Posted on 07/14/2016 6:47:24 AM PDT by Petrosius
If all Church doctrine must be read in light of Amoris Laetitia, then all Amoris Laetitia must be read in light of Church doctrine, Cardinal Carlo Caffarra, archbishop emeritus of Bologna and a former member of the Pontifical Council for the Family, said in a wide-ranging interview.
Caffarra addressed the widespread confusion within the Catholic Church over the nature of marriage and the proper response lay Catholics should have to the confusion.
“To Catholic faithful who are confused about the Doctrine of the Faith concerning marriage, I simply say: ‘Read and meditate upon the Catechism of Catholic Church nn.1601-1666,’” Caffarra said. “And when you hear some talk about marriage — even if done by priests, bishops, cardinals — and you then verify that it is not in conformity with the Catechism, do not listen to them. They are the blind leading the blind.”
The portion of the Catechism he referenced teaches that marriage is a lifelong covenant of man and a woman that “is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring,” and is a Sacrament when it occurs between baptized people.
Caffarra also addressed the ambiguities in Amoris Laetitia, for which he said it seems Pope Francis by his own admission realized the potential. He told Dr. Maike Hickson at OnePeterFive that if he had the opportunity to speak with Pope Francis about the ambiguity of Amoris Laetitia, particularly its controversial chapter 8, Caffarra would ask for clarification on whether the Church’s traditional teaching that certain actions are always gravely sinful is “still believed to be true.”
Caffarra said:
In Amoris Laetitia [308] the Holy Father Francis writes: “I understand those who prefer a more rigorous pastoral care which leaves no room for confusion.” I infer from these words that His Holiness realizes that the teachings of the Exhortation could give rise to confusion in the Church. Personally, I wish — and that is how so many of my brothers in Christ (cardinals, bishops, and the lay faithful alike) also think — that the confusion should be removed, but not because I prefer a more rigorous pastoral care, but because, rather, I simply prefer a clearer and less ambiguous pastoral care. That said — with all due respect, affection, and devotion that I feel the need to nourish toward the Holy Father — I would tell him: “Your Holiness, please clarify these points. a) How much of what Your Holiness has said in footnote 351 of paragraph 305 is also applicable to the divorced and remarried couples who wish still anyway to continue to live as husband and wife; and thus how much of what was taught by Familiars Consortia No. 84, by Reconciliation Poenitentia No. 34, by Sacramentum unitatis No. 29, by the Catechism of the Catholic Church No. 1650, and by the common theological doctrine, is to be considered now to be abrogated? b) The constant teaching of the Church — as it has also been recently reiterated in Veritatis splendor, No. 79 — is that there are negative moral norms which allow of no exceptions, because they prohibit acts which are intrinsically dishonorable and dishonest — such as, for example, adultery. Is this traditional teaching still believed to be true, even after Amoris Laetitia?” This is what I would say to the Holy Father.Chapter 8 — and specifically footnote 351 — of Amoris Laetitia seems to contradict the Church’s longstanding teaching that those committing objectively sinful acts, such as marital intimacy in an illegitimate second “marriage,” may not receive Holy Communion.If the Holy Father, in his supreme judgment, would have the intention to intervene publicly in order to remove this confusion, he has at his disposition many different means to do so.
Responding to Cardinal Christoph Schönborn’s recent assertion that all prior Church teaching on family must be read through Amoris Laetitia, Caffarra said, “one should not only read the previous Magisterium on marriage in the light of Amoris Laetitia (AL), but one should also read Amoris laetitia in the light of the previous Magisterium. The logic of the Living Tradition of the Church is bipolar: it has two directions, not one.”
Caffarra continued:
In his [recent] interview with Corriere della Sera, my dear friend Cardinal Schönborn does not take into account what has happened in the Church since the publication of Amoris Laetitia. Bishops and many theologians faithful to the Church and to the Magisterium argue that, especially on one specific — but very important — point, there is not a continuity, but, rather, an opposition between AL and the previous Magisterium. Moreover, these theologians and philosophers do not say this with a demeaning or revolting spirit toward the Holy Father himself. And the point is, as follows: AL says that, under some circumstances, sexual intercourse between the divorced and civilly remarried is morally legitimate. Even more so, it says that, what the Second Vatican Council has said about spouses — with regard to sexual intimacy — also applies to them (see footnote 329). Therefore: when one says that a sexual relationship outside of marriage is legitimate, it is therefore a claim contrary to the Church’s doctrine on sexuality; and when one says that adultery is not an intrinsically dishonest act — and that therefore there might be circumstances which render it not to be dishonest — that, too, is a claim contrary to the Tradition and Doctrine of the Church. In such a situation like this, the Holy Father, in my opinion — and as I have already written — thus has to clarify the matter. For, when I say “S is P,” and then say “S is not P,” the second proposition is not a development of the first proposition, rather, but its negation. When someone says: the doctrine remains, but it is only about taking care of some few cases, I answer: the moral norm “Do not commit adultery” is an ABSOLUTELY NEGATIVE norm which does not allow of any exceptions. There are many ways to do good, but there is only one way not to do evil: not to do evil.Caffarra urged Catholics to turn to the words of Pope Pius XII, who addressed in his prolific writings marriage, the raising of children, and situation ethics. He also stressed the important role of the family in transmitting the faith from generation to generation, lamented “today’s reign of new spiritual-anthropological barbarism,” and explained how the rejection of procreation in sexual intimacy leads to homosexual behavior and the ideology that children are a right rather than a gift.
“I do not see any other place outside the family where the faith which you have to believe and to live can be sufficiently transmitted,” Caffarra said. “Moreover, in Europe during the collapse of the Roman Empire and during the later barbarian invasions, what the Benedictine monasteries then did can likewise be done now by the the believing families, in today’s reign of a new spiritual-anthropological barbarism. And thank God that they [the faithful families] exist and still resist.”
The full interview can be read here.
What if a Pope tells me something that is straight out of the communist manifesto?
That’s why he’s called “The Red Pope”.
Same with the POPE!!
I think that that was implied if not stated.
Or popes.
Instead, trust in the Word of God. It has all the answers you need.
Yes, indeed. The Word of God speaks to you through Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
As others have pointed out, this includes the pope. And I hope that by “catechism” he means the Catechism of the Council of Trent, not the modernist 90s version.
bttt
"Sacred tradition" is merely a man-made artifice not deserving of our attention.
I am willing to bet that is not what he meant. He means the JPII Catechism which we know already teaches a different religion based on Vatican II.
The Bible is "man-made". It didn't drop out of the sky.
Men wrote it, men compiled it and men canonized it.
Seriously though, this is great! The fightback is on! First Sarah and now Caffarra. Yes, it's only two but it sends a message. We're not going to roll over and play dead like we did in the '60s when altars were smashed, altar rails ripped out and tabernacles moved. It also acts as a rallying cry for the laity who need to know that the insanity is not universal and there are members of the hierarchy, albeit few, who know the score.
The big difference now is the blogosphere. We have a means of communication by which we can rally the resistance which is why people like Fr. Rosica are apoplectic; they realize that they can't control it. Of course, the faithful will always be but a remnant so we're never going to see the College of Cardinals rise up and run this faithless rogue out of town on a rail. It's going to be rare, modern day equivalents of Athanasius who will hold the line while the majority lose their minds.
All "sacred tradition" is not so divinely-inspired and is therefore to some extent unreliable. The Bible is completely reliable.
Sacred tradition is merely the Church’s understanding of the Bible through the centuries. Unless you want to discount Jesus’ promise to lead the Apostles and those who came after them “to all truth” — a promise recorded in the Bible, sacred tradition is authoritative, not in contradiction to Scripture but as the church’s divinely guided *understanding* of Scripture.
Holy Scripture says the same thing about your CCC and any other non Scripture writings, but I guess that doesn’t count.
Galatians 1:7-9 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
7 Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.
9 As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.
Notice Scripture says gospel of Christ and not tradition, or CCC, or RCC, or any church, or Talmud, but of Christ.
When Christ defeated Satan in the wilderness he used Scripture and Scripture alone.
Perhaps you need to look at the Bible again:
Then the apostles and presbyters, in agreement with the whole church, decided to choose representatives and to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. The ones chosen were Judas, who was called Barsabbas, and Silas, leaders among the brothers. This is the letter delivered by them: “The apostles and the presbyters, your brothers, to the brothers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia of Gentile origin: greetings. Since we have heard that some of our number [who went out] without any mandate from us have upset you with their teachings and disturbed your peace of mind, we have with one accord decided to choose representatives and to send them to you along with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, who have dedicated their lives to the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. So we are sending Judas and Silas who will also convey this same message by word of mouth: ‘It is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities, namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage. If you keep free of these, you will be doing what is right. Farewell.’” (Acts 15: 22-29)Scripture itself testifies that when the gathered Apostles and presbyters (not just the Apostles but also their successors who they gathered to themselves to share in the governance of the Church) decide on an issue that they speak with the authority of the Holy Spirit. Jesus did not leave us the books of the New Testament but established a Church that produced and authenticated them in his name. Nowhere in the Bible does it state the theory of sola scriptura. This is a manmade tradition that you received from Martin Luther, not Jesus Christ. Such a thought was unheard of for the 1500 years of Christianity.
Leaving aside the debate over the primacy of tradition and scripture, there’s an interesting thought experiment which occurs to me. Suppose that the early church—say, the third or fourth century—had made the following decision: “We believe God wants every believer to have his own copy of the Bible (and to make sure he is literate and that it is in his own language).” Would the printing press really have taken another whole millennium to be invented?
“It is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us”
Are you joking this is your example of “tradition”?
They went to the Holy Spirit for guidance received that guidance then implemented it and that is what you call tradition?
“Nowhere in the Bible does it state the theory of sola scriptura.”
CCC #841 You and Muslims worship the same god and there are many more in your doctrine that disagrees with the Holy Scripture and in that you make the gospel into a lie.
1 Peter 4:17 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
17 For the time is, that judgment should begin at the house of God. And if first at us, what shall be the end of them that believe not the gospel of God?
2 Peter 1:19 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
19 And we have the more firm prophetical word: whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
The reason Peter is saying this is trying to people not to fall for anything else than Scripture to include the ccc.
2 Peter 3:16 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.
Perfect example in which Peter is saying Scripture not ccc or tradition, but Holy Scripture. Also notice that the Scriptures was already being twisted.
1 John 2:14 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
14 I write unto you, babes, because you have known the Father. I write unto you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and you have overcome the wicked one.
The Word not tradition or ccc.
1 John 2:26 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
26 These things have I written to you, concerning them that seduce you.
Written YOU compared to the ccc suducer.
No matter how bad you want it to work anything other than the Bible leads to the pits of Hell. That’s why you and Muslims worship the same god because you have chosen tradition over Scripture.
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.