Still don't understand what is going on with amoris laetitia

[jcrichton]

My thoughts are that the exhortation is exploratory in the sense that it seeks for ways to shepherd those who are on the fringes back into communion. Rather than being a statement or re-statement of doctrine it looks to exhort pastors to pastor.
It ventures out, it stretches doctrine into uncomfortable areas to find ways to minister to the irregular family.

It makes the Church vulnerable to misunderstanding and attack, especially from within.
**Is it a bad thing for the Church to be vulnerable? Is it? **
I think of this question while I sit here looking at the corpus on my wall.

I also think the document is not meant for most laypeople. It was never written or intended for us, and it wasn’t written with our permission or (name removed by moderator)ut.
But for better or worse, we laypeople have instant access to AL thanks to the internet. And, we have a worldwide public forum to broadcast our opinion of it.

Hi!

I understand what you’re saying… but there are terms (especially in the footnotes) that cannot just simply be rendered as “guide” or “urging better pastoral care.”

The language, to my simple mind, is set as a directive: ‘it’s not their fault, do not deprive them of the Sacraments, including the Holy Eucharist; the Lord’s Supper is not elitist.’ (…yeah, I threw a little spin to it…)

The problem is that the issue is out. Bishops and others are claiming that it needs clarification. The Pope must, as the Bishop of Rome, lead through example… he calls for greater communication… well, why does he not clarify those points that seem to lend themselves to abuse or misrepresentation?

Mercy and Love cannot be used as an enabler to commit one’s life to sin–and yes, a sinner’s sin cannot be held into infinity–but if the sinner persist in his/her sin/s, would Jesus simply throw up His hands and nudge Peter to open the secret entrance by the golden gate–‘cause, you know… they know not what they do?’

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Chipper]

Whatever other concerns there may be with other parts of the document, picking a bone with AL 297 because they are reading it as referring to hell is just so off the mark in terms of understanding context as to make me question the grounds of everything else they are critiquing.

I don’t see it your way at all.

"Condemned Forever", is an obvious reference to Hell. If not then what in the world does "Condemned Forever" mean? It seems to me if a person is condemned forever then that person is in Hell.

And the “context” is not just about divorced and remarried. He specifically said*"…here I am not only speaking of the divorced and remarried…BUT OF EVERYONE"….*

You still haven’t cited any text to support your statements to me.

…

 

[angell1]

I don’t see it your way at all.

"Condemned Forever", is an obvious reference to Hell. If not then what in the world does "Condemned Forever" mean? It seems to me if a person is condemned forever then that person is in Hell.

And the “context” is not just about divorced and remarried. He specifically said*"…here I am not only speaking of the divorced and remarried…BUT OF EVERYONE"…*.

You still haven’t cited any text to support your statements to me.

…

only God can condemn someone to hell. Pope did not write a 200 page document for dead people. there would be no point for him to use the words of mercy or repentence if no one goes to hell anymore

believe it or not, ther are people in the world who will never let you live down your past sins and mistakes, no matter how repentant you are. they will insist on dredging it back up time and time again, rubbing your nose in to it, guilt-tripping you, shaming you until you feel like giving up in despair. you believe you are useless and worthless.

it’s been done to me. at a certain point, this inevitably lead to “well, God must see me that way too. what’s the point in trying?”, which obviously a pile of lies from the devil

this is human condemnation, believing that a person can never change, saying phrases like a"well so-and-so deserves to go to hell"

 

[angell1]

Agreed, every sin which can be committed in this life is capable of being forgiven one repents of it and has a firm purpose of amendment not to repeat it again.

Along the same lines, the Church, through the Sacrament of Confession, can forgive the sin of sex outside of marriage if the person truly repents and recognizes their fault. The error inherent in some interpretations of AL is that someone either:

1. Does not need to confess having engaged in sexual activity outside of marriage.
2. Confesses having engaged in sexual activity outside of marriage, but does not need to have a sincere intention not to do it again in order to be validly absolved of that sin.

The issue with certain interpretations of AL is that they’re suggesting that an unmarried couple may habitually, willfully and with prior intention engage in sexual activity with full awareness of their actions, with no intention of ever stopping, and somehow not be sinning. And to the suggestion that mortal sin may “only” be venial sin if there is reduced culpability; deliberately choosing an action which you (hypothetically) know to be a venial sin is not a valid course of action when there is also the choice of doing good (e.g. obeying the teaching on the sanctity of marriage and living as brother and sister) is no valid argument for reduced culpability.

The Gospel presents us with a hard teaching, sometimes seemingly “unjust” from our human perspective, which is something that Christ and his Disciples speak about overtly in the Gospel. However, as St Peter correctly states in the Gospel of John 6:60-71 when Christ asks if he will desert Christ because his teachings are too hard:

no, making excuses does not reduce one’s culpability. and if one commits an act with prior knowledge and full intent, this is not a venial sin and nowhere in AL does it suggest that it is

that being said, there are possible situations where there could be reduced culpability, we don’t need AL to know that, it’s in the catechism, that is definite church teaching. a physically abusive person that coerses of forces another person against their will and the person cannot get out of the situation for the time being, for example. this document is for the entire church, there are places that have complex issues that we don’t have. the situations that we are familiar with are not usually those circumstances that Pope Francis has in mind, that’s what I think

Pope Francis did say certain cases, and he said not to flaunt sin as if it were the ideal. so really, that excludes all the “it’s too hard” scenarios or the “circumventing to have your own way” scenarios. he also said it was not right to water down the truth of the gospel

 

[Wesrock]

I don’t see it your way at all.

"Condemned Forever", is an obvious reference to Hell. If not then what in the world does "Condemned Forever" mean? It seems to me if a person is condemned forever then that person is in Hell.

And the “context” is not just about divorced and remarried. He specifically said*"…here I am not only speaking of the divorced and remarried…BUT OF EVERYONE"…*.

You still haven’t cited any text to support your statements to me.

…

I did cite the text and pointed to the nearby passages and overall context of the chapter. You’re the one reading and cities the line out of context. We do not pluck out our eyes or cut off hands because Jesus told us to do so. We understand context.

Nothing you do in this life can result in you being condemned forever so long as you still have time to repent. The event of divorcing and remarrying does not itself mean you’re eternally condemned or excommunicated. It’s not something that can’t be repented and corrected in this life. You can’t do something that prevents you from being received back into the Church so long as you have time to repent.

It’s not that hard. Nothing in the surrounding context indicates he’s speaking of anything besides what’s in the surrounding context. It’s about pastoral care for living people and how the Church should address complicated situations. It’s a greater leap to interpret that statement as having to mean something more.

 

[Wesrock]

Another approach: Is stating that universal salvation is a fact heresy? I believe so. Is there an alternative reading of the passage in question given the surrounding context that is non-heretical? Yes. Is that alternative reading in fact reinforced as the primary intended meaning of the passage by its surrounding context? Yes. Is there any reason in the surrounding context to suspect that the heretical reading is what was intended as opposed to the non-heretical one? No. Quite the contrary, in fact.

 

[TaylorDonBarret]

Seems quite simple to me. If a person is in a state of grace then they may be admitted to the Sacraments, regardless of what their objective external state may be.

 

[jcrichton]

I did cite the text and pointed to the nearby passages and overall context of the chapter. You’re the one reading and cities the line out of context. We do not pluck out our eyes or cut off hands because Jesus told us to do so. We understand context.

Nothing you do in this life can result in you being condemned forever so long as you still have time to repent. The event of divorcing and remarrying does not itself mean you’re eternally condemned or excommunicated. It’s not something that can’t be repented and corrected in this life. You can’t do something that prevents you from being received back into the Church so long as you have time to repent.

It’s not that hard. Nothing in the surrounding context indicates he’s speaking of anything besides what’s in the surrounding context. It’s about pastoral care for living people and how the Church should address complicated situations. It’s a greater leap to interpret that statement as having to mean something more.

Hi!

…the problem is that people do engage in acts against the Doctrine (Catholics seeking divorce, using contraception, having adulterous affairs, committing themselves to a life of fornication, substance abuse, and a whole bunch of other unrighteous acts)–not only that but they also teach these things to others, pitting themselves and their disciples against the Church, (and some of these are Clerics and Religious).

When the “language” is muddled by confusion and is vulnerable to misinterpretation, why would it hurt to clarify the issues?

…if I do not rob/steal but I accept/buy something that has a questionable origin… I am just as guilty as the person that committed the actual crime/sin… the Church cannot simply say: ‘…well, he did not know that a $2K computer could not be obtained by shelling out $40 or $80 for it!’

…in this example it is a clear cut issue–but when facing irregular unions with: ‘…well, they may not be as guilty as one would think–so side on the “good intension” philanthropic model…’ that’s just Catholicism à la carte.

…when ignorant people (as myself) and the “learned” are asking: ‘is the sky really falling?,’ don’t you think that the leadership of the Church should stop what seems to be an evasive silence and engage clarity?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Seems quite simple to me. If a person is in a state of grace then they may be admitted to the Sacraments, regardless of what their objective external state may be.

Hi!

…are you intimating that as long as the Celebrant is not able to physically identify my sins I’m good to Receive the Eucharist?

…how is the state of Grace achieved?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[3_Dog_Night]

When the “language” is muddled by confusion and is vulnerable to misinterpretation, why would it hurt to clarify the issues?

…when ignorant people (as myself) and the “learned” are asking: ‘is the sky really falling?,’ don’t you think that the leadership of the Church should stop what seems to be an evasive silence and engage clarity?

I think it is telling that the leadership of the Church is continuing its silence and ambiguity. Now why is that happening? Saying something (AL) is clear and understandable does not make it so. Attacking and maligning the good names of those (the four Cardinals) who are asking questions can hardly be considered “merciful” or “charitable”.

I do not like the fruit of this tree – uncertainty, confusion, chaos, division. I am coming up with my own conclusions as to why there is no answer from Pope Francis to the dubai. I have concluded that lack of clarity and general confusion serves to advance an agenda. I believe each of us is being asked to choose who we will follow – Jesus or Francis.

 

[TaylorDonBarret]

Hi!

…are you intimating that as long as the Celebrant is not able to physically identify my sins I’m good to Receive the Eucharist?

…how is the state of Grace achieved?

Maran atha!

Angel

The state of grace is achieved by loving Christ Jesus.

 

[jcrichton]

I think it is telling that the leadership of the Church is continuing its silence and ambiguity. Now why is that happening? Saying something (AL) is clear and understandable does not make it so. Attacking and maligning the good names of those (the four Cardinals) who are asking questions can hardly be considered “merciful” or “charitable”.

I do not like the fruit of this tree – uncertainty, confusion, chaos, division. I am coming up with my own conclusions as to why there is no answer from Pope Francis to the dubai. I have concluded that lack of clarity and general confusion serves to advance an agenda. I believe each of us is being asked to choose who we will follow – Jesus or Francis.

Hi!

…this of course is the mix that we are in…

When the leadership is in turmoil about, well, where we are heading… it gives pause and energy for confusion to step it…

Jesus warned that Satan is a murderer from the Beginning and that he is the father of all lies…

…there was once a man who sought to “reform” the Church… about half a millennia later, the Body of Christ has suffered myriads of splintering… that is not the Call of the Holy Spirit!

…the one time when the issue about where to go (Authority) came up, Jesus did not Command that His Followers seek Him or the Scriptures… contrary to the “reformer” and his followers here’s what Jesus Commanded:

15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone

: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee **one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses **every word may be established. 17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. (St. Matthew 18:15-17)
…my friend, there is an established system of checks and balances… we must be careful not to jump overboard because we want it now!

…there are two other very important passages that come to mind… on deals with respecting our Leaders (Bishops) and the other deals with Forgiving our Brethren… we must ask for Clarity… but we must do so in Christ’s Peace and Love…

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

The state of grace is achieved by loving Christ Jesus.

Hi!

…I don’t mean to be disrespectful… but isn’t that like the “prayer” for Salvation and the priesthood that can be achieved with $99.00 (perhaps in today’s market $399.00) and a general form that states “signature of priest/pastor, here?”

…Loving Christ requires more than what is superficially perceived by the term… Jesus states that: ‘…if you Love Me, you will do what I Command.’

…its much more intricate than simply staking a claim (‘not all who Call Me Lord, Lord, will enter into the Kingdom…’); as hard as we might want to distance ourselves from it… Loving Christ comes with rules and regulations!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[goout]

Hi!

…I don’t mean to be disrespectful… but isn’t that like the “prayer” for Salvation and the priesthood that can be achieved with $99.00 (perhaps in today’s market $399.00) and a general form that states “signature of priest/pastor, here?”

…Loving Christ requires more than what is superficially perceived by the term… Jesus states that: ‘…if you Love Me, you will do what I Command.’

…its much more intricate than simply staking a claim (‘not all who Call Me Lord, Lord, will enter into the Kingdom…’); as hard as we might want to distance ourselves from it… Loving Christ comes with rules and regulations!

Maran atha!

Angel

I understand what you are saying but…
if love is a movement of the will towards God, then the statement is a good one. Loving is much more than staking a claim to a feeling or disposition.
Loving God encapsulates the fulfillment of our existence. It is the response to grace God desires.

 

[twf]

The bishops are divided on this issue, and the Pope has not yet bound the Church to a particular interpretation…but I think there can be no doubt where he personally stands:

1. His letter to the Argentine bishops in which he affirmed their interpretation (which does foresee communion for the divorced and remarried under certain circumstances)
2. The new norms promulgated by the Cardinal Vicar for Rome which allows communion in certain situations as well. This is the Pope’s own diocese.

 

[jcrichton]

I understand what you are saying but…
if love is a movement of the will towards God, then the statement is a good one. Loving is much more than staking a claim to a feeling or disposition.
Loving God encapsulates the fulfillment of our existence. It is the response to grace God desires.

Hi!

…not being argumentative…

…but I’ve noticed that many who proclaim certain Biblical tenets do not actually base them on Scriptures but on personalized or concocted meanings…

…for instance… to actually Love Christ means that we must surrender our will to His… as Scriptures tell us: ‘how can you claim to Love God Whom you do not Know and See while simultaneously hating your brother (man created in the image and likeness of God) who is right by your side?’ (paraphrased)

…so I’m not seeking to limit how or what we believe and do/act in God but that we clarify what it is that we mean when we put forth such exhortations as “Loving God.”

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[goout]

Hi!

…not being argumentative…

…but I’ve noticed that many who proclaim certain Biblical tenets do not actually base them on Scriptures but on personalized or concocted meanings…

…for instance… to actually Love Christ means that we must surrender our will to His… as Scriptures tell us: ‘how can you claim to Love God Whom you do not Know and See while simultaneously hating your brother (man created in the image and likeness of God) who is right by your side?’ (paraphrased)

…so I’m not seeking to limit how or what we believe and do/act in God but that we clarify what it is that we mean when we put forth such exhortations as “Loving God.”

Maran atha!

Angel

The definition of love I used is a classic and well accepted definition of love. I simply think the statement the poster made can be taken at face value with good will.

1766 "To love is to will the good of another."41 All other affections have their source in this first movement of the human heart toward the good.
41 St. Thomas Aquinas, STh I-II,26 4, corp. art.

 

[jcrichton]

The definition of love I used is a classic and well accepted definition of love. I simply think the statement the poster made can be taken at face value with good will.

Hi!

I understand your statement… I do not doubt the intentions behind the queries… I’m just used to dealing with double-speak…

Too many times people have rendered Scriptural understanding of things through hollowood’s spiritualism, which is a smorgasbord of Christianity, Eastern philosophy, new age hedonism and Americana (’…did it my way’) credence.

…the need to extract refined meaning emerges!

Maran atha!

Angel