Sorry to say but that this is what some of us on the forum have been predicting --- that Amoris Laetitia will be used by progressives to advance their own agenda. It has opened the door to a 'rainbow' church but there are many still in denial. But I will probably just get called names again, rigid, fundamentalist, Pope-hater that I am (not).
In the context of AL and priests in the Confessional being charged by the Pope with nullifying a marriage that the Church has already determined to be valid, the argument about the woman has been used often enough. I've given up paying attention to LV's posts because he is setting himself up as a one-man tribunal much the same as the Pope appears to be permitting priests to accept each individual penitent as their own tribunal - essentially, it's either end of an extremist position. If the basis for your argument is that nobody has the right to ask a question of the Pope, then you have no argument. Really, what you're laughing about is the sin of sacrilege because that's what happens when a person receives the Eucharist unworthily and that's what happens when the priest authorises unworthy reception; the priest also commits sacrilege by his complicity. Sacrilege is no laughing matter. Where there is any doubt, priority should be given to protecting the Body and Blood of Christ from sacrilege. That's a priest's duty whether they like it or not. Assuming that the liberal interpretations of AL are correct (and the Pope has neither affirmed nor denounced them), every priest who accepts that a penitent's first marriage was invalid should be willing to perform a public ceremony of marriage or convalidation of the second union, and that second marriage should be recorded in the parish records. Failing to do so would be hypocrisy (and we know what Jesus said about hypocrites). It's only a matter of time before remarried divorcees in liberal dioceses raise that issue and their priests demand that authority, making each priest his own public tribunal and each bishop his own Pope. When that happens, how will the Church defend hypocrisy? And that's before we take into consideration what Cardinal Cupich said about homosexual unions which indicates that the Church is preparing to devise some kind of ceremony validating those unions without calling them "marriage", just as the secular powers did in preparation for raising them to the level of real marriage.
Just to clarify again that my 'laughter' (or 'crying') is in response to your statement that "I'm not trying to undermine Pope Francis". Almost EVERY post you make (and there are hundreds of them) contains direct or implied criticisms of Pope Francis. Each one of those leads to an undermining of Francis whether that is your intention or not. Your response to this post will almost certainly contain another example! The matter of AL and those who attack it is certainly not a laughing matter. Jesus has given us His Church led on earth by the Pope. You no longer follow the Pope. Fair enough, many Christians do not follow him. But you are still a Christian and I accept you as such.
Quite judgemental of St John the Baptist. A bit of a rigorist it would seem.Smudger would not approve of this behaviour.
How condescending of you to acknowledge (however grudgingly) that I'm a Christian. I defended the Pope until I realised what he is doing to the Papacy along with his lax attitude to the Real Presence in the Blessed Eucharist. Anyone undermining the authority of the See of Peter shouldn't be defended. On the contrary, his actions should be challenged as happened in the past. This AL debacle is about more than marriage. It also involves a Pope contradicting the teaching of one of his predecessors and in this case a predecessor who reigned in the lifetime of the incumbent. If Pope Francis can contradict the clear and unambiguous teaching of Pope John Paul, which was based on Sacred Scripture and Tradition, that Communion cannot be given to a person living in an objective state of adultery, or the perennial teaching of the Church that absolution can only be given to a penitent expressing a clear intention to refrain from sin, what's to stop the next Pope contradicting the clear and unambiguous teaching of Pope Francis (an example of this being that marriage is between one man and one woman)? You base your argument on the Pope, as the successor of Peter, having absolute power and, by implication, Cardinal Schonborn's assertion that all previous Church teaching must be understood in compliance with what the current Pope is teaching. The logical conclusion to that assertion is that a reigning Pope has the authority to contradict or reverse any and all Church teaching that has been held to be true since Jesus founded the Church. If your view had prevailed in previous times, we would all be professing that Jesus didn't possess both a divine and human will. Attacking me won't change what is happening to the Church. It won't change the undermining of the gravity of the sin of sacrilege. It won't change some of the very troubling statements by Pope Francis, for example "Nobody is condemned forever" which statement was repeated by Cardinal Cupich in his press conference on AL. It won't change the interpretation by the Bishops in Canada who have used AL to justify giving the Sacrament of Extreme Unction to people who have chosen to end their lives by assisted suicide. You can continue to bury your head in the sand, but I reserve my right to defend the faith handed down to us from the apostles.
I think that a better response to the endless criticisms is just to post extracts from the Holy Father's encyclical. Jesus restores and fulfils God’s plan 61. Contrary to those who rejected marriage as evil, the New Testament teaches that “everything created by God is good and nothing is to be rejected” (1 Tim 4:4). Marriage is “a gift” from the Lord (1 Cor 7:7). At the same time, precisely because of this positive understanding, the New Testament strongly emphasizes the need to safeguard God’s gift: “Let marriage be held in honour among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled” (Heb 13:4). This divine gift includes sexuality: “Do not refuse one another” (1 Cor 7:5). 62. The Synod Fathers noted that Jesus, “in speaking of God’s original plan for man and woman, reaffirmed the indissoluble union between them, even stating that ‘it was for your hardness of heart that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so’ (Mt 19:8). The indissolubility of marriage – ‘what God has joined together, let no man put asunder’ (Mt 19:6) – should not be viewed as a ‘yoke’ imposed on humanity, but as a ‘gift’ granted to those who are joined in marriage… God’s indulgent love always accompanies our human journey; through grace, it heals and transforms hardened hearts, leading them back to the beginning through the way of the cross. The Gospels clearly present the example of Jesus who… proclaimed the meaning of marriage as the fullness of revelation that restores God’s original plan (cf. Mt 19:3)”. 63. “Jesus, who reconciled all things in himself, restored marriage and the family to their original form (cf. Mt 10:1-12). Marriage and the family have been redeemed by Christ (cf. Eph 5:21-32) and restored in the image of the Holy Trinity, the mystery from which all true love flows. The spousal covenant, originating in creation and revealed in the history of salvation, takes on its full meaning in Christ and his Church. Through his Church, Christ bestows on marriage and the family the grace necessary to bear witness to the love of God and to live the life of communion. The Gospel of the family spans the history of the world, from the creation of man and woman in the image and likeness of God (cf. Gen 1:26-27), to the fulfilment of the mystery of the covenant in Christ at the end of time with the marriage of the Lamb (cf. Rev 19:9)”. 64. “The example of Jesus is a paradigm for the Church… He began his public ministry with the miracle at the wedding feast of Cana (cf. Jn 2:1-11). He shared in everyday moments of friendship with the family of Lazarus and his sisters (cf. Lk 10:38) and with the family of Peter (cf. Mk 8:14). He sympathized with grieving parents and restored their children to life (cf. Mk 5:41; Lk 7:14-15). In this way he demonstrated the true meaning of mercy, which entails the restoration of the covenant (cf. John Paul II, Dives in Misericordia, 4). This is clear from his conversations with the Samaritan woman (cf. Jn 1:4-30) and with the woman found in adultery (cf. Jn 8:1- 11), where the consciousness of sin is awakened by an encounter with Jesus’ gratuitous love”. https://cruxnow.com/church/2016/04/...ter-amoris-laetitia-or-on-love-in-the-family/
The conversation at the Well is one we should take a closer look at David. I will see if I can find some 'Catholic' commentary on it.
A very silly response, but I'll let it go. If Pope Francis is contradicting St. John Paul, how was Joseph Ratzinger able to come up with an even more "liberal" take on this issue 40 years before? Why did the Church in that glorious era of Leo XIII (as traddies would have us believe everyhing being rosy before 1962) allow confessors o deliberaely not inform penintents of the evil of contraception? Ive said before and I'll say it again. Too many people here have no idea about certain aspects of moral theology and culpabiliy. I consider myself able to freely say without any contradiction that adultery is a terrible evil and many people in second marriages may well be in actual mortal sin; but just like the distinction between murder and manslaughter, there are different circumstances that reduce culpability. It wouldn suprise me if there is a lot of hypocrisy on show here because I imagine some critics of Francis will have benefitted from a confessor telling them at some stage in their life that a particular sin of grave matter wasnt mortal sin because of habit or other reason
We're talking about Popes contradicting Popes here. Pope Benedict didn't contradict Pope John Paul no matter what he believed before ascending to the papacy. How is your knowledge of theology on a par with that of Cardinal Burke and the others who submitted the dubia? Pope Francis isn't claiming superior knowledge of theology to that of the four cardinals. He's claiming that the Holy Spirit is leading him while Satan is leading anyone who dares question him. I'm no "traddie" as you so disparagingly speak of Catholics with a preference for valid traditional liturgy. The murder/manslaughter argument is a red herring. And no, I have never had a confessor tell me that a particular sin of grave matter wasn't mortal sin because of habit or other reason. Now, let's get back to the ramifications of AL. Will a priest giving absolution to someone living in an objectively adulterous union, effectively declaring the first marriage invalid, enter that decree of nullity into the Parish register? Given that he will have the authority to declare the marriage invalid to the penitent, will he have the authority to officiate at a full marriage/convalidation ceremony of the second union and if not why not?
Cardinal Burke is not a theologian, he is a canonist! The only pope of recent centuries who was a professional theologian was Benedict XVI and he contradicts your point that Francis is against his predecessors. Just read his book Last Testament. Ive already provided the proof! Explain why he murder/manslaughter is a red herring? It illustrates perfectly how european law (built on Christian principles) shows how guilt can be lessened due to circumstances.
The heading on this thread 'The Vatican has fallen,' might also be called the Vatican has fallen to reach the level most of the people have reached. Yes there are those who stick rigidly to the Faith of our fathers. But again I recall it has been stated in numerous places 80% of practising Catholics use contraception. If as some are stating this is sacrilege, who in the name of God is in a position to pass judgement on the hierarchy who are trying to rescue the 80% lost Catholics, many of whom must believe they are part of the faithful remnant. I was coming to believe the Warning might happen in 2017. But I read on the Garabandal thread the warning will come in an even year; that rules out 2017. So only God knows how bad all this has to get before we are rescued by a universal Illumination of conscience in the form of a Warning. Maybe Charlie J is right. Maybe the Warning will NOT take place as a one off instant global event; but a gradual unveiling of the truth. How many of us realised in the 60's that a newly conceived child was a tiny little whole person. We have come to understand this now with science and with the use of those scans where we can see unborn babies in the womb. My grand daughter invited me to see a private scan of her unborn son at about four Months gestation. I was amazed at the little boy who looked like he was playing football. Amazing.
So Lucia's prophecy seems to indicate two choices for the faithful to choose. One teaching, which the the Church has always held within the deposit of faith and another which deviates from it. It is not difficult to see which side of this equation Satan is on. Truth does not change. It is not subjective. It is not grey. It does not cause confusion. Truth speaks with clarity.
I didn't say that Cardinal Burke is a theologian. I merely asked how your knowledge of theology is superior to his and the other Cardinala who submitted the dubia, and you haven't answered that question. Neither had Pope Francis claimed your superior knowledge of theology. Since academic qualifications in theology is your benchmark, does your qualification equal Cardinal Meisner's doctorate or Cardinal Caffarr's diploma in moral theology? If it doesn't, don't bother boasting about it or talking down to the rest of us. You haven't provided any proof of a Pope contradicting his predecessor. What you have quoted is what a cardinal said. Did then Cardinal Ratzinger make that statement before or after Pope John Paul's Encyclical? Here's what he wrote when he was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the faith and he didn't contradict it when he became Pope: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/r...vorced-and-remarried-members-of-the-faithful/ Let me know where in European law, a single lower court judge can downgrade a ruling of a higher court from murder to manslaughter based purely on the evidence of the perpetrator given in private with no witnesses or corroborating evidence, or where the perpetrator is pronounced innocent without any trial merely on the basis of his own testimony to a prosecutor.
The problem IMHO that we are facing is the reality of how we have all fallen from the high ideals set out in the Gospels. Yes there are some who stay faithful to the best of their knowledge and ability. I would call these the righteous. The remaining majority are in serious danger of eternal loss if the Church is not able to reach them. I am convinced Jesus would want His Church and Hierarchy to try and reach the lost. What always seems to come to me when I read these threads is, 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.' Jesus came to save the lost. The righteous are in with a good chance of being saved, from what I remember reading in the Bible. So Jesus came because of His concern for those who would be lost without His Mercy and instruction. We have to stop stoning the fallen, if we want to call ourselves followers of Christ. The wisest will be the first to stop throwing stones, and get down to praying for the lost; even our own failures which leave us open to the temptation of the evil one. Jesus never dammed anyone. He spoke with deep regret that Judas could not repent; and foolishly chose his own fate, because he simply couldn't believe Jesus would forgive him the same as Jesus forgave Saint Peter.
