Pope reacts to 'rigid' critics [CWN]

[Chipper]

I would actually like to see a link to what you post here. I take much of what is in Life Site News with a grain of salt, as it is usually not “news” but someone’s commentary on the news.

Okay hows bout from “Amoris Laetitia” itself, from the Vatican website:

*AL 297: " No one can be condemned forever, be*cause that is not the logic of the Gospel! Here I am not speaking only of the divorced and re-married, but of everyone, in whatever situation **they find themselves."

It very clearly says “No one is condemned forever”, therefore one can conclude that no one is in hell.

Here is another link to the complaints of 45 theologicians with their credentials cited:
dici.org/en/documents/the-apostolic-exhortation-amoris-laetitia-a-theological-critique/

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Okay hows bout from “Amoris Laetitia” itself, from the Vatican website:

AL 297: " No one can be condemned forever, be**cause that is not the logic of the Gospel! Here I am not speaking only of the divorced and re-married, but of everyone, in whatever situation they find themselves."

It very clearly says “No one is condemned forever”, therefore one can conclude that no one is in hell.

Here is another link to the complaints of 45 theologicians with their credentials cited:
dici.org/en/documents/the-apostolic-exhortation-amoris-laetitia-a-theological-critique/

I will have to go back and look at AL. I am not sure if what you post actually means what you think it does. Posting one sentence from a document without proper context is not always a good idea. I think that is why so many people are confused about this document.

It was not written for or to lay people, and one must have a base of knowledge that knows where this writing is coming from. Most lay Catholics I know do not have the pastoral, sacramental or theological background to take snippets and say “Here, look, the Pope is teaching heresy!”

 

[Chipper]

I will have to go back and look at AL. I am not sure if what you post actually means what you think it does. Posting one sentence from a document without proper context is not always a good idea. I think that is why so many people are confused about this document.

It was not written for or to lay people, and one must have a base of knowledge that knows where this writing is coming from. Most lay Catholics I know do not have the pastoral, sacramental or theological background to take snippets and say “Here, look, the Pope is teaching heresy!”

I am not going to accuse the Pope of heresy:

But since when does context allow one to make a “So Called Heretical statement”.
Again I am not accusing the pope of heresy, neither where the theologians.

I am a strong proponent of “the end does not justify the means”. Now to do you see why this exhortation is causing such tremendous confusion?

Also remember, those are Theologians I cited including Cardinal Burke. If these fellows have a problem then maybe the rest of us are justified.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

I am not going to accuse the Pope of heresy:

But since when does context allow one to make a “So Called Herieical statement”.
Again I am not accusing the pope of heresy, neither where the theologians.

I am a strong proponent of “the end does not justify the means”. Now to do you see why this exhortation is causing such tremendous confusion?

Also remember, those are Theologians I cited including Cardinal Burke. If these fellows have a problem then maybe the rest of us are justified.

45 theologians out of how many?

And I never said YOU said the Pope was a heretic, but many are saying that this is heretical teaching. It is not. It is pastoral guidelines, it is not teaching anything, new or not.

And you cannot say that this is a “heretical statement” if you do not have the full context of the quote, what is is discussing and in what realation the statement is being made to the topic as a whole.

Now, if the statement is in a place where it is being discussed that divorced people were often “condemned” just for being divorced, then no, it is not heretical, and it is a very true statement.

So, until I can go back and read it, and look at my notes from my discussions with my priest/canon lawyer friend, I will not say anything more about the document.

 

[patricius79]

I will have to go back and look at AL. I am not sure if what you post actually means what you think it does. Posting one sentence from a document without proper context is not always a good idea. I think that is why so many people are confused about this document.

It was not written for or to lay people, and one must have a base of knowledge that knows where this writing is coming from. Most lay Catholics I know do not have the pastoral, sacramental or theological background to take snippets and say “Here, look, the Pope is teaching heresy!”

The document was written for the clergy as well as the laity.

 

[Chipper]

4

Now, if the statement is in a place where it is being discussed that divorced people were often “condemned” just for being divorced, then no, it is not heretical, and it is a very true statement.

.

I remind you it says “Everyone in whatever situation”.

 

[patricius79]

Now, if the statement is in a place where it is being discussed that divorced people were often “condemned” just for being divorced, .

I don’t think that’s what it says:

297. It is a matter of reaching out to everyone,
of needing to help each person find his or her
proper way of participating in the ecclesial community
and thus to experience being touched by
an “unmerited, unconditional and gratuitous”
mercy. No one can be condemned for ever, because
that is not the logic of the Gospel! Here
I am not speaking only of the divorced and remarried,
but of everyone, in whatever situation
they find themselves. Naturally, if someone
flaunts an objective sin as if it were part of the
Christian ideal, or wants to impose something
other than what the Church teaches, he or she
can in no way presume to teach or preach to
others; this is a case of something which separates
from the community (cf. Mt 18:17). Such
a person needs to listen once more to the Gospel
message and its call to conversion. Yet even
for that person there can be some way of taking
part in the life of community…
w2.vatican.va/content/dam/francesco/pdf/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20160319_amoris-laetitia_en.pdf

 

[Oneofthewomen]

The document was written for the clergy as well as the laity.

No, it was not written for the laity. It was written for the clergy- priests and Bishops, like most Church documents are.

That is not to say that the laity might not benefit from reading it, but without the “base knowledge” of Sacramentology, Theology and Pastoral counseling, which most lay people do not have, they will never understand all of the subtleties.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

I don’t think that’s what it says:

297. It is a matter of reaching out to everyone,
of needing to help each person find his or her
proper way of participating in the ecclesial community
and thus to experience being touched by
an “unmerited, unconditional and gratuitous”
mercy. No one can be condemned for ever, because
that is not the logic of the Gospel! Here
I am not speaking only of the divorced and remarried,
but of everyone, in whatever situation
they find themselves. Naturally, if someone
flaunts an objective sin as if it were part of the
Christian ideal, or wants to impose something
other than what the Church teaches, he or she
can in no way presume to teach or preach to
others; this is a case of something which separates
from the community (cf. Mt 18:17). Such
a person needs to listen once more to the Gospel
message and its call to conversion. Yet even
for that person there can be some way of taking
part in the life of community…
w2.vatican.va/content/dam/francesco/pdf/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20160319_amoris-laetitia_en.pdf

Ok, I still don’t think it is saying what you all think it is, and just because you posted the whole paragraph doesn’t mean you are still not getting the proper context.

I see the use of condemned here not as in “condemned to hell”, but condemned by people who are more worried about the “letter of the law” than the “spirit of the law”.

I could be wrong, which is why I need to go back and look ant my notes about this. I will have to do that later.

Maybe in the meantime Don Ruggero will come back, he had some interesting thigs to say a few pages back.

 

[Usige]

It was not written for or to lay people

Well then the title page for the exhortation is incorrect. The official English versions from the Vatican says:

TO BISHOPS, PRIESTS AND DEACONS
CONSECRATED PERSONS
CHRISTIAN MARRIED COUPLES AND
ALL THE LAY FAITHFUL
ON LOVE IN THE FAMILY

That seems to mean that Pope Francis intended it for more than just clergy and theologians. But even if that was the case, we see different diocese putting out pastoral guidelines that seem to conflict. That means that men with pastoral and theological training disagree. It is not simply one or two Cardinals, but priests, bishops, deacons and theologians that cannot come to a consensus.

The issue is that when you have one bishop that teaches one thinges and another that allows much greater latitude it is the faithful’s right to have clarity. The law of non contradiction comes into play here. If there are pastoral reasons to allow things that seem to contradict the eternal teaching of the Church then it is encumbant on the Church to explain how there is not contradiction. A bishop that upholds the unbroken teachings of the Church has a much easier time doing so. For those that suggest seeming exceptions they need to be clear that it is not a change of teaching, but rather how the pastoral guidelines still uphold existing theology.

That is where the greatest gap is. There is a leap in some directives that seems to ignore existing theology for a more merciful solution. BI shops need to be that bridge that explains why 1+1 does not always equal 2. It does not need to be specific but does need to clearly explain how a small percentage of cases do not violate the same teachings as the remaining majority.

 

[Chipper]

No, it was not written for the laity. It was written for the clergy- priests and Bishops, like most Church documents are.

Yes it was read the title page of the document.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Well then the title page for the exhortation is incorrect. The official English versions from the Vatican says:

TO BISHOPS, PRIESTS AND DEACONS
CONSECRATED PERSONS
CHRISTIAN MARRIED COUPLES AND
ALL THE LAY FAITHFUL
ON LOVE IN THE FAMILY

That seems to mean that Pope Francis intended it for more than just clergy and theologians. But even if that was the case, we see different diocese putting out pastoral guidelines that seem to conflict. That means that men with pastoral and theological training disagree. It is not simply one or two Cardinals, but priests, bishops, deacons and theologians that cannot come to a consensus.

The issue is that when you have one bishop that teaches one thinges and another that allows much greater latitude it is the faithful’s right to have clarity. The law of non contradiction comes into play here. If there are pastoral reasons to allow things that seem to contradict the eternal teaching of the Church then it is encumbant on the Church to explain how there is not contradiction. A bishop that upholds the unbroken teachings of the Church has a much easier time doing so. For those that suggest seeming exceptions they need to be clear that it is not a change of teaching, but rather how the pastoral guidelines still uphold existing theology.

That is where the greatest gap is. There is a leap in some directives that seems to ignore existing theology for a more merciful solution. BI shops need to be that bridge that explains why 1+1 does not always equal 2. It does not need to be specific but does need to clearly explain how a small percentage of cases do not violate the same teachings as the remaining majority.

Really?!

It was not “specifically” addressed to lay people alone, and if you read what Don Ruggero has to say, and take my experience at face value- most normal lay people do not have the background to understand the text.

But I forget, CAF is filled with people who are smarter & more competent than the majority of the Catholic clergy (who BTW, approved this document).

 

[Chipper]

Really?!

It was not “specifically” addressed to lay people alone, and if you read what Don Ruggero has to say, and take my experience at face value- most normal lay people do not have the background to understand the text.

But I forget, CAF is filled with people who are smarter & more competent than the majority of the Catholic clergy (who BTW, approved this document).

Please be careful, I really don’t wan’t to see this thread locked.

 

[Thomas_White]

Of course there are those lay people who can understand the text:

"(4) Now what was handed on by the Apostles includes everything which contributes toward the holiness of life and increase in faith of the peoples of God; and so the Church, in her teaching, life and worship, perpetuates and hands on to all generations all that she herself is, all that she believes.

This tradition which comes from the Apostles develop in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. (5) For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers…"

–DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION
ON DIVINE REVELATION
DEI VERBUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED
BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 18, 1965

 

[patricius79]

Well then the title page for the exhortation is incorrect. The official English versions from the Vatican says:

TO BISHOPS, PRIESTS AND DEACONS
CONSECRATED PERSONS
CHRISTIAN MARRIED COUPLES AND
ALL THE LAY FAITHFUL
ON LOVE IN THE FAMILY

That seems to mean that Pope Francis intended it for more than just clergy and theologians. But even if that was the case, we see different diocese putting out pastoral guidelines that seem to conflict. That means that men with pastoral and theological training disagree. It is not simply one or two Cardinals, but priests, bishops, deacons and theologians that cannot come to a consensus.

The issue is that when you have one bishop that teaches one thinges and another that allows much greater latitude it is the faithful’s right to have clarity. The law of non contradiction comes into play here. If there are pastoral reasons to allow things that seem to contradict the eternal teaching of the Church then it is encumbant on the Church to explain how there is not contradiction. A bishop that upholds the unbroken teachings of the Church has a much easier time doing so. For those that suggest seeming exceptions they need to be clear that it is not a change of teaching, but rather how the pastoral guidelines still uphold existing theology.

That is where the greatest gap is. There is a leap in some directives that seems to ignore existing theology for a more merciful solution. BI shops need to be that bridge that explains why 1+1 does not always equal 2. It does not need to be specific but does need to clearly explain how a small percentage of cases do not violate the same teachings as the remaining majority.

I guess it would help for me, personally, to know some examples of cases where it makes sense to allow someone having sexual relations in an irregular marriage to receive Communion.

At the same time, I want to know for sure that it is, in fact, a matter of doctrine–as opposed to discipline–that a person having sexual relations in an irregular marriage can never receive Communion.

If it is not a matter of doctrine, then the discipline could be changed, however imprudent that might be.

Or am I mixed up?

 

[patricius79]

Really?!

It was not “specifically” addressed to lay people alone, and if you read what Don Ruggero has to say, and take my experience at face value- most normal lay people do not have the background to understand the text.

But I forget, CAF is filled with people who are smarter & more competent than the majority of the Catholic clergy (who BTW, approved this document).

It was addressed to both clergy and laity. But I personally don’t have the competence. That’s why I’m asking questions to try to understand these issues better.

As far as the clergy: they are to be given great respect and obedience in matters of doctrine, morals, and discipline. At the same time, it seems to me that they are often negligent in addressing major moral crises in the Church, including people who receive Communion but live in sin by regulartly using contraception. But even if I’m wrong and they are not negligent, I don’t know that an issue is settle by a majority vote from the clergy.

 

[Chipper]

Really?!

It was not “specifically” addressed to lay people alone, and if you read what Don Ruggero has to say, and take my experience at face value- most normal lay people do not have the background to understand the text.

.

I really don’t understand you.

It was addressed to clergy and laity. But since it wasn’t addressed to solely the laity, we shouldn’t read it because we can’t understand it.

Why didn’t the Pope say, okay I addressed it to the laity, but don’t read it because you won’t understand it?

 

[Usige]

Really?!

It was not “specifically” addressed to lay people alone, and if you read what Don Ruggero has to say, and take my experience at face value- most normal lay people do not have the background to understand the text.

But I forget, CAF is filled with people who are smarter & more competent than the majority of the Catholic clergy (who BTW, approved this document).

I never said it was only directed to the laity, but dispute your asseration that it was only directed at the clergy. Also please remember that it is not just the clergy that are to be respected. Implying that we are simply unable to understand the document is to demean the laity. The majoriry of CAF posters are not the average layman in the pew. They have a deep love of Church teaching and are invested in learning the faith. They may not have the same depth of training as most of the clergy, but the difference in depth is true even among the clergy. Not every bishop is a theologian and not every theologian is a cleric.

Also it was not the majority of clergy that approved the document, but the majority of the 279 priests and bishops in attendance. I am not saying it is wrong, but that if there is widespread confussion, even if inadvertant, the clergy do need to adress it. The faithful do have rights to clarity. If the bishops cannot agree then how are the faithful expected to understand. If doubts are raised they need to be addressed and not simply brushed off with condescension implied by saying “you simply cannot understand”. I may never understand to the same depth but that doesn’t mean that I am incapable of getting a better understanding.

And for your edification, many of us do have some training in theology. Perhaps not to the level of Don Ruggero or other seminary professors, but that does not mean we cannot understand. I’m pretty sure my bishop would be upset if I have leaned nothing in my first 2 years of diaconal formation. I still have a ways to go, but I wouldn’t write me (or others) off as uninformed morons that simply doesn’t have the intelligence to understand papal exhortations.

 

[Chipper]

I don’t know that an issue is settle by a majority vote from the clergy.

Where is the fact that the majority of clergy voted for it? Are you trying to say it is a “Magisterial” approved document? From everything I have read it is not, repeat not a magisterial approved document. If you could show me where it is approved I would greatly appreciate it.

 

[graciew]

Okay hows bout from “Amoris Laetitia” itself, from the Vatican website:

AL 297: " No one can be condemned forever, be**cause that is not the logic of the Gospel! Here I am not speaking only of the divorced and re-married, but of everyone, in whatever situation they find themselves."

It very clearly says “No one is condemned forever”, therefore one can conclude that no one is in hell.

E]

It doesn t clearly say " No one is condemned forever" but " No one can be condemned forever"
Is he addressing God and declaring to God that no one can be condemned forever so God better do away with Hell? No.
Can you see this ?
Can you see you concluded what wasn t said nor implied?
I make many mistakes as well,just referring to your conclusion.
Now you can perhaps easily answer why " no one can be condemenned forever" .