The true meaning of Amoris Laetitia?

[PluniaZ]

Jesus Christ said:

“47 Again the kingdom of heaven is like to a net cast into the sea, and gathering together of all kind of fishes.
48 Which, when it was filled, they drew out, and sitting by the shore, they chose out the good into vessels, but the bad they cast forth.
49 So shall it be at the end of the world.”

Matthew 13:47-49

A lot of the concerns people have expressed with Amoris Laetitia seem to be along the lines of this parable, worrying that the Church is using too big a net that will include too many “bad fishes”.

Jesus told us not to worry about it. The bad fishes will be sorted out at the end of the world.

Let us all pray that we ourselves will not be included among the bad fishes who are discarded.

 

[pianistclare]

I don’t think the Pope has settled anything definitively. That’s why the implementation of AL varies considerably from diocese to diocese. In my archdiocese, it has been clearly reiterated that couples in irregular unions must live as brother and sister if they are to receive. The provisions now in place in Argentina, Malta and Germany, or in certain US dioceses such as Chicago, do not exist here… I do not believe my bishop is in open rebellion against the Pope.

What people fail to realize , is that Bishops and Pastor have been making decisions based on PARTICULAR circumstances for decades.
You just don’t know about it because it either didn’t pertain to you personally or anyone you knew. I’ve worked in parishes for years. Priests make these decisions. They really do, and their Bishops and Archbishops know all about it. Plenty of people get told to live as brother and sister. But some, who came out of horrible situations clearly beyond their control are counseled according to their situation.
This is the reality.
This is what he is addressing. The fact that some think this is intolerable is another argument.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Jesus Christ said:

“47 Again the kingdom of heaven is like to a net cast into the sea, and gathering together of all kind of fishes.
48 Which, when it was filled, they drew out, and sitting by the shore, they chose out the good into vessels, but the bad they cast forth.
49 So shall it be at the end of the world.”

Matthew 13:47-49

A lot of the concerns people have expressed with Amoris Laetitia seem to be along the lines of this parable, worrying that the Church is using too big a net that will include too many “bad fishes”.

Jesus told us not to worry about it. The bad fishes will be sorted out at the end of the world.

Let us all pray that we ourselves will not be included among the bad fishes who are discarded.

And just before Matthew 13:47-49 is the following from Matthew 13:24-30

The Parable of the Weeds Among the Wheat.
He proposed another parable to them. “The kingdom of heaven may be likened to a man who sowed good seed in his field.
While everyone was asleep his enemy came and sowed weeds* all through the wheat, and then went off.
When the crop grew and bore fruit, the weeds appeared as well.
The slaves of the householder came to him and said, ‘Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? Where have the weeds come from?’
He answered, ‘An enemy has done this.’ His slaves said to him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’
He replied, ‘No, if you pull up the weeds you might uproot the wheat along with them.
Let them grow together until harvest; then at harvest time I will say to the harvesters, “First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles for burning; but gather the wheat into my barn.”’”

 

[godisgood77]

What I am saying is that AL does not propose an authentic development of doctrine.

All the pieces of the “D and R puzzle” have been there a long time. It takes great care, courage, and detachment to put them together, which plenty of clergy have done for centuries. What we have currently is something else.

The thought that temptation reduces culpability is a particularly pernicious error and could be the root of the whole thing… Most likely along with the rubber stamping of real decisions in pastoral ministry that have already been made.

Fair enough… I get that there are some that disagree on how best to handle “D and R”.

However, I disagree with you… I believe this is a fully legitimate development of doctrine and practice as does Ab Fernandez and Cardinal Schonborn have explicitly declared.

Many others good Catholics are happy to accept the Holy Father’s challenge to be more, to be better.

As Ab Fernandez states -** What Francis calls for in Amoris “is very demanding,” concludes Fernández. It is far easier to apply black-and-white norms, without taking into account complex realities and concrete lives, but “that comfortable rigidity can be a betrayal of the heart of the Gospel.”**

 

[Dempsey1919]

Amoris Laetitia is problematic because it contradicts the Faith of the Church. Cardinal Burke and other brave men are standing up in defence of the Faith. This document will eventually be clarified and possibly repealed. I’m sure of that.

 

[MaryT777]

It will be very interesting to watch the responses by the clergy to this latest article.

That was my first thought as well.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Not sure if I should make a new thread.

But for us following along, with limited ability and knowledge of theology,

Can someone who really knows. - and in simple words

1. State the part of AL in issue
2. State why it’s in issue
3. State if it truly is in issue or if it’s been mis interpreted.

Please no cut n paste answers, just in own words.

 

[Rau]

Not sure if I should make a new thread.

But for us following along, with limited ability and knowledge of theology,

Can someone who really knows. - and in simple words

1. State the part of AL in issue
2. State why it’s in issue
3. State if it truly is in issue or if it’s been mis interpreted.

Please no cut n paste answers, just in own words.

There are countless threads on this.

AL includes in Chapter 8 a conclusion by the Pope that there can be circumstances where a (Catholic) person who is divorced (no annulment) and then remarries (not in the Church obviously) can be admitted to Communion, and without having to separate or to commit to living with their civil partner like “brother and sister”.

In 1981, a similar document by Pope JP II (Familiaris Consortio) states that the Church continues its practice of denying Communion to such persons unless they commit to living as Brother and Sister. [That is, they may remain together (due to circumstances), but must live as brother and sister.]

Since publication of AL, various Church leaders have taken different positions:

1. Nothing has Changed. FC continues to apply;
2. AL changes the rules.
3. AL teaches error.

It is not an easy matter to unravel. While the rule in FC is expressed as a discipline (not doctrine, thus changeable), the principal it upholds (expressed in FC) is rather lofty:

"However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. …

Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they “take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.”

…By acting in this way, the Church professes her own fidelity to Christ and to His truth. At the same time she shows motherly concern for these children of hers, especially those who, through no fault of their own, have been abandoned by their legitimate partner."
[Quoting JP II, FC]

JP dealt with the situation where the parents “cannot” separate - by saying: live as brother and sister. Francis proposes to take a step forward and deal with cases where eliminating sexual relations “cannot” be done.

Francis is suggesting that the fundamental prerequisites for reception of communion may in fact be present despite the objectively sinful situation in which the persons finds themselves. Not all his brother bishops are in agreement.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Is it explicitly devolved, or does what we see happening merely resemble devolution?

And in any case, I would have thought what is devolved is the decision case be case, not an a priori decision affecting all irregulars.

Clearly local bishops and conference Guidelines are de facto setting limits to the range of possibilities priests may exercise in the Disc process.
That is simply an observed given.

Some Dioceses (especially US) are fearful and so business as usual, others not so much (evil Malta).

 

[e_c]

What a strange question.
If Pope Francis opens up Communion possibilities but devolves the decision to local ordinaries why on earth would you think you have any right to disobey your ordinary?

Because sometimes bishops fall into heresy, schism, and encourage sacrilege.

The pope is the guardian of the Faith, not an innovator. He has no right to innovate. See Bellarmine and Thomas on the issue.

 

[e_c]

Fair enough… I get that there are some that disagree on how best to handle “D and R”.

However, I disagree with you… I believe this is a fully legitimate development of doctrine and practice as does Ab Fernandez and Cardinal Schonborn have explicitly declared.

Many others good Catholics are happy to accept the Holy Father’s challenge to be more, to be better.

As Ab Fernandez states -** What Francis calls for in Amoris “is very demanding,” concludes Fernández. It is far easier to apply black-and-white norms, without taking into account complex realities and concrete lives, but “that comfortable rigidity can be a betrayal of the heart of the Gospel.”**

I invite you to explain how it is a development (such as along Newman’s 7 notes criteria) and not a reversal.

 

[PluniaZ]

Because sometimes bishops fall into heresy, schism, and encourage sacrilege.

The pope is the guardian of the Faith, not an innovator. He has no right to innovate. See Bellarmine and Thomas on the issue.

The Pope never falls into heresy.

Do you not know that the Apostolic See has never been heard to teach anything contrary to the true faith? Let this suffice concerning your praise of the Apostolic See. - Pope Pius II

 

[Rau]

I invite you to explain how it is a development (such as along Newman’s 7 notes criteria) and not a reversal.

Precisely what doctrine is at issue here?

 

[e_c]

The Pope never falls into heresy.

Do you not know that the Apostolic See has never been heard to teach anything contrary to the true faith? Let this suffice concerning your praise of the Apostolic See. - Pope Pius II

I agree… And yet I also agree with St. Robert Bellarmine on the possibility of the loss of office. If the pope publicly teaches heresy, he loses the office. We came close to this at least twice… There was Honorius and monothelitism, and also John XXII on the beatific vision prior to the general judgement.

Precisely what doctrine is at issue here?

A great question. I am wondering too, what specifically might be being “developed.” AL has touched a very deep nerve… The D and R proposal threatens the unchanging doctrine regarding three sacraments, the plain understanding of the 6th commandment, the constant practice of c. 915 and 916, the infallible principles of the doctrine of sufficient grace, the clear teaching on the role of conscience with regard to human acts, the clearly implied corollary regarding the interaction between conscience and the rightful court of law, and basic moral theological foundations (viz. consequentialism).

 

[Rau]

A great question. I am wondering too, what specifically might be being “developed.” AL has touched a very deep nerve… The D and R proposal threatens the unchanging doctrine regarding three sacraments, the plain understanding of the 6th commandment, the constant practice of c. 915 and 916, the infallible principles of the doctrine of sufficient grace, the clear teaching on the role of conscience with regard to human acts, the clearly implied corollary regarding the interaction between conscience and the rightful court of law, and basic moral theological foundations (viz. consequentialism).

An exposition of these issues would make for an interesting set of threads.

 

[otjm]

I invite you to explain how it is a development (such as along Newman’s 7 notes criteria) and not a reversal.

I don’t profess to be a Canon lawyer, nor a theologian, but I will give you one example.

Without repeating all of what I posited in a different thread:

A, as of the date of the marriage, and for some time previously, has suspected B to have engaged in a number of sexual liaisons.

A expresses to A"s father, and to B’s brother, that A has had concerns re: b’s history, to which B’s brother admits “she has been a wild one.” A states before the ceremony that should B engage in further liaisons, A would divorce her.

Years pass, and B files for divorce (not A). A subsequently remarries in what, for all appearances is an invalid marriage.

A’s father has died.

A applies for a decree of nullity; however, A’s only witness is B’s brother, who suddenly has vowed fealty to sister B and refuses to provide testimony.

A, with no witnesses, follows through with the case and the tribunal state there is insufficient evidence as their decision.

The marriage is ontologically null as there is a presumption against perpetuity. However, A cannot provide evidence sufficient to convince the tribunal. Therefore, A is presumed to be validly married to B, and the second marriage invalid.

Amoris Latitia did not provide an alternative in place of a trial before the tribunal. There is a presumption that if a tribunal does not issue a declaration of nullity, that what they do is say the marriage is valid. They don’t declare the marriage valid: if there is insufficient proof, everyone - the original couple and the Church - are back in the position that the marriage is presumed valid. Additionally, it my be possible one or the other of the couple could try the case anew, under a different theory of defective consent; that would not be possible if there was a decree of validity.

Should A consult with a pastor and the pastor tells A that A may receive Communion, no doctrine has been changed. The first wedding did not result in a marriage as there was defective consent the day of the wedding. The fact that a tribunal may not feel there is sufficient evidence does not change the ontological fact of the defective consent on the wedding day. The doctrine is not damaged or changed by a finding and decree of nullity due to an ontological fact of defective consent any more than it would be by a tribunal that does find sufficient evidence of defective consent. No marriage is no marriage; so the first wedding resulting in a divorce is a matter of civil law, not ecclesiastical law.

It may be that the Church is saying that inability to provide sufficient evidence cannot be overcome by a properly formed conscience as to the ontological reality, but I don’t find any such language anywhere so far in the discussions. All discussions appear to presume that there is no defective consent.

If the reality is different then it would appear that no doctrine has been contravened.

So it may be that no doctrine that is being developed; but rather praxis which is being expanded to a limited degree.

As an aside, I don’t have a dog in the fight; I am simply observing.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Because sometimes bishops fall into heresy, schism, and encourage sacrilege.

The pope is the guardian of the Faith, not an innovator.

Quite right, and he has clarified and applied the principles of our unchanging Faith for new times never seen by either Aquinas or Bellarmine .

Why would you with your lay status, lack of theology and pastoral experience (to say nothing of the charism possessed by Pope Francis) dare to personally and publicly judge otherwise?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The D and R proposal threatens the unchanging doctrine regarding three sacraments, the plain understanding of the 6th commandment, the constant practice of c. 915 and 916, the infallible principles of the doctrine of sufficient grace, the clear teaching on the role of conscience with regard to human acts, the clearly implied corollary regarding the interaction between conscience and the rightful court of law, and basic moral theological foundations (viz. consequentialism).

What a load of airy fairy nonsense.

Lets start with “the plain understanding of the 6th commandment.”

Do you think that US soldiers daily contradict the plain understanding of 5th?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I agree… And yet I also agree with St. Robert Bellarmine on the possibility of the loss of office. If the pope publicly teaches heresy, he loses the office.

Why does anyone here need to refute the personal hypothesis of a lone saint?

You do realise that Bellarmine also held that geocentrism was De Fide?
Powerful guy, but not always insightful.

His view on the Papacy isn’t tradition, it isn’t Magisterial (strange that ), its just another personal opinion … that happens to suit your purposes. Its a nothing sorry .

Unless of course you can find a Magisterial document that backs this view - but I have never seen one though am open to being surprised.

 

[Rau]

…Lets start with “the plain understanding of the 6th commandment.”

Do you think that US soldiers daily do the same with the plain understanding of 5th?

I think that’s the wrong line of attack. We agree that a soldier knowingly killing in battle (just war presumed) is not sinning. But as I recall from the article at the top of this thread, AL does not suggest there is no objective sin in the case of the D & R.