Pope is accused of heresy (1 Viewer)


Lamb wrote that Farrell's tasks as prefect include “the implementation of Amoris Laetitia.”

“From what I see from information that is coming to us from the conferences of bishops and lay groups involved in marriage and family life in different parts of the world, [Amoris laetitia] is very well received, overwhelmingly well received,” Farrell stated.

He did acknowledge that “there are some elements in the United States, on the continent of Africa, and some here in Europe - but not very strong” who have not received Amoris laetitia warmly.

“Cardinal Farrell said the teaching is clear: the Pope is opening a way for divorced and remarried Catholics to return to communion following a process of discernment and on a case-by-case basis,” Lamb wrote.

According to Farrell “It’s not just a question of going up to a priest and saying ‘can I receive communion?’ It is a process, a process that could take one year could take two years, could take three years. It depends on the people. Fundamentally, this is about encountering people where they are.”

Farrell told Lamb that those opposed to admitting the divorced-and-remarried to Communion say those people are “outside the Church for ever.”

“There’s no redemption whatsoever? None? You mean to tell me that Christ and Christ’s redemption didn’t work for those people? No.”

The cardinal called opposition to the pope's policy “an ideological conflict … deep down.”

Doesn't this fit under the church looking at ways to simplify, thus speed up, the process for getting an annulment. Seems like this would fit into that concept.
 
I wasn't insulted. Just making a comment. I'm good.





This seems like a fair summary.




I still feel like I shouldn't care too much about this letter, or its main claims. And that these 19 may be somewhat on the fringe.

The only idea is that Amoris laetitia has created a few questions that would benefit from clarification.

You should care because of the context, and the fact that the content of the letter is largely true, even if the letter is canonically dubious. There's a running list of statements that if taken at face value would equate to heresy. It's really an unprecedented situation, at least in modern times. The Vigano accusations, the unanswered dubia, the Abu Dhabi letter, are all very serious concerns that have the capability of causing a schism.

Amoris Laetitia has certain passages that if taken at face value would threaten to undermine the entire Catholic philosophy of moral agency. Every Catholic should know and care about what's happening. The historical and spiritual importance cannot be overstated. We need to be vigilant, educated, and dedicated to our own continued conversion. That is our responsibility.
 



Doesn't this fit under the church looking at ways to simplify, thus speed up, the process for getting an annulment. Seems like this would fit into that concept.

No. That's not what is in question. The formal dubia that was submitted to the pope helps to explain the troublesome ambiguities.


It's worth reading the entire article and text but here's the dubia (questions) themselves.

3. The Dubia

  1. 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?
  2. After the publication of the post-synodal exhortation Amoris Laetitia (304), does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 79, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, on the existence of absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts and that are binding without exceptions?
  3. After Amoris Laetitia (301) is it still possible to affirm that a person who habitually lives in contradiction to a commandment of God’s law, as for instance the one that prohibits adultery (Matthew 19:3-9), finds him or herself in an objective situation of grave habitual sin (Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, “Declaration,” June 24, 2000)?
  4. After the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (302) on “circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility,” does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 81, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, according to which “circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice”?
  5. After Amoris Laetitia (303) does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 56, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, that excludes a creative interpretation of the role of conscience and that emphasizes that conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object?

And this open essay by Josef Seifert outlines the dangerous philosophical ramifications of AL if there is no subsequent clarification. https://onepeterfive.com/josef-seif...estroy-entire-moral-doctrine-catholic-church/
The assertion of AL I wish to investigate here, however, does not invoke subjective conscience at all, but claims a totally objective divine will for us to commit, in certain situations, acts that are intrinsically wrong, and have always been considered such by the Church. Since God can certainly not have a lack of ethical knowledge, an “erring conscience,” or a weakness of free will, this text does not “defend the rights of human subjectivity,” as Buttiglione claims, but appears to affirm clearly that these intrinsically disordered and objectively gravely sinful acts, as Buttiglione admits, can be permitted, or can even objectively be commanded, by God. If this is truly what AL affirms, all alarm over AL’s direct affirmations, regarding matters of changes of sacramental discipline (admitting, after due discernment, adulterers, active homosexuals, and other couples in similar situations to the sacraments of confession and eucharist, and, logically, also of baptism, confirmation, and matrimony, without their willingness to change their lives and to live in total sexual abstinence, which Pope John Paul II demanded in Familiaris Consortio from couples in such “irregular situations”), refer only to the peak of an iceberg, to the weak beginning of an avalanche, or to the first few buildings destroyed by a moral theological atomic bomb that threatens to tear down the whole moral edifice of the 10 commandments and of Catholic Moral Teaching.
 
You should care because of the context, and the fact that the content of the letter is largely true, even if the letter is canonically dubious. There's a running list of statements that if taken at face value would equate to heresy. It's really an unprecedented situation, at least in modern times. The Vigano accusations, the unanswered dubia, the Abu Dhabi letter, are all very serious concerns that have the capability of causing a schism.

Amoris Laetitia has certain passages that if taken at face value would threaten to undermine the entire Catholic philosophy of moral agency. Every Catholic should know and care about what's happening. The historical and spiritual importance cannot be overstated. We need to be vigilant, educated, and dedicated to our own continued conversion. That is our responsibility.

Looks like Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI answered it somewhat recently, albeit indirectly.

https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2019/05/11/the-dubia-were-answered/

 
And I'll add. The dubia is one thing and a fair comment that Francis didn't answer it directly.

But this letter seems to stray quite far from those specific questions.
 
I'm certainly not an expert here, but I appreciate the discussion. It's a topic I haven't explored before. Thanks for outlining some of the key issues.
 
Heresy, as defined in the catechism...


So it's not heresy in itself to accuse someone of heresy.

Heresy is the denial of a truth of the faith. For example, if I believed that Jesus was just a nice guy and not divine in nature, I'd hold a heretical belief.

Thank you.
 
Looks like Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI answered it somewhat recently, albeit indirectly.

https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2019/05/11/the-dubia-were-answered/


While this is a good commentary on the state of things, it does not answer the dubia because Benedict has no authority to do so. It wasn't addressed to him. He did not author AL. And he is not the pope. Only Francis can answer the questions. It's a bit frustrating because the optics of having a 'retired' pope is super weird.

The thing is, we know what the answers to those questions should be. It's not a mystery for any orthodox Catholic. The question is whether the pope is attempting to contradict existing tradition and belief and on what grounds.

And I'll add. The dubia is one thing and a fair comment that Francis didn't answer it directly.

But this letter seems to stray quite far from those specific questions.

That's true. There's a lot going on there so I wouldn't expect to be able to address it in one thread in an afternoon. But I can tell you I've been following most of this for a couple of years and it's worth your attention. We're in a very interesting period of history.
 
While this is a good commentary on the state of things, it does not answer the dubia because Benedict has no authority to do so. It wasn't addressed to him. He did not author AL. And he is not the pope. Only Francis can answer the questions. It's a bit frustrating because the optics of having a 'retired' pope is super weird.

The thing is, we know what the answers to those questions should be. It's not a mystery for any orthodox Catholic. The question is whether the pope is attempting to contradict existing tradition and belief and on what grounds.

So let me ask you this...

Not saying this is happening or is going to happen, but what if the Magisterium re-interprets that realigns more to what concerns you with AL? I'm sure there will be chaos as it will change generations of Catholic teaching (several that I disagree with). But what would your reaction be if the Spirit moves the Church to look at things in a different light?
 
While this is a good commentary on the state of things, it does not answer the dubia because Benedict has no authority to do so. It wasn't addressed to him. He did not author AL. And he is not the pope. Only Francis can answer the questions. It's a bit frustrating because the optics of having a 'retired' pope is super weird.

The thing is, we know what the answers to those questions should be. It's not a mystery for any orthodox Catholic. The question is whether the pope is attempting to contradict existing tradition and belief and on what grounds.



That's true. There's a lot going on there so I wouldn't expect to be able to address it in one thread in an afternoon. But I can tell you I've been following most of this for a couple of years and it's worth your attention. We're in a very interesting period of history.

Wouldn't that answer be no?

"“It cannot be considered a vademecum [manual] on different issues. If the Exhortation is not read in its entirety and in the order it is written, it will either not be understood or it will be distorted,” the pope wrote. "

"A letter from Pope Francis on Amoris laetitia has been published in which the pope says the 2016 apostolic exhortation is “always in continuity” with the traditional teaching of the Church, and must be read and understood “in its entirety and from the beginning.” "
 
Any man willing to climb the Tower and be declared THE voice for God is bound to have done a few heretical things to get there. With that in mind, I'm not sorry to be surprised.
 
Wouldn't that answer be no?

"“It cannot be considered a vademecum [manual] on different issues. If the Exhortation is not read in its entirety and in the order it is written, it will either not be understood or it will be distorted,” the pope wrote. "

"A letter from Pope Francis on Amoris laetitia has been published in which the pope says the 2016 apostolic exhortation is “always in continuity” with the traditional teaching of the Church, and must be read and understood “in its entirety and from the beginning.” "

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.
 
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.
Seems to me you just have a spiritual issue with this Pope, much like I had with Benedict and, in many ways, with John Paul II (and I met him when visited New Orleans). On that we'll have to agree to disagree.

However, your expectation the Francis be not a politician is a fallacy. As a head of state, the Pope has to be both, just as his predecessors.
 
Yeah, I guess I'm just trying to figure out your beef Brennan.

Like, you have an issue that you're not exactly saying. You can't be that worked up about what some people consider ambiguity. I don't see it as that ambiguous, or even if so, that it's somewhat by design. The point being that not every situation has a cut and dry answer, and to allow the parish/diocese to make some judgement, rooted in the catechism.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom