1. Welcome to Mother of God Forums - A place dedicated to the Mother of God. Please feel free to join us in prayer and sharing. Please Register to start posting.
    Dismiss Notice

Dubia answered for those confused

Discussion in 'Announcements' started by smudger, Dec 28, 2016.

  1. smudger

    smudger Guest

    1. 1) It is asked whether, following the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (nn. 300-305), it has now become possible to grant absolution in the sacrament of penance and thus to admit to Holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person more uxorio without fulfilling the conditions provided for by Familiaris Consortio n. 84 and subsequently reaffirmed by Reconciliatio et Paenitentia n. 34 and Sacramentum Caritatis n. 29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in note 351 (n. 305) of the exhortation Amoris Laetitia be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live more uxorio? Answer: Yes, but only in certain cases
      2) After the publication of the post-synodal exhortation Amoris Laetitia (cf. n. 304), does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor n. 79, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, on the existence of absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts and that are binding without exceptions? YES absolutely
      3)After Amoris Laetitia (n. 301) is it still possible to affirm that a person who habitually lives in contradiction to a commandment of God’s law, as for instance the one that prohibits adultery (cf. Mt 19:3-9), finds him or herself in an objective situation of grave habitual sin (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Declaration, June 24, 2000)? Yes, but as the Catechism clearly teaches, guilt can be significantly lessed due to a variety of factors, meaning absolute mortal sin is not present. Full consent may well be lacking. "Man judges appearances, God judges the Heart"
      4) After the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (n. 302) on “circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility,” does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor n. 81, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, according to which “circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice”? Yes absolutely
      5) After Amoris Laetitia (n. 303) does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor n. 56, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, that excludes a creative interpretation of the role of conscience and that emphasizes that conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object? Yes absolutely
    2. No need for schism or confusion. Its answered!!
     
  2. Praetorian

    Praetorian Powers

    Dubia are very specifically written legal documents used by the Church meant to be answered with a simple "Yes" or "No".

    Not, "Yes, but la, la la,..."
    Or "No, but la, la, la..."

    They are designed that way for a specific purpose, to avoid the kind of convoluted answers that could be written to them if they were answered otherwise.

    They are to clarify confusion. Not to add to it.
     
  3. Praetorian

    Praetorian Powers

    Sometimes less is more :)
     
    BrianK likes this.
  4. smudger

    smudger Guest

    Just to clarify for anyone not reading the other thread, dubia do sometimes have more than yes or no. try the Pontifical Biblical Commission on the vatican website
     
  5. Dolours

    Dolours Powers

    Well, the dubia were submitted to the Pope. I reckon that the four Cardinals who submitted them won't be accepting Smudger's attempts on this forum as an acceptable response.
     
    BrianK likes this.
  6. smudger

    smudger Guest

    No. I am sure they wont, but I am also fairly sure that my answers would be more or less the same if they were ever answered.
     
  7. BrianK

    BrianK A Humble Part of the Remnant

    What a joke.
     
    little me likes this.
  8. Dolours

    Dolours Powers

    If you're that sure of yourself, why don't you send the Pope four copies of your answers and ask him to forward a copy to each of the Cardinals.
     
    DeGaulle and BrianK like this.
  9. little me

    little me Archangels

    :ROFLMAO:
     
    BrianK likes this.
  10. smudger

    smudger Guest

    My answers I am 99.9% sure are what he would give. If you knew proper theology, you would agree.Its all there in the manuals going back centuries. AS mothersuperior7 said-dont just be cheerleaders for certain traditionalist blogs. Do some research and see Pope Francis is folllwing that!
     
  11. josephite

    josephite Powers

    I would like a yes or no answer! rather than an answer that needs theologians to decipher it, because the debate would than continue I think.

    A yes or no answer, would clean a lot of dross from the crystal.
    Just my two cents worth.
     
  12. davidtlig

    davidtlig Powers

    I've only just seen this thread. I have to smile because various posters seem to have been demanding responses to the four Cardinals from Pope Francis defenders as well as the Pope himself but when someone does just that - oh its a case of 'who do you think you are?'. :D

    Josephite would like simpler answers. I think smudger's post is not in the clearest layout so please allow me to copy it in slightly clearer way (apologies if this is cheeky!):

    • 1) It is asked whether, following the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (nn. 300-305), it has now become possible to grant absolution in the sacrament of penance and thus to admit to Holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person more uxorio without fulfilling the conditions provided for by Familiaris Consortio n. 84 and subsequently reaffirmed by Reconciliatio et Paenitentia n. 34 and Sacramentum Caritatis n. 29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in note 351 (n. 305) of the exhortation Amoris Laetitia be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live more uxorio?

    • Yes, but only in certain cases

    • 2) After the publication of the post-synodal exhortation Amoris Laetitia (cf. n. 304), does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor n. 79, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, on the existence of absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts and that are binding without exceptions?

    • YES absolutely

    • 3)After Amoris Laetitia (n. 301) is it still possible to affirm that a person who habitually lives in contradiction to a commandment of God’s law, as for instance the one that prohibits adultery (cf. Mt 19:3-9), finds him or herself in an objective situation of grave habitual sin (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Declaration, June 24, 2000)?

    • Yes, but as the Catechism clearly teaches, guilt can be significantly lessed due to a variety of factors, meaning absolute mortal sin is not present. Full consent may well be lacking. "Man judges appearances, God judges the Heart"

    • 4) After the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (n. 302) on “circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility,” does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor n. 81, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, according to which “circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice”?

    • Yes absolutely

    • 5) After Amoris Laetitia (n. 303) does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor n. 56, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, that excludes a creative interpretation of the role of conscience and that emphasizes that conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object?

    • Yes absolutely
     
  13. josephite

    josephite Powers

    That is exactly what Smudger said!o_O:p

    For an answer to be
    • Yes, but only in certain cases!
    We then need a theologian to decipher the ........"only in certain cases" part! and many theologians will disagree with each other on the certain cases!

    So back to square One!:confused:

    Not so helpful David.:unsure:

    But thanks anyway.:D
     
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2016
    Dolours likes this.
  14. davidtlig

    davidtlig Powers

    And that is where the priest and the person will discern. Our faith is not a rule book, josephite. Life is not black and white. That is why we have the Church to guide us. There is nothing new here.
     
  15. josephite

    josephite Powers

    There are absolute truths David!

    And we can not just glide around these truths, willy nilly!

    Look at the result so far!

    I realise all situations are different but that is up to the all knowing love of God to determine! The all knowing Love of God in whom we trust!

    We humans need a set of rules: because truly most of us need mothers milk and not solid food, so therefore we must acquiesce to those in authority !

    You and me and probably Brian and Mac and all on the Mother of God forum are ready for and can easily digest solid food but the majority can not understand and they need mothers milk! that is; the rules for life in the catholic faith!

    Imagine a world (today) without these rules it would be absolute anarchy! because so many people today have the audacity to offend God within the confines of His Stated word and even within His Church!

    I want what Pope Francis wants! which I believe is written in Hebrews

    Hebrews 5:7-14

    7 During his life on earth, he offered up prayer and entreaty, with loud cries and with tears, to the one who had the power to save him from death, and, winning a hearing by his reverence,

    8 he learnt obedience, Son though he was, through his sufferings;

    9 when he had been perfected, he became for all who obey him the source of eternal salvation

    10 and was acclaimed by God with the title of high priest of the order of Melchizedek.

    11 On this subject we have many things to say, and they are difficult to explain because you have grown so slow at understanding.

    12 Indeed, when you should by this time have become masters, you need someone to teach you all over again the elements of the principles of God's sayings; you have gone back to needing milk, and not solid food.

    13 Truly, no one who is still living on milk can digest the doctrine of saving justice, being still a baby.

    14 Solid food is for adults with minds trained by practice to distinguish between good and bad.
     
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2016
  16. Dolours

    Dolours Powers

    What's the 0.1% doubt? Could it be that your "yes, but in certain cases" omits the list of cases you know with 100% certainty are exceptions because that certainty isn't really certain and the list is as long as a piece of string, turning the "yes" answer into a "no" or "maybe"? You're acting in persona Papa here (or whatever is the Latin equivalent) and that 0.1% uncertainty equates to souls that you are leading to eternal damnation, not just during your own pontificate but until the end of the world.

    Who was it said "let your Yes mean Yes and your No mean No. Anything else is from the evil one"?
     
    little me likes this.
  17. smudger

    smudger Guest

    My 0.1% is my way of saying I dont dare presume to suggest exactly what the Holy Father would say. However it doesnt change the fact that the answers are all correct from a theological point of view. Sadly you dont know enough about the distinctions that have to be made. Your accusations are groundless as any well respected theologian will tell you. Have you bothered to read the two chiesa espresso articles on the other thread.? It proves the Church has been doing this pastoral aproach for centuries. Once again all you can do is throw insults which just show up you lack on knowledge in this matter. Far from leading to eternal damnation, this mercy and compassion allows people of good will to think "I am not lost forever. I can make my way towards God." St Jose Maria Escriva said "As long as there is struggle, ascetical struggle, there is interior life. That is what Our Lord is asking of us."
    And just to further prove my point, would you like to explain how Joseph Ratzinger could say in Salt of the Earth (p.207) in response to the question: is the non reception of Holy Communion for the remmaried settled once and for all or still open: "The principles have been decided, but factual questions, individual questions, are of course a possibility." He goes on to state that maybe experienced local pastors could determine the invalidity of a previous marriage outside the normal annulment process." So what do you make of that? That is your 0.1% coming from the great Joseph Ratzinger. And to add further weight on p. 203 he is asked about contracepting couples who might have the idea they are "living in some sort of sin" even though they have children and dont want any more. Ratzinger says" I would say that those are questions that ought to be discussed with one's spiritual director, with one's priest, because they cant be projected into the abstract" So he is saying no they may not be in mortal sin. All the facts need to be discerned. If they are contracepting surely in your blinkered view they are in mortal sin, thereofre unable to recieve Holy Communion. Why doesnt Ratzinger say that if its so straigjt forward?
    This is real life theology inspired by the Holy Spirit and taught by the Church. Your error strew view is what the Papal theologian theologian to JP II and Benedict XVI (card. Cottier) called "brutal"
     
  18. Dolours

    Dolours Powers

    I read as far as "any well respected theologian" and decided that whatever followed was BS. The four cardinals know something about theology. Usually they are dismissed because they don't smell of the sheep or some other such nonsense but you have decided to take the route of superior knowledge. The very fact that you used the words "well respected" suggests that only theologians who agree with you are worth of respecting. Some of our most notorious heretics have been "well respected theologians".

    You couldn't answer Yes or No to the first question without a but, which means your "yes" answer is really a "no". The honest response would have been to answer "no because" and try to twist yourself into knots with multiple paragraphs explaining how absolution can be given when the penitent has no intention of refraining from the confessed sin. At least the Pope has enough cop-on to realise that he has put himself into a Catch 22 situation and is singing dumb aside from having his cronies conduct a whispering campaign against anyone who dares question him. The Stasi would have been proud of him.
     
    little me likes this.
  19. smudger

    smudger Guest

    I explained clearly that dubia can and do have more than yes or no. Interesting how you conveniently avoided explaining about Ratzinger. Of course that would mean having to admit the uncomfortable truth that you are wrong.
     
  20. Dolours

    Dolours Powers

    I didn't bother reading past "any respected theologian" because of its implication that the four Cardinals are not to be respected.

    The dubia submitted by the Cardinals can be answered yes or no. You tried answering yes which turned into a no once you added but.

    Cardinal Ratzinger didn't try to change Doctrine when he was Pope no matter what he said when he was a Cardinal. Did you know that he co-wrote a book favourable to liberation theology but grew to understand later that he had been mistaken about it? Since he did nothing to change Church Doctrine regarding unrepentant adulterers receiving Communion, he followed the Holy Spirit rather than whatever spirit is guiding Cardinal Kasper.

    Don't bother trying to pretend that you know what the Pope would answer because you don't. And don't bother pulling a superior "I understand theology and you don't" attitude with me. We're all Catholics here and until AL every Catholic on the planet from the illiterate to the best educated, having made their first Confession and received First Holy Communion knew what was required to receive the Eucharist worthily - a state of grace with sins confessed and a firm resolve to try to avoid repeating mortal sins (or sins of grave matter since "mortal" is out of fashion nowadays in the all dogs go to heaven merciful church). And every Catholic on the planet knew that adultery is a mortal sin.

    Now, nobody knows what's required or what a state of grace even means since it comes with any kind of sexual union other than the majority of Catholic marriages which, according to the Pope, are invalid. By your standards, none of the apostles would have been qualified to ask the Pope a question because the Jews, especially the Pharisees, didn't consider them "respected theologians".
     
    josephite and CathyG like this.

Share This Page