That headline is misleading. Cardinal Muller has not been replaced. The Pope's opinion in Amoris Laetitia remains his personal opinion. No matter how clever Cardinal Schonborn is he is not a one man magisterium and no matter how much the Pope admires him, Cardinal Schonborn plus the Pope are not a two man magisterium.
I was comparing the use of the law regulating mortal sins in general since that approach is what I think the interviewee here was bringing up for discussion. It is a case of ongoing mortal sin in both cases of my examples where the original choices are each marred for some limiting reason that inevitably leads to regrettable life situations for both. Even though there are the same regulations for mortal sin outlined in the catechism the one example's, given here, original choice is easily mitigated, not once, but over and over as per the conditions for mortal sin but still allows for the obviously, via human nature, ongoing repetition of same sin to continue while not being permanently cut off from the Eucharist. One would have to require that the person so effected by the influences of the chemical dependency created by the original bad choice with awareness, to be completely cured (which obviously could not be absolutely predicted) knowing that otherwise his pattern is to fall again and again to these influences, giving scandal, before he/she can receive the Eucharist. A guarantee is expected in both situations therefore if there is the same approach to mortal sin in general. At that point in this person's tested life it is highly unlikely to abide by such orders and therefore to be probable that he/she would just continue to get permission to receive the Eucharist by "doing the best that he can" with the help of the sacrament of penance but still not permanently cut off from the Eucharist even if he/she was not able to live with the "never again" order. Now then if the divorced and remarried person also attempted to live as directed, as bother and sister, but also kept falling into what would be considered then mortal sin, but with permission, under those at least intended fulfillment of conditions laid down, to receive the Eucharist....what then would be the difference if this remarried person also just continued to confess between falling over and over again in order to continue receiving the Eucharist as well....as permitted in other circumstances that effect family life?? I think the interviewee here was attempting to apply the same general guidelines for mortal sin for everything considered to be a life situation that involves mortal sin which can continue. It was the application of the same rules to every situation considered to be in mortal sin....not finding similarities of one category of mortal sin. That is why I think he mentions this: The Pope says that now the divorced and remarried can go to confession, starting a path of discernment with the priest. As is done in every confession, for every sin, the priest must evaluate whether all the conditions exist for a sin to be considered mortal. To those of my colleagues who uttered strong words against Amoris laetitia I should mention that St. Pius X - not exactly a modernist Pope - in his Catechism recalled that mortal sin requires a grave matter, but also full awareness and deliberate consent, that is, full freedom to assume total responsibility for what I did.” ......“Of course something has changed! But neither the morality nor the doctrine on the indissolubility of marriage have changed. The pastoral discipline of the Church is changing. Until yesterday, for the sin committed by the divorced and remarried, there was a presumption of total guilt. Now even for this sin the subjective aspect will be evaluated, as is the case for murder, for not paying taxes, for exploiting workers, for all the other sins we commit. And then also these real world conditions mentioned by the interviewee that obviously Francis is very well acquainted with by his own real world experience of such: There are huge masses of the baptized who are not evangelized. One might say, but in these cases, there is the process of matrimonial nullity. Yes, this is true, although we must remember that in many parts of the world it is not as easy to access the ecclesiastical courts and it is not always so easy to find out the truth. We live in a world of wounded families, of wounded people, people who may find themselves in situations which they are unable to escape. You have to evaluate everything.... Above my pay grade. It's just an attempt by the interviewee I guess to require the same parameters for mortal sin to be applied to everything categorized as mortal sin across the board and if those parameters as given in the catechism are for ALL mortal sin then this one in particular should have the same applicable questions applied to it as well.
I read recently (a poster called Roepke) that unless a pope makes a pronouncement that he specifically and categorically asserts as contradicting orthodoxy, this pronouncement should be interpreted as supporting orthodoxy, regardless of the intentions of the particular pope. As Pope Francis hasn't come right out and claimed that Jesus Christ is wrong and he is right to contradict Him, his exhortation must be understood to be in support of the words of Our Lord no matter how difficult it might be to understand them. Since the language of Pope Francis is so vague and imprecise, we would all be better off to ignore his writings and take what we need from the Tradition of the Church. After all, there must have been vast amounts of papal scribblings over the centuries that hardly anyone bothered with.
The same parameters for mortal sin are already applied to the divorced and remarried who commit to live as brother and sister yet fall from time to time. The difference now is that there is no requirement for them to give a commitment to try not to sin again. What the interviewee is describing is an allowance for the divorced and remarried that is not given to people struggling with addiction or for people who struggle with any recurring mortal sin. I don't believe that there is any Catholic alive who is ignorant of the Church's teaching that all sex outside a valid marriage is sinful and that a remarriage without an annulment is not a valid marriage. Even if there is a remote chance that they aren't aware, one visit to the confessional should be enough to inform them and if they refuse to accept the Church teaching they shouldn't be receiving Communion. As to the part about it not being always so easy to find out the truth, that's what tribunals are for and the Pope has made it easier for people to access marriage tribunals.
What the interviewee is describing is an allowance for the divorced and remarried that is not given to people struggling with addiction or for people who struggle with any recurring mortal sin. How so when he is asking for the same requirement to discover the truth of the matter in all cases of mortal sin. And the addicted is not permanently cut off from reception of the Eucharist while still struggling with the personal situation. Of course he could despair and just give up the help of the confessional for such continued receptions but at least that course of help is always offered to him even while unable to comply fully to what is ordered. They do then have their similarities as far as "making the ordered mark" for perfect resolution is concerned. If that is not required then the interviewee is saying that all other cases of mortal sin are given the "allowance" of not being permanently cut off from receiving the Eucharist as this one particular type of mortal sin is punished. He's arguing, I would say, for the pastoral investigation in all cases so that the assumption of total guilt is not made for those cases, esp. in other parts of the world...where so often there is a priest in the territory maybe once a year, never mind any personal accessibility (equal to the accessibility in more developed countries is understood) to the necessary tribunals for all cases. There is also in such regions of the world the "developed" family dependent upon the unit staying together for survival purposes while waiting upon the Church to act on that subjectivity via pastoral acquaintance with the circumstances just as all other cases of mortal sin must be judged by the standards given in the catechism.
The regions of the world where this "pastoral" situation are in practice are Austria and Germany where the "developed" family's material needs are far better catered for than in the time when Jesus reversed Moses' decision to permit divorce. People with addiction are required to make a firm purpose of amendment - to at least try not to sin again, just as people in second unions have been required to have a firm purpose to live as sister and brother until Pope Francis decided that he preferred the Austrian approach. Cardinal Schonborn's Austrian approach requires no firm purpose of amendment before being admitted to Communion. Being admitted to Communion depends on answers to questions such as "how did you treat the children of the first marriage after the divorce?" or "how did you speak to your children about the spouse who deserted/divorced you?" (speaking badly about the runaway spouse is a minus). The answer to these questions has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of the first marriage. What is being proposed here is the relegation of adultery to at worst a venial sin. If adultery is no longer a mortal or grave sin, there's no requirement to confess it and no need for absolution. If it is still a mortal or grave sin, then what is being proposed is absolution in advance for the purpose of reducing the temptation to infidelity in what is at best no better than any two people living together and at worst an adulterous marriage.
Wow! That's quite a jump....at least it's only a personal projection....from what is just asked for consideration, equal application of the ordered requirements for mortal sin across the board... within this proposal. Rather, even in this analysis, one mortal sin seems to attract a greater defense than another, when the persons will thankfully all face equal justice/mercy before God Who will no doubt take into consideration all of the extenuating circumstances involved, in the end, even if at times imperfectly judged here.
I believe this to be true: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/b...me-for-pope-francis-to-defend-churchs-traditi
Picadillo, I have a question. In the article that you posted, there is the mention of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP). Who are they and why wouldn't they be welcomed everywhere? I think we all are yearning for Pope Francis to make some unambiguous statements about the sacraments and the Catholic stance on remarriage. The Muslim immigration crisis also could use a little clarity in directives. Heck, I just read that the Dalai Lama said that Muslim immigrants should return to their countries of origin. “The goal should be to return and help rebuild their own countries”. But I will be faithful to Our Holy Father until God directs us otherwise. I'm praying that this is all part of a mystical plan that involves God's mercy. My brain and soul are in a huge tug-of-war.
I don't have any strong pro or anti opinion on the Synod about the family, to be honest. As far as I am concerned all we need to do is keep practising the Faith of our fathers and we will be ok. I read Cardinal Shoenborn's article and it was an interesting look at how decisions were reached. It appears those at the conference were all asked to share how it was in their own personal families. It appears the Cardinals realised their own families reflected society. I take from that, the belief their own families had divorce, separation, people lapsed, living in sin, and no doubt homosexuality. A reflection we can all identify with. And it seems they wanted as a group to find a way to open a path for all who have strayed from the narrow path to be able to return. I know this is not how faithful Catholics see the restoration of the Faith we all know and love. But it seems we need to hold tight and pray for those who have been carried away on the tide of unbelief to the point of losing their way. I still have a gut feeling, Pope Francis wants to leave an open door for all who may be experiencing the miracle of Divine Mercy in the very near future. Jesus said first He would come as the King of Mercy, then He would come as the Just Judge. I remember reading Jesus in His Divine Mercy is offering AMNESTY for sinners, and I can't help thinking this is what Holy Father is doing to try and prepare for God's Mercy to the best of his ability. For clarity, we are more familiar with the 'Warning/Illumination' as the means for this miracle of Mercy.
I get the impression that because there really is a dilemma between on the one hand people believing they should be loyal to the the Church and the Holy Father on the one hand and on the other speaking out about there concerns on the other that people are realy torn about saying or writing anything. I face this very,very painful dilemma on myself. Perhaps more so because o a forum like this the responsibility on these issues is even more severe. I know, in a very particular way I wil lhave to answer to God whatever I decide. Of course then again whatever I decide I come under attack fro either side who have tended to become deeply divided over these issues. It is not simply a matter of you can;t please everyone but rather you can't please anyone. To a certain extent this is water off a duck's back to me as my main concern has been to please God rather than man. After much prayer I eventually decided to stop any comments whatsoever that suggest our Holy Father is some kind of anti-Christ or false Pope. ..and I ahve done so. why? Because I think it would be morally worng to do so. , as a Catholic. But on the other hand to allow free discussion of these issues as and when they arise and truy to keep as open a mind as possible. I eprsonally would be delighted if my own concerns , shared I believe by many millions of ordinary Catholics , priests, Bishops and Cardinals around the world were allayed. After much prayer and pain I also eventually decided to meet these issues on a common sensed prayerful basis , meeting each issue on their own merits. I have found this very helpful. I am so aware of my limitations on not being a theologian nor not having much real education in this field. On the other hand looking at what some professional theologians, including Cardinals have had to say I am not entirely sure that a professional theological education has been helpful to these people in any way at all, in fact quite the contrary. I do note however a hardening of attitudes over these issues . For instance almost from the start I found on reading what the Holy Father has been saying and writing I simply could not understand what he meant. It was as though he was writing in some foreign language. Nor am I a stupid or unread person. Not only that , But I found very often that he appeared to contradict himself. So he would say things, people would complain and then he would, 'Balance things 9or the Vatican Press Office would do it for him and I was very,very often left genuinely lost as to what the Holy Father meant or where he stood. I have found more and mroe people are saying this, people who up to now have been very, very supportive of the Holy Father. These are as well people of high intelligence and learning and their opinions are to be greatly repected. So I find myself not alone on being , well, baffled again and again and again. Frankly the Synod DOcument is the icing oon the cake fo this. I would not have minded this so much , bad enough as it may be , but I have had the increasingly strong eblief that this confusion is quite deliberatly engendered so that a secret agenda might be set forth. I hope I am worng in this, but I do wonder. Anyway thank God I am at peace. I pray I ponder. I love the scriptural comment on Our Blessed Lady, Luke 2:19 But Mary treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart. Also the words of the psalmist: Psalm 119:11 Your word I have treasured in my heart, That I may not sin against You. So in imitation of Our Blessed Lady I store these things up and ponder them in prayer saying very little. However I confess wuite freely my concern deepens very greatly with every passing day. There seems to be no end to causes of concern to eprplex Faithful Catholics. A torrent of them. I wish like other I could smile and say everythings fine, everythings wonderful, but I can't. Rather like the Prince of Denmark in Shakespeare's Hamlet , rather I say fearfully, 'Something is rotten in the State of Denmark'. Somethings are not right,something stinks. I ams orry if this makes me a bad person to ahve these concerns. But there you are, I have them. Grave, grave, grave concerns that haunt me. But perhaps if I coudl undersatnd him it would help. Perhaps, but I confess again and again again he leaves me simply floundering. In my heart I wish he would speak more simply and plainly in a manner I could understand. “I confess that, because of my disposition, the first answer that comes to me is usually wrong,” Francis said in a 2010 interview. “I don’t have all the answers. I don’t even have all the questions. I always think of new questions, and there are always new questions coming forward.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...about-the-jesuits_us_5600543de4b00310edf807d7
In regards to the Pope it helped me to reread Saint Francis prophecy. I go back and forth about PF but I keep wondering if he is the persecuted Pope or was Pope Benedict? There is no way for us to absolutely know for certain that PF was canonically elected or is there? If there is then we have our answer but unless I am certain that he was not canonically elected I do not want to be part of the persecution of this Pope. But I see no harm in discussing what he has said or done, as long as it is a discussion not a persecution. Padraig, I think you have done a good job of keeping the discussions moving in the right direction. I think people on this forum have questioned some of things that the Pope has done or said but that is all.
This was offered earlier from Mark Mallett's wisdom but here it is again.: "Could this be Pope Francis in the saint’s (St. Francis) prophecy? Simply, no. The reason is that he was canonically elected. He is not an anti-pope. This was acknowledged by no less than the former head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith who is one of the greatest theologians in modern times, his predecessor, Benedict XVI. And not a single Cardinal, particularly those more renowned faithful and holy sons of the Church, has stepped forward to say that something incongruous took place in the Conclave or in Benedict’s resignation. There is absolutely no doubt regarding the validity of my resignation from the Petrine ministry. The only condition for the validity of my resignation is the complete freedom of my decision. Speculations regarding its validity are simply absurd… [My] last and final job [is] to support [Pope Francis’] pontificate with prayer. —POPE EMERITUS BENEDICT XVI, Vatican City, Feb. 26th, 2014; Zenit.org Furthermore, in the ordinary Magisterium, Pope Francis has upheld the Church’s moral teaching without, to use his own words, “obsessing” over it. Far from a destroyer, he has been building bridges through his own unique pastoral style. While the Church is not unfamiliar with more than one pope vying for power in her sometimes troubled past, today’s situation truly is unique: a pope who has peacefully resigned his pontificate to another, who in turn, has not missed a beat in upholding the unbroken tradition of the Church while at the same time attracting souls to the love and mercy of Christ." I think if one tries to be holier than the Church he'll be forever left in the fog of his own questioning which itself has no authority! Could this be Pope Francis in the saint’s prophecy? Simply, no. The reason is that he was canonically elected. He is not an anti-pope. This was acknowledged by no less than the former head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith who is one of the greatest theologians in modern times, his predecessor, Benedict XVI. And not a single Cardinal, particularly those more renowned faithful and holy sons of the Church, has stepped forward to say that something incongruous took place in the Conclave or in Benedict’s resignation.There is absolutely no doubt regarding the validity of my resignation from the Petrine ministry. The only condition for the validity of my resignation is the complete freedom of my decision. Speculations regarding its validity are simply absurd… [My] last and final job [is] to support [Pope Francis’] pontificate with prayer. —POPE EMERITUS BENEDICT XVI, Vatican City, Feb. 26th, 2014; Zenit.orgFurthermore, in the ordinary Magisterium, Pope Francis has upheld the Church’s moral teaching without, to use his own words, “obsessing” over it. Far from a destroyer, he has been building bridges through his own unique pastoral style.
I don't think that anyone here is saying that Pope Francis was not canonically elected. Pope Francis and his inner circle's agenda and what I see as underhand, manipulative methods to implement the agenda remind me of the 4th century prophecy of St. Anthony of the Desert: “Men will surrender to the spirit of the age. They will say that if they had lived in our day, Faith would be simple and easy. But in their day, they will say, things are complex; the Church must be brought up to date and made meaningful to the day’s problems. When the Church and the world are one, then those days are at hand because our Divine Master placed a barrier between His things and the things of the world.” Making the Faith more relevant to the complexity of people's lived experience in these modern times has been the main thrust of the argument in favour of setting aside Doctrine by changing discipline and practice that underpin the Doctrine. No matter how you dress it up under the guise of mercy and using buzz words like conversion, it all boils down to what St. Anthony warned would happen.
How strange! I saw another quote from St Anthony the Great on facebook today. It was so striking and prophetic:
I am in agreement. There are websites and such that are stating this and therefore, they are slamming PF and that is my point, we are not doing that here. ETA, Thank you again. I am certain that I did not explain my thoughts well enough in my previous post on this thread, sorry for the confusion but I think I am on the same page as you. This sums up what I am weary of: "there will be very few Christians who will obey the true Sovereign Pontiff and the Roman Church with loyal hearts and perfect charity", "in those days Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor, but a destroyer." Saint Francis.
If Pope Francis is canonically elected, he cannot be the 'destroyer'. Therefore, the prophesy is for another time.
