Posted on 12/06/2017 11:29:09 AM PST by ebb tide
A Catholic theologian has told LifeSiteNews that Catholics may not follow the pope’s “novel teaching” endorsing Communion guidelines from the Buenos Aires bishops.
The Buenos Aires guidelines, pronounced by Pope Francis to be the “only interpretation” of Amoris Laetitia, allow some divorced-and-remarried couples to receive both the sacraments of Confession and the Eucharist without a firm resolve to live chastely in continence.
News broke on the weekend that both the Buenos Aires guidelines and Pope Francis’s private note endorsing them have been promulgated officially in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. An accompanying comment from the Secretary of State, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, says the pope’s note carries the status of an “Apostolic Letter,” and that the Pope’s endorsement is part of his “authentic Magisterium.”
That has led to worry among Catholics that they must now endorse the Buenos Aires approach under pain of heresy.
However, a theologian consulted by LifeSiteNews says that, on the contrary, Catholics must not accept the novelty.
“Vatican I teaches us that there are conditions regarding papal infallibility,” he said. “Outside those conditions, we do not have certitude that what the pope proposes does not contain error.”
The highly credible source, known and well-trusted by LifeSiteNews, would comment on the new addition to the Acta Apostolicae Sedis only under conditions of strict anonymity. Many theologians and priests have faced strong reprisals for speaking critically of Pope Francis. Two notable recent examples are Professor Josef Seifert and Fr. Thomas Weinandy.
“Normally speaking,” the theologian continued, “we should give assent to the ordinary Magisterial teaching of the Holy Father. However, the recent letter by the Holy Father appearing in the A.A.S. confirming the Argentinian bishops’ interpretation of Amoris Laetitiae in which those who have been married outside the Church without an annulment may receive Holy Communion is clearly contrary to the Divine Positive Law (Revelation), the constant tradition of the Church and even a statement made by a recent pope, Pope Saint John Paul II.”
John Paul II asserted in Familiaris Consortio that the Church does not admit divorced and remarried members to Holy Communion. The Pope wrote:
…the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church's teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.
According to the theologian, “Arguing that the pastoral practice is distinct from the moral doctrine (i.e. one must in the state of grace to receive Holy Communion and adultery is mortally sinful) does not obtain in this case since the pastoral practice, according to St. Paul’s teaching specifically, IS the pastoral practice; there can be no distinction.”
“In cases where a papal statement clearly deviates from Revelation and the constant teaching of the Tradition of the Church, Catholics are not permitted to adhere to the novel teaching.”
Their anonymous informant seems to possess doctrinal expertise but not moral courage.
Not many do under the persecution of this dictatorship. It's a shame.
As an older Catholic who witnessed the changes taking place during my early military days, I confess that neither I, my siblings, nor my sainted parents saw it coming. We believed then that the Church was always right no matter what. How wrong we were.
Today, my siblings are faithful Catholics worshipping in Novus Ordo parishes. My wife and I woke up and abandoned the Conciliar Church years ago, at which time we became members of an SSPX Chapel. The Mass we witness, and the sermons we hear preached are indistinguishable from the Mass and the teaching we witnessed in our youth. We are also political “conservatives” (Trump-Moore supporters), and hold the same spiritual and moral views on issues like homosexuality, sex outside marriage, artificial birth control, that we did in the 1950’s.
My siblings will only engage us in discussions about the weather, the kids, grandkids etc. Religion and politics are absolutely off the table. It didn’t happen all at once, but over a relatively short period of time we found out that we completely disagreed all of the above subjects and countless others. One of my siblings, at an earlier time in life, divorced and remarried––after obtaining an “annulment”, of course. So the issue of Communion for the divorced-remarried does not directly impact them.
And notwithstanding the report in LifeSight News, my siblings (and many more modern Catholics as well) have already accepted the teachings of Amoris Laetitia as approved Catholic teaching. That horse has long left the barn. The heretical teaching in Amoris Laetitia will not be reversed. Like Communion in the hand, it will simply become another fait accompli. What we are witnessing in the Church today is nothing more than a head fake on the part of some modern Catholics that want to give the impression that their faith is actually not Protestantism. But it is, and those who care about what is going on in the Church and the world today can only pray.
It’s called prudence. Likely publicizing his name would add almost nothing to the value of his arguments, which should stand or fall on his own, and cause him, and perhaps others, much grief, perhaps removing him from a position in which he can do much good.
However, "The Dictator Pope" is not so much about argument (strict concrete evidence leading to ineluctable conclusions) as much as it is about nuance, interpretation and credibility.
There's a lot in here that would rise or fall depending on the reliability of the narrator.
Every sentence which has words in it like "a highly-placed Vatican official says..." "everybody in Rome knew..." "a prominent Cardinal claimed..." "journalists covering Vatican affairs have long realized..." etc. all depend on whether the narrator knows what he's talking about. And such phrases occur dozens of times in this book.
So I think we as readers are justified in saying "Sez who?" and being a tad dissatisfied at the anonymity of "Marcantonio Colonna".
This extreme circumspection not only undermines our confidence in the narrative; it's also not a good example. Right now the Church could do with a clarion call, not an uncertain trumpet.
This is why I salute, for instance, Fr. Tom Weinandy. He told us who he is.
Lots of our clergy are orthodox but not courageous.
Lots are courageous but not orthodox.
Only a rare man has what’s needed: both.
Lots of our clergy are orthodox but not courageous.
Lots are courageous but not orthodox.
Only a rare man has what’s needed: both.
The term used was theologian, not cleric Odds are the theologian is a member of the laity who is teaching somewhere, and going public would have ramifications not only for the individual but the institution.
Thanks for the compliment of the name. I try to be faithful to the spirit of my patron, who certainly was no shrinking violet. I have a reliquary housing him, St. Philip Neri, and St. Lawrence of Brindisi, who together provide a nice balance.
However, “The Dictator Pope” is not so much about argument (strict concrete evidence leading to ineluctable conclusions) as much as it is about nuance, interpretation and credibility.’
Personally, I’m falling back to Lumen Gentium 25—which seems to say that a Pope directing a cardinal to endorse a group of bishop’s comments on a footnote in a Papal document that isn’t even an encyclical doesn’t carry too much weight. Resorting to Vatican I is more or less a different verse of the same song.
I’m no canonist, but I prefer falling back on an earlier axiom: “Let your yes be yes, and your no be no. Anything other then that is from the Evil One.”
Sensus fidelium.
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.