Pope is accused of heresy

Therein lies the exasperation with this pope. He says it should be read always in continuity. But he also a year earlier seemingly contradicted this. In a letter to Argentine bishops (which was also published on the Vatican website), he praised their guidelines for divorced and remarried Catholics. “The document is very good and completely explains the meaning of chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia. There are no other interpretations.” The problem was of course that the Argentine guidelines appeared to very much break with the tradition of the Church, opening the possibility for couples living in an objectively adulterous state to receive Reconciliation and Eucharist without a commitment to continence. Additionally, Francis promoted and features people like Cardinal Farrell and Cardinal Cupich, both with conspicuous connections to Theodore McCarrick, who most certainly interpret Amoris Laetitia in this way.

What are the faithful to believe and understand?

This state of ambiguity is completely unnecessary. If he had answered the dubia a year earlier there would be no question. Yet here we are three years later. People are able to believe whatever they want to believe and I think that's by design. Some suggest that Francis is at heart a Peronist, a politician who has no trouble contradicting himself for the sake of pleasing the person directly in front of him. We need a pastor, not a politician. We need someone who plainly speaks truth and leads to salvation in Christ. I'm just not seeing it right now. I see confusion and weaponized ambiguity. It's disconcerting.

So, you're telling me, that if divorced, and with someone else, the only option is abstaining from sex?

There is no possibility of a later realization that the original marriage wasn't legit, and thus annulled? I mean, the whole point of an annulment is that the original marriage was found null and void. i.e. it wasn't legit.

I mean, sure, technically they should have gotten the marriage annulled, then re-marry. But, if it's done the other way around, and the original marriage was found null, then was there every any sin? The only real thing that happened is that you got what hopefully the one person already knew, confirmed by a tribunal.

However, I think the confusion is more when an annulment isn't an option at all?

Like here?

https://www.ncronline.org/news/vati...laetitia-allows-some-remarried-take-communion
Seems to be a lot of hypothetical situations.

I dunno, I don't get into the weeds of the faith like this usually.