The true meaning of Amoris Laetitia?

[Rau]

…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.

I don’t believe AL relies on any suggestion of defective consent, simply the realities of those involved “now”.

Putting yourself in the shoes of the Pastor in your scenario above…what conclusion does the Pastor reach after said consultation? That there was in fact (or in all probability) no marriage? Could the Pastor allow a Church marriage then? Church rules/procedure would prevent it today. Can the Pastor administer communion? FC said yes, given objective conditions, including the turning away from objective sin. AL says yes, given broader and less objective conditions, and without denying that objective sin may remain.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

My head hurts a little!

• I presume A and B got married?
• “A states before the ceremony that should B engage in further liaisons, A would divorce her.” Not sure why this is important for you? Adultery by itself is not grounds for nullity even if somebody attempts to make it a condition of the marriage.
• “The marriage is ontologically null as there is a presumption against perpetuity” which marriage? It certainly isn’t true of the first which is still “putatively valid”.
• “Should A consult with a pastor and the pastor tells A that A may receive Communion, no doctrine has been changed” I think this is a bit of a travesty as to what the discernment process is about. It isn’t a “consultation”.
• “The first wedding did not result in a marriage as there was defective consent the day of the wedding”. I believe no priest worth his salt would ever say anything this explicit. It is not for him to determine. The most that can be objectively said is that the Tribunal process has let the guy down and the objective status of his first marriage remains undetermined which means it is legally still considered valid though it may be likely true that it is not.
• “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.” I agree, if only for the reason that the first half of your statement is a logical contradiction. Conscience is not about changing the objective nature of things.

I think the fundamental reason that couples in this situation may possibly receive Communion is two fold:
(a) the status of the first marriage is indeterminate which means an experienced Pastor may make a personal interim judgement (on grounds of lesser evidence) which, if in favour of there not being a marriage, is good enough to admit to Communion.
(b) Even if the first marriage was in his opinion likely valid the necessities and goods of the present situation and the irreversible breakdown of the first, may still allow him to allow interim Communion access if he believes the couple are in a state of grace.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

Possibly, however I am looking at a much bigger false argument, namely “the plain meaning of the commandment”.

That is a man of clay approach to the issue.
The plain meaning of “Thou shall not kill” is that soldiers are Killers with a capital K just as much as irregulars are Adulterers with a capital A.

The argument is clearly inconsistent and therefore flawed in both cases.

 

[Rau]

My head hurts a little!

Insert empathy emoji. I gave up and drew a picture. And I think there are some wording slip-ups in his post.

 

[Rau]

…
The plain meaning of “Thou shall not kill” is that soldiers are Killers with a capital K just as much as irregulars are Adulterers with a capital A.

Did you mean to put “plain” in quotes? What if we just delete the word “plain” and ask Do soldiers act contrary to the meaning of the 5th? I believe they do not.

Do D &R act (objectively) contrary to the meaning of the indissolubility of marriage? FC says yes. As I understand it, AL makes no claim to the contrary and according to the article at the top of this thread, acknowledges that the objectively sinful situation persists. AL just argues that that itself need not (in all cases) be cause to deny communion.

 

[Brendan_64]

The Pope never falls into heresy.

Perhaps, but on the other hand popes are not impeccable, they can make mistakes. Pope John XXII and his mistake regarding the Beatific Vision comes to mind.

Pope John XXII was not speaking infallibly, but expressing his own personal view, which I think he formally withdrew before he died. Popes can make mistakes, they are human like the rest of us, and like the rest of us are corrupted by original sin.

 

[otjm]

I don’t believe AL relies on any suggestion of defective consent, simply the realities of those involved “now”.

I didn’t say it did. I simply set up an issue, which is not out of the realm of real world possibilities, of an issue which would not create this disastrous approach to doctrine; rather, it is a matter of discipline or praxis.

Putting yourself in the shoes of the Pastor in your scenario above…what conclusion does the Pastor reach after said consultation?

That is the essence of my hypothetical.

That there was in fact (or in all probability) no marriage?

Someone could come back and say “Well, what if he is lying?”. That is outside what I have set up, and is entirely a separate question. However, the same question comes up weekly in Confession, where with far, far less information, the priest has to judge the penitent as to whether the penitent actually is sorry for their sin. As I set up the question, there was a wedding but no marriage.

The issue of whether or not A can receive Communion is a different question from whether or not he could have the marriage convalidated. There is some overlap, but that is not germane to the OP’s question and would require a separate thread.

Can the Pastor administer communion? FC said yes, given objective conditions, including the turning away from objective sin.

FC is addressing the second marriage where the first marriage is without defective consent (there may be other issues of impediments, we will leave those there with FC). In other words, FC presumes the validity of the first marriage and does not address what I am asking. If the first was a wedding but no marriage because of defective consent, then there is no marriage. FC addresses where there is a marriage.

AL says yes, given broader and less objective conditions, and without denying that objective sin may remain.

I freely admit to not having read all of AL. However, the presumption that is running amok is that all individuals in second marriages, who have not approached a tribunal, or have approached one and not received a decree of nullity, are presuming the first marriage is valid. I am asking a narrow question, and as it is set up, there cannot be adultery after the second wedding based on the validity of the first marriage; as I said, the first was ontologically null. It just was not adjudicated null, because the court felt or decided there was insufficient evidence.

Courts are not granted infallibility. I am positing a case where the court, rightly or wrongly, decides that they cannot issue a decree of nullity. It is a narrow issue.

Why posit it? Because it appears that no one is able to see that there may be circumstances where this (the priest, after consultation, etc. admits the individual to Communion) might apply without a violation of doctrine.

I am not suggesting that if the individual thinks, or hopes, or wishes that the first marriage is null, that they should be allowed to Communion. I am rather speaking to the case where either there has been a miscarriage of justice, or an inability to obtain justice, because there are no longer witnesses who will give testimony, and in fact the marriage was null due to a deficient consent (which covers a multitude of issues).

For that specific type of issue, then AL seems to be able to fill in the gap of acknowledging the reality that the first wedding never resulted in a marriage. And it does so without all of the cries of “Adultery!” which is what all the discussion revolves around.

[/QUOTE]

 

[otjm]

My head hurts a little!

• I presume A and B got married?

Yes

• “A states before the ceremony that should B engage in further liaisons, A would divorce her.” Not sure why this is important for you? Adultery by itself is not grounds for nullity even if somebody attempts to make it a condition of the marriage.

A stating on the day of the marriage that he would divorce her if she continued, is a defect (of consent) against perpetuity. It is a statement that "I will marry B, but I will divorce if… (the if is less important than the attitude that marriage is not permanent, come what may.)

• “The marriage is ontologically null as there is a presumption against perpetuity” which marriage? It certainly isn’t true of the first which is still “putatively valid”.

The first marriage. As a matter of fact, I have set up the case with the grounds for a decree of nullity. it is short due to space.

• “Should A consult with a pastor and the pastor tells A that A may receive Communion, no doctrine has been changed” I think this is a bit of a travesty as to what the discernment process is about. It isn’t a “consultation”.

Irrelevant to the question - Call it a process if you wish.

• “The first wedding did not result in a marriage as there was defective consent the day of the wedding”. I believe no priest worth his salt would ever say anything this explicit. It is not for him to determine. The most that can be objectively said is that the Tribunal process has let the guy down and the objective status of his first marriage remains undetermined which means it is legally still considered valid though it may be likely true that it is not.

It is not valid; it is presumed valid. And AL presumably sets up a process for determining that. So a priest worth his salt, if he is following AL, could determine that - and that determination would not be a doctrinal matter; it would be a matter of praxis given that the process in place failed.

• “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.” I agree, if only for the reason that the first half of your statement is a logical contradiction. Conscience is not about changing the objective nature of things.

It is late (3 in the morning where I am writing). Take out conscience. No on is lying. There was defective consent.

I think the fundamental reason that couples in this situation may possibly receive Communion is two fold:
(a) the status of the first marriage is indeterminate which means an experienced Pastor may make a personal interim judgement (on grounds of lesser evidence) which, if in favour of there not being a marriage, is good enough to admit to Communion.

I was answering e.c.'s post. That appears to be what AL implies; but a whole lot of people have a problem with it. Again - I was answering someone else.

(b) Even if the first marriage was in his opinion likely valid the necessities and goods of the present situation and the irreversible breakdown of the first, may still allow him to allow interim Communion access if he believes the couple are in a state of grace.

That, however, does not address the issue that it objectively is adultery. And I am not versed enough in moral theology to disagree with the prevailing opinion.

I am simply trying to posit an issue which does not get tangled up with the matter of adultery. Could the Pope set up a means to deal with first weddings where there is defective consent (which is the grounds for a decree of nullity) other than or in addition to the tribunal? Yes, he can. That is already demonstrated by a) the changes from the
1917 Code to the 1983 code, and the modification recently set by Pope Francis as to the process.

What many are suggesting is that the Pope has said that in spite of a valid marriage, someone can get divorced, remarried and receive Communion… That is a doctrinal issue. I am trying to show that there can be circumstances where there was no valid first marriage (and thus no doctrinal issue), but the current means of determining that fail.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Did you mean to put “plain” in quotes? What if we just delete the word “plain” and ask Do soldiers act contrary to the meaning of the 5th? I believe they do not.

I understand your position, in the end I think we both get to the same tip of the mountain even if our chosen paths are different so I will concede you the path point for the sake of final agreement over the destination as you also know my position.

Do D &R act (objectively) contrary to the meaning of the indissolubility of marriage? FC says yes. As I understand it, AL makes no claim to the contrary and according to the article at the top of this thread, acknowledges that the objectively sinful situation persists. AL just argues that that itself need not (in all cases) be cause to deny communion.
Objective indissolubility has always been, to me, the main issue to me also - however 99% of persons for and against understand “adultery” to mean sex sex sex.
Yet in the Bible, and even in the NT, adultery has also always encompassed unfaithfulness. Unfaithfulness is much more than sex with another, it can be platonic as well - like simply being objectively civilly married to another.

Yet even here there is a material aspect and a “formal” (ie moral) aspect. Simply being married to another does not mean formal unfaithfulness is present - though objective material/technical contradiction of Jesus’s teaching on indissolubility is.

But that is not itself enough to intrinsically deny Communion in all cases.
For a start even Divorce alone, even if freely (and therefore formally) chosen, objectively contradicts Jesus’s teaching also. That to is a mild form of unfaithfulness and therefore “adultery” in the wider Biblical sense. This is how a man divorcing his wife also makes her an “adulterer” even if she does not remarry.

So there are grades of objective disorder even at the objective level and therefore the issue of scandal, even allegedly public scandal, must also be relative rather than absolute.

This is the knub of AL I believe. So:
(1) All irregulars (active or not sexually active) are in a state of objective unfaithfulness, no one disputes that, not even AL.
(2) Grace and growth in grace can nevertheless be regularly active in such situations because the objective “gravity” clearly does not always contaminate as powerfully as in other grave matters. Especially if the couple attempt to abstain, leaving the objective gravity only in the cohabitation/remarriage which also contradicts Indissolubility teaching.
(3) If sexually active, and grace is reasonably judged to be at work, and at this time abstention is very unwise to impose, then the same wisdom present in the Vademecum (re allowing contraception) looks to apply in Pope Francis’s mind. This seems to pave the possible way for (hopefully) private Communion regardless. Inability to abstain is not in itself an indication of no firm intent to amend as the naysayers always howl. Sacramental confession is still possible.

Anyhow, that’s my quick thoughts.
In short, just as not all killers are Killers so too not all the unfaithful are Adulterers as Jesus used that term.
Which is what you just said about killing.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Yes
A stating on the day of the marriage that he would divorce her if she continued, is a defect (of consent) against perpetuity.

I think not. Civil divorce does not end a valid marriage. There are valid reasons why a couple may no longer cohabitate, adultery being one of them. However the 2nd problem is she didn’t commit adultery after the marriage according to your, now, somewhat beginning-to-unravel-as-possible-real-life scenario. So no Canon lawyer is going to let that hidden crossed fingers behind the back card play (even if the father was still alive to testify) if the wife was a good girl that way and she left him for other reasons.

The first marriage. As a matter of fact, I have set up the case with the grounds for a decree of nullity. it is short due to space.

What you actually set up doesn’t do this sorry.

Irrelevant to the question - Call it a process if you wish.

It continues to undermine the credibility of your “story” ever being real in practice. I have never been a fan of “thought experiments” because it assumes they are possible in the real world when in fact they may not be. A sort of begging of the question.

It is not valid; it is presumed valid.

Not sure why you believe I disagreed. I said “it is legally still considered valid though it may be likely true that it is not.” The correct expression is “putatively valid”.

And AL presumably sets up a process for determining that.

Of course it doesn’t. It is the role of a Tribunal to make such public findings.
The DP makes no public findings about the status of the first marriage at all.

So a priest worth his salt, if he is following AL, could determine that - and that determination would not be a doctrinal matter; it would be a matter of praxis given that the process in place failed.

I have no idea what this means or where in AL or Canon Law you believe it says that the DP (discernment process) can make any such official finding.

There was defective consent.

No. Not in the example you have provided. And even if you could come up with a more likely scenario if there are no witnesses then you are not God and cannot possibly know with any objective certainty to counter the Tribunal. If one of the couple themselves was a witness that is not enough to make a public objective finding by a Tribunal. However it may be enough to allow a DP priest to allow access to Communion. He cannot possibly make any formal or objective public finding on the objective status of the first marriage regardless. That is the jurisdiction of the Tribunal not the DP priest.

That, however, does not address the issue that it objectively is adultery.

Yes and no.
(a) To be convinced we are speaking of strict material adultery as “biologically” defined in the CCC we have to be sure the person truly had a pre-existing marriage bond. In cases where the Tribunal lets a couple down for technical reasons (which is what you clearly work from even if your actual example fails) then technical validity has to be assumed even if all experts involved are morally convinced the bond never existed.
So is the remarriage actually adultery…or only fornication? Nobody is actually certain, only technically so. Was Jesus speaking of technical adultery? I don’t think so.

(b) In fact I would go further and say Jesus wasn’t always speaking of sex when he spoke of the evils associated with “adultery” and OT divorce and remarriage. So to blindly say that the “adultery” of Jesus is wholly identified by coitus in a 2nd marriage is quite a long bow to draw in my book.

Just as its a long bow to draw to say that US Marines are all Killers and all alcoholics are the “drunkards” of St Paul who will never see heaven.

Could the Pope set up a means to deal with first weddings where there is defective consent (which is the grounds for a decree of nullity) other than or in addition to the tribunal? Yes, he can.

Yes he can, but that fairly clearly is not what the DP and Communion thing is about as I see it.

What many are suggesting is that the Pope has said that in spite of a valid marriage, someone can get divorced, remarried and receive Communion…

No he has not said that. Neither AL nor any endorsed Guidelines I am aware of has ever clearly suggested that it would be good for a couple who believed their first marriage was valid would be encouraged to receive Communion while sexually active.

That is a doctrinal issue. I am trying to show that there can be circumstances where there was no valid first marriage (and thus no doctrinal issue), but the current means of determining that fail.

I don’t think so. It is not the DP’s priest role to make a formal decision on the status of the first marriage. However, if he believes the Tribunal has let the couple down for technical reasons this may introduce enough uncertainty over the putative validity of the first marriage to effectively treat them, for the purposes of Confession and Communion, as if the first marriage did in fact not exist.

 

[PluniaZ]

Perhaps, but on the other hand popes are not impeccable, they can make mistakes. Pope John XXII and his mistake regarding the Beatific Vision comes to mind.

Pope John XXII was not speaking infallibly, but expressing his own personal view, which I think he formally withdrew before he died. Popes can make mistakes, they are human like the rest of us, and like the rest of us are corrupted by original sin.

Pope John XXII asked for feedback from others in the Church on the issue of the Beatific Vision. He did not teach heresy.

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/lutheran/hope-eternal-life.cfm

If that is the closest the Pope has come to error in 2000 years, I’ll follow every single thing the Pope says.

 

[twf]

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?

Yes, I was being rhetorical. Of course I must obey my bishop. My point was certain posters were making it seem like the Pope had definitively spoken and bound the Church to a certain position. In reality, there is significant disagreement between bishops on this issue.

 

[twf]

Pope John XXII asked for feedback from others in the Church on the issue of the Beatific Vision. He did not teach heresy.

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/lutheran/hope-eternal-life.cfm

If that is the closest the Pope has come to error in 2000 years, I’ll follow every single thing the Pope says.

He preached his position in homilies for some time before repenting of his error. He never dogmatically defined the erroneous position, of course, but as Pope he still preached it. Of course in the 14th century his daily homilies would have largely remained local. Today, every utterance of a pope is broadcasted to the whole world. That’s why it’s important we not exaggerate papal infallibility.
Another example is with climate change. I’m 100% with the Pope on this one…but here at CAF I constantly here “the pope is wrong, the Republican Party is right”…on the basis that his scientific opinions are not infallible.

 

[zjman]

Mercy

 

[PJM]

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

The Pope has spoken, the matter is settled.

ONLY WHEN the Pope teaches in FULL accord with Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium

If the POPE teaches go jump off that roof; must it be obeyed?

GBY

 

[PluniaZ]

ONLY WHEN the Pope teaches in FULL accord with Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium

If the POPE teaches go jump off that roof; must it be obeyed?

GBY

We must always obey the Pope.

Lumen Gentium 25:

" In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking."

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

Code of Canon Law:

THE ROMAN PONTIFF

Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.

Can. 332 §1. The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church by his acceptance of legitimate election together with episcopal consecration. Therefore, a person elected to the supreme pontificate who is marked with episcopal character obtains this power from the moment of acceptance. If the person elected lacks episcopal character, however, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately.

§2. If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.

Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power offer all particular churches and groups of them. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care.

§2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church. He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.

§3. No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

Saint Thomas Aquinas:

“The administration of this kingdom, therefore, is entrusted not to earthly kings, but to priests, so that spiritual and earthly things may be kept distinct; and in particular to the Supreme Priest, the successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ, the Roman Pontiff, to whom all the kings of the Christian people should be subject, as if to the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.”

[(name removed by moderator).uw.edu.pl/mdsie/Polit…%20Aquinas.pdf](http://www.(name removed by moderator).uw.edu.pl/mdsie/Polit…%20Aquinas.pdf)

Pope Boniface VIII:

“But if the highest power of all err, it can be judged only by God, and not by man.”

papalencyclicals.net/bon08/b8unam.htm

Saint Catherine of Siena:

“For divine obedience never prevents us from obedience to the Holy Father: nay, the more perfect the one, the more perfect is the other. And we ought always to be subject to his commands and obedient unto death. However indiscreet obedience to him might seem, and however it should deprive us of mental peace and consolation, we ought to obey; and I consider that to do the opposite is a great imperfection, and deceit of the devil.”

drawnbylove.com/Scudder%20letters.htm

Pope Pius II:

“Do you not know, you miserable man, that only divine authority binds the Roman Bishop? The Pope is only subject to Holy Scripture, revealed by the hand of God, and he is not bound by decrees of men. ”But we say that the pope is subject to reason, and the power of the Church is given for edification and not for destruction.” But even if you believe the Bishop of Rome to be in error, that does not give you the right to judge him, for only God can judge the Pope. No mortal man may accuse him of faults. Oh, how wrong is the opinion of many men: though they do not allow a king’s subjects to have any say against the king, they would allow it in the case of the pope even if God has given him power over all mortal men. Those stupid men are unconcerned that the Holy Apostolic Church has, from Saint Peter to this day, never been heard to teach anything that is contrary to orthodox faith. This privilege it has received from the Lord that it shall never succumb to wrong teachings for the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Let this suffice concerning your praise of the Apostolic See.”

hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01184531/document

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Yes, I was being rhetorical. Of course I must obey my bishop. My point was certain posters were making it seem like the Pope had definitively spoken and bound the Church to a certain position. In reality, there is significant disagreement between bishops on this issue.

Yes thats true. And wisely Pope Francis accordingly allows Ordinaries to follow their own consciences on the matters. That unfortunately means those Ordinaries who disagree with the new opportunities or who think their people are not spiritually mature enough to handle some irregulars receiving Communion are free to have their priests keep the status quo. Thats typical of US Guidelines I have read.
On the other hand Malta and Argentina seem to think their faithful can handle the new freedoms allowed their DP priests.

Lets face it, this is an ongoing praxis based “discussion”, even an experiment. It will work or it wont. But it will take time to see where it goes, as is the case with all family experiments.
In 10 or 50 years time it may be withdrawn. That wont mean it was a failure or Pope Francis was a material heretic.
It just means he allowed us a wonderful suck it and see opportunity to work out the answer to this very difficult matter together.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

ONLY WHEN the Pope teaches in FULL accord with Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium

If the POPE teaches go jump off that roof; must it be obeyed?

GBY

If your certain conscience tells you it is a significant matter of faith or morals, yes.

 

[Rau]

Yes, I was being rhetorical. Of course I must obey my bishop. My point was certain posters were making it seem like the Pope had definitively spoken and bound the Church to a certain position. In reality, there is significant disagreement between bishops on this issue.

The position has moved on from “lack of clarity about what he said” to some “believing that what he said is unacceptable”.

 

[Rau]

Yes thats true. And wisely Pope Francis accordingly allows Ordinaries to follow their own consciences on the matters. That unfortunately means those Ordinaries who disagree with the new opportunities or who think their people are not spiritually mature enough to handle some irregulars receiving Communion are free to have their priests keep the status quo. Thats typical of US Guidelines I have read.
On the other hand Malta and Argentina seem to think their faithful can handle the new freedoms allowed their DP priests.

AFAIK, this freedom to adopt AL process that you state above - in particular the path to communion - is not stated anywhere. Do you infer it from the manner of expression of AL or know it from something else?