.
Posted on 04/13/2016 10:28:47 AM PDT by ebb tide
1. An apostolic exhortation is not, by its very nature, a non-magisterial document. It is the content of a papal document that reveals its magisterial relevance, not its name or category -- no one doubts Familiaris Consortio, the John Paul II exhortation on his synod on the family, was extremely relevant in sorting out important Magisterial points. Amoris Laetitia itself does not say that it is not itself magisterial: what it says, in its highly explosive paragraph 3, is that the Magisterium does not need to be invoked or suffer intervention to sort all Catholic questions. On the other hand, this same paragraph opens up a Pandora's Box of decentralization of the Magisterium, creating a centrifugal force which can ruin Catholic doctrinal unity.
2. Saying Amoris Laetitia is not a big deal, and not magisterially relevant is simply not true. The present Pope and his successors will not act as if it were not magisterially relevant, and bishops on the ground will certainly invoke it in their own Magisterial pronouncements. Amoris Laetitia will certainly have its place in future editions of the Denzinger and in any future revision of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
3. Francis, with some of his previous documents, but particularly with Amoris Laetitia, introduced a kind of "uncertainty principle" in Catholic doctrine and hermeneutics on morals, marriage, and family life, and that itself is magisterially relevant.
It’s too bad “Mr. Super-Catholic-we-hope-he-is-the-next-pope-to-save-us-from Francis-Cardinal Burke” doesn’t agree.
Honestly, are there any true Catholics left in the hierarchy?
A few thoughts on Pope Kaspar’s latest ramblings.
“For all his claims to the contrary in these many pages, Francis seems more interested in bringing people comfort than full conversion to what Christ clearly taught on marriage. Newman had seen that too: “Those who make comfort the great subject of their preaching seem to mistake the end of their ministry. Holiness is the great end. There must be a struggle and a trial here. Comfort is a cordial, but no one drinks cordials from morning to night.” ~ Robert Royal
“Amoris Laetitia is not a revolutionary document. It is a subversive one...
“Unfortunately, Cardinal Schönborn’s caveat, like much of the Pope’s own message, will be lost in the discussion of Amoris Laetitia. Inevitably, as it is received by ordinary Catholics in the pews, the Pope’s message will be understood only in a simplified form: as a green light for the divorced/remarried to receive Communion. Priests who are already all too willing to accommodate the wishes of divorced/remarried Catholics will be confirmed in their attitudes. Those who want to demand more—the conscientious pastors who would be most likely to help Christians grow in holiness— will be isolated and undermined.” Phil Lawler – Catholic Culture
“It would be difficult to know what else to call this section but an exercise in sophisticated casuistry. Every effort is made to excuse or understand how one who is in such a situation is not really responsible for it. There was ignorance, or passion, or confusion. We are admonished not to judge anyone. And we are to welcome anyone and make every effort to make him feel at home in Church and as a neighbor. Attention is paid to victims of divorce who are treated unfairly, and especially children. But the prime interest is in mercy and compassion. God already forgives everything and so should we. The intellectual precision that the Holy Father uses to excuse or lessen guilt is cause for some reflection. The law cannot change but the “gradual” leading up to understanding this failure to observe the law takes time and patience.
“But when we add it all up, it often seems that the effect of this approach is to lead us to conclude that no “sin” has ever occurred. Everything has an excusing cause. If this conclusion is correct, we really have no need for mercy, which has no meaning apart from actual sin and its free recognition. One goes away from this approach not being sorry for his sins but relieved in realizing that he has never really sinned at all. Therefore, there is no pressing need to concern oneself too much with these situations.”
Fr. James Schall – Catholic World Report
“Something strange is going on here. Aquinas does say that, ‘every human being is bound to live agreeably with those around him.’ But Francis has left off the second half of the sentence: ‘ . . . unless it should be necessary for him for some reason to cause them profitable sadness at some time.’ Francis’s politeness does not seem to have room for the profitable sadness known to Aquinas, that edifying state brought on by necessary rebukes and hard truths.
“The half-quotation of Aquinas typifies Francis’s procedure in Amoris Laetitia. Half of the Christian tradition is simply left out, and so the basic shape and essential tensions of the whole are lost. The love of God is present, but the fear of God—the terrible knowledge that we are responsible for our souls—is not. This omission is deliberate.”
Matthew Schmitz – First Things
Bingo
The Resurrection without the Crucifixion.
.
Relevant as evidence of heresy, perhaps?
St. Vincent of Lerins: The "Vincentian Canon", AD 434
(3) "Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly 'Catholic,' as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality [i.e. oecumenicity], antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, bishops and doctors alike."...
Doesn't "Amoris Laetitia", with its sneaky little footnote, fail each element of St. Vincent's three pronged test?
Young children who have reached the age of reason (seven years old or thereabouts when they receive First Holy Communion) are perfectly capable of understanding the Church's consistent teaching (until last week's publication of AL) that adulterous or other "irregular" relationships are intrinsically evil in the sight of God. Yet adults who choose to ignore God's laws and embroil themselves in such lifestyles are not necessarily engaging in objective mortal sin, and may therefore possibly approach Holy Communion by permission of Francis? Doesn't this fly in the face of centuries of consistent Church teaching?
-------------
"But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there shall be among you lying teachers, who shall bring in sects of perdition, and deny the Lord who bought them" 2 Peter
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.