"When mortal men try to live without God, they infallibly succumb to megalomania or eratomania or both. The raised fist or the raised phallus; Nietzsche or D. H. Lawrence" (Malcolm Muggeridge)
Certain teachings in Amoris Laetitia are exactly the opposite of Church doctrine in Familiaris Consortio and "explicitly atheist" according to Veritatis Splendor.
Father Raymond J. de Souza said:
"Veritatis Splendor, entitled 'Lest the Cross of Christ Be Emptied of Its Power,' warns precisely against the view that the demands of the moral life are too difficult and cannot be lived with the help of God’s grace. Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia appears to be exactly what St. John Paul II had in mind in writing Veritatis Splendor."
[http://m.ncregister.com/daily-news/debating-amoris-laetitia-a-look-aheaquestionsXOIYwi]
The Pope's semi-official newspaper L'Osservatore Romano wrote:
"There are complex situations where the choice of living “as brothers and sisters” becomes humanly impossible and give rise to greater harm (see AL, note 329)."[http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/5346/a_malta_laetitia.aspx]
Every Pope and saint in history would say every Catholic is obliged to have a well formed conscience and have a firm amendment not to commit mortal sin in order to receive Holy Communion.
The infallible Church doctrine of Trent teaches that God gives everyone the grace to repent and overcome sinful behavior.
These Catholic Church doctrines can't be redefined, even by the Pope, because they are part of Revelation.
Catholics who are open to the redefinition of "mercy" to mean the conscience is the supreme tribunal may cease to be Christians because they deny that the Incarnate God-man Jesus Christ died to save us from our sins.
Pope John Paul II's Veritatis Splendor warns against this passage of Amoris Laetitia in the third part called "Lest the Cross of Christ Be Emptied of its Power."
The conscience as supreme tribunal denies mercy because if there is no objective sin to be forgiven and one doesn't have by grace the power to overcome sin then the cross of Christ is emptied of its power.
Pope Francis and the papal inner circle who are ostracizing the Dubia Cardinals for questioning the parts of Amoris Laetitia that reject Veritatis Splendor are apparently rejecting the cross of Christ and saying it has lost its power.
They talk a lot about atheistic secular issues and social work, but rarely or never about life after the death of the body, salvation and damnation.
Francis and his inner circle say Jesus had authority because he was (past tense) a servant, but rarely or never that Jesus had authority because he is (eternal now) God.
One reason that they rarely or never talk about the four last things is that apparently in making individual conscience supreme, they deny truth, the authority of God and implicitly the existence of God.
Pope John Paul II said in Veritatis Splendor:
"Certain currents of modern thought... are explicitly atheist. The individual conscience is accorded the status of a supreme tribunal of moral judgment... about good and evil... in this way the inescapable claims of truth disappear."
These may be a valid questions to ask Pope Francis and the papal inner circle who promote these redefinitions:
Do you even believe in the Incarnation and salvation, as every pope and saint in history has believed, since you appear to deny the very words of Jesus Christ and his Church that He died to save us from our sins?
John Paul II taught that anyone who thinks as you do on the individual conscience being a supreme tribunal is a "explicit atheist."
Pray a Our Father now that the Dubia Cardinals issue the correction.
Certain teachings in Amoris Laetitia are exactly the opposite of Church doctrine in Familiaris Consortio and "explicitly atheist" according to Veritatis Splendor.
Father Raymond J. de Souza said:
"Veritatis Splendor, entitled 'Lest the Cross of Christ Be Emptied of Its Power,' warns precisely against the view that the demands of the moral life are too difficult and cannot be lived with the help of God’s grace. Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia appears to be exactly what St. John Paul II had in mind in writing Veritatis Splendor."
[http://m.ncregister.com/daily-news/debating-amoris-laetitia-a-look-aheaquestionsXOIYwi]
The Pope's semi-official newspaper L'Osservatore Romano wrote:
"There are complex situations where the choice of living “as brothers and sisters” becomes humanly impossible and give rise to greater harm (see AL, note 329)."[http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/5346/a_malta_laetitia.aspx]
Pope John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor wrote:
"Certain currents of modern thought have gone so far as to exalt freedom to such an extent that it becomes an absolute... This is the direction taken by doctrines which have lost the sense of the transcendent or which are explicitly atheist. The individual conscience is accorded the status of a supreme tribunal of moral judgment which hands down categorical and infallible decisions about good and evil... But in this way the inescapable claims of truth disappear."[http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/5346/a_malta_laetitia.aspx]
Pope John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio wrote:
Pope John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio wrote:
"This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children's upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples."[http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/5346/a_malta_laetitia.aspx]
Pope Francis and the papal inner circle appear to have redefined mortal sin and adultery in a way that is contrary to the 2,000 year infallibly doctrine of the Catholic Church.
They redefine adultery as a "irregular relationship" and say mortal sin is not mortal sin because of the ultimacy of conscience.
This redefinition of Catholic conscience tells the murderer, rapist, sex abuser, the person in adultery or anyone in objective mortal sin that they are not in mortal sin if they are at "peace" with it, if the sinful behavior is "humanly impossible" to change, "if they can't change their sinful behavior" or don't know it is wrong.
Under these "conditions", they say those in objective mortal sin may receive Holy Communion without forming their conscience and changing their sinful behavior.
Their redefinition of conscience is wrong. As St. Thomas said "An erroneous conscience may bind, but it does not excuse" as the great moral philosopher Ralph McInerny wrote:
"I think murder is wrong, but make up your own mind...It is pretty clear that we do not really accept the ultimacy of conscience in this way. That the rapist and the one raped have different views on the morality of rape does not much interest us when we consider the kind of deed it is."
"Each agent is obligated to follow his conscience, but this is not tantamount to saying that every agent has a well formed conscience. It is erroneous to believe that theft is permitted. It is wrong to hold that adultery is all right...If it is erroneous, we will be interested in his changing it. Indeed, we often prevent people from acting on their real or alleged views when those views are erroneous. Professional thieves are not considered to have an interesting and defensible concept of private property. As Thomas put it, an erroneous conscience may bind, but it does not excuse." (Ralph McInerny, "Ethica Thomistica," 1982, 1997, page 110-111)
Carl Olson wrote that Amoris Laetitia moves Nietzsche-like beyond even invincible ignorance or a erroreous conscience to the depravity of making the individual conscience a "supreme tribunal of moral judgement... in this way the inescapable claims of truth disappear":
"Amoris Laetitia, especially chapter 8... As Dr. E. Christian Brugger argued in these pages back in April 2016, remarking on AL 305: 'In this passage, the German bishops get all they want':"
Pope Francis and the papal inner circle appear to have redefined mortal sin and adultery in a way that is contrary to the 2,000 year infallibly doctrine of the Catholic Church.
They redefine adultery as a "irregular relationship" and say mortal sin is not mortal sin because of the ultimacy of conscience.
This redefinition of Catholic conscience tells the murderer, rapist, sex abuser, the person in adultery or anyone in objective mortal sin that they are not in mortal sin if they are at "peace" with it, if the sinful behavior is "humanly impossible" to change, "if they can't change their sinful behavior" or don't know it is wrong.
Under these "conditions", they say those in objective mortal sin may receive Holy Communion without forming their conscience and changing their sinful behavior.
Their redefinition of conscience is wrong. As St. Thomas said "An erroneous conscience may bind, but it does not excuse" as the great moral philosopher Ralph McInerny wrote:
"I think murder is wrong, but make up your own mind...It is pretty clear that we do not really accept the ultimacy of conscience in this way. That the rapist and the one raped have different views on the morality of rape does not much interest us when we consider the kind of deed it is."
"Each agent is obligated to follow his conscience, but this is not tantamount to saying that every agent has a well formed conscience. It is erroneous to believe that theft is permitted. It is wrong to hold that adultery is all right...If it is erroneous, we will be interested in his changing it. Indeed, we often prevent people from acting on their real or alleged views when those views are erroneous. Professional thieves are not considered to have an interesting and defensible concept of private property. As Thomas put it, an erroneous conscience may bind, but it does not excuse." (Ralph McInerny, "Ethica Thomistica," 1982, 1997, page 110-111)
Carl Olson wrote that Amoris Laetitia moves Nietzsche-like beyond even invincible ignorance or a erroreous conscience to the depravity of making the individual conscience a "supreme tribunal of moral judgement... in this way the inescapable claims of truth disappear":
"Amoris Laetitia, especially chapter 8... As Dr. E. Christian Brugger argued in these pages back in April 2016, remarking on AL 305: 'In this passage, the German bishops get all they want':"
"But the passage does not presume that the sinner is in invincible ignorance or that the pastor supposes that. The passage supposes that people who are objectively committing adultery can know they are 'in God’s grace', and that their pastor can know it too... The pastor must help them find peace in their situation, and assist them to receive “the Church’s help”, which (note 351 makes clear) includes 'the help of the sacraments... '"
"Pastors should help them discern if their situation is acceptable, even if it is 'objectively' sinful, so they can return to the sacraments."
[http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/5346/a_malta_laetitia.aspx]
Every Pope and saint in the history of the Catholic Church would have rejected the above passage of Amoris Laetitia."Pastors should help them discern if their situation is acceptable, even if it is 'objectively' sinful, so they can return to the sacraments."
[http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/5346/a_malta_laetitia.aspx]
Every Pope and saint in history would say every Catholic is obliged to have a well formed conscience and have a firm amendment not to commit mortal sin in order to receive Holy Communion.
The infallible Church doctrine of Trent teaches that God gives everyone the grace to repent and overcome sinful behavior.
These Catholic Church doctrines can't be redefined, even by the Pope, because they are part of Revelation.
Catholics who are open to the redefinition of "mercy" to mean the conscience is the supreme tribunal may cease to be Christians because they deny that the Incarnate God-man Jesus Christ died to save us from our sins.
Pope John Paul II's Veritatis Splendor warns against this passage of Amoris Laetitia in the third part called "Lest the Cross of Christ Be Emptied of its Power."
The conscience as supreme tribunal denies mercy because if there is no objective sin to be forgiven and one doesn't have by grace the power to overcome sin then the cross of Christ is emptied of its power.
Pope Francis and the papal inner circle who are ostracizing the Dubia Cardinals for questioning the parts of Amoris Laetitia that reject Veritatis Splendor are apparently rejecting the cross of Christ and saying it has lost its power.
They talk a lot about atheistic secular issues and social work, but rarely or never about life after the death of the body, salvation and damnation.
Francis and his inner circle say Jesus had authority because he was (past tense) a servant, but rarely or never that Jesus had authority because he is (eternal now) God.
One reason that they rarely or never talk about the four last things is that apparently in making individual conscience supreme, they deny truth, the authority of God and implicitly the existence of God.
Pope John Paul II said in Veritatis Splendor:
"Certain currents of modern thought... are explicitly atheist. The individual conscience is accorded the status of a supreme tribunal of moral judgment... about good and evil... in this way the inescapable claims of truth disappear."
These may be a valid questions to ask Pope Francis and the papal inner circle who promote these redefinitions:
Do you even believe in the Incarnation and salvation, as every pope and saint in history has believed, since you appear to deny the very words of Jesus Christ and his Church that He died to save us from our sins?
John Paul II taught that anyone who thinks as you do on the individual conscience being a supreme tribunal is a "explicit atheist."
Pray a Our Father now that the Dubia Cardinals issue the correction.