Theologians & Scholars Formally Request Correction of Amoris Laetitia

This link was in, 'Spirit Daily' today. It not just wacko's into conspiracy theories believe this, there really does seem to be good evidence for a secret cabal. Belief in this threory is going mainstream Catholic:


https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/t...-of-a-cabal-undermining-church-with-backing-f

 

Catholic Prophesy has indicated for quite some time that a Secret Satainic/ Fremason Group has been operating freely in the Vatican at the very highest levels for quite some time. These reports only confirm that fact.

 

Messages from Sulema

– Extrait du message donné par la Très Sainte Vierge Marie le 24 juillet 2013, page 154 :

"[...] Pray also for the Holy Father Francis and Pope Benedict XVI, your Emeritus Pope is very important and for all My consecrated. One day, not far away, you will understand why, in these times which are the last, the two popes are together, why God has willed it so. Pray for them, pray also for all your brothers and sisters around the world without exception. "

 

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/m...theologians-appeal-to-correct-amoris-laetitia
More details surface about 45 theologians’ appeal to correct Amoris Laetitia’s errors

Claire Chretien
July 20, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – New details have emerged about the letter 45 theologians sent to every Catholic patriarch and cardinal asking them to petition Pope Francis to fix a list of erroneous propositions in Amoris Laetitia.

The group’s spokesman Dr. Joseph Shaw, a University of Oxford academic and chairman of the Latin Mass Society, told LifeSiteNews that the list of signatories is not in any way limited to theologians who are viewed as liturgical traditionalists, thus showing that there is wide concern about Amoris Laetitia across the world of Catholic academia.

Upon the announcement of the existence the letter, Shaw said, “Numerous propositions in Amoris laetitia can be construed as heretical upon a natural reading of the text. Additional statements would fall under other established theological censures, such as scandalous, erroneous in faith, and ambiguous, among others.”

The letter asks all 218 living cardinals and patriarchs to petition Pope Francis with a request that he reject “the errors listed in the document in a definitive and final manner, and to authoritatively state that Amoris laetitia does not require any of them to be believed or considered as possibly true.”

The Catholic Herald reported Monday that it had obtained a copy of the letter, which the Herald said stressed that it “does not deny or question the personal faith of Pope Francis.” According to the Herald, the signatories wrote that it is necessary for Pope Francis to issue a clarification about the exhortation’s ambiguous passages, from which the signatories say heretical propositions can be drawn, in order for the portions of Amoris Laetitia that affirm Catholic doctrine to be truly effective. The Herald reported that among the signatories were “several distinguished figures, including one of Britain’s best-known theologians and the founder of a French religious community.”

The report included new details on the nineteen passages in the exhortation with which the signatories expressed concern. The letter states that the “vagueness or ambiguity” of these passages “permit interpretations that are contrary to faith or morals, or that suggest a claim that is contrary to faith and morals without actually stating it. It also contains statements whose natural meaning would seem to be contrary to faith or morals.”

The letter cites Amoris Laetitia’s claim that someone could “be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin” and asks Pope Francis to clarify that this does not mean “that a justified person has not the strength with God’s grace to carry out the objective demands of the divine law, as though any of the commandments of God are impossible for the justified; or as meaning that God’s grace, when it produces justification in an individual, does not invariably and of its nature produce conversion from all serious sin, or is not sufficient for conversion from all serious sin.”

The exhortation’s seeming implication that it may be impossible for some people to live according to Christian teaching is one of the many elements of it that has caused Catholics around the world to raise their concerns with the document. Many have done so more publicly.

The lay group Voice of the Family released a list of doctrinal errors and ambiguities contained in Amoris Laetitia and called on Pope Francis to withdraw it. Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Maria Santissima in Astana, Kazakhstan, said that the confusion the document has produced points to the need for clarification that the document is in line with official Church teaching.

Some Catholic bishops, such as Bishop Thomas Paprocki of the Diocese of Springfield, Illinois and Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, have said that the only appropriate way to read Amoris Laetitia is in continuity with the Church’s longstanding teachings.

This is also the view that Cardinal Raymond Burke has advanced. Following the exhortation’s release, Burke, who is the patron of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta and former Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, the Vatican’s highest court, wrote that Amoris Laetitia is not magisterial and therefore cannot change Church teaching or practice.

Others, like Cardinal Walter Kasper and Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, have celebrated the exhortation as opening the door for the practice of admitting to the Sacraments those living unrepentantly in situations the Church labels objectively sinful.

Shaw has previously explained that the signatories sent the letter straight to cardinals rather than publicly releasing it because “we have taken the view that the Sacred College should be allowed to consider the substance of the document and the action to be taken in response to it before its contents are made public.”

“The censures are a detailed and technical theological document whose contents are not readily accessible to a non-specialist audience, and are easily misrepresented or misunderstood,” said Shaw.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/07/20/vatican-ratchets-up-defense-pope-family-document.html
Vatican ratchets up defense of pope's family document

FILE - This Friday, April 8, 2016 file photo shows Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn holding a copy of the post-synodal apostolic exhortation ' Amoris Laetitia ' (The Joy of Love) during a press conference at the Vatican. 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 in dioceses around the world. (AP Photo/Andrew Medichini) (The Associated Press)

VATICAN CITY – 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.

ADVERTISEMENT

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."

 

Emphasis added:

https://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=28879
Buttiglione backs Amoris Laetitia in L'Osservatore Romano article
Catholic World News

July 20, 2016

The Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano has published a front-page essay by Rocco Buttiglione, the Italian political leader and adviser to St. John Paul II, supporting the argument of Amoris Laetitia that Catholics who are divorced and remarried might, under some circumstances, be allowed to receive Communion.

Buttiglione argues that the Catholic Church has always recognized the possibility that individual circumstances determine whether or not someone is in a state of sin. He writes:

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.

Buttiglione's argument matches a previous statement by Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, making the case that Pope Francis intended his apostolic exhortation to be interpreted as allowing for Communion for divorce-and-remarried couples on a case-by-case basis. The prominence given to Buttiglione's essay in the Vatican's official newspaper suggests a concerted effort to promote that interpretation of the papal document.

References:

• Vatican ratchets up defense of pope's family document (AP)

 

This is an excellent article, especially as it comes from a mainstream Catholic (not trad) website:
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Blog/4912/a_different_kind_of_papal_press_conference.aspx

 

Excuse me for my ignorance, but doesn't this sound very protestant?

African reporter: Holy Father, with respect, how would you respond to those who might suggest that what really needed to be clarified, modified or even retracted was not so much your powerful homily on the exploitation of workers, but instead certain passages in Amoris Laetitia itself, a document which – despite some valuable and eloquent points they acknowledge it makes about marriage and the family in its early chapters – contains, they believe, dangerous ambiguities, obfuscations or even worse in the eighth chapter on morality and pastoral care?

Pope Francis: [very long pause in the suddenly silent hall] Well . . . as I said in Amoris Laetitia, “I understand those who prefer a more rigorous pastoral care which leaves no room for confusion” (AL 308). Yes, I do understand them. Sometimes, if I may say so, I even feel sorry for them, when I think of what they are missing out on . . .

African reporter: Missing out on, your Holiness?

Pope Francis: Yes, because . . . as I stated in that same paragraph, when we decide to “enter into the reality of other people’s lives and to know the power of tenderness . . . our lives become wonderfully complicated.”

So let us not fear confusion. Let us not fear it at all, if it should arise from a tender pastoral care that complicates our lives in such a wonderful way.

Thank you, thank you everyone.

 

Every member on this forum has been quite clear about where confusion comes from.Confusion comes from Satan. Pope Francis want you to welcome confusion.

 

It sounds like you are saying by inference that Pope Francis wants us to welcome Satan. Are you suggesting this?

 

They forgot "mercy," and "being open to the newness of God" and "the guidance of the spirit."

 

When the pope's own paper cheers on an interpretation of AL at odds with 2000 years of Christian teaching and the plain words of Christ Himself in scripture, it doesn't do so under the influence of "the Holy Spirit."

Loyalty to and defense of the Holy Father is an admirable, virtuous trait!

But those who continue to defend this error because they have a mistaken view of defending the Holy Father, however, at some point are guilty of defending this indefensible error.

The sentiment is correct but the circumstances are very gravely wrong, and eternal souls are at stake.

 

Hi Brian
There may be someone who happens on this forum who is not familiar with the members who oppose the pope, so for their sake I will just say that those here who continue to deprecate and contradict his teaching are in danger of committing the unforgivable sin - the sin against the Holy Spirit and leading others into that sin - and very few here put themselves in that danger. I do not pronounce them guilty - only in danger of this guilt. I am learning.
May God correct you Brian and may you never be condemned.
Your friend
Joe

 

How a faithful, educated Catholic can read these articles yet continue to defend these errors is beyond me, Joe.

I fully understand why the world and the liberals/progressives embrace this nonsense, but I cannot for the life of me grasp how otherwise orthodox faithful Catholics can see what's happening yet still persist in this behavior. It's not virtue to call error, correct teaching. It's not praiseworthy to see a blatant contradiction of Scripture and continuous Church teaching and think it's "merciful" or inspired by "the Holy Spirit."

It is, frankly, blasphemous.

But since I like you personally, I'll simply put you on ignore again so as not to engage you in this.

 

I un

I thought you might do this Brian. Its good to be clear - I am guilty, stupid, and blasphemous. Ah well, I have been called worse. Time will tell. But will you listen? God Bless you.

 

Whose soul is ultimately at risk in this climate? Especially if silence (even due to denial) implies consent? Remember, "personnel is policy."


http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/ind...vatican-s-greatest-supporter-and-collaborator

The Vatican’s ‘Greatest Supporter’ and Collaborator

Be forewarned. This photo speaks volumes about this papacy and its collaborators. Know them by the radical company they keep.

Clout affords him heightened access to the Pope, as he sits prominently at the speaker’s dais when Pope Francis addresses the Pontifical Academy’s Human Trafficking Judicial Conference in early June 2016.

He smiles and listens as Francis acknowledges and thanks “a number of prestigious external collaborators—to whom I offer my heartfelt thanks—have engaged in important activities in defense of human dignity and freedom in our day.”

He nods knowingly because he ranks foremost as the Pope’s ‘prestigious external collaborators.’

As the Pope’s address continues, Francis identifies these ‘collaborators.’ “We can also count an important and decisive collaboration with the United Nations. I am grateful for the fact that the representatives of the 193 UN member states unanimously approved the new Sustainable Development Goals.”

After three years of intense geopolitical chicanery, Francis unabashedly concedes that the Vatican’s ‘important collaborators’ are none other than the United Nations and its pro-abortion Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Despite the outcry from The Remnant, The Lepanto Institute, Voice of the Family and LifesiteNews and, many others, who repeatedly warned of the anti-life, anti-Catholic goals and tactics of the gender-bender, contraceptive ridden, and abortion laden UN/ SDGs, Francis is not backing down of his SDG support. Since his election, his papacy quickly embraced the eco agenda of the secular global elite by collaborating with the United Nations, as the bureaucratic global savior of the environment.

In three short years, the unthinkable envelops the seat of Peter, a radical secular agenda which undermines the deposit of faith. How did it happen so quickly? The answer lies in the man seated at the papal dais. His name is Jeffrey Sachs and he is the UN/SDG mastermind behind the papal eco doctrine of faith. Make no mistake. He operates with impunity and with the explicit blessing of Francis.

Sachs dominates the Vatican as its prominent eco-mouthpiece who has racked up over 9 appearances and speeches at the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy in the last 3 years.

Sachs serves as the United Nations jack-of-all-trades expert propounding on everything from rising seas to rising population.

Sachs squires around fellow secularists, Ban Ki Moon and Bernie Sanders throughout the halls of the Vatican.

Sachs drafts Vatican documents on climate change.

Jeffrey Sachs far surpasses the mere role of Vatican collaborator. He is described by Pontifical Academy President Margaret Archer as one of its “greatest supporters.”

Who is Jeffrey Sachs, this greatest supporter of the Vatican? He is Director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University and director of the UN Millennial Development Goals Network, a special advisor to UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon and author of (what else) The Age of Sustainable Development.

More troubling, Sachs perches as a permanent fixture within the Vatican walls of the Francis papacy, acting as a one-man climate change curia, incessantly promoting the UN global warming agenda. He is the self-appointed expert on all things global and his troubling influence continues to grow in the Vatican.

This “greatest supporter” functions as the Vatican’s most frequent invited speaker and climate global advisor. In the last 3 years, Sachs opines from human trafficking, to climate change to income redistribution. Sachs poses as an expert on an array of subjects insisting that they all lead to the sustainable green brick road of his precious UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

This greatest supporter of the Vatican wrote that abortion is a “lower-risk and lower-cost option” (that’s an economist talking) than bringing a child into the world.

This greatest supporter of the Vatican believes that “high fertility rates are deleterious to economic development.”

This greatest supporter of the Vatican forcefully argues “legalization of abortion reduces a country’s total fertility rate significantly, by as much as half a child on average.” That’s a good thing for Sachs.

This greatest supporter of the Vatican has advocated for 20 years a UN global reproductive health policy, which is flush with abortion and contraceptives.

This greatest supporter of the Vatican promotes the new UN Sustainable Development Goals which are replete with the promotion of sexual and reproductive health resources, including abortifacients, contraceptives and abortion services.

Can you hear the collective gasp of horror from the tombs of popes beneath St. Peter’s Basilica?

Two weeks ago at the Vatican Judicial Human Trafficking Summit, Sachs spoke again (although he’s certainly not a judge) and seized the opportunity to again further the implementation of his pet project, the new UN Sustainable Development Goals. In his revealing opening statement, Sachs underscored the close collaboration and scheme between the UN and the Pope’s Eco Exhortation, Laudato Si.

Jeffrey Sachs acknowledged that Pope Francis and his encyclical “Laudato Si made the adoption of both the passage of the UN Sustainable Development Goals in Sept. 2015 and the Paris Climate Agreement in December 2015 possible.”

You heard that right. The collaboration worked masterfully! Sachs’ unrelenting Vatican presence provided assurance and coordination that the UN agenda of climate change and sustainable development would be fortified and championed by Pope Francis’ Apostolic Exhortation Laudato Si. How clever and political of them all.

The highly controversial and scientifically challenged climate change manifesto, Laudato Si released on June 18, 2015, paved the way for the passage of the abortion and contraception-infused UN Sustainable Development Goals in September 2015. To further guarantee SDGs victory at the UN, Pope Francis sealed the deal and addressed to the UN General Assembly on September 25th and urged that:

“The adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development at the World Summit, which opens today, is an important sign of hope. I am similarly confident that the Paris Conference on Climatic Change will secure fundamental and effective agreements.”

Presto, following the release of Laudato Si and the papal UN Address, the SDGs were passed by the UN General Assembly followed by the passage of the Paris Climate Treaty in December of 2015. Those secular milestones signal quite a political accomplishment for the Vicar of Christ!

After three years of intense coordination and delicate timing, the plot hatched at the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences reveals an ongoing radical, secular, political, and global partnership under this pontificate.

Jeffrey Sachs is now comfortably embedded as the Pope’s point man orchestrating the UN/Vatican/Obama administration collaboration and partnership to promote population control, masking as global climate change. As a willing stooge in this globalist movement to build one world order through population control, decarbonization, climate taxation, deindustrialization, and redistribution of wealth, the Vatican dispatches all its precious resources, including summits, pontifical academies, slick papal videos, St. Peter’s animal laser shows, and yes, a papal exhortation to lend its moral voice to an immoral global strategy.

If only the millions of threatened unborn children and persecuted Christians could be afforded those vast Vatican resources.

 

Joe it's fine to disagree. But you should list reasons for that disagreement . So to ensure discussion. Simply to say to someone that what they are doing is evil and wrong and awful ect does not move the discussion forward. It is simply name calling. It reduces the discussion to the level of,

I'm right, you're wrong'

'No I'm right you're worng'

No , I'm right you're wrong'.

Do you see what I mean, then things go,

'What you're doing is wicked and stupid'.

'No what you;re doing is wicked and stupid'

'No what you're doing is even wickeder and studer than what I am doing'

'No you are the wicked and stupidestof all'

Do you see what I mean, Joe? If you see that someone is writing something you think is wicked and wrong fine. But then youhave to unpick what they are writing and sat exactly why it is wrong. Then they can counter respond by replying at the same level. What you are fdoing at the moment if writng, 'That's awful, that's terrible thats shocking, you are on the road to hell for writing that'. Which is fine But you have to follow up by saying why exactly you might think this is so. You're not realy doing that. You are basically name calling and mud slinging.

You reduce the forum to a kindergarden spat when you do this.

You can do better than that Joe.

Try. Think about what Brian is actauly writing and respond to it. Don't just write how awful it is , how awful he is and then call him names.

Do you see what I mean? You are being a more than a bit of a conversation killer at the moment.

Try to discuss more and rant less. You are not really discussing at all at the moment, it is more a continuous rant. It gets a little tiresome after a while

 

Ah well

Ah well Padraig - I leave it to the rest of the forum to decide - no criticism of Brian from you - no advice to listen to me - I (and the pope) am the one who has been insulted and slandered and threatened here here and you turn it around to make Brian the victim - I am the one who was charitable to Brian and you turn it around and make me out to be the one who has been uncharitable - you are the one who has made me out to be the scrapper and the bully when it is me who has been bullied by you and Brian and Mac.

You have called my stance immature because in your eyes I have not listened and addressed the issues. In my job I listen all day and every day but like any mature person you learn to filter the material, to reduce it to that which is of essence. What is of essence here is that Our Holy Father stands falsely accused on this forum and no evidence has been provided to support the charges.

I challenge you to show me one rant that I have made on this thread. This is my longest comment.

I am not the one who has broken the rules of posting. I have exposed the threads that falsely accuse Our Holy Father of heresy and lies and poison. You choose to ignore this. Look at the length of posts by Brian and tell me who is ranting. Look at the screeds of lengthy vitriole that come from the mouths of Remnant etc that is quoted here. . This discussion is not advancing because there is no substance on which it can be advanced. The Pope has not contradicted eternal truth nor the teachings of the Church.

My first post here was in response to Mac's inference that Pope Francis is inviting us to welcome satan into our lives. Does that belong on a Catholic forum? How much unpicking does that need. This inference was then given support by Brian accompanied by his personal insults to me.

It seems you are just itching to kick me off again. I also expect more ridicule and insults from the same quarters as it came last time I was here.

Even as I write I see I have fallen into your three cornered trap, baited and laid out by Mac, set by Brian and covered by you Padraig. And the rest of the pack is snarling in shadows.

 

I am afraid Joe, that this is just another rant.

 

Joe,

I do not see your posts as rants. But then again, I may be bias!

Strangely enough, I really identify with the traditional Catholics! I love all things traditional and I seem to have very old school beliefs. But I am caught in confusion!

I want so much to understand where I am in all of this uncertainty!

I'm not so much looking at the Pope, nor at the compromising Bishops, nor the seeming new and strange teachings of some of the Bishops, nor am I looking even at doctrine...... What I'm looking at or what I am presented with in my day to day life, is my sinfulness!

So, I see myself and some other Catholics, as spoilt! We as Catholics have the true faith and we have the joys of Mass! Communion! Confession! Benediction! and the wonderful understanding of Gods Love and Truth; yet many non catholics and even non christians morally outshine many Catholics!......... and that's without all the blessings that being Catholic gives you!


I interact with so many people in my work and in life in general, that are not Catholic, and yet I see how beautiful these people are! they are helpful to others and giving and caring and they have many virtues that I see lacking in many Catholics, that I know!


I also wonder how will my Holy, Loving God judge these good souls? that have never had the great blessings of my catholic faith! yet they live good and holy lives?.

And how will God Judge these beautiful babies that I see down the street and around the town that have been unfortunate enough to be born into homes of violence and drugs and will never have any education in faith!?


Surley God expects more from us Catholics! I believe we as Catholics, should not judge those that are not as fortunate as we are! and maybe that is what Our Holy Father is trying to teach us?

This all makes me wonder!