues and suggest the perception of ambiguity is largely an unconscious protection mechanism in those who find it very difficult to accept what in reality is fairly obvious to the non partisan.
 
JimG said:
Then there is this:

Three cardinals sign statement defending magisterial teaching on the sacraments.

The statement is not apparently in opposition to Amoris Latitiae but rather to support traditional teaching as against certain interpretations of A.L.
Click to expand...
Having read the document I would say 95% of it is tilting at windmills Pope Francis never set in motion.

However 5% or so is in open contradiction with AL’s pastoral allowances in a somewhat defiant manner that is not open to debate.

The latter observation if true is a disrespect to the Pope and the debate he wants faced.
It will end in tears for the Cardinals and bishops involved I fear…and they will have noone to blame but themselves.
 
Blue_Horizon said:
Having read the document I would say 95% of it is tilting at windmills Pope Francis never set in motion.

However 5% or so is in open contradiction with AL’s pastoral allowances in a somewhat defiant manner that is not open to debate.

The latter observation if true is a disrespect to the Pope and the debate he wants faced.
It will end in tears for the Cardinals and bishops involved I fear…and they will have noone to blame but themselves.
Click to expand...
Well, you do keep digging your heels in.😉 Do you believe something concrete will emerge from the Pope? Or will this somehow be resolved… again?
 
rcwitness said:
Well, you do keep digging your heels in.😉 Do you believe something concrete will emerge from the Pope? Or will this somehow be resolved… again?
Click to expand...
I dont think anything further needs to come from the Pope as its all very clear now what he wants to happen at Diocesan level. And local Dicoeses can still choose to completely ignore his new initiatives…which I see a local area US bishops Conference has recently done despite all the grand words of their Guidelines.

However re the document that the three Cardinals signed…
A bad move on their part.
I foresee such a non-dialoguing spirit will cause them to be predictably and quietly demoted/marginalised re any privileges they may have. The Pope has authority to do so and would not be unjust in this. The Church afterall is not a democracy.
The Pope wants opposing views to be fraternally discussed rather than have set positions hurled at each side like canonballs.
 
Blue_Horizon said:
I dont think anything further needs to come from the Pope as its all very clear now what he wants to happen at Diocesan level.
Click to expand...
The Holy Father also made it clear that he wanted to instruct priests. I have wondered why there is so much clamor about clarity, when this was clear to me on each reading. I also do not know why traditional Catholic are so adverse to the traditional concept of subsidiarity. I have come to believe that it is not clarity that is demanded, but** uniformity**, specifically uniformity beyond the diocesan level, down to the individual level. “Pastoral” concerns are to be rejected in favor of uniformity, in this case, according to the understanding of “me”. Pope Francis clearly warned against this philosophy, where people are viewed as categories and not individuals.

Direction comes from Rome. Beyond that, decisions must be made locally, one on one, as much as possible. The priest we have are all well educated and the vast majority know the limits. Their bishops know they are to watch over them. Subsidiarity not only allows for this type of administration, it prefers it. Angry poster number 21 on a forum does not have a say in the decisions of a priest, any more than the bishop of Katmandu has any say in shepherding the people of Argentina. Sure, we can all engage in the modern American idea of everyone is entitled to their opinion. Should we?
 
KSU said:
Then it would appear that you are not reading AL as it was written:
lifesitenews.com/news/italian-archbishop-claims-pope-didnt-want-to-address-communion-question-pla
Click to expand...
Correct. I read the English translation, not the Pope’s personal transcript.

But I did read the official translation as written. My information comes from that, not the rather oddly named “Life Site News”. The only accuracy in their title is that they are a website. Archbishop Bruno Forte, shepherds the people in Chieti-Vasto. I do not live there. I have no interest in special interest blogs that scour the planet to find something that might support what ever editorial that might catch their fancy for a while, and post little translated snipets under the category of news. It is like a deliberated confirmation bias.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top