Theologians & Scholars Formally Request Correction of Amoris Laetitia

Some comments on the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia - The joy of love and the consternation of theologians

2016-07-19 L’Osservatore Romano

I remember coming across a cartoon in a French newspaper a while ago. I think it was inL’Aube. Several theologians, each sitting atop his own little hill, were looking out toward the horizon in search of the Christ. Down in the valley, some children had already found Jesus. He took them by the hand and was walking among the theologians, none of whom recognized the Lord. The theologians were looking off into the yonder while Jesus was right in their midst.

I’ve often thought of this cartoon while reading comments concerning Amoris Laetitia and, more broadly, the Pontificate of Pope Francis. The sensus fidei of the Christian people immediately embraced and followed him. But some of the learned class seem to have trouble understanding him. They criticize him and portray him as out of harmony with the Church’s tradition, and more specifically, out of step with his great predecessor, Pope John Paul II. They seem disconcerted by the fact that they find no support in Francis’s teaching to affirm their own theories, and they do not want to depart from their intellectual framework and listen more closely to the surprising freshness of Francis’s message. The Gospel is always ancient and always new. That is precisely why it is never old.



Let’s try to read the most controversial part of Amoris Laetitia through the eyes of a child. The most controversial part is where the Pope says that, in certain conditions and in certain circumstances, some divorced and remarried people may receive the Eucharist.

When I was a child I studied the Roman Catechism before making my First Holy Communion. The Catechism was written by a Pope who was undoubtedly anti-modernist: Saint Pius X. I remember him saying that to receive the Eucharist a soul had to be free from mortal sin. He also explained what a mortal sin is. In order for a sin to be mortal, three conditions are necessary. It must be an intrinsically evil act or gravely contrary to the moral law: that is, it has to be grave matter. Sexual relations outside of marriage are without doubt gravely contrary to the moral law. This was the case before Amoris Laetitia, this is still the case in Amoris Laetitia, and it will naturally be the case after Amoris Laetitia. The Pope has not changed the Church’s doctrine.

But Saint Pius X tells us more. For a sin to be mortal, two other conditions are necessary beyond grave matter. It is also necessary that there be full knowledge of the evil of the act committed. If one is convinced in conscience that the act is not (gravely) evil, the action will be materially evil but not imputed to the person as a mortal sin. Moreover, the acting subject must give deliberate consent to the evil action. This means that the sinner must be free to act or not to act: that is, he must be free to act in one way rather than another, and he must not be coerced by a fear that obliges him to do one thing when he prefers another.

Can we imagine circumstances in which a divorced and remarried person finds himself or herself living in a situation of serious sin without full knowledge or deliberate consent? Perhaps a woman was baptized but never truly evangelized, entered marriage superficially, and then her spouse abandoned her. Perhaps a man entered a union with someone he was helping in a moment of serious crisis. He sincerely loved her and became a good father (or a woman a good mother) for the sake of the children the spouse had from the first marriage.

You might suggest to such a person that he or she live with his or her mate as brother or sister. But what if the partner refuses to do so? Perhaps, at some point in his or her tormented life, a person such as this encounters the beauty of faith and is truly evangelized for the first time. Or perhaps the first marriage is truly invalid, but there is no reasonable access to an ecclesiastical tribunal or any reasonable way to present evidence that demonstrates the invalidity. There is no reason to keep listing examples because we don’t want to travel down the road of infinite casuistry.

But what does Amoris Laetitia tell us about such cases? Perhaps it would be better to begin with that the exhortation does not say. It does not say that remarried divorced persons can tranquilly receive communion. The Pope invites divorced and remarried persons to undertake (or continue walking along) the path of conversion. He invites them to question their conscience and to find help from a spiritual director. He invites them to go to confession and to be open about their situation. He invites penitents and confessors to walk the path of spiritual discernment. The Apostolic Exhortation does not say at what point along that path they can receive absolution and approach to receive the Eucharist. It does not say so because the variety of situations and human circumstances is too vast.

The path the Pope proposes to divorced and remarried persons is exactly the same the Church proposes to all sinners: go to confession, and the priest, once he has considered all the circumstances, will decide whether to give you absolution and admit you to the Eucharist or not.

Again, there is no doubt as to whether the penitent is living in an objective situation of grave sin, except in the limited case of an invalid marriage. Whether he or she is carrying the full subjective responsibility and is at fault remains to be seen. For this reason, he or she should go to confession.

 

continued....

Some claim that for the Pope to say such things contradicts the great battle waged by John Paul II against moral subjectivism. The battle lines were drawn in the encyclical Veritatis Splendor. Moral subjectivism means that the goodness or evil of human action depends on the intention of the agent. According to moral subjectivism, the only per se good is a good will. Therefore, in order to judge the action, we must look at the consequences desired by the person performing the act. According to this subjective view, any action can be good or bad depending on the circumstances that accompany the action. Pope Francis, in perfect harmony with his great predecessor, tells us that some actions are bad in themselves (adultery, for example), regardless of the circumstances that accompany them and the intentions of the one performing them. Saint John Paul II never doubted, however, that circumstances influence the moral evaluation of the one performing the action, rendering the agent more or less culpable of the objectively evil act he or she commits. There is no circumstance that can render an intrinsically evil act good, but the circumstances can increase or diminish the moral responsibility of the one who performs the act. This is precisely what Pope Francis is talking about in Amoris Laetitia. Thus there is no “ethics of circumstance” in Amoris Laetitia, but rather the classic Thomistic balance that distinguishes between the judgment of the act and the judgment of the one performing the act, in which case attenuating or exonerating circumstances need to be considered.

Other critics see a direct opposition between Familiaris Consortio (n. 84) and Amoris Laetitia(n. 305, and the notorious note 351). Saint John Paul II says that divorced and remarried persons cannot receive the Eucharist, while Pope Francis says that they may in certain cases. How could this be anything but a contradiction?

Yet we must read the text more deeply. Once upon a time, divorced and remarried persons were excommunicated and excluded from the life of the Church. That kind of excommunication disappears from the new Code of Canon Law and Familiaris Consortio, and divorced and remarried persons are now encouraged to participate in the life of the Church and to give their children a Christian upbringing. This was an extraordinarily courageous decision that broke from an age-old tradition. But Familiaris Consortio tells us that the divorced and remarried cannot receive the sacraments. The reason is that they are living in a state of manifest public sin and they must avoid giving scandal. These reasons are so strong that any attenuating circumstances were rendered inconsequential.

Now Pope Francis tells us that it is worth considering such circumstances. The difference between Familiaris Consortio and Amoris Laetitia lies completely in this. There is no doubt that a divorced and remarried person is objectively in a situation of grave sin; Pope Francis does not simply advocate that such a person be admitted to Communion, but, like all sinners, to confession. There, he or she will relate all the eventual attenuating circumstances and will hear from the confessor whether and under what conditions he or she can receive absolution.

Saint John Paul II and Pope Francis clearly do not say the same thing but neither do they contradict each other on the theology of marriage. Rather, they are exercising the divinely granted Petrine power of loosening and binding in different ways and in different historical circumstances. To understand this better, let us consider the following question: is there any contradiction between the popes who excommunicated divorced and remarried persons and Saint John Paul II who lifted that excommunication?

The popes who preceded him always knew that some divorced and remarried persons could be living in God’s grace due to various attenuating circumstances. They were well aware that the ultimate judge is God alone. But they nevertheless insisted on excommunication to reinforce within the conscience of their flock the truth of the indissolubility of marriage. It was a legitimate pastoral strategy in a largely homogenous society at that time. Divorce was an exceptional situation, the divorced and remarried were very few, and sadly, by excluding from the Eucharist even those who in realty could have received Communion, they were defending the faith of the people.

Now divorce is a much more frequent phenomenon and there is the risk of mass apostasy if the divorced and remarried abandon the Church and no longer give their children a Christian education. We no longer live in a homogenous society. It is much more heterogeneous and fluid. The number of divorced persons has greatly increased as well as those who are in “irregular” situations but subjectively may be in a state of grace; hence the need to develop a new pastoral strategy. For this reason, popes have decided to change not divine law but the human laws that necessarily accompany it, given that the Church is a human and visible entity.

Do the new directives create problems and risks? Of course they do. Is there a risk that some will approach Communion sacrilegiously and not in a state of grace? If so, they will eat and drink their own condemnation.

But didn’t they old norms also include risks? Was there not the risk that some (or perhaps many) were lost because they were deprived of the sacramental support they had a right to? It is up to individual episcopal conferences, individual bishops, and in the final analysis, to individual Christians to adopt the correct measures to maximize the benefits of this pastoral line of thinking and minimize the risks. The parable of the talents teaches us to accept the risks and to have faith in mercy.

By Rocco Buttiglione , The Endowed Chair of John Paul II in Philosophy and the History of European Institutions

http://www.news.va/en/news/some-comments-on-the-apostolic-exhortation-amoris

 

David,

Thanks for the post and being the faithful catholic that you are. I guess we are all wired differently, and I thank God for that. I have been wired by God to be a right-winger, whether being rich or poor, young or old. Lately I have been repeating the dialogue Jesus had with Peter, do you love me three times and then I say, Jesus you know that I love you, after I know I have betrayed him. I put myself at his feet for his mercy because I know I need it.

Anyway, I take this theologian story in different ways. Yesterday I posted a question and answer between the pope and a young African reporter asking questions about AL. I liken the African church, the reporter as to the young children playing and finding Christ and the German cardinals, the despicable Cardinal Daneels, rest of the cabal as the old theologians looking down for Christ and can't find him.

I have been separated from my wife of 30 years for two years now. We had 6 children together. I do not want to be separated. She is a practicing catholic. I do not want a divorce. Her mother married a catholic man who had 5 kids, got divorced and had an annulment and married her mother. I have been faithful to her my whole life. She wants a divorce. Now she can point to this bs of a document and my own pope is undermining my marriage. How is that for a real-life example not taken into account.

To think this whole exercise with the synod on the family was really all about married and divorce is sickening. The world is burning up and we have a pope who can only think about global warming and who am I to judge, breeding like rabbits (where is this done anyway), married and divorced, etc. Thankfully he is also into divine mercy but give me a break.

Maybe I am swinging more into the protestant camp, I now can see why South America is losing millions of catholics yearly to other religious groups.

 

Thank you Josephite. I too love the old ways but, like you, not when they are used defame the Pope and to divide the Church.

I am convinced you are right about Our Holy Father and his promotion of mercy. This is what he is trying to refresh in the minds of good living Catholics. Good thinking Catholics understand this.

I have already had one email and one PM in support of my defence of the Pope. They too disregarded Padraigs insulting dismissal of my comment as a 'rant'. I don't mind being insulted.

I do mind the Holy Father being falsely accused of heresy and a forum written in the name of The Blessed Mother being used to promote this erroneous and scurrilous opinion.

I simply do not have time nor frankly the inclination to unthread lengthy antagonistic diatribes from Remnant but I will refer to the last paragraph of Brian's post that suggests that Church opposition to Abortion is not total. That shows Remnant in its true darkness.

I will return to this with the requested unthreading.

Meanwhile I will address Brian's initial quote with a response based on that in the Washington Post about personnel being policy.

"They have the presence to intimidate and dazzle ....with a cacophony of "if you know what we know" to dilute ideological zeal with a status quo mindset."

Pope Francis has always been clear about his distaste for those who see no room for improvement and whose obsession with intrigue and gossip halt the advance of truth and justice and mercy. This is the real "conversation killer" - that which blocks dialogue with those who long for truth and a better way and those who long to find their way back home.

 

Pope Francis has always been clear about his distaste for those who see no room for improvement and whose obsession with intrigue and gossip halt the advance of truth and justice and mercy. This is the real "conversation killer" - that which blocks dialogue with those who long for truth and a better way and those who long to find their way back home.

You mean like when Pope Francis calls practicing catholics who disagree with him pharisees and hypocrites?

 

You are a true Catholic suffering and offering your pain in atonement for the salvation of souls.

I admire you and commend you for defending your sacramental marriage. God honours such faithful witness to the truth. What God has joined man cannot separate.

Jesus Christ could not have been any clearer.

I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.

Jesus the Incarnate word has spoken His Word. He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.

Either we believe Christ was the incarnate Word or we reject His words and make Him out to be a liar.

Christ is the Way the Truth and the Life and His words have life, eternal life.

Your temporal sufferings are nothing compared to the joy that awaits you in the eternal heavenly Kingdom.

 

Words, words, words by Rocco Buttiglione, words without power because they are mere human words.

Words that would justify publicly 'married' same sex 'couples' receiving communion.

Words that would justify paedophiles and all other unrepentant perverts and reprobates eating at the table of the Lord.

Words that invites the crowd to follow the wide road and ignores the commands of the Lord to enter by the narrow gate and to follow Him by the narrow road that leads to salvation.

I prefer to listen to the words of the Incarnate Word.

I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.

What joy to read the words of the Incarnate Word.

 

I too have been thru marriage, divorce and annulment taking it all the way to paying extra for the services of a canon lawyer assiciated with ROTA to ratify the tribunals decisions. I felt the same way as you. I know the horrendous pain of the loss of my wife and of my step children. I pray that you fare better than I did in coping with it all. I nearly went insane. But I know now that the decisions were right and fitting. I can only share my experience. My priest suggested that I pray my wife and I would discover new life in the ashes of our marriage. Maybe akin to the new eyes that Joey got. Your case may be different. For what it is worth my heart goes out to you. I would not wish that pain on my worst enemy.

On a lighter note - some here seem to be of the opinion that "nearly" does not cut it.

 

Sad this debate continues to exist.

The Holy Father understands this battle is about souls. That should be the starting point for all debates and arguments. And, we practice Catholocism, for our personal journey...in union with our Brothers and Sisters. We don't practice Catholocism to judge others and the Pope. Even though sin is universal...it has many "IFS" for it to be a sin. In other words, a sin is a sin but you need to have some internal truths as well as knowledge for the action or inaction to be a sin. It's not as black and white as the theocrats believe. So yes, I do believe there are Pharisees among us. A Pharisee uses the law to judge. A Catholic uses the law for his/her personal journey.

May Gods Will be Done

 

Ahh, America Magazine has the pope's back too. What a relied his loyal "defenders" don't stand alone in their martyrdom.


http://www.americamagazine.org/issue/vatican-strikes-back-critics-joy-love
Vatican Strikes Back at Critics of 'The Joy of Love'
The Vatican is striking back at conservative critics of Pope Francis' landmark document on family life, ratcheting up its defense of the pope with new vigor as bishops begin implementing the document around the world.

The Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano on Wednesday carried a lengthy essay by an Italian Catholic historian insisting that Francis' "The Joy of Love" was absolutely in line with his predecessors and church doctrine on the thorny issue of whether divorced and civilly remarried Catholics can receive Communion.

Earlier this month, the Vatican-approved magazine La Civilta Cattolica ran an interview with Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn in which the Vienna archbishop pointedly rejected conservative claims that Francis' work didn't count as an authoritative teaching document.

Both articles upped the ante in the increasingly divisive theological and ideological battle sparked by "The Joy of Love," and were published on the eve of Francis' trip to Poland, where the Jesuit pope will symbolically deliver the document to the deeply conservative Polish church at a youth rally next week.

When it was released in April, "The Joy of Love" immediately sparked controversy because it opened the door to civilly remarried Catholics receiving Communion. Church teaching holds that unless these divorced and remarried Catholics obtain an annulment—a church decree that their first marriage was invalid—they cannot receive the sacrament, since they are seen as committing adultery.

Francis didn't create a church-wide pass for these Catholics, but suggested—in vague terms and strategically placed footnotes—that bishops and priests could do so on a case-by-case basis after accompanying them on a spiritual journey of discernment.

The conservative criticism was swift.

American Cardinal Raymond Burke, a figurehead for archconservatives who was removed by Francis as the head of the Vatican's supreme court, insisted that the document wasn't part of the church's teaching magisterium but rather was a personal reflection on meetings of bishops about family matters.

"The personal, that is, non-magisterial, nature of the document is also evident in the fact that the references cited are principally the final report of the 2015 session of the Synod of Bishops and the addresses and homilies of Pope Francis himself," Burke wrote in the National Catholic Register.

Schoenborn rejected Burke's claim in his interview with Civilta Cattolica.

The document, Schoenborn said, "is an act of the magisterium that makes the teaching of the church present and relevant today."

Italian Cardinal Carlo Caffarra, another leading conservative, has criticized the document as vague and confusing, and denied that it opened the door to Communion, since doing so would contradict previous church teaching on the indissolubility of marriage.

Francis' own doctrine czar, German Cardinal Gerhard Mueller, concurred with Caffarra, saying the pope would have been more clear if he had intended such an opening. Mueller argued in a May 4 speech in Spain that decisions about whether someone can receive the sacraments cannot be arrived at purely in the realm of individual, private discernment.

"A privatization of the sacramental economy would certainly not be Catholic," he said.

In Wednesday's Osservatore Romano, Italian historian and politician Rocco Buttiglione said the church has always taught that there can be cases in which the faithful might not believe themselves to be in a state of mortal sin, or might not be fully responsible for it, which can mitigate their culpability.

"The path that the pope proposes to divorced and remarried is exactly the same that the church proposes to all sinners: Go to confession, and your confessor, after evaluating all the circumstances, will decide whether to absolve you and admit you to the Eucharist or not," he wrote.

Buttiglione's argument, featured on the front page, marked a shift in the Vatican's defense of Francis' document, confronting the criticisms head-on rather than just praising the pope's text.

The initiative could signal a more concerted campaign by the Vatican to ensure that the "The Joy of Love" is interpreted as Francis intended. Already, conservative Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput has said that divorced and civilly remarried Catholics can only receive Communion in his archdiocese if they abstain from sex and live as "brother and sister."

 

Yes I suppose in some cases that is precisely what I mean but in case this is used against the pope (or me) I cannot recall its exact context. I presume he was talking about those who place more importance on the letter of the law than the spirit of the law, those who suppress the Spirit and stifle God's word.

The Pharisees converted the law into a burden, into chains and prisons and a means to manipulate and control rather than a means to free and enlighten. It won't be long before we are enlightened. I suggest 2018 at the latest. But things will accelerate long before that. I pray that we endure.

 

Do I detect yet another little sarcastic rant directed at me Brian at the start of your comment. Keep it coming. It's just more to offer up from this old martyr. I know I don't stand alone but my comrades are true Catholics not media maniacs hell bent on justifying their view point. I know you have used the ignore button on me but others will see this.

 

Please God the Polish bishops will stand firm against this BS emanating from the Vatican and see it for what it is - German money buying the Blessed Sacrament to keep rich Germans ticking the RC religion box on their tax forms.

 

Joe C. and Picadillo - you share a heavy cross. Thank you both for your witness. I will keep both of you in my prayers.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled programming!

 

When I was seven, I was invited to come to a home of a school friend and to stay the night there, over a weekend. Unbeknown to me, the father of that family had just deserted the wife and the chidren and gone to live in Australia, leaving them nothing but a pile of debts to pay, in their poverty.

The mother of the family had invited me over so that her small daughters would be momentarily distracted from their misery by my company. I remained close to that mother and her daughters all through my childhood, and that mother became a second mother to me. She never remarried, but remained a divorced and deserted catholic wife. I doubt there were any grounds for anullment. Her husband had simply been a philanderer and a gambler who's car could be seen parked outside the homes of various women in broad daylight when one would have expected him to be at work.

My friend's mother was already seriously ill when her husband had left her - she had a form of Lymphoma and remained on steroids for the rest of her life. She also remained on an invalids benefit and thankfully the city council of our small city was kind to her and housed her and her children in a house for the underpriveledged. This was one source of consolation for that family because it was a new home and clean and bright, a home they could be proud to live in and proud to invite freinds to.

The husband never came back until his body was reduced to ashes in an urn.


So the deserted wife lived alone, with her two daughters, went to Mass many times per week, and remained in good standing with the Catholic Church.

The deserted wife lived completely dependant on the company of her 2 daughters until they grew up and left her also, moving to Australia to seek their fortunes, to return occasionally, and to finally put their mother in to rest home care when she developed Alzheimers, and became but a little living skeleton covered with a layer or two of skin.

She once told me, when I was a teenager, that she knew on her wedding night that she had made a terrible mistake, because on that night, her husband threw one of the wedding presents at her in some kind of drunken rage. And she knew at that moment that she had been deluded by his charms and flattered by his attentions and that she had made a terrible mistake - but the vows had been made and the marriage consummated. So though it was over before it had begun, she seemed to be condemned to a life of illness and abandonment.

The Pastors of souls, (of which the Holy Father is one) become the intimate witnessess of such tragedies. It took me a whole lifetime to learn piecemeal what all had gone on in that poor woman's marriage - some of it I did not learn until the urn of ashes came back from Australia and I was present at the burial and the wake, along with the family of this once devestatingly handsome man. His own brothers seemed only to know him as a great sports hero of the Celtic Rugby Club. But the pastors of the Parish would have known so much more of the sad story of that poor woman's life, yet she was not free to marry again. How they must have greived for her. The Holy Father is trying to make a way, in what seems to be a desert, for Catholics such as these.

 

No, he isn't. The Holy Father has already made it easier for ladies such as this to get an annulment. If her marriage was valid, then nothing the Holy Father can do can un-marry her. The Holy Father is providing cover for European Bishops who had already been giving Holy Communion to remarried divorcees prior to the Synod. He is also providing cover for Bishops who see no harm in people in homosexual unions receiving Communion because they don't really consider it to be a sin.

Are you seriously suggesting that Pope Francis is more merciful than Jesus who said that any man who marries a woman who has been put away causes her to commit adultery? Jesus provided no wriggle room on marriage.

Eugenio Scalfari, the pope's atheist friend and favourite journalist, stole a march on all the Bishops and spin doctors when he summed up the purpose and result of the Synod after his chat with the Pope last October http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/11/bombshell-pope-to-his-favorite.html There were all sorts of denials, protestations, calls to wait and see, even suggestions that Mr. Scalfari made it all up, but it turned out that Mr. Scalfari was spot on. Can you imagine Jesus using Caesar's herald to make his plans known to the disciples?

 

Lumena,
With her many and incredible sufferings, this Holy woman you speak of, would have helped Our Lord save many souls! Possibly even her Husbands!!

Now thats the power of true and real love!

Love is an act of the will and acceptance of suffering, is Love!

When asked 'how much should one give?'..........Mother Theresa says..........'Give until it hurts, and than continue to give'

 

Why is it that co-habitating and remarried people get to walk away from the Cross? Gay people are not allowed to be married and co-habitate. Priests do not get to marry. People who have diseases and infirmities have to carry them the rest of their lives. Yet for some reason people who choose to live in sin should get a free pass? I don't get the reasoning. People are choosing to put their relationships over God.

Who am I to judge the laws of God?

 

Dolours, can you provide evidence that the Holy Father has made it easier for poor women like this to obtain an annulment? There is only one way a married person can be validly remarried in the eyes of the Church: if the marriage contract, according to canon law, is found to be null and void. Only in this finding can the marriage be considered to be one that is not binding for life. This has not changed. What has changed is the accessibility to the investigative process and the bureaucratic excesses that accompany it and unnecessarily prolong and complicate its agony.

What Pope Francis is trying to bring about is a realistic and authentic attitude of welcome and encouragement to such suffering souls with the assurance that they will always be part and parcel of the life of the Church and that they can contribute to its grace and growth by conforming to its norms. What the pope is trying to bring about is greater compassion, not compromise: conversion, not conflict.

The Pope is very clear as to what is the right and only way to approach the altar for those in sin. Everything else is conjecture and even conjuring by subversive lobbies who abuse his Message of Mercy to their own ends. Have you read his homilies on repentance? They are easily accessible on the internet. He is very clear in them. Pope Francis is not providing cover for corrupt bishops, sacrilege or homosexual communion. It does not take a canon lawyer to understand the good intention and instruction of the pope. A child could grasp it if presented honestly. Only his enemies pervert his proposals.I do not care if clever cardinals disagree with me. Their arguments neither convince me nor contain the weight of his authority. This is not a rant nor am I going to quote chapter and verse on the truth that is treasured and taught by the Holy Father - again, for those who wish to seek it can be easily found.

Below is an extract from a comment that recently came to me: again I cannot give the source but

"Just remember, Joseph, that the satan is the only dark mastermind. Humans in his service are always disposable tools to him. There are secret societies, but they are not run by masterminds. They are run by self-absorbed pathetic dweebs…most of whom couldn’t dump water out of a boot with directions printed on the heel. They are vacuous and banal…often useful to the satan for a short period, then spit out and mangled by him when their usefulness is up. We often get ourselves all worked up by these vast dragons of our imagination…but when you see them, you realize they are just little lizards. But there is a dragon that uses them opportunistically – the satan. Keep focused on Christ and all will be well."

No matter how someone describes the process of election, by the Church’s own law, a validly elected Pope IS the Vicar of Christ and the 2nd statement, in particular, spells out clearly what His Holiness’ role entails: FULL, SUPREME and IMMEDIATE POWER to GOVERN the CHURCH. No matter how we opine about him, no matter how much fear we have about him, based on the apostasy that has developed everywhere, Pope Francis remains the Roman Catholic Pontiff and he HAS NEVER and WILL NEVER declare false dogma. If we believe he is capable of doing so, we, in effect, profess that we don’t believe in the promises of Jesus Christ contained in Matthew 28: 18-20 (see below) and in Matthew 16:18 - And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. God simply never lies.


Pope Francis - Vicar of Christ

Rev. John B. Wang, PhD, JUD


1. Pope Benedict XVI announced his resignation on the morning of Feb. 11, 2013 effective at 8 PM local time, Feb. 28, 2013. He did this freely and properly in accordance of Canon 332 §2. So, the See of Peter was vacant starting from that time.


2. Pope Francis was duly elected on March 13, 2013 by a majority of two-thirds of votes cast by 115 Cardinals. He accepted the election in accordance with Canon 332 § 1. Jorge Mario Bergoglio became the 266th Roman Catholic Pontiff and acquired full, supreme, and immediate power to govern the Church as Vicar of Christ from that day.


3. To be a Roman Catholic, one must accept the legitimately elected Pope as the head of the Catholic Church.


God has never, in the history of the Church allowed a Pope to be a heretic. Each Pope has been guided by the Holy Spirit in matters of faith and morals. “”And Jesus came and said to them, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.’”(Matthew 28:18-20) We can see from these words Christ was most certainly present at the conclave. The Power of the Holy Spirit was invoked in prayer by the Cardinals and this same Spirit of Truth guides the Holy Father so that he cannot declare false dogma. However, popes are human beings and they can abuse free will and fall into temptation and commit personal Sin. Each and every person, including clergy, has three enemies: the devil, the world and the flesh. Hence we have seen photos of His Holiness on his knees going to confession in the Vatican.


That said, this is a fact: Pope Francis has never declared anything against any article of faith. His main objective is dialoguing with sinners, just as Jesus did, in order to convert them. This approach is not understood by many. In the future, looking back in history, all will understand him better. It will become clear that Pope Francis is justified in doing what he is now doing.

These following St. Vincent de Paul quotes characterize Pope Francis very well, particularly in the ways the Holy Spirit is guiding him by declaring this Jubilee Year of Mercy:

The Church teaches us that mercy belongs to God. Let us implore Him to bestow on us the spirit of mercy and compassion, so that we are filled with it and may never lose it. Only consider how much we ourselves are in need of mercy.

AND

We ought to deal kindly with all, and to manifest those qualities which spring naturally from a heart tender and full of Christian charity; such as affability, love and humility. These virtues serve wonderfully to gain the hearts of men, and to encourage them to embrace things that are more repugnant to nature.

 

classic Nick Bottom spoof according to a friend.