Posted on 02/10/2017 6:44:19 PM PST by marshmallow
Determining the precise meaning of the pastoral guidance in Amoris laetitia (AL) for the reception of Holy Communion is not the real crisis facing the Church. AL is tangled up in a centuries-long struggle with Subjectivism, which seeks to establish the primacy of private judgment as the effective norm for Christian life. No response to the Cardinals’ dubia can resolve this crisis, therefore, because AL did not start it. And besides, the controversy has now reached the stage that the question facing us is the authentic interpretation of the ordinary Magisterium of the Church, not the meaning of prudential guidance found in lesser pastoral letters of individual popes or bishops.
Subjectivism’s attack on the Gospel is rooted not only in the Reformation’s “private interpretation” of Scripture, but in the subsequent individualism and relativism that has characterized the Modern and Post-Modern West. It’s the same error that Cardinal Newman opposed in the 19th century. Although Newman famously defended conscience, he insisted that its only private judgment was the act of accepting the Church as teacher, after which it was bound to be docile to the Church’s normative proclamation of the Gospel.
He was affirming the apostolic truth that in conscience, as in life, we stand before God with Christ and the Church, not alone. In the 20th century, Subjectivism metastasized among Catholics and other Christians, stripping many mainline Protestant denominations of their witness and membership, and giving rise to the disastrous misinterpretation of Vatican II (the so-called “Hermeneutic of Discontinuity”). Humanae Vitae (HV) was a watershed, of course, and false moral theologies gained popularity from that time forward.
Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI labored throughout their ministries to address the errors of Subjectivism with minimal denunciation, preferring careful, clear, and consistent affirmations of the Faith that presented the authentic......
(Excerpt) Read more at thecatholicthing.org ...
A+
BENE DICTUM
Excellent article.
How does the catholic square this away with:
"Now, therefore, we declare, say, determine and pronounce that for every human creature it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff" (Porro subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus, dicimus, definimus, et pronuntiamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis).
It doesn't sound like the catholic has any choice but to do as the pope says.
In these last days, have we finally identified the doctrine of the Nicolaitans that Jesus hates? See Revelation 2 and 3.
Pay no mind to the troll.
I think you've been warned about making posts personal. If you can't handle the debate, which you've shown you can't, you're better staying on the caucus threads.
Who “warned me”?
As I said...if you can’t handle the debate, and you’ve shown you can’t....stick with the caucus threads.
There can no be no legitimate debate with obstinate heretics.
Nice try.
Sed contra:
“The opinion according to which the pope, in virtue of his
infallibility, is an unlimited and absolute Sovereign, supposes a totally
erroneous conception of the dogma of papal infallibility. Thus, as the
[First Vatican Council] declared in clear and explicit terms, and as the
nature of things itself shows, this infallibility is confined to that which
is proper to the supreme pontifical Magisterium, which in truth coincides
with the limits of the infallible Magisterium of the Church generally, which
is limited by the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, as
by
the definitions already pronounced by the Magisterium of the Church. (”A
Collective Declaration of the German Bishops,” confirmed by Pope Pius IX)
Unam Sanctum gave no such limitations.
I'm sure the pope would hold this opinion of you.
What heresy have I opined?
You're acting like.....Luther!
I don’t defy the pope.
I resist him, as Paul did to Peter.
You don't defy him??? LOL!
Have you posted anything positive about your pope?
Well, if Peter were the pope you might have something.
But to use your example...did not Luther "resist" the pope?
No Catholic disagrees on what this text means and what it does not mean. You can cite no Catholic commentator or study to support your own import of the quotation. Moreover, you know this is the case.
Niether is there any disagreement among Catholics as to the meaning of St. John Chapter 6, unlike Lutherans of Missouri Synod and ELCA, or more generally among protestants across denominations.
Which one?
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.