FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Amoris Laetitia Row, Fr. Gerald Murray, Robert Royal with Raymond Arroyo
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Poor Fr. Murray looks so upset.

From EWTN's The World Over:

EWTN really started going downhill after Mother Angelica stepped down.  I'm not sure if it is a response to her death or if it's something else, but I've heard and read some impressive things from Raymond Arroyo and EWTN.uk lately.
(02-18-2017, 02:36 AM)Credidi Propter Wrote: [ -> ]EWTN really started going downhill after Mother Angelica stepped down.  I'm not sure if it is a response to her death or if it's something else, but I've heard and read some impressive things from Raymond Arroyo and EWTN.uk lately.
Mother Angelica was a very good influence on Raymond.
Interesting.  Robert Royal said "we've never had a circumstance with a pope obstinately [pause] teaching something that seems to be contradictory to the longstanding, permanent tradition of the Catholic Church."  The Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2089 says "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith."  His phrasing there sounded a lot like that definition to me.  Maybe I'm just imagining something that isn't there, but my ears definitely perked up when I heard him say that.
(02-18-2017, 03:13 AM)Credidi Propter Wrote: [ -> ]Interesting.  Robert Royal said "we've never had a circumstance with a pope obstinately [pause] teaching something that seems to be contradictory to the longstanding, permanent tradition of the Catholic Church."  The Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2089 says "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith."  His phrasing there sounded a lot like that definition to me.  Maybe I'm just imagining something that isn't there, but my ears definitely perked up when I heard him say that.

It's definitely an odd and troubling situation, especially when the Pope is not responding formally to the dubia. It seems like a pretty easy and straightforward thing if the document is meant to be interpreted in the light of Familiaris Consortio:

"Does this exhortation conform to the traditional teaching of the Church in regard to divorced and remarried Catholics and the Sacraments?"

"Yes."

But the silence is a very troubling thing. It will be interesting to see what happens if/when the formal act of correction is issued. 
"An apostolic exhortation is a type of communication from the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church. It encourages a community of people to undertake a particular activity but does not define Church doctrine." the definition of an apostolic exhortation. By this definition of what Amoris Laetitia is it shouldn't define doctrine in the first place.

I think what people are having such a hard time with and from the other talks by EWTN have had on this issue stems from the fact that the exhortation, more so by how it is interpreted, does go against church teaching of the past including the past popes regarding Footnote 351 about divorced and civilly remarried Catholics. I think what ads to that is the fact that some cardinals and scholars along with cannon lawyers state that it is canonically incorrect, unprecedented, or unexplained. That some bishops and cardinals are taking it to justify very liberal principles and finally the fact that the Pope has declined to answer adds credibility to this as he has not stated if that is his true intention ,to allow divorced and civilly remarried Catholics to receive communion without a sacramental marriage and an annulment of prior marriages, regarding the footnote or not.

Now I am not an expert on cannon law by any means but it seems that if this is truly the intention to allow this it brings open that the below quoted text can be used to justify giving everyone communion.

"Because forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end.

    351. In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments. Hence, “I want to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy” (Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium [24 November 2013], 44: AAS 105 [2013], 1038). I would also point out that the Eucharist “is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak” (ibid., 47: 1039)."


Now I believe that allowing civilly remarried Catholics or those not even civilly remarried would be like pulling the bottom card out of a house of cards it all comes tumbling down. I am not married and have not been married but if I was to be married and were to be in a irregular relationship (ex. having relations without being married) I believe the ordinary catholic would be justified that her relationship is somehow allowed in the church because she was able to go to communion. That is not the intention of the exhortation but regular people who want to believe they are not sinning will take it this way, we all know they will. This also would call into consideration of the fact that people got an annulment at all because in that way they are still able to receive the sacraments when they are only civilly remarried.

In my parish (NO parish) I rarely hear the topic of sin anymore, very few go to confession, and everyone receives communion, when I didn't take communion last week because I hadn't gone to confession and had sinned, as we all do, they looked at me like a murdered someone when in reality I just yelled at my Dad and said something mean which I have since been apologized to, as he said worse things to me before I yelled, and apologized to him and am going to confession later today before mass. No one ever sits down and voluntarily chooses to not take communion despite not going to confession, some haven't gone for 30 years and many seem proud that they haven't gone like that means they haven't sinned. In a parish like mine Amoris Laetitia will be taken to mean they don't need an annulment and that these "irregular" unions are ok and I don't even go to the liberal catholic parish it's actually the one of if not the most "traditional" available to me here.