Chaput: Controversies have obscured the ‘great wisdom and beauty’ of ‘Amoris’ Christopher White November 9, 2017 NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT Pope Francis raises the chalice as he celebrates the closing Mass of the World Meeting of Families on Benjamin Franklin Parkway in Philadelphia Sept. 27. With him at the altar is Philadelphia Archbishop Charles J. Chaput. In an address on Wednesday, Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia said Pope Francis's apostolic exhortation 'Amoris Laetitia' offers great wisdom, but the controversies over it have "obscured much of the good in the document.” Chaput's remarks came at the third annual National Assembly of Filipino Priests in Houston, Texas. NEW YORK - In an address on Wednesday to the National Assembly of Filipino Priests USA in Houston, Texas, Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia said the controversies over Amoris Laetitia have “obscured much of the good in the document.” Titled “Amoris Laetitia and the Nature of Mercy,” Chaput’s remarks focused on three major areas: “the pastoral challenges Amoris Laetitia seeks to address; the pastoral challenges the text itself may seem to create; and how we as priests need to respond as ‘missionaries of mercy.’” Amoris Laetitia, Francis’s landmark apostolic exhortation on marriage and family life, is the outcome document resulting from two Synods on the Family called by Francis in 2014 and 2015. Chaput’s remarks were delivered at the third annual gathering of Filipino priests, aimed to promote more effective pastoral leadership. “Papal documents are always important,” said Chaput. “But - if we can be candid for a moment - some have the energy of a lead brick. Amoris Laetitiais very different. It has passages of great wisdom and beauty on marriage and on family life. And it has other passages that have caused some obvious controversy.” The majority of the controversy surrounding Amoris has been over Francis’s cautious opening of communion for divorced and remarried Catholics. While Chaput did not directly address this in his speech, he did cite the guidelines for the implementation of Amoris released by the archdiocese of Philadelphia in which he maintained that communion for divorced and remarried Catholics should only be permitted if the couple agrees to live chastely. “Ground Zero is this: For Christians, sexual intimacy outside a valid marriage can never be morally legitimate,” Chaput said on Wednesday. “And it’s the Church that determines what a valid sacramental marriage is.” “Fidelity to the received and constant wisdom of Catholic teaching is paramount. So the spirit behind our Philadelphia guidelines, grounded in Amoris Laetitia, is the following. As a Church we need to meet people where they are. We need to listen to their sufferings and hopes. We need to accompany them along the path of their lives. That demands from us as priests a spirit of patience and mercy. We need to have a bias toward welcoming, and a resistance to seeing individual persons merely as parts of alien or alienated groups,” he continued. “The divorced and civilly remarried are not exiles from Church life. They need to be invited back. The same applies to persons with same-sex attraction. Jesus Christ died for all of us, and we need to behave in a manner that embodies his love.” Yet Chaput also cautioned that “‘accompanying’ people also means that we need to guide them in the right direction - gently but also honestly, speaking the truth with love…We can’t simply confirm people in their mistakes. Scripture is very clear about right and wrong sexual relationships and behavior.” In recent weeks there has been a new wave of discussion over Amoris, following the publication of a letter by former USCCB doctrinal consultant Father Tom Weinandy in which he accused Francis of fostering “chronic confusion” in the Church, primarily as a result of Amoris. The U.S. bishops requested Weinandy’s resignation and issued a public affirmation of their support for Francis and called for a greater spirit of charity in dialogue. Chaput also said that the heart of Amoris is a message of “tenderness.” “Francis urges us again and again to deal lovingly with people and situations as they really are.” He also went on to add that tenderness is the responsibility and mission of the priest. “In my reading, that leads to one of the central ironies in communicating the message of Amoris Laetitia,” he said. “We live in an age of the laity. The text deals very heavily with marriage and the family, major features of Christian lay life. But to succeed, Amoris Laetitia depends profoundly on the zeal and sensitivity of the priest.” Chaput said that many priests had expressed confusion or feeling hurt by certain words Francis has said about priests. “These are good, solid men - not whiners or crazies - experienced in their parishes and committed to their people,” he added. Chaput said part of that comes with the attacks on the priesthood following the clergy abuse crisis which “caused a lot of innocent priests to suffer.” As for Francis’s remarks, Chaput said they stem from “his own pastoral experiences in Latin America, which seem to have been very different from the realities in the United States.” “In my own experience, cruel confessors and harsh ‘doctors of the law’ have been rare, and a very long way from the American norm,” he added. Chaput concluded his remarks by observing that “the curse of our age is loneliness” and that it was the duty of the priest to respond to the challenges created by this in order to “be the presence of God’s love in the world. “There’s no greater mission of mercy than that,” he said, “and no greater joy in the life of a priest.” https://cruxnow.com/church-in-the-u...oversies-obscured-great-wisdom-beauty-amoris/
Jesuit superior general Fr Arturo de Sosa effectively wipes out everything that has happened before the invention of the tape recorder. All of history depends primarily on third party narration to its chroniclers. We cannot, according to this man, know exactly what was said about all events that occured without the chronicler being present. History certainly cannot easily be 'life's teacher' in such circumstances as it would be merely a work of fiction. Additionally, if one cannot trust the reports of the words of Our Lord, neither can one trust any other report. There goes the Incarnation, the Crucifixion and the Resurrection, along with everything else. This 'priest' does not seem to give any credit to the Holy Spirit for ensuring the accurate propagation of the Truth by the Apostles. Of course, we cannot know the Holy Spirit exists either because reports of Him were unaccompanied by tape recorder. Come to think of it, how do we know this de Sosa has any qualifications. He claims to be a Jesuit, a successor of Saint Ignatius Loyola. How do we even know of Saint Ignatius' teaching or even of the founding of his order...no tape recorders. 2+2=5. Apostasy~Narcissism~Nihilism. There is another nihilistic quality to all this. No human witness is to be trusted unless it can be empirically corroborated. Those who claim that men cannot sin inherently proclaim that one cannot believe a word that men say. It is not an optimistic view of human nature at all. It is the most pessimistic one imaginable. 2+2=7. I am reminded of those words of Saint Anthony of the Desert again. And the old saying, 'those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad'.
Pride has a lot to do with it. A serious, serious dose of pride. Pride that thinks oneself superior to Scripture, The Counsel of the Fathers, the Traditions of the Church , the very Words of Jesus and the inner Voice of conscience. The Pride of Lucifer.
Exactly. 'I will ascend into heaven'=universal salvation, the arch-heresy of our time. There seem plenty in the Church who consider themselves sitting 'upon the mount of the congregation' and 'like the Most High'-they have no problem gainsaying and second-guessing the (untaped) words of the Most High. Please God, Our Lord will give them a good poke in their 'I's'.
The answer of course to pride is humility. The Queen of Heaven. The Last three Marian Dogma's and a Marian Pope.
An encouraging post today from Father Hunwicke: "NCREPORTER The Winter article to which I referred a few days ago, not only attacks Fr Weinanandy, but also berates Cardinal DiNardo and the USA Episcopal Conference. Winter thinks that their response to Weinandy was weak. Actually, on reflection, I can't help feeling there is a little something in this. DiNardo does talk about dialogue and does refrain from angry personal remarks about Weinandy. Moreover, being 'sacked' as a Consultor of the Doctrine Commission may be rather a sweet martyrdom. Father will be spared boring chores arising from an episcopal tendency to kick troublesome balls into long grass by referring them to the Commission. He will have more time now to get on with his own stuff! Like Cardinal Mueller, he may even feel less inhibited! As Father wrote, the Bishops of the world have mostly been extremely quiet. Some of those who have said the bolder things are among the younger bishops; men whose age and current position means that, when the natural time comes for their next move, we are likely to have entered into a new pontificate. I have, throughout my own career, several times noticed with amused interest how little auctoritas a principal seems to retain when he is known to be in his last year or so! When the Cardinal Secretary of State can go public with the opinion that PF's critics do deserve an answer, the evidence suggests that the tide is not flowing strongly in PF's direction, and that even 'top people' are starting to hedge their bets or to distance themselves. I urge readers to keep their heads and to do anything they can to ensure that the momentum ... rolls. We are getting somewhere; the pressure on PF is mounting. There are signs of real panic in partibus adversis. As PF's defenders become fewer and more nuanced, perhaps we should detect a growing apprehension among some of them that it might not do their own careers much good in the next pontificate to have been too loudly explicit in this one. And PF's determination to follow up Amorislaetitiagate so quickly with Luthergate and deathpenaltygate and liturgygate may suggest that he is himself panicking at the thought of not having time to fulfill his ambitions and those of his cronies. Believe me, they're on the back foot. Control of the agenda seems to be slipping from their grasp. Fewer and fewer thoughtful observers are confident that PF is a safe pair of hands. Courage!"
The most dangerous words written or spoken are the ones which speak of truth, but subtly intertwined with half truths and lies. Satan knows this to be true, as this is what he did to Adam and Eve and has continued to do so throughout history. AL is that way and it is dangerous to the soul for this reason.
https://romalocutaest.com/2017/11/0...ontradicting-the-magisterium-of-john-paul-ii/ Amoris Laetitia and the Confusion of those contradicting the Magisterium of John Paul II November 7, 2017 (Steven O’Reilly) – The latest salvo from Rome on Amoris Laetitia was fired by Andrea Tornielli of La Stampa in the Vatican Insider [NB: Amusingly, of Vatican Insider, journalist Edward Pentin suggested that a description of it as the “Vatican Pravda” would be an apt one (see Remnant Newspaper: EDWARD PENTIN: Catholic Identity Conference 2017)]. In his article entitled “Müller, Buttiglione and the “confusion” of those criticizing the Pope,” Mr. Tornielli suggests those opposing communion for the divorced and remarried are confused. Noting Cardinal Muller now recognizes an exception, Mr. Tornielli writes (emphasis added): “After the articles of the philosopher and the preface of the cardinal to his book, now everyone admits that there are cases in which the way to the sacraments is open for remarried divorcees. Demonstrating in this way the absurdity of the accusation of “heresy” addressed to the Pontiff, but also how the dubia need to be radically reformulated“ Mr. Tornielli specifically had in mind recent articles written by Sandro Magister (see Settimo Cielo: “The “Dubia” Are More Alive Than Ever. And Cardinal Müller Is Adding Another All His Own“) and Roberto de Mattei (See Rorate Caeli: “De Mattei – Increasing confusion: Cardinal Müller and Professor Buttiglione“). Personally, I believe he has misread their articles, but they are well equipped to answer for themselves against his claim. That said, I would take this opportunity to direct the charge of confusion and error back at Mr. Tornielli and other writers at “Vatican Pravda.” Below, I will address Tornielli’s statement about the “absurdity of the accusation of ‘heresy’ addressed to the Pontiff” and whether the dubia “need to be radically reformulated.” But, before doing so, we should – once again – first restate the clear teaching of the Church on the question of communion for the divorced and remarried, and what this teaching suggests is the right answer to the first dubia. [NB: I do this because I suspect more Catholic will be researching this issue once the “Formal Correction” is published.] This teaching is clearly set forth by Pope John II in Familiaris Consortio 84 (FC 84) [emphasis added]: “However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage. Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they “take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.” (Familiaris Consortio 84) As one clearly reads above, “from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effect by the Eucharist,” FC 84 admits no exceptions for the divorced and remarried which would allow them to receive communion if they continue to have sexual relations with one another, and do not live as “brother and sister” should they be “unable to satisfy the obligation to separate” for some “serious reason.” This teaching is similarly and clearly repeated in other magisterial documents (e.g., Reconciliato et Paenitentia 34, the Catholic Catechism 1650, Sacramentum Caritatis 29). Now, those who would propose a change to the teaching found in these documents, suggest variously that either Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia changed the discipline, or that Amoris Laetitia is somehow a further doctrinal development of Familiaris Consortio, but one which now focuses on the subjective conscience and not the objective situation of grave sin. Those who now say there are exceptions point to a footnote in Amoris Laetitia (AL), the infamous n. 351 (305). AL 305 includes a statement about individuals who may be in an unspecified objective situation of sin – though not subjectively culpable or not fully so – “while receiving the Church’s help.” Attached to this sentence is footnote 351 which then adds in part: “In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments.” While I go into greater detail about this footnote elsewhere (see Honorius Redivivus – Addendum), it suffices to point out here that the footnote proves nothing. It does not say all cases can now receive communion. If it allows communion in “certain cases” but not all, the contrary is also implied – i.e., there are “certain cases” where communion would not be permissible even if an individual is subjectively not culpable while being in an objective situation of sin. That much is obvious. continued...
https://romalocutaest.com/2017/11/0...ontradicting-the-magisterium-of-john-paul-ii/ continued from above... So, which are the “certain cases” where communion is allowed? Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia does not say. Thus, if one maintains consistency between the crystal-clear FC 84 and the ambiguous AL n.351 (305), “certain cases” is interpreted as excluding those cases excluded by FC 84. Thus, there would be no change in the Church’s practice: “no communion, no exceptions.” However, if one maintains there is a change or development in the teaching of FC 84, “certain cases” in the footnote is interpreted to apply to the divorced and remarried, i.e., allowing communion for them in at least in some cases. Thus, there would be a change in the Church’s practice: i.e., “yes to communion in at least some cases.” For those Catholic just tuning into this crisis, this is the dilemma of ambiguity – i.e., which is it? Yes or no? – that led to the first of the dubia being posed to the Pope, which remains unanswered by him. The first dubia reads: “It is asked whether, following the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (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, 84, and subsequently reaffirmed by Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 34, and Sacramentum Caritatis, 29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in Note 351 (305) of the exhortation Amoris Laetitia be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live more uxorio?” (See Edward Pentin’s article in the National Catholic Register, November 14, 2016) For the Catholic just tuning in and getting up to speed on this crisis, the Dubia above requires only a simple “yes” or “no” answer from the Pope. If one believes there are “certain cases,” i.e., at least one exception, one must answer the first Dubia with a “yes.” The Pope has not provided an answer, yet. However, that has not stopped others from answering with a “yes” or “yes, but only in a few cases” on his behalf. In a recent article, I briefly surveyed several individuals who have offered a “yes” answer (emphasis added): …the first of the dubia asks if a person “bound by a valid marital bound” can be granted absolution in the sacrament of penance, and thus be admitted to Holy Communion even though he or she intend to continue a sexual relationship with a different ‘partner,’ i.e., not fulfilling the conditions provided by Familiaris Consortio, 84 to live as ‘brother and sister’ only. Mr. Walford provided his answer to the first dubia in an article in the Vatican Insider last January (see “Amoris Laetitia: Where Truth and Mercy Embrace“), responding: “yes, but again, only in certain cases.” Another supporter of exceptions to the rule of Familiaris Consortio 84 is Rocco Buttiglione who says “yes” as well (see here) in answer to the first Dubia, giving by way of an exception the case of a woman forced by circumstances to continue her sexual relations with a new partner. Cardinal Coccopalmerio offers a slightly different spin on this case, suggesting an instance not where a woman is forced to have sexual relations with her second “husband”, but where she judges that by leaving him and his children from his prior marriage that they would be left in “great difficulty” without her (see here). (See RomaLocutaEst: Cardinal Muller, the Dubia and the Formal Correction) In addition to the “yesses” above, we must also add Cardinal Muller, who recently argued in favor of at least one of the exceptions above (see here). Thus, to summarize, here are the four cases most often cited: A case where the woman – outside of an existing valid marital bond – is forced by her circumstance to remain in a new union. (per Buttiglione) A case where a woman – outside of an existing valid marital bond – remains in a new union because her departure might negatively impact her partner or his children from a prior marriage or relationship. (per Cardinal Coccopalmerio) A case where a man or woman, subjectively, in “clear conscience” (per Walford) or “convinced in conscience” (per Cardinal Muller) consider their first marriage never to have existed. A case where the man or woman – outside of an existing marital bond – “know the situation is not right, yet love the Lord and the Church and desire to grow in a continual conversion.” (per Walford) There is much one might say as one reviews these rationalizations, not least of which is to remember that “one may not do evil that good may come of it” or that the “end does not justify the means.” But, in this article I will restrict my comments to what the Magisterium of the Catholic Church has said on the subject of these exceptions with regard to the divorced and remarried. We have already quoted above the teaching of John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio 84 (FC 84). In 1994, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) issued a response to those querying Rome as to whether there might be any exceptions to the teaching of FC 84. The exceptions the CDF considered were as follows (emphasis added): “In recent years, in various regions, different pastoral solutions in this area have been suggested according to which, to be sure, a general admission of divorced and remarried to Eucharistic communion would not be possible, but the divorced and remarried members of the faithful could approach Holy Communion in specific cases when they consider themselves authorised according to a judgement of conscience to do so. This would be the case, for example, when they had been abandoned completely unjustly, although they sincerely tried to save the previous marriage, or when they are convinced of the nullity of their previous marriage, although unable to demonstrate it in the external forum or when they have gone through a long period of reflexion and penance, or also when for morally valid reasons they cannot satisfy the obligation to separate.” (Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church Concerning the Reception of Holy Communion by the Divorced and Remarried Members of the Faithful. September 14, 1994, 3) From this excerpt we see that the CDF in its response took into consideration the question of whether there were possible exceptions to FC 84’s discipline prohibiting communion to the divorced and remarried continuing in a sexual relationship with their new partner. The exceptions it considered fell into the following categories: (1) being “authorized according to a judgement of conscience”; (2) cases where the individual is “convinced of the nullity of their marriage” but are unable to demonstrate it in the external forum, and (3) cases where there exists “morally valid reasons they cannot satisfy the obligation to separate” (i.e., they can’t separate, but maintain sexual relations). Now, each of the four specific exceptions suggested by the individuals mentioned earlier (i.e., Buttiglione, Walford, Cardinals Muller and Coccopalmerio), fall into one of the these categories considered by the CDF in 1994. In this we see the exception proposed today had been reviewed years ago. What did the CDF state about the possibility of approving these exceptions? continued...
continued from above... Before proceeding to the reply of the CDF, it does well to remember “the documents issued by this Congregation expressly approved by the Pope participate in the ordinary magisterium of the successor of Peter” (Donum Veritatis, 18). The aforementioned letter from the CDF – which we will quote again below – was expressly approved by John Paul II and ordered by him to be published. Now, returning to the question, what did the CDF say about the possibility of these or any exceptions to the communion rule taught in FC 84? After acknowledging the queries about possible exceptions, the CDF notes (emphasis added): “Even if analogous pastoral solutions have been proposed by a few Fathers of the Church and in some measure were practiced, nevertheless these never attained the consensus of the Fathers and in no way came to constitute the common doctrine of the Church nor to determine her discipline. It falls to the universal Magisterium, in fidelity to Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to teach and to interpret authentically the depositum fidei. With respect to the aforementioned new pastoral proposals, this Congregation deems itself obliged therefore to recall the doctrine and discipline of the Church in this matter. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ(5), the Church affirms that a new union cannot be recognised as valid if the preceding marriage was valid. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Holy Communion as long as this situation persists(6) [. . .] 5. The doctrine and discipline of the Church in this matter, are amply presented in the post-conciliar period in the Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio. The Exhortation, among other things, reminds pastors that out of love for the truth they are obliged to discern carefully the different situations and exhorts them to encourage the participation of the divorced and remarried in the various events in the life of the Church. At the same time it confirms and indicates the reasons for the constant and universal practice, “founded on Sacred Scripture, of not admitting the divorced and remarried to Holy Communion”(9). The structure of the Exhortation and the tenor of its words give clearly to understand that this practice, which is presented as binding, cannot be modified because of different situations. (Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church Concerning the Reception of Holy Communion by the Divorced and Remarried Members of the Faithful. September 14, 1994, 4-5) This CDF letter, “expressly approved” by the Pope John Paul II, participates “in the ordinary magisterium of the successor of Peter” (cf DV 18). The force and meaning of its presentation is quite clear. Even if there are a few examples of permissive pastoral solutions, these do not establish the discipline of the Church; rather “it falls to the universal Magisterium, in fidelity to Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to teach and to interpret authentically the depositum fidei.” That is, the Magisterium, in which the CDF participates in this letter, will now provide in this reply the authentic interpretation of the deposit of faith on the question at hand. There then follows the CDF’s statement of the “authentic interpretation” offered by John Paul II in FC, regarding which the CDF calls the contents of FC 84 a “doctrine and discipline” that is a “constant and universal practice” founded on sacred scripture. The CDF – which participated in the magisterium of John Paul II in this instance – took up the question of potential exceptions and says the teaching of FC 84 “presented as binding, cannot be modified because of different situations.” In sum, no exceptions. No “certain cases.” None. Zilch. Nada. Niente. This “binding” practice, “cannot be modified.” This wording is quite clear, it is irreformable. Not even the Pope can change this “doctrine and discipline” because of different situations. Having laid the foundation, I return now to address Mr. Tornielli’s statements about the “absurdity of the accusation of ‘heresy’ addressed to the Pontiff” and whether the dubia “need to be radically reformulated” to account for some exceptions. Regarding the latter point first, here again is the first dubia: “It is asked whether, following the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (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, 84, and subsequently reaffirmed by Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 34, and Sacramentum Caritatis, 29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in Note 351 (305) of the exhortation Amoris Laetitia be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live more uxorio?” (See Edward Pentin’s article in the National Catholic Register, November 14, 2016) Based on the teaching of the magisterium we’ve just reviewed, whether considered as John Paul II in FC 84, or together with the CDF guidance “expressly approved” by him (cf DV 18); the orthodox answer to this dubia must be and can only be a resounding “no.“ This “doctrine and discipline” is founded on scripture, and has been “presented as binding” and thus “cannot be modifed because of different situations” – not even by a Pope. There are no exceptions according to the Magisterium of the Church, as expressed by John Paul II and his CDF. Thus, in response to the second of Mr. Tornielli’s statements: no reformulation of the dubia is necessary. Pope Francis should answer it as originally formulated. Regarding the first of Mr. Tornielli’s statements, i.e., the “absurdity of the accusation of ‘heresy’ addressed to the Pontiff,” there has been no direct accusation made, certainly none official. What we do have is the absurd spectacle of Buttiglione, Walford, Coccopalmerio, the Maltese bishops and others boldly venturing way out on the proverbial tree limb with their interpretations, while Pope Francis – keeping his public silence – hesitates to follow. Many of the individuals above have confidently asserted the guidance of the Holy Spirit for the interpretation they support, but they have not remotely considered the possibility the Holy Spirit may have more to do with the Pope’s silence than their interpretation. Those who have responded to the first Dubia with a “yes” or a “yes, but” have provided an answer which is in fact, heretical. Those out on that limb may one day find Francis sawing it off from behind them. But, even if he maintains his silence till the end of his pontificate, a future Pope will undoubtedly take a chainsaw to that limb. https://romalocutaest.com/2017/11/0...ontradicting-the-magisterium-of-john-paul-ii/
“A ‘uniform’ Church is no Church” The Pope in Santa Marta: we must purify her, starting from ourselves; “each of us builds according to the gift that God has given” Pubblicato il 09/11/2017 DOMENICO AGASSO JR VATICAN CITY “We must build Her and preserve Her. Above all, purify her, starting from oneself. All this must be done to the Church, which, among other things, if she is “uniform”, she is no Church. Each one must “build according to the gift that God has given”. These are the indications given by the Pope in this morning’s Mass, 9 November 2017, at Casa Santa Marta, as reported by Vatican Radio. First of all, it is necessary to “build the Church”, starting of course from her foundation, Jesus Christ, “He is the cornerstone, in this building. Without Jesus Christ, there is no Church. Why? Because there is no foundation. And if you build a church - think of a material church - without foundation, what happens then? She breakdowns. Everything breakdowns. If Jesus Christ is not “living in the Church, she breakdowns. The Pope asks himself, “And we, what are we? We are “living stones”, not the same, each one of us is different:” this is “the richness of the Church. Each one of us builds according to the gift that God has given. We cannot think of a uniform Church: for that is not a Church.” Therefore, it is necessary to “guard the Church” with the awareness and conscience of the Holy Spirit who lives in every person. Francis goes on, “How many Christians today know who Jesus Christ is, who the Father is- and why they pray to Our Father? But when you speak of the Holy Spirit...” Yes, yes, yes... ah, it is the dove, yes, the dove”, and they end it there. But the Holy Spirit is the life of the Church, it is your life, my life...”; and” we are the temple of the Holy Spirit and we must guard the Holy Spirit, so much that Paul advises Christians not to “sadden the Holy Spirit”, that is to say not to have a conduct contrary to the harmony that the Holy Spirit makes within us and in the Church. It is harmony, It gives harmony to this building. Finally, it is necessary to “purify the Church”, starting from oneself: in fact, “we are all sinners: everyone. All of us. If some of you are not, raise your hand, because it would be something new. We are all sinners. That is why we must continually purify ourselves. And also purify the community: the diocesan community, the Christian community, the universal community of the Church. To make it grow”. http://www.lastampa.it/2017/11/09/v...-no-church-cM8lEcmtRSJqNdVtXTy7qI/pagina.html
lifesitenews.com Cardinal Müller clarifies: There are ‘no exceptions’ to ban on Communion for ‘remarried’ | News Riccardo Cascioli 8-10 minutes Editor’s Note: The following article was translated from the Italian magazine La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana by LifeSite's Diane Montagna, and is reprinted with permission. “The Dubia are authoritative and clearly legitimate,” says the former Vatican doctrinal prefect in a new interview. November 8, 2017 (LaNuovaBQ.it) – “No, no change and no demolishing the Dubia. The purpose of my intervention was only to state that the one way to interpret Amoris Laetitia is in continuity with the Word of God in the Bible, the previous Magisterium, and with the Tradition of the great Councils of Florence, Trent and Vatican II.” On the telephone, Cardinal Gerhard Müller, former prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, immediately distances himself from the slanted interpretations of headlines claiming he was signaling an opening of access to the Eucharist for the “divorced and remarried.” The whole affair began with an introductory essay which Cardinal Müller wrote for a new book by Rocco Buttiglione called, “Friendly responses to the critics of Amoris Laetita” (ed. Ares, due out in Italian November 10). According to reports circulated by Vatican Insider, Cardinal Müller supports opening a pathway to the sacraments for the “divorced and remarried.” The substance of the Vatican Insider claims would be addressed later in our conversation. For now, Cardinal Müller clarifies that the expression “divorced and remarried” is not really correct, and that we should rather refer to the “baptized in a legitimate sacramental marriage who live more uxorio [as husband and wife] with a partner who is not their legitimate husband or wife.” According to these same interpretations, Cardinal Müller’s essay therefore refutes the position of the Dubia cardinals. “Not at all,” the former prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith repeated. “The Dubia are authoritative and clearly legitimate. I gave a response that isn’t against any person. My text is clear on this. A correct interpretation [of my text] is that Amoris Laetitia can and must be interpreted in an orthodox way in the unity of Catholic tradition.” “Unfortunately,” Müller continues, “some people always take a ‘partisan’ view, for or against the Pope, as if the Church were a political party. My intervention is not meant to continue the polemics but to overcome them, and to speak about these issues theologically. It is not about being right at any cost, but about honoring revealed Truth.” “I would like my reflections to help us get away from this narrow view: the issue is the Truth, what Jesus Christ said, not the Pope or the Cardinals,” he said. “And as for the Pope, it is necessary to distinguish what is written in magisterial documents, in which he is a teacher of the faith, from what can be opinions, comments and even intentions that, being private claims, have no relevance for the divine and Catholic faith. In any case, the only criterion for judgment is what Jesus Christ said. Let’s not talk about divorced and remarried but about legitimate sacramental marriage before God or [a marriage that is] not valid. And in this case, how do we help these couples who live more uxorio without being validly married before God?” Cascioli: And so we touch on the question of the indissolubility of marriage. In recent days, it’s been said that you are convinced there can be some exceptions. Cardinal Muller: No exceptions. This idea is false. I gave a clear theological explanation, which left no room for misunderstanding. I would like to bring peace to the situation and not fuel polemics between opposing groups. And so we need to be clear that when it comes to a legitimate sacramental marriage there can be no exceptions. The sacraments are efficacious ex opere operato. Just as there are no exceptions in the validity of baptism, or of the transubstantiation of the bread into the Body of Christ.” But in Buttiglione’s essay, he refers to several very particular situations in which there would be a venial sin, so that it should be possible to be absolved and to receive the sacraments while maintaining the state of the second union. In my introduction it is very clearly written that reconciliation is needed, and this is only possible if there is first contrition and a firm purpose not to commit the sin anymore. Certain people who address these issues do not understand that approaching the Sacrament of Reconciliation does not mean automatic absolution. There are essential elements without which reconciliation cannot be achieved. If there isn’t contrition there cannot be absolution and if there is no absolution, if one remains in the state of mortal sin, one cannot receive Communion. As for Buttiglione, he refers to situations where knowledge of the Catholic faith is a problem. These are cases of unconscious Christians, who are baptized but unbelieving, who may have gotten married in Church to please their grandmother, but without a real awareness. Here it becomes a problem when, after many years, they return to the faith and then question the marriage. There are many such cases. Benedict XVI also looked at the issue. So what’s to be done? In this sense we can say with the Pope that discernment is needed, but this does not mean that one can be granted access to the sacraments without the conditions mentioned above. The issue here is not about the indissolubility of sacramental marriage, but about the validity of many marriages that aren’t really valid. But in your essay you also refer to cases of people who convert or return to the faith after already having entered a second union, and regarding the sacraments you talk about a decision in the internal forum. What do you mean? While in Europe things are clear enough at least theoretically, in many countries there are many difficult situations to judge. In Latin America, for example, there are many marriages that are not celebrated according to the canonical form. There are couples who live together but one doesn’t know if there is an actual marriage consent. I was in Haiti recently and the situation there is disastrous; everyone is called a spouse. They live together but they aren’t formally married either in church or civilly. When some mature, they start going to church and then you have to determine who the true husband or wife is. And here it’s important for the person to be honest and say sincerely with whom they have expressed true consent, because it is the consent that makes a marriage, not only the canonical form. In any case, in order to be admitted to the sacraments, the parish priest or bishop must clarify the situation in cooperation with the freedom of the faithful. But there are also situations that are overturned. Can you say more? There are particular circumstances, for example under regimes that persecute the Church, where it isn’t possible to be married canonically. Let’s take the example of North Korea: the few Catholics who are present there still have the right to marry, and here a marriage is possible only through consent. But if in time something happens and the two separate, and they want to remarry, then everything depends on the internal forum, on their honesty in acknowledging if there was consent or not, and they have to express that to the priest or to the new husband or wife. This is where conscience comes into play. Yes, but conscience understood properly, not like certain journalists explain it who water down the truth. We are talking about a right conscience, one that cannot say “I don’t have to respect God’s law.” Conscience does not free us from God’s law but gives us the guidance to fulfill it. However, in your introduction to Buttiglione’s book, you shy away from casuistry and seem especially concerned with offering several clear criteria for understanding Amoris Laetitia so as to avoid what you explicitly call “heretical interpretations.” Exactly. Unfortunately, there are individual bishops and whole episcopal conferences that are proposing interpretations that contradict the previous Magisterium, admitting to the sacraments persons who persist in objective situations of grave sin. But this is not the criterion for applying Amoris Laetitia. Pope Francis himself spoke of a Thomist apostolic exhortation. And so it is right to read it in light of St. Thomas, and on admission to the Eucharist, St. Thomas is clear dogmatically and also has a pastoral sensitivity for individuals.
http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2017/11/rome-makes-quibbling-denial-of-planned.html Wednesday, November 8, 2017 Rome Makes Quibbling Denial of Planned Future Sacrilegious Communion Service with Lutheran Heretics Excerpt: How credible are the denials? The readers of InfoVaticana, following their comments, are not reassured by these denials. Too many remember the apparent confusion, which took place a few months ago surrounding Pope Francis and his immediate circle about another "commission". On June 14, 2017, the Roman historian, Prof. Roberto de Mattei, quite concretely wrote in an essay of the existence of a "secret commission" with the task to re-interpret the encyclical Humanae vitae. De Mattei also mentioned the names of Commissioners, including as Head Msgr. Gilfredo Marengo. Curia Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, a former Family Minister to the Vatican and current President of the Pontifical Academy for Life and Grand Chancellor of the Pontifical Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family, spoke on June 16 in front of the microphones and categorically denied the existence of such a "commission" and especially such an intention. In the same breath, however, he casually let it be known that there was a "study group", which was almost completely lost. Avvenire, the daily newspaper of Italian bishops, went so far as to present the information published by de Mattei on a "Commission" as "media manipulation." The rumors got louder and louder until on July 25, Msgr. Gilfredo Marengo of Radio Vatican gave an interview and confirmed the existence of a "research group." If one reads Paglia's disclaimer retrospectively and literally, he had ultimately only denied the existence of a "Commission". A "research group" is something completely different. Such hair-splitting, which serve the concealment, are responsible for an apparent loss of confidence in statements by representatives by the papal clique, as the comments at InfoVaticana show. The Vatican's Marco Tosatti was the first to report in mid-May about the existence of a secret commission on Humanae vitae, which turned out to be correct despite several weeks of denials by the Vatican. The same Tosatti now reported on the informal commission for the elaboration of an "ecumenical Mass". So should Pope confidante Roche and Vatican spokesman Burke have denied only the existence of an official Vatican commission, but not generally the existence of such commission on behalf of the Pope?
More.....who should you believe....part true and part a set up? Sin city. New book alleges gay sex in Vatican dorm, shady banking (AP) - The Italian journalist who was put on trial by the Vatican for publishing confidential documents has written a new book alleging a host of Catholic sins, including gay sex in the Vatican's youth seminary. Gianluigi Nuzzi's "Original Sin" went on sale Thursday. At a news conference, Nuzzi said his lawyers had hand-delivered a copy to the Vatican's criminal prosecutor, saying at least one of the seminarians was a minor at the time of the alleged escapades. The Vatican didn't immediately comment. The book reproduces documents from the Vatican's scandal-marred bank, showing multi-million-dollar accounts in the names of Popes Paul VI and John Paul II and their private secretaries. And it alleges that hidden powers in the Vatican were blocking the reforms of Pope Francis and his predecessor, Benedict XVI. The book delves into the case of one of the Vatican's biggest mysteries, the 1983 disappearance of Emanuela Orlandi, the 15-year-old daughter of a Vatican employee. And it gathers together years of exposes into the gay subculture of the Vatican. The new claims concern the Vatican's St. Pius X pre-seminary for middle and high schoolers who are considering a possible vocation to the priesthood. Nuzzi reproduces a letter and testimony from a gay ex-seminarian who recounted how an adult, now a priest, used to come into his dorm room and have oral sex with his roommate. The book reproduces a 2014 letter from the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to the ex-seminarian, saying it had determined that no sexual abuse of a minor had occurred but that it was referring the case to the Vatican's office for clergy. Nuzzi told reporters Thursday that the roommate was indeed younger than 18 when the encounters began. Neither the roommate nor the priest were identified. Nuzzi and fellow journalist Emmanuele Fittipaldi were put on trial in a Vatican court in 2015 after both published books based on leaked documents that exposed greed, mismanagement and corruption at the highest levels of the Catholic Church. In July 2016, after an eight-month trial, the Vatican's criminal court declared that it had no jurisdiction to prosecute them. The court did, however, convict two other people for conspiring to leak the documents, and absolved a third. http://www.wpxi.com/news/national-n...y-sex-in-vatican-dorm-shady-banking/644420330
Brian, I wasn't aware or I forgot that on July 25, "Msgr. Gilfredo Marengo of Radio Vatican gave an interview and confirmed the existence of a "research group." " or that on June 16 Curia Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, "casually let it be known that there was a "study group"." Maybe lying is too strong of a term for what has occurred. Although, I am not so certain that the following statement is correct either, "Such hair-splitting, which serve the concealment, are responsible for an apparent loss of confidence in statements by representatives by the papal clique, as the comments at InfoVaticana show." The fact that Andrea Grillo may be involved in this "study/research group" involving possible changes to the liturgy is probably the bigger issue for many people. If Grillo has been vocal about criticizing Cardinal Sarah, Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict then it is apparent why people would have a "loss of confidence in statements by representatives by the papal clique", imho. I must state that I am not certain how the "diocesan initiative" in which Grillo met with Archbishop Erio Castellucci of of Modena-Nonantola, Italy, relates to the "research/study group". From the little reading that I have done on this, it appears to me that they are one in the same (?).
These are such very,very difficult and confusing times. It would take the Wisdom of Solomon and the Discernment of an angel to see through the smoke and mirrors. But my guess is Cardinal Muller though a very Orthodox , Holy and very,very learned man possesses a certain innocence in these matters. By this I mean that he goes under the presumption that those he is dealing with (and by that I include our Holy Father sadly) are as well meaning and direct as he himself is. But that is not my reading of things. The people he is dealing with are by no means well meaning and are very,very sharp cookies indeed. As Jesus said, yes be as innocent as the dove but also be as subtle as the serpent. Treat a tiger like a tiger. I have to say these people are throwing his Eminence curved balls and he just does not know what to do with them. He is dealing with a Jesuit Pope with Jesuit ways and curved balls are to be expected. I am afraid Cardinal Muller is being played off the field. Poor man..
Padraig, I am not as familiar with the clergy as you and many others here on MOG are but I think that Cardinal Muller has done what any reasonable person would do when they believe that their words and or actions have been misinterpreted, he has provided an explanation to set the record straight so to speak. I don't have all of the details other than what has been included in various articles that I have read but it is almost another hint to the Pope that he needs clarify his Apostolic Exhortation, AL. Please answer the Dubia Pope Francis, please.
