In the debate over Amoris Laetitia, many people have made reference back to Familiaris Consortio 84 where John Paul II commands that for Communion, the divorced and civilly remarried “take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.”
It is important to review what this statement is based upon so that we can understand why it cannot be changed. A post-synodal apostolic exhortation, as both of these documents are, can contain infallible statements but is not infallible in its entirety. As we can see in Amoris Laetitia, the Pope will often make specific pastoral recommendations in such documents, and pastoral recommendations can always be changed. In contrast the anathemas of an ecumenical council like Trent, are infallible.
The teaching that there is no sacramental absolution or Communion for those who are divorced, civilly remarried, and not trying to live his brother and sister is based on several fundamental truths: basic catechesis and two doctrines defined in Trent.
Basic Catechesis
I remember learning that a mortal sin requires a grave matter, full knowledge, and deliberate consent as I prepared for First Reconciliation in third grade. I don’t think any serious Catholic doubts this teaching, although there is always some debate around the edges regarding what constitutes each of the three categories, such as how strong addiction must be before it removes deliberate consent.
I also think that there is little debate that sexual relations with anyone but your spouse is grave matter.
Third, we all learned not to go to Communion if we have an unconfessed mortal sin on our soul. This links Communion with the sacrament of Confession and lets us focus on the latter because if a priest can absolve the person of their mortal sin, they can go to Communion. Trent defines this but I need not elaborate.
No Absolution Without Intention to Stop Mortal Sin
Moving on to a doctrine that Trent defined, we get to the truth that a priest cannot absolve a person who intends to commit another mortal sin. This specifically refers to an intention to sin and not just a probability of sinning.
The council of Trent defines this doctrine in several related passages. It condemns as heretical (anathematizes) anyone who “denies that for the full and perfect remission of sins three acts are required of the penitent… contrition, confession and satisfaction.” (DH 1704) In the preceding section it gives contrition a first place among those acts and “the holy counsel declares that this contrition implies not only cessation from sin and the resolve and beginning of a new life, but also the hatred of the old.” (DH 1676) It further specifies that contrition must exclude the will to sin, and declares it false to believe that the sacrament of Penance confers grace without the disposition of the penitent.
Confession is not a magic rite that automatically washes away your sins. Instead, it is a key element of our return to God after our separation from him through sin. Absolution must be preceded by a desire to avoid that sin again.
Divorce is Impossible
Finally, we have to look at Trent’s teaching on the impossibility of divorce. The doctrine of a single spouse for life has always been the norm of the Church and Trent defined it infallibly.
Trent anathematizes the belief that “it is lawful for Christians to have several wives at the same time,” (DH 1802) declaring that this prohibition is divine and thus eternal and unchangeable even by anyone or any group. It also declares all kinds of reasons that are forbidden for ending marriage. It goes so far as to call it “the perpetual and indissoluble bond of matrimony.” (DH 1797)
Thus, a person who is divorced is still married in the eyes of the Church so every sexual relation except with the one they divorced is immoral. If they remarry in a civil ceremony, this changes nothing with regards to their existing marriage but puts them in greater temptation of falling into adultery with whoever they are now civilly married to.
Nonetheless, the Church permits annulments when there was some error in the original marriage such as one of the spouses excluding an essential element of marriage like openness to children from their intention, or hiding something important like they are homosexual and using marriage as a cover. In these cases, the Church declares that the prior marriage never happened because at the moment of the marriage vows, something was not right.
It might create great suffering for some, but once the marriage vows are said and it is consummated, nothing can change the validity or indissolubility of that marriage.
Reading Amoris Laetitia in Light of Trent
Returning to the debate surrounding Amoris Laetitia, it should become clear that Trent makes it impossible for people willingly sleeping with someone other than their spouse to receive Communion. To deny or to go against Trent is to enter heresy. Thus, Amoris cannot be interpreted in opposition to Trent.
Francis would have run the draft by theologians far wiser than I, and they would have corrected him if Amoris allowed things contrary to Trent. Beyond that, the Holy Spirit also would have prevented him from publishing it if he intended to go against Trent.
Francis does emphasize mercy to the ignorant and weak as I said before, but he does not permit Communion for the divorced and remarried in a generalized sense.
It does not matter how much of a sob story or how difficult the person’s life is, the permanent nature of marriage doesn’t change. We can’t say that a paraplegic no longer has to obey the moral law because of how hard his life is or that a gay man can have homosexual relationships because it’s difficult, and nothing changes because of this particular difficult situation. We all have to bear our crosses and for some, their particular cross is more obvious.
Instead of letting people shirk their moral responsibilities, I hope the Church’s energy can be focused on strengthening them to be able to fulfill the moral law.
When we read Amoris Laetitia in line with tradition, it reaffirms Trent and John Paul II although with a new emphasis on mercy.
Note: DH refers do Denzinger-Hünnerman which is the standard reference book for older Church decrees like Trent, as a reference.
51 thoughts on “Reading Amoris Laetitia in Light of Trent”
Pingback: Does the Text of Amoris Laetitia Allow Communion for the Divorced and Remarried? Part 1 and 2 | PagadianDiocese.org
in amoris laetitia they say a couple should have a period of discernment before deciding to return to the sacraments. the only proper period of discernment in my opinion would be as long as it took for the other party to pass away
Since the Holy Spirit would not allow a pope the teaching of error, is it possible to conclude that if error exists, then he is not the pope?
Good for you! A good article!
It must be the case that Vatican II is heretical and everything since then has been an attempt to use the trappings of the “Catholic Church” to set up a one world religion. Everything is now pointing to that and the conspiracy theorists were/are correct. What to do about it? The sedevacantists seem pretty comfortable with their “answer” but it doesn’t look so good to me. We need to dump Vatican II in its entirety and pick up where we lost the thread.
Father, I really think you need to rethink this. Many folks here have made plain what the message of AL is to the world.
Your piece here fits in line with those who try to palm off the idea that “AL is orthodox and isn’t ambiguous” when by definition, the level of argumentation, debate, dispute and conflict in interpretations that rages throughout the Catholic world wholly, totally, and manifestly disproves the assertion…
1. I am not arguing it couldn’t have been clearer. Clearly it could have been.
2. The same thing happened after Vatican II even though those documents are pretty clear. I trust the Church will survive
V2 documents are plagued by ambiguity. you know that. you cannot possibly NOT know that, as they have subjected to rational {but heretical} interpretations for decades.
You display monstrous callousness.
I am a convert. I personally don’t really care much for your feelings, but I do care for my lost Protestant family and friends who are driven away from the Catholic Church by the perversity of doctrines taught in violation of the truth that exists in the faith.
You are doing nothing to demonstrate any concern for those who are misled by the ambiguity and flat out heresy that ambiguity fosters.
Or maybe you simply believe that we are all saved and none of this really matters. It’s really hard to tell.
“Returning to the debate surrounding Amoris Laetitia, it should become clear that Trent makes it impossible for people willingly sleeping with someone other than their spouse to receive Communion. To deny or to go against Trent is to enter heresy. Thus, Amoris cannot be interpreted in opposition to Trent.”
But it IS being interpreted AND implemented in opposition to Trent. And as far as I can tell, the big boss is not discouraging, but encouraging this interpretation and implementation. Did he stop the Sand Diego Bishop would recently gave permission to the divorced and civilly remarried to take communion?
Brilliant!
If we all promise to start following these really convoluted, silly rules, will god finally step in and protect children from being hurt through sexual abuse and war?
Father Matthew, you are sadly mistaken and deluding yourself if you think that AL is in line with the teachings of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Catholic Church that He Himself founded. I will pray for you and for countless prelates and faithful that are being masterfully deceived by Satan, whose only goal is to lead you all to the eternal flames of Hell where is exactly this wretched document comes from. God’s permitting will is letting all this happen for the simple reason that the Church must be purified along with us, the members of His Mystical Body. The Holy Catholic Church is undergoing Her Passion but so very few of us are noticing……Sacred Heart of Jesus, Immaculate Heart of Mary, protect us!!!
From Thomas Aquinas: Question 80, Article Four (Pt. III) of the Summa Theologica
FOURTH ARTICLE: Whether the sinner sins in receiving Christ’s body sacramentally?
We proceed thus to the Fourth Article: –
Objection 2. Further, this sacrament, like the others, is a spiritual medicine. But medicine is given to the sick for their recovery, according to Matthew 9:12: “They that are in health need not a physician.” Now they that are spiritually sick or infirm are sinners. Therefore this sacrament can be received by them without sin.
[St. Thomas then responds to this objection, stating]
On the contrary, The Apostle says (1 Corinthians 11:29): “He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself.” Now the gloss says on this passage: “He eats and drinks unworthily who is in sin, or who handles it irreverently.” Therefore, if anyone, while in mortal sin, receives this sacrament, he purchases damnation, by sinning mortally.
I answer that, In this sacrament, as in the others, that which is a sacrament is a sign of the reality of the sacrament. Now there is a twofold reality of this sacrament, as stated above (III:73:6): one which is signified and contained, namely, Christ Himself; while the other is signified but not contained, namely, Christ’s mystical body, which is the fellowship of the saints. Therefore, whoever receives this sacrament, expresses thereby that he is made one with Christ, and incorporated in His members; and this is done by living faith, which no one has who is in mortal sin. And therefore it is manifest that whoever receives this sacrament while in mortal sin, is guilty of lying to this sacrament, and consequently of sacrilege, because he profanes the sacrament: and therefore he sins mortally.
Reply to Objection 2. Every medicine does not suit every stage of sickness; because the tonic given to those who are recovering from fever would be hurtful to them if given while yet in their feverish condition. So likewise Baptism and Penance are as purgative medicines, given to take away the fever of sin; whereas this sacrament is a medicine given to strengthen, and it ought not to be given except to them who are quit of sin.
“sensation” should read “cessation” in the 8th paragraph….
Submitted to the editor… I guess you realized I used voice recognition software. 😉
Amoris Laetitia IS Pope Francis’ magesterium/teaching /doctrine that is in opposition to the Church’s Magisterium/Teaching/Doctrine
1) pastoral recommendations CANNOT be “pastoral” if they flow from erroneous doctrine.
2) “pastoral recommendations” that are based on divine law CANNOT be changed . Cf. Familiaris Consortio, 84 (November 22, 1981) | John Paul II.
3) CONCERNING THE RECEPTION OF HOLY COMMUNION BY THE DIVORCED AND REMARRIED MEMBERS OF THE FAITHFUL is not just “pastoral recommendations” or just “discipline”, but also “doctrine” cf. 5. here http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_14091994_rec-holy-comm-by-divorced_en.html
***
Simple argument to show Pope Francis’ magesterium/teaching /doctrine that is in opposition to the Church’s Magisterium/Teaching/Doctrine cf. In the Wake of #AmorisLaetitia, will ‘A Simple Prayer Book’ be Revised? (A Response to Dr. Edward Peters: ‘I do not think that Francis changed any doctrines in Amoris’) – http://wp.me/p2Na5H-X3
“pastoral recommendations CANNOT be “pastoral” if they flow from erroneous doctrine.”
100% agreed and neither Francis nor JP2 ever proposes erroneous doctrine.
Do misquotes of Jesus count?
Try the replacement of God with man in paragraph 161 of Evangelii Gaudium on for size.
I’m sorry, but Pope Francis does propose erroneous doctrine. In Amoris Laetitia he does it by being purposely vague and ambiguous. It is precisely because of its ambiguity that AL cannot be Magisterial. But his recent (2/24/17) rejection of the very direct words of Christ on divorce and remarriage is astonishing in its clarity. see http://www.news.va/en/news/pope-francis-in-god-there-is-both-justice-and-merc
As Catholics we must show unity, love, and humbleness to the Vicar of Christ, Pope Francis. However, in charity, we must also be honest, too. I mean no disrespect to him. I love and pray for Pope Francis.
3 professors from the JP2 institute, Archbishop Chaput, the Western Canadian Bishops, the Argentinian bishops and I disagree with you. https://cruxnow.com/commentary/2017/02/16/pastoral-handbook-amoris-says-answer-no-communion/
The confusion that is reigning in the Church is undeniable. You must be aware of Pope Francis’ endorsement of permitting adulterers to receive communion to the Argentine Bishops. Now the Bishops of Malta cite AL to do so. http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/pope-francis-amoris-laetitia-allows-holy-communion-for-remarried-divorcees
Open rejection of Church teaching has always existed. If you want to discuss the Western Canadian Bishops, when will they reject the Winnipeg statement?
The words of Christ on divorce are clear and direct. It is also obvious what Pope Francis said on 2/24/17.
1. The Argentinian bishops do not do that. The confusion stems where they talk about individuals who want to live chastity but the other person (other parent of the children) does not and permit under conditions that 1 person can. That distinction between 1/2 of the pseudocouple who is trying to live chastity vs. the two of them was unfortunately lost on many English-speaking commentators. (The exact rules for this are still a matter of theological debate but the Argentines are within orthodox Catholic thought on the issue.
2. The current Western Canadian bishops are not the ones who issued the Winnipeg statement 50+ years ago. That’s like condemning modern American politicians for allowing slavery or Jim Crowe.
1. I’m sorry Father, but I do not understand “permit under conditions that 1 person can.” Are you saying that a person is permitted to commit adultery or receive communion in such a state?
2. The Winnipeg statement still stands, it has not been rescinded. Jim Crowe laws have been removed and thoroughly denounced for quite a while now. Since the current Western Canadian Bishops did not issue the Winnipeg statement does not mean they don’t support it.
1. This is a complex issue needing an article not a quick comment to fully explain.
2. It was a 1-time statement and recently the Canadian bishops make a contrary statement in support of Church teaching including Humanae Vitae. You seem to be misinformed on this.
1. Then I have a very simple question for you: can those in adultery receive communion? If so, are there any other mortal sins whereby communion is allowed?
2. Please provide any reference for the Canadian Bishops rescinding the Winnipeg statement.
1. It is not a mortal sin if it is not chosen. Being raped is not a mortal sin. Some situations involve a sufficient degree of coercion or fear to not have free the free consent requirement of a mortal sin; some argue the other person only participates materially which can be morally justified. (I personally trust the first line of reasoning here far more than the second but I’m presenting moral opinions.)
2. http://www.cccb.ca/site/images/stories/pdf/humanae_vitae_en.pdf it took 20 seconds in Google.
End of debate as I don’t have unlimited time.
End of debate, Father, because the open doors of “could be” presented by the soft language of AL invites all manner of confusion. That is the problem.
Can AL be interpreted in the light of Tradition, sure. Can it also be interpreted as a novel approach that guts the nature of Sacramental Marriage, absolutely.
Again, that’s the problem. But not a new one. “Pastoral” could-be is much like the last ditch effort to redefine words when caught out. Think Bill Clinton floating, “… that depends on what “is” is.” Not the kind of lesson folks need from leadership.
1. Adultery = voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not his or her spouse. Rape or loss of free will is not voluntary.
2. The document you’ve supplied does not rescind the Winnipeg statement. It doesn’t even mention it.
I was hoping you would have answered my questions. You’ve answered your own.
1. Then if you understand the Argentinian bishops, you won’t have a problem as they are referring to loss of freedom.
2. Bishops conferences are consultative so if the recommendation changes, there is no need to rescind a previous recommendation. The Holy See and dioceses are legislative so they may need to rescind things.
1. The Argentinian Bishops fail in two ways: first, there is no loss of freedom, so it is adultery. Secondly we are not morally justified to commit evil so that something good may result.
2. The bishops conferences are much more than consultative. Please read Apostolos Suos, paragraph 21. The only remedy is to rescind the Winnipeg statement.
1. The Argentinian bishops do not do that. The confusion stems where they talk about individuals who want to live chastity but the other person (other parent of the children) does not and permit under conditions that 1 person can. That distinction between 1/2 of the pseudocouple who is trying to live chastity vs. the two of them was unfortunately lost on many English-speaking commentators. (The exact rules for this are still a matter of theological debate but the Argentines are within orthodox Catholic thought on the issue.
2. The current Western Canadian bishops are not the ones who issued the Winnipeg statement 50+ years ago. That’s like condemning modern American politicians for allowing slavery or Jim Crowe.
The entire Church and ALL these disagree with you. Cf. Pro Domine et Ecclesia
et Pontificecontra #AmorisLaetitia; Petitions: To the Pope; To all Catholic Cardinals; To all Catholic Bishops – http://wp.me/p2Na5H-HOIt is clear you haven’t grasped the arguments presented to you and that which is plain that is coming from Pope Francis.
***
#AmorisLaetitia: My Papa Offers Me A Mistress – http://wp.me/p2Na5H-rK
…I’d venture that Father Schneider grasps the argument. He just “chooses” to view AL in a certain way while feigning helplessness about how others may interpret it.
From what I understand, Pope Francis has his documents checked by the CDF who regulary offer many comments and corrections, but he ignores them. There is also a Dominican theologian who holds the office of Theologian of the Pontifical House, who has the same job, but I assume his input is mostly ingorned. This is standard practice, or has been up to now. If the input of these people were taken into accoount, we wouldn’t have the mess we now have in the Church.
As for this statement: ” Beyond that, the Holy Spirit also would have prevented him from publishing it if he intended to go against Trent”, it would seem that the author has a “deus ex machina” concept of the action of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Chuch. The Holy Spirit seems, according to that conception, to have failed in his duty in the case of Pope Honorius in the 7th century and the monothelistic controversy when this Pope was mistaken, and later condemned by the Third Council of Constantinople. Likewise, in the case of Pope John XXII and the question of what is called intermediate escathology, or the fact that the souls of the just enjoy the Beatific Visiion immediatley after death, which was denied by this Pope. He repented on his deathbed. The action of the Holy Spirit is transcendent and doesn’t annul human freedom and the possibility of error by Popes. The traditional teaching expounded by theologians like St. Robert Bellarmine and Francisco Suarez is that if a Pope were to fall into formal heresy, he would ipso facto cease to be Pope. In the case of AL, it is not a matter of formal heresy.
I would argue that in the case of John XXII, the Holy Spirit prevented him from publishing this authoritatively. In the case of Honorius, there are several options as to why this was not teaching direct error (either an orthodox reading of his letter as saying the 2 wills never disagreed or arguing it wasn’t so official). We know the Holy Spirit will prevent the Pope from teaching error in a formal and official manner: that’s Catholic doctrine and isn’t a Deus ex Machina version of it.
So the condemnation of Honorius’ never happened?
C’mon, get a copy of Denzinger and just read the darn thing. He was CONDEMNED. Why are the historical FACTS of the case ignored?
The same thing that needs to be done with this hideous Pope.
Ambiguity itself was condemned in the case of the Synod of Pistoia and CCC states this clearly the need for clarity in catecheses, with BOTH the joys and the demands of the Gospel being clearly taught.
The pretending and wordgames and sophistry is exhausting. Those who keep at it eventually lose all integrity and legitimacy.
He was condemned but read any defense of papal infallibility and you’ll find the arguments I wrote. Take the Catholic Answers tract for example: https://www.catholic.com/tract/papal-infallibility
That’s just it, Father. The argument you present says nothing about the details of his condemnation. It didn’t even address the FACT of his CONDEMNATION. Either the modernist view of Honorius is right and the 3rd Council of Constantinople AND the later Leo II were WRONG, or the modernist view is wrong. It can’t be both ways or neither. One is right and the other is wrong.
My copy of Denzinger {para 561-563, etc} has this issue in depth. The Denzinger 563 quote of Leo is DEVASTATING AND CRYSTAL CLEAR.
An online assessment which I believe is a very sound assessment is here:
http://catholicnewslive.com/story/559761
And what is more, Honorius was primarily condemned for NOT defending the faith.
Does ANY of this touch a nerve or ring a GONG for us now as we suffer through this Bergoglian circus?
In the case of this Bergoglio fellow, we have something that a fine reading, or even a cursory reading of the dogma of infallibility exposes; the dogma addresses TEACHING. But it nowhere addresses the issue of a Pope who simply spews baseless and utterly absurd mental farts couched in terms of personal reflection and opinion. I submit that it is a fact that deciphering just what is actual teaching by this guy is impossible. Indeed, even AL by its own introduction seems to pretty clearly remove itself from being a “teaching” document. It is a reflection on the synod, one mental belch after another, and from what reports we have since, an inaccurate one at that. It does not even use the normal “we”, but rather “I” and it purports to be a personal reflection. Thank God!!
Father, we have a Pope who rabidly condemns all sorts of economic systems ALL THE WHILE PUBLICLY ADMITTING HE KNOWS ALMOST NOTHING ABOUT ECONOMICS and yet that doesn’t stop him from continuing to do it!
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/14/pope-francis-confesses-he-knows-little-about-the-economy/
He condemns weapons makers while he is protected by Special forces who are armed with the very weapons he condemns!
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2014/06/11/pope-francis-arms-manufacturers-are-merchants-of-death/
He condemns WALLS…while he lives behind and is protected by them!
We have a Pope who affirms our “Mother” to be “Mother Earth”. {Laughable Laudato Si}. Sorry, but the last time I checked, the Blessed Virgin is the Mother of the Church and indeed, the Mother of all believers.
As for AL, the most devastating passage isn’t even the footnote that is most commonly repeated, but rather, it that found right slam at the beginning in paragraph 3:
“3. Since “time is greater than space”, I would make it clear that not all discussions of doctrinal, moral or pastoral issues need to be settled by
interventions of the magisterium.”
WHAT????????????
Discussions of doctrine and morality can be settled OUTSIDE of the magesterium?????? Just exactly WHERE Pope Bergoglio? In the mind of Cardinal Kasper? In the dark cloistered bedroom of Cardinal Daneels?? WHERE?
To state that AL does not encourage and support heresy is profoundly absurd. The ENTIRE WORLD aside from a few desperately “orthodox” Catholic prelates and priests who are clinging to the notion that a Pope “can’t be a heretic” is in agreement that it opens the door to all sorts of practices that were heretofore condemned by the Church! Just ask the heretics and the non-Catholics…they can tell exactly what it says and means while “orthodox” Catholics make nonsense of themselves by trying to defend it!
Ambiguity is NOT a papal virtue and leaving Holy Mother Church to be raped by sodomites and adulterers is not in the papal job description. Indeed, I flip open my missal and there stands the “6 Precepts of the Church” with the last one being made a total farce by this Pope {marriage}. Turn the page and we see the “Nine Ways of Being an Accessory to Another’s Sin”. Do I even have to list them or is it obvious what is happening under the leadership of this Pope and his sodomite supporting friends and allies?
I HOPE we are at least in agreement that have a TREMENDOUS problem in this man.
And we haven’t even touched on his misquote of our Blessed Lord in a document that is arguable a teaching document, a misquote that appears to have as its baby daddy a similar misquote found in paragraph 24 of Gaudium et spes.
I submit that the Bergoglio pontificate has clarified one thing at least. It has finally settled the centuries-old argument between the supporters of Bellarmine and Suarez……
That’s just it, Father. The argument you present says nothing about the details of his condemnation. It didn’t even address the FACT of his CONDEMNATION. Either the modernist view of Honorius is right and the 3rd Council of Constantinople AND the later Leo II were WRONG, or the modernist view is wrong. It can’t be both ways or neither. One is right and the other is wrong.
My copy of Denzinger {para 561-563, etc} has this issue in depth. The Denzinger 563 quote of Leo is DEVASTATING AND CRYSTAL CLEAR.
An online assessment which I believe is a very sound assessment is here:
http://catholicnewslive.com/story/559761
And what is more, Honorius was primarily condemned for NOT defending the faith.
Does ANY of this touch a nerve or ring a GONG for us now as we suffer through this Bergoglian circus?
In the case of this Bergoglio fellow, we have something that a fine reading, or even a cursory reading of the dogma of infallibility exposes; the dogma addresses TEACHING. But it nowhere addresses the issue of a Pope who simply spews baseless and utterly absurd mental farts couched in terms of personal reflection and opinion. I submit that it is a fact that deciphering just what is actual teaching by this guy is impossible. Indeed, even AL by its own introduction seems to pretty clearly remove itself from being a “teaching” document. It is a reflection on the synod, one mental belch after another, and from what reports we have since, an inaccurate one at that. It does not even use the normal “we”, but rather “I” and it purports to be a personal reflection. Thank God!!
Father, we have a Pope who rabidly condemns all sorts of economic systems ALL THE WHILE PUBLICLY ADMITTING HE KNOWS ALMOST NOTHING ABOUT ECONOMICS and yet that doesn’t stop him from continuing to do it!
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/14/pope-francis-confesses-he-knows-little-about-the-economy/
He condemns weapons makers while he is protected by Special forces who are armed with the very weapons he condemns!
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2014/06/11/pope-francis-arms-manufacturers-are-merchants-of-death/
He condemns WALLS…while he lives behind and is protected by them!
We have a Pope who affirms our “Mother” to be “Mother Earth”. {Laughable Laudato Si}. Sorry, but the last time I checked, the Blessed Virgin is the Mother of the Church and indeed, the Mother of all believers.
As for AL, the most devastating passage isn’t even the footnote that is most commonly repeated, but rather, it that found right slam at the beginning in paragraph 3:
“3. Since “time is greater than space”, I would make it clear that not all discussions of doctrinal, moral or pastoral issues need to be settled by
interventions of the magisterium.”
WHAT????????????
Discussions of doctrine and morality can be settled OUTSIDE of the magesterium?????? Just exactly WHERE Pope Bergoglio? In the mind of Cardinal Kasper? In the dark cloistered bedroom of Cardinal Daneels?? WHERE?
To state that AL does not encourage and support heresy is profoundly absurd. The ENTIRE WORLD aside from a few desperately “orthodox” Catholic prelates and priests who are clinging to the notion that a Pope “can’t be a heretic” is in agreement that it opens the door to all sorts of practices that were heretofore condemned by the Church! Just ask the heretics and the non-Catholics…they can tell exactly what it says and means while “orthodox” Catholics make nonsense of themselves by trying to defend it!
Ambiguity is NOT a papal virtue and leaving Holy Mother Church to be raped by sodomites and adulterers is not in the papal job description. Indeed, I flip open my missal and there stands the “6 Precepts of the Church” with the last one being made a total farce by this Pope {marriage}. Turn the page and we see the “Nine Ways of Being an Accessory to Another’s Sin”. Do I even have to list them or is it obvious what is happening under the leadership of this Pope and his sodomite supporting friends and allies?
I HOPE we are at least in agreement that have a TREMENDOUS problem in this man.
And we haven’t even touched on his misquote of our Blessed Lord in a document that is arguable a teaching document, a misquote that appears to have as its baby daddy a similar misquote found in paragraph 24 of Gaudium et spes.
I submit that the Bergoglio pontificate has clarified one thing at least. It has finally settled the centuries-old argument between the supporters of Bellarmine and Suarez……
You’re now going all over the place and I don’t have time to respond to every point so we’ll end it it here. Sorry I can’t be of more assistance.
Right.
So how about picking ONE. Just one.
Go ahead. Try it.
Just one.
Take your pick.
I’ll keep entirely to the topic of your choice.
Your article presents a bankrupt argument. Your defenses are full of holes. You have presented nothing here but a capitulation to the effeminate way out.
No, sir, we have a real problem, and pretending as you do that it doesn’t exist just doesn’t solve that problem, no matter how much you {or I for that matter, for your approach is the easier one for sure} might wish it does.
Right.
So how about picking ONE. Just one.
Go ahead. Try it.
Just one.
Take your pick.
I’ll keep entirely to the topic of your choice.
Your article presents a bankrupt argument. Your defenses are full of holes. You have presented nothing here but a capitulation to the effeminate way out.
No, sir, we have a real problem, and pretending as you do that it doesn’t exist just doesn’t solve that problem, no matter how much you {or I for that matter, for your approach is the easier one for sure} might wish it does.
You’re now going all over the place and I don’t have time to respond to every point so we’ll end it it here. Sorry I can’t be of more assistance.
Pingback: Why Amoris can’t change Communion - Catholic Crossing
It was not Pope Francis’s intention to go against Trent when he published AL. His intention was to allow his Cardinals and Bishops to go against Trent without correcting them.
The proof of this is simple: It takes less than a minute to write yes or no five times on a piece of letterhead before handing it to a personal secretary for public clarification in light of Tradition, not close to a year and counting.
Bingo.
And with the pathetic, effeminate priests and bishops we are awash in, the use of the text to advance heresy was a forgone conclusion.
It is very, VERY difficult to see the difference between Episcoplianism and Catholicism under Bergoglio. Currently, it cannot be said that doctrine is unified {catholic} throughout the world. And it promises to get far worse very soon.
To all the Francis fanbois: if his writings in Amoris laetitia are error free and truly represent authentic Catholic teaching, then the Church has been wrong on this matter for 2013 years. It’s that simple.
And you know what that means, right? If the Church was wrong about this, what else was it wrong about?
Hideously patronising.
In what sense?
They’ve already moved on to include unmarried cohabiters. Next, obviously, are homosexual couples and polygamists. The same logic applies to all of these cases. It is interesting that the Holy Spirit prevented Pope Francis from formally teaching in AL what he has made clear that he really wants. It is sad that we have so many highly placed clerics who do not believe in what Christ has taught through his Church and want to overturn it.