The true meaning of Amoris Laetitia?

  • Thread starter Thread starter godisgood77
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What a seriously problematic explanation. There does not even appear to be a sign of awareness of the difference between c. 915 and 916…
 
e_c said:
What a seriously problematic explanation. There does not even appear to be a sign of awareness of the difference between c. 915 and 916…
Click to expand...
I don’t know what you mean. Could you expand on your comment?
 
Kaliaa said:
He was referencing Canon’s 915 and 916 in the Code of Canon Law. That whole section is about participation in the Holy Eucharist and the laws that govern it.

Participation in the Most Holy Eucharist
Click to expand...
Thanks. I understand that he was referencing canon law. I do not, however, understand how his claim that the Archbishop does not understand those canons when he clearly referenced a development and change to those laws. Ab Fernandez also references similar past changes to canon law. Hence my question.
 
godisgood77 said:
Thanks. I understand that he was referencing canon law. I do not, however, understand how his claim that the Archbishop does not understand those canons when he clearly referenced a development and change to those laws. Ab Fernandez also references similar past changes to canon law. Hence my question.
Click to expand...
His defense is a summary of many previous defenses, as far as I can tell (I don’t have the original article). The ubiquitous myth that c. 915 is directly about the state of one’s soul seems to be present, just as most of the other typical canards… “Development of doctrine,” “gradualism of the law” (as opposed to the law of gradualism), the conscience as an autonomous agent of justice (viz. judging one’s own public case), the mitigation of culpability due to temptation, the false analogy with coercion, the consequentialist principle of protecting children, the supposed internal forum solution, the hijacking of St. Thomas on general principles and particular situations… Many, many problems, most of which appear in the summary on Crux and all of which are likely present in the article itself and are inadequately dealt with.
 
It will be very interesting to watch the responses by the clergy to this latest article.
 
e_c said:
His defense is a summary of many previous defenses, as far as I can tell (I don’t have the original article). The ubiquitous myth that c. 915 is directly about the state of one’s soul seems to be present, just as most of the other typical canards… “Development of doctrine,” “gradualism of the law” (as opposed to the law of gradualism), the conscience as an autonomous agent of justice (viz. judging one’s own public case), the mitigation of culpability due to temptation, the false analogy with coercion, the consequentialist principle of protecting children, the supposed internal forum solution, the hijacking of St. Thomas on general principles and particular situations… Many, many problems, most of which appear in the summary on Crux and all of which are likely present in the article itself and are inadequately dealt with.
Click to expand...
Are you arguing that there is no legitimate development of doctrine? Or is legitimate doctrinal development only acceptable if it follow the line of thought of certain prelates?
 
godisgood77 said:
Are you arguing that there is no legitimate development of doctrine? Or is legitimate doctrinal development only acceptable if it follow the line of thought of certain prelates?
Click to expand...
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.
 
godisgood77 said:
cruxnow.com/vatican/2017/08/21/papal-confidante-says-amoris-critics-locked-death-trap-logic/

This is one of the best commentaries on the Pope’s of exhortation I have read. AL represents a development of doctrine and the associated praxis. Here I think we see the Pope’s intentions very clearly.

Praise God for the gift of the Pope! May he be blessed by the Spirit with continued strength and courage!
Click to expand...
MY friend, as this is a TRADITIONAL Catholic Site, I can provide by E-MAIL more than 100 OBJECTIVE documents that do not agree with your position.

God Bless Pope Francis,

Patrick
 
PJM said:
MY friend, as this is a TRADITIONAL Catholic Site, I can provide by E-MAIL more than 100 OBJECTIVE documents that do not agree with your position.

God Bless Pope Francis,

Patrick
Click to expand...
It is the tradition of the Church to obey the Vicar of Jesus Christ.

The Pope has spoken, the matter is settled.
 
godisgood77 said:
cruxnow.com/vatican/2017/08/21/papal-confidante-says-amoris-critics-locked-death-trap-logic/

This is one of the best commentaries on the Pope’s of exhortation I have read. AL represents a development of doctrine and the associated praxis. Here I think we see the Pope’s intentions very clearly.

Praise God for the gift of the Pope! May he be blessed by the Spirit with continued strength and courage!
Click to expand...
Thanks for this, its an excellent insight into AL and answers many of the confusions some laity and even Cardinals have had.

Whether they agree of course remains to be seen :rolleyes:.

It is of course about a change of discipline not of doctrine.
His basic principle is that if someone is reasonably judged to be living a life of grace then access to Communion is not intrinsically wrong.

It is also about the more mature way we need to understand and apply moral norms.
No formulation is perfect enough to justly cover all cases.
Thus the 5th C does not mean ohr soldiers are rightly called “killers”.
Hence not all irregulars are rightly pejorated as adulterers or fornicators.

Makes sense to me.
 
PluniaZ said:
It is the tradition of the Church to obey the Vicar of Jesus Christ.

The Pope has spoken, the matter is settled.
Click to expand...
The thing is, he hasn’t and it’s not. The Pope deliberately left AL vague. He talks about the possibility of divorced and remarried receiving sacraments, but he doesn’t go into detail. The Holy Father has since made his position clear in, for example, his letter to the Argentine bishops, but he has not bound the Church to any particular interpretation. As it stands, each bishop or conference of bishops is deciding for themselves. In my archdiocese, “the rule” for communion has not changed. Should I disobey my Archbishop?
 
pianistclare said:
👍

+1000
Click to expand...
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.
 
Blue_Horizon said:
Thanks for this, its an excellent insight into AL and answers many of the confusions some laity and even Cardinals have had.

Whether they agree of course remains to be seen :rolleyes:.

It is of course about a change of discipline not of doctrine.
His basic principle is that if someone is reasonably judged to be living a life of grace then access to Communion is not intrinsically wrong.

It is also about the more mature way we need to understand and apply moral norms.
No formulation is perfect enough to justly cover all cases.
Thus the 5th C does not mean ohr soldiers are rightly called “killers”.
Hence not all irregulars are rightly pejorated as adulterers or fornicators.

Makes sense to me.
Click to expand...
This is also the way I see it. The process of pastoral accompaniment in the internal forum can be used for different complex situations, not just remarriage, or civil marriages.

I appreciate the consistency that AL is likely to foster in the future when it comes to applying reason to morality.
 
twf said:
As it stands, each bishop or conference of bishops is deciding for themselves. In my archdiocese, “the rule” for communion has not changed. Should I disobey my Archbishop?
Click to expand...
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?
 
Blue_Horizon said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top