Well....now what??
#71
(12-03-2017, 09:54 AM)GangGreen Wrote: Unless you are a liberal who supports the heresies, what can you say to defend PF?

I'm no liberal, and maybe I'm missing something, but I just went back to read what the documents actually say. Here's a translation of part of the letter:

Quote:5) Whenever feasible, and depending on the specific circumstances of a couple, and especially when both partners are Christians walking together on the path of faith, the priest may suggest a decision to live in continence. Amoris Laetitia does not ignore the difficulties arising from this option (cf. footnote 329) and offers the possibility of having access to the Sacrament of Reconciliation if the partners fail in this purpose (cf. footnote 364, recalling the teaching that Saint John Paul II sent to Cardinal W. Baum, dated 22 March, 1996).

6) In other, more complex cases, and when a declaration of nullity has not been obtained, the above mentioned option may not, in fact, be feasible. Nonetheless, a path of discernment is still possible. If it comes to be recognized that, in a specific case, there are limitations that mitigate responsibility and culpability (cf. 301-302), especially when a person believes they would incur a subsequent wrong by harming the children of the new union, Amoris Laetitia offers the possibility of access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and Eucharist (cf. footnotes 336 and 351). These sacraments, in turn, dispose the person to continue maturing and growing with the power of grace.

7) But we have to avoid understanding this possibility as an unlimited access to the sacraments, as if all situations warrant it. The idea is to properly discern each case. For example, special care is called for in “a new union arising from a recent divorce” or in “the case of someone who has consistently failed in his obligations to the family” (298). Also, when there is a sort of justification or ostentation of the person’s situation “as if it were part of the Christian ideal” (297). In these difficult cases, we should be patient companions, looking for ways of integrating them (cf. 297, 299).

Paragraph 6 seems to be the problematic one. But since mortal sin requires full consent and full knowledge, I suppose there could be a situation - such as the one JosefSilouan suggested - where the couple, or at least one of them, isn't in a state of mortal sin due to the lack of one or more of the requirements for mortal sin. And one who has committed only venial sin can receive Communion.

While I have little doubt that, practically, this will become like annulments, and divorced-and-remarried couples will get the rubber stamp of venial sin, that's not what the document actually says. From reading this, it just says that if it's discerned that the person isn't sufficiently culpable to commit mortal sin, he can still receive the Sacraments. And there's nothing false about that.
Reply
#72
Can I ask a question regarding these ''special circumstances'':
If Christ did not address them, why should the Church?
[-] The following 1 user Likes Rivers's post:
  • Sacred Heart lover
Reply
#73
Just my $0.02:
Paul Wrote:If it isn't mortal sin, then what's to admire about those who chose death over forced apostasy?
I think worshiping pagan gods from fear of death can be a venial sin. However, a venial sin is still a sin, something wrong and against God's law. That's enough reason for praising martyrs who chose death.
The Christian and Catholic religion, in fact, is the legitimate daughter of Jesus, king of the Mages. A simple scapular worn by a truly Christian person is a more invincible talisman than the ring and pentacle of Solomon.
The Mass is the most prodigious of evocations. Necromancers evoke the dead, the sorcerer evokes the devil and he shakes, but the Catholic priest does not tremble in evoking the living God.


Perhaps Christ had not only one precursor, John, last of the prophets, but three: John the Baptist for the Chosen People, Socrates from the heart of antiquity, and Buddha, who spoke the ultimate word in Eastern religious cognition.
Reply
#74
Paul Wrote:From reading this, it just says that if it's discerned that the person isn't sufficiently culpable to commit mortal sin, he can still receive the Sacraments. And there's nothing false about that.
Well, yes, but since yesterday I wonder when contraception will be allowed after "proper discernment". Well surely sometimes the responsibility for this sin is diminished, say, when one of the spouses is HIV-positive, and the cessation of marital intercourse would somehow harm the family life (as is argued in the case of AL) - because, I don't know, if having to choose between abstinence and finding a new partner, the person would choose the latter.
Any sin can now be justified on the basis of discernment.
The Christian and Catholic religion, in fact, is the legitimate daughter of Jesus, king of the Mages. A simple scapular worn by a truly Christian person is a more invincible talisman than the ring and pentacle of Solomon.
The Mass is the most prodigious of evocations. Necromancers evoke the dead, the sorcerer evokes the devil and he shakes, but the Catholic priest does not tremble in evoking the living God.


Perhaps Christ had not only one precursor, John, last of the prophets, but three: John the Baptist for the Chosen People, Socrates from the heart of antiquity, and Buddha, who spoke the ultimate word in Eastern religious cognition.
[-] The following 2 users Like PolishTrad's post:
  • knittycat, Sacred Heart lover
Reply
#75
All I can say is there seems to be some very fine dicing and tap-dancing here trying to justify AL and the Pope's interpenetration of it here.

It seems to me the best way to handle this has already been addressed by Charles Coulumbe:
From FaceBook, 2 hours ago:
"One of the questions that has afflicted both Church historians, canonists, and theologians since Vatican I is the level of solemnity to be attributed and moral assent to be required of items published in the Actae Apostolicae Sedis, with many arguing that publication therein placed an item within the Extraordinary magisterium. I am grateful to the Holy Father for effectively responding to that question in the negative - a response that clears up what has been a most vexing question for almost a century and a half."
Reply
#76
It matters very little what Amoris Laetitia actually says. What matters is what people do in response to it. It says very clearly in scripture “do not give what is holy to the dogs or cast your pearls before swine”. Even so, bishops and bishops conferences are calling to “be pastoral,” “accompany,” and other catchy phrases that basically attempt to excuse defying sacred scripture.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Credidi Propter's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#77
(12-03-2017, 02:38 PM)Rivers Wrote: Can I ask a question regarding these ''special circumstances'':
If Christ did not address them, why should the Church?

Yes, exactly.

The apostles asked Jesus about "special circumstances" regarding divorce and adultery and His response didn't require upholding the minimum of the law, but the maximum and then some.

In other words, "Not just no, but HELL NO!"
Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the antichrist. 
The demons of the air together with the Antichrist will perform great wonders  
The Church will be in eclipse

-Our Lady of La Salette


Like Christ, His Bride the Church will undergo its own passion, burial, and resurrection.
-unknown traditional priest

Father Ripperger said that if we are detached from all things, aren't afraid to suffer, and we accept all suffering as the will of God for our sanctity, we have nothing to fear!
Reply
#78
It is very interesting how this thread has evolved. My personal take on Francis still stands. He is an apostate, but the Church is not and there is a valid Pope still around in Benedict XVI, who was forced out, by his own admission, and I think, still commands the Keys of Peter and that is exemplified in his continuing to wear the Papal White garments.

I will continue to go to Mass at my Parish, which is a rather conservative one, so long as the priest continues to utter the correct words of consecration and I will pray along with the rest of the congregation. To not do so is to abandon the very sick Body of Christ and we all are aware that the last time The Body of Christ was abandoned, He was Crucified. All of the Apostles that abandoned Christ, died martyr's deaths. Only John, who was at the foot of Christ's Cross, with Mary and a few women, did not die a martyr's death. He suffered, that is true, but he died peacefully.

I will continue to support the Church, to be alert to abuses, to point them out and avoid them. I will continue in my church ministry, because to not do so would not benefit the Body of Christ, but abandon it. I will receive the sacraments and pray diligently for the conversion of sinners, especially those who are within Our Church and seek its demise.

We cannot abandon our Church in its hour of need, when the forces of Satan are the most active and desperate, because they know that their time is short. We must remain strong.
One should have an open mind; open enough that things get in, but not so open that everything falls out
 
A democracy which makes or even effectively prepares for modern, scientific war must necessarily cease to be democratic. No country can be really well prepared for modern war unless it is governed by a tyrant, at the head of a highly trained and perfectly obedient bureaucracy
Huxley
 
The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything  
Einstein
 
Its no wonder truth is stranger than fiction.
Fiction has to make sense
Mark Twain
[-] The following 1 user Likes Zedta's post:
  • BluegrassMTBer
Reply
#79
From A Catholic Catechism of Social Questions, Fr T.J. O'Kane, 1936, Nihil Obstat, Henricus Canonicus Forbes, Censor Deputatus, Gulielmus Canonicus Daly, Vicarius Generalis (my emphasis):


Quote:Question 67: What is the scope of the Church's power with regard to God's laws?

Answer: The Church is the interpreter of the natural law; she is the interpreter and promulgator of the divine positive law; and she is empowered to make laws of her own.

Natural law: To the Church belongs the right to say what is contained in the natural law.
Divine positive law: Of this the Church is the divinely appointed custodian, interpreter, and promulgator.
Laws of her own: The Church cannot alter God's law, whether it be the natural law or divine positive law, yet within the framework of God's law she can make by-laws, and with God's authority; e.g., she requires the presence of a priest for Catholic marriage. These by-laws , being her own, she can alter, but she cannot alter God's law, nor has she any desire to do so.

''She cannot alter God's law, nor has she any desire to do so.' Well, at least until this Pontificate!
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
  “Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog also.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'


Reply
#80
(12-03-2017, 06:39 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: From A Catholic Catechism of Social Questions, Fr T.J. O'Kane, 1936, Nihil Obstat, Henricus Canonicus Forbes, Censor Deputatus, Gulielmus Canonicus Daly, Vicarius Generalis (my emphasis):


Quote:Question 67: What is the scope of the Church's power with regard to God's laws?

Answer: The Church is the interpreter of the natural law; she is the interpreter and promulgator of the divine positive law; and she is empowered to make laws of her own.

Natural law: To the Church belongs the right to say what is contained in the natural law.
Divine positive law: Of this the Church is the divinely appointed custodian, interpreter, and promulgator.
Laws of her own: The Church cannot alter God's law, whether it be the natural law or divine positive law, yet within the framework of God's law she can make by-laws, and with God's authority; e.g., she requires the presence of a priest for Catholic marriage. These by-laws , being her own, she can alter, but she cannot alter God's law, nor has she any desire to do so.

''She cannot alter God's law, nor has she any desire to do so.' Well, at least until this Pontificate!

He can't and he hasn't anymore than Pope Honorius bound us to the one will doctrine. The true teaching of the Church is not invalidated by a grave error in the non-infallible authenic magisterium.
"..the throne of Peter, and to the chief Church whence priestly unity takes its source..." -St. Cyprian

"...the Roman Church, the Head of the whole Roman world... from thence flow all the rights of venerable Communion to all persons." -St. Ambrose

"You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedra, on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles for which reason he was called Cephas,  that, in this one Cathedra, unity should be preserved by all, lest the other Apostles might claim -each for himself- separate Cathedras, so that he who should set up a second Cathedra against the unique Cathedra would already be a schismatic and a sinner." -St. Opatus of Milevis

http://www.fisheaters.com/forums/index.p...sg33996805

http://www.amazon.com/Studies-Early-Papa...merReviews
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)