Where might the axe fall next?

[Socrates]

On 2/8/2017 at 9:56 PM, Peace said:

What I mean to get at with that question is, I still have a bit of trouble understanding why tradition (little T) should be a basis for evaluating truth or correctness, especially when the tradition itself is subject to different interpretations, and when even a correctly discerned tradition could nevertheless be a tradition that is incorrect. I do not particularly see why something should be judged as being more likely to be correct or advisable because it is older.

Because (contrary to some modernist notions), the job of the Church Magisterium is to preserve the teachings of Christ handed down from the Apostles.  Public revelation ended with the death of John the Evangelist.  The Magisterium is not something that begins anew with each new pope, and all prior teaching can simply be disregarded as irrelevant or dated.  If some new statement by a pope or bishop appears to contradict the teaching tradition of the past, it is the new statement, not the traditional teaching, which ought to be viewed more critically.  There's definitely nothing in Catholic teaching that says something is more likely to be correct because it is newer.

 

On 2/9/2017 at 0:50 PM, Peace said:

That's essentially the same argument that Protestants use vis-a-vis the Bible to deny the authority of the living Magisterium. The only difference is that you replace scripture with tradition, statements of prior popes, or your subjective interpretations of them.

"Living Magisterium" sounds suspiciously like the term "living constitution" used by liberal jurists who regard the actual letter and intent of the Constitution as irrelevant, whose meaning changes to fit the whims of the courts.  Church teaching is timeless, not something continually changed and updated to fit the times.  

I fail to see how one's interpretation of statements by current popes, etc. is inherently any less subjective than interpretations of current statements.  In fact, oftentimes, statements from the past are clearer and less confusing and ambiguous - as shown by the confusion and debate surrounding the interpretation of Francis's Amoris Laetitia, and his own refusal to clarify.

[havok579257]

35 minutes ago, Socrates said:

Because (contrary to some modernist notions), the job of the Church Magisterium is to preserve the teachings of Christ handed down from the Apostles.  Public revelation ended with the death of John the Evangelist.  The Magisterium is not something that begins anew with each new pope, and all prior teaching can simply be disregarded as irrelevant or dated.  If some new statement by a pope or bishop appears to contradict the teaching tradition of the past, it is the new statement, not the traditional teaching, which ought to be viewed more critically.  There's definitely nothing in Catholic teaching that says something is more likely to be correct because it is newer.

 

"Living Magisterium" sounds suspiciously like the term "living constitution" used by liberal jurists who regard the actual letter and intent of the Constitution as irrelevant, whose meaning changes to fit the whims of the courts.  Church teaching is timeless, not something continually changed and updated to fit the times.  

I fail to see how one's interpretation of statements by current popes, etc. is inherently any less subjective than interpretations of current statements.  In fact, oftentimes, statements from the past are clearer and less confusing and ambiguous - as shown by the confusion and debate surrounding the interpretation of Francis's Amoris Laetitia, and his own refusal to clarify.

church teaching is limitless but not the constitution.  it is supposed to be an ever changing document like when we gave equality to all men and women the right to vote.

[Socrates]

3 hours ago, havok579257 said:

church teaching is limitless but not the constitution.  it is supposed to be an ever changing document like when we gave equality to all men and women the right to vote.

I was making a rough analogy of the attitude of American political liberals regarding the Constitution to Catholic theological liberals regarding Church teaching.  Of course they are not exactly the same.  (The Constitution can be changed by amendment; Church teaching cannot.)  Thus, the idea that Church teaching can be changed is even more absurd than the "living constitution" nonsense.

(Liberals advocates of the "living constitution" theory don't want to bother with the legal process of amendment to change what they don't like, but simply have judges and justices "re-interpret" the Constitution to mean whatever they want it to mean -though that's getting into another topic.)

[Peace]

5 hours ago, Socrates said:

Because (contrary to some modernist notions), the job of the Church Magisterium is to preserve the teachings of Christ handed down from the Apostles.  Public revelation ended with the death of John the Evangelist.  The Magisterium is not something that begins anew with each new pope, and all prior teaching can simply be disregarded as irrelevant or dated.  

What you are referring to is Sacred Tradition. Please note that I wrote "tradition (little T)" not "Tradition (big T)". Yes, of course no teaching within Sacred Tradition (such as the assumption of Mary, for example) can be discarded or changed. But that is not what was being discussed. We were discussing the tradition (little T) of how the Church chooses to manage Her art collection, to be precise.

Quote

If some new statement by a pope or bishop appears to contradict the teaching tradition of the past, it is the new statement, not the traditional teaching, which ought to be viewed more critically.  There's definitely nothing in Catholic teaching that says something is more likely to be correct because it is newer.

No. In viewing the second document more critically you would need to assume that your subjective interpretations of the old and new documents are correct, because the true authority to interpret them lies elsewhere, with the living Magisterium.

If your subjective interpretation of a new statement by a pope appears to contradict your subjective interpretation of a past statement of a pope, you should assume that one of your subjective interpretations is in error, ask the pope or your bishop for an explanation, and patiently wait for an answer while attempting to reconcile the statements for yourself.

Quote

"Living Magisterium" sounds suspiciously like the term "living constitution" used by liberal jurists who regard the actual letter and intent of the Constitution as irrelevant, whose meaning changes to fit the whims of the courts.  Church teaching is timeless, not something continually changed and updated to fit the times.  

Well if you do not like the term "living Magisterium" I suggest that you start by raising the issue with the authors of the documents below:

1) The Catechism

Quote

888 Bishops, with priests as co-workers, have as their first task "to preach the Gospel of God to all men," in keeping with the Lord's command.415 They are "heralds of faith, who draw new disciples to Christ; they are authentic teachers" of the apostolic faith "endowed with the authority of Christ."416

889 In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a "supernatural sense of faith" the People of God, under the guidance of the Church's living Magisterium, "unfailingly adheres to this faith."417

890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium's task to preserve God's people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church's shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals.

2) The Catholic Encyclopedia: Tradition and Living Magisterium

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm

Quote

It is the living Church and not Scripture that St. Paul indicates as the pillar and the unshakable ground of truth. And the inference of texts and facts is only what is exacted by the nature of things. A book although Divine and inspired is not intended to support itself. If it is obscure (and what unprejudiced person will deny that there are obscurities in the Bible?) it must be interpreted. And even if it is clear it does not carry with it the guarantee of its Divinity, its authenticity, or its value. Someone must bring it within reach and no matter what be done the believer cannot believe in the Bible nor find in it the object of his faith until he has previously made an act of faith in the intermediary authorities between the word of God and his reading. Now, authority for authority, is it not better to have recourse to that of the Church than to that of the first comer? Liberal Protestants, such as M. Auguste Sabatier, have been the first to recognize that, if there must be a religion of authority, the Catholic system with the splendid organization of its living magisterium is far superior to the Protestant system, which rests everything on the authority of a book.

. . .

When a controversy arises recourse is had first to the Bible. Frequently when decisive texts are found masters wield them skilfully and in such a way as to demonstrate their irresistible force. If none are found of the necessary clearness the assistance of Scripture is not thereby abandoned. Guided by the clear sense of the living and luminous truth, which it bears within itself, by its likeness to faith defended at need against error by the Divine assistance, the living magisterium strives, explains, argues, and occasionally subtilizes in order to bring forward texts which, if they lack an independent and absolute value, have an ad hominem force, or value, through the authority of the authentic interpreter, whose very thought, if it is not, or is not clearly, in Scripture, nevertheless stands forth with a distinctness or new clearness in this manipulation of Scripture, by this contact with it.

. . .

Documents of all kinds (writings, monuments, etc.) are in the hands of masters, as of the faithful, a means of finding or recognizing the revealed truth confided to the Church under the direction of her pastors. There is between written documents and the living magisterium of the Church a relation similar, proportionately speaking, to that already outlined between Scripture and the living magisterium. In them is found the traditional thought expressed according to varieties of environments and circumstances, no longer in an inspired language, as is the case with Scripture, but in a purely human language, consequently subject to the imperfections and shortcomings of human thought. Nevertheless the more the documents are the exact expression of the living thought of the Church the more they thereby possess the value and authority which belong to that thought because they are so much the better expression of tradition. Often formulas of the past have themselves entered the traditional current and become the official formulas of the Church. Hence it will be understood that the living magisterium searches in the past, now for authorities in favour of its present thought in order to defend it against attacks or dangers of mutilation, now for light to walk the right road without straying. The thought of the Church is essentially a traditional thought and the living magisterium by taking cognizance of ancient formulas of this thought thereby recruits its strength and prepares to give to immutable truth a new expression which shall be in harmony with the circumstances of the day and within reach of contemporary minds. Revealed truth has sometimes found definitive formulas from the earliest times; then the living magisterium has only had to preserve and explain them and put them in circulation. Sometimes attempts have been made to express this truth, without success. It even happens that, in attempting to express revealed truth in the terms of some philosophy or to fuse it with some current of human thought, it has been distorted so as to be scarcely recognizable, so closely mingled with error that it becomes difficult to separate them. When the Church studies the ancient monuments of her faith she casts over the past the reflection of her living and present thought and by some sympathy of the truth of today with that of yesterday she succeeds in recognizing through the obscurities and inaccuracies of ancient formulas the portions of traditional truth, even when they are mixed with error. The Church is also (as regards religious and moral doctrines) the best interpreter of truly traditional documents; she recognizes as by instinct what belongs to the current of her living thought and distinguishes it from the foreign elements which may have become mixed with it in the course of centuries.

The living magisterium, therefore, makes extensive use of documents of the past, but it does so while judging and interpreting, gladly finding in them its present thought, but likewise, when needful, distinguishing its present thought from what is traditional only in appearance. It is revealed truth always living in the mind of the Church, or, if it is preferred, the present thought of the Church in continuity with her traditional thought, which is for it the final criterion, according to which the living magisterium adopts as true or rejects as false the often obscure and confused formulas which occur in the monuments of the past. Thus are explained both her respect for the writings of the Fathers of the Church and her supreme independence towards those writings--she judges them more than she is judged by them.

3) Cardinal Ratzinger, writing for the CDF:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html
 

Quote

13. "God graciously arranged that the things he had once revealed for the salvation of all peoples should remain in their entirety, throughout the ages, and be transmitted to all generations"(8) He bestowed upon His Church, through the gift of the Holy Spirit, a participation in His own infallibility.(9) Thanks to the "supernatural sense of Faith", the People of God enjoys this privilege under the guidance of the Church's living Magisterium, which is the sole authentic interpreter of the Word of God, written or handed down, by virtue of the authority which it exercises in the name of Christ.(10)

14. As successors of the apostles, the bishops of the Church "receive from the Lord, to whom all power is given in heaven and on earth, the mission of teaching all peoples, and of preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain to salvation...".(11) They have been entrusted then with the task of preserving, explaining, and spreading the Word of God of which they are servants.(12)

. . .

21. The living Magisterium of the Church and theology, while having different gifts and functions, ultimately have the same goal: preserving the People of God in the truth which sets free and thereby making them "a light to the nations". This service to the ecclesial community brings the theologian and the Magisterium into a reciprocal relationship. The latter authentically teaches the doctrine of the Apostles. And, benefiting from the work of theologians, it refutes objections to and distortions of the faith and promotes, with the authority received from Jesus Christ, new and deeper comprehension, clarification, and application of revealed doctrine. Theology, for its part, gains, by way of reflection, an ever deeper understanding of the Word of God found in the Scripture and handed on faithfully by the Church's living Tradition under the guidance of the Magisterium. Theology strives to clarify the teaching of Revelation with regard to reason and gives it finally an organic and systematic form.(20)

. . .

24. Finally, in order to serve the People of God as well as possible, in particular, by warning them of dangerous opinions which could lead to error, the Magisterium can intervene in questions under discussion which involve, in addition to solid principles, certain contingent and conjectural elements. It often only becomes possible with the passage of time to distinguish between what is necessary and what is contingent.

The willingness to submit loyally to the teaching of the Magisterium on matters per se not irreformable must be the rule. It can happen, however, that a theologian may, according to the case, raise questions regarding the timeliness, the form, or even the contents of magisterial interventions. Here the theologian will need, first of all, to assess accurately the authoritativeness of the interventions which becomes clear from the nature of the documents, the insistence with which a teaching is repeated, and the very way in which it is expressed.(24)

When it comes to the question of interventions in the prudential order, it could happen that some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies. Bishops and their advisors have not always taken into immediate consideration every aspect or the entire complexity of a question. But it would be contrary to the truth, if, proceeding from some particular cases, one were to conclude that the Church's Magisterium can be habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments, or that it does not enjoy divine assistance in the integral exercise of its mission. In fact, the theologian, who cannot pursue his discipline well without a certain competence in history, is aware of the filtering which occurs with the passage of time. This is not to be understood in the sense of a relativization of the tenets of the faith. The theologian knows that some judgments of the Magisterium could be justified at the time in which they were made, because while the pronouncements contained true assertions and others which were not sure, both types were inextricably connected. Only time has permitted discernment and, after deeper study, the attainment of true doctrinal progress.

 

Quote

I fail to see how one's interpretation of statements by current popes, etc. is inherently any less subjective than interpretations of current statements.  In fact, oftentimes, statements from the past are clearer and less confusing and ambiguous - as shown by the confusion and debate surrounding the interpretation of Francis's Amoris Laetitia, and his own refusal to clarify.

Let's run with your examples a bit.

Say that both you and I take an "originalist" view of the constitution. We both read the text and attempt to construe the text from the exact lens of the authors of the text.  Yet, as may be the case from time to time, we reach different conclusions concerning the original intent of the authors of the text.  The question then becomes - who gets to decide what the text means?

Let's say that you and I compare papal document A and papal document B, and both earnestly attempt to discern the meanings of both, as intended by their authors.  You conclude that document A is clear, and that document B contradicts document A.  I conclude, on the other hand, that documents A and B are both sufficiently clear and can be reconciled, for example, because different circumstances lead to different results, although the same core principles apply.  Now, one of us right and the other is wrong. Who has the ultimate authority to decide the question?

In the case of the constitution, the citizens of the US have decided to resolve the problem by vesting the authority to decide the proper interpretation of the constitution in the Supreme Court.  If every state or individual decided to interpret the constitution his own way, or refused to follow the Supreme Court after it decided an issue, we would for all practical purposes cease to be one nation living under the same law.

In the case of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, Jesus Christ decided to resolve the problem by creating an authoritative, living, hierarchy of persons, with the pope at the top, followed by bishops, priests, deacons. They get to decide, and it is our job to follow what they decide, as best as we have understood their decision.  I think that this is rather clear in various documents of the Church.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

Quote

10. Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort. (7)

But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (8) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (9) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.

It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God's most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_commissions/ecclsdei/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

Quote

4. The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, "comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth".(5)

But especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishop of Rome and the Body of Bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church.(6)

Have I misunderstood your view of papal authority?

For example, if Pope Francis comes out and explicitly states "Divorced and remarried Catholics are allowed to participate in communion", would you recognize his authority and give mental assent his conclusion, would you accept and try to reconcile his conclusion with your understanding of previous documents, or would you say "I interpret the prior documents to bar communion, therefore I judge Pope Francis to be in error and/or a heretic"?

Now. One point you allude to is legitimate. We, as laymen, ultimately have to listen to our pastor, bishop, and pope, and make a subjective interpretation of what they mean and how to apply what we think they mean to our own lives. There is subjectivity in this, and here one can only follow one's conscience.  If you listen to a statement from Pope Francis and earnestly believe that it means A, then you should follow your conscience and do A.  If I listen to the same exact statement and believe that it means B, then I should do B.  In this case we are both following the living person to whom Jesus Christ has given authority, to the best of our means.

That would be different, however, from saying "I interpret a prior document to mean A and I interpret my bishop to mean B, but I will follow A because I believe that my bishop is wrong."  In this case, you are essentially substituting the bishop's judgment with your own. Your are substituting the bishop's interpretation of document A with your own interpretation of document A.

Substituting judgment would only be justified in rare instances where a person has absolute certainty that the authority is wrong (e.g., if you caught the Pope molesting a child and he told you not to report it; if the Pope told you that it is acceptable to murder an infant, etc). In cases such as these I would substitute my own judgement for that of the authority. Even higher than the Pope and in my conscience I am 100% confident that Jesus would not approve of either of these things. So I suppose if there is some doctrinal issue and you are 100% confident that the Pope is incorrect, you would also be justified in following your conscience here as well.

But the more and more that we seek opportunities to substitute the living Magisterium's judgement with our own (especially with respect to interpreting Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, tradition, prior documents, etc.) we are acting more and more in an essentially Protestant spirit, whereby each person becomes the ultimate judge of religious truth.

Let me know what you think.

[Jack4]

[Socrates]

On 2/24/2017 at 10:07 PM, Peace said:

What you are referring to is Sacred Tradition. Please note that I wrote "tradition (little T)" not "Tradition (big T)". Yes, of course no teaching within Sacred Tradition (such as the assumption of Mary, for example) can be discarded or changed. But that is not what was being discussed. We were discussing the tradition (little T) of how the Church chooses to manage Her art collection, to be precise.

Have I misunderstood your view of papal authority?

I thought the thread had gotten off the original topic of the Vatican's art collection, the management of which is clearly not a magisterial issue.

And I probably should not have made the "Living Magisterium" remarks, as you are correct that it is a legitimate term of the Church.  I was a [donkey] there; I apologize.  (And while I don't entirely agree with you on the constitution, I'll lay that aside, as it's not the real topic here.) 

I think we basically agree on Papal authority.

But I think a distinction has to be made between actions and disciplines and dogmatic teaching.  While a Pope has the authority to make decisions regarding disciplinary practice (such as adding or removing fast or feast days, etc.) it does not always follow that such changes are necessarily for the best.

 

Quote

For example, if Pope Francis comes out and explicitly states "Divorced and remarried Catholics are allowed to participate in communion", would you recognize his authority and give mental assent his conclusion, would you accept and try to reconcile his conclusion with your understanding of previous documents, or would you say "I interpret the prior documents to bar communion, therefore I judge Pope Francis to be in error and/or a heretic"?

This remains a hypothetical, as Amoris Laetitia doesn't explicitly command priests to give communion to divorced and remarried couples under pain of disobedience.  Neither does it actually define any doctrine.

(And I'm not sure there's really a point in entertaining such hypotheticals unless they actually occur.  "What if a Pope officially declared that Jesus was not God?")

But such a statement would remain extremely problematic, as it would imply that either

a) contrary to Christ's words, divorce from a valid marriage and remarriage is not the serious sin of adultery.

or else

b) It's now okay to give communion to those living in public sin.

If the Pope was teaching "a," it would be heretical, and "b" would be commanding unworthy reception of the Blessed Sacrament, which would be a bad thing.

So if this is in fact what the Pope means, it would be a very bad decision, which should be disregarded.

 

Quote

If your subjective interpretation of a new statement by a pope appears to contradict your subjective interpretation of a past statement of a pope, you should assume that one of your subjective interpretations is in error, ask the pope or your bishop for an explanation, and patiently wait for an answer while attempting to reconcile the statements for yourself.

Yet you've elsewhere attacked the Cardinals who wrote the Dubia for doing exactly that.

[Peace]

2 hours ago, Socrates said:

But such a statement would remain extremely problematic, as it would imply that either

a) contrary to Christ's words, divorce from a valid marriage and remarriage is not the serious sin of adultery.

or else

b) It's now okay to give communion to those living in public sin.

If the Pope was teaching "a," it would be heretical, and "b" would be commanding unworthy reception of the Blessed Sacrament, which would be a bad thing.

Well we are all unworthy to receive the sacraments. I think the above issue has been discussed sufficiently in other threads.

Quote

So if this is in fact what the Pope means, it would be a very bad decision, which should be disregarded.

 Or it could be a good decision. But that has also been discussed sufficiently other threads.

The question is - would you accept or reject the decision, although you disagree with it? I suppose you do not want to answer that question. That is fine by me.

FWIW - if the Pope came out and said "Jesus is not God" I would be right there with you in declaring him a heretic.  That is extreme. With respect to the communion issue there are plenty of good arguments on both sides (as you may remember, even Pope Benedict was in the "allow them" camp back in 1970's).

Quote

Yet you've elsewhere attacked the Cardinals who wrote the Dubia for doing exactly that.

You may have misread me. I had no problem with them presenting the dubia.  I wrote that I think it is good that they asked. What I have a problem with is the manner in which they went public with it all after the Pope indicated that he was not inclined to answer (at least not at this time). I don't think that achieves anything other than creating a public appearance of disunity. I do not think they "patiently waited" or attempted to reconcile the two documents for themselves.

Edited February 27, 2017 by Peace

[Peace]

But I suppose it is not my place to question their decision to make the dubia public either, if I am to be consistent.

[Jack4]

7 hours ago, Peace said:

 I do not think [they] attempted to reconcile the two documents for themselves.

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2017/01/important-interview-with-card-caffarra-about-the-dubia-and-amoris-laetitia-confusion/ 

I strongly recommend that you read the whole interview of Cardinal Caffara. Meanwhile, let me respond to one specific statement of yours quoted above. 

 

" In terms of the contingent consideration is the fact – which only the blind would deny – that there is enormous confusion, uncertainty, insecurity in the Church as a result of some paragraphs of Amoris laetitia. Over the past months, in terms of fundamental questions concerning the sacraments [economia sacramentale] (matrimony, confession and Eucharist) and the Christian life, some bishops have said A, others have said the contrary of A – and this with the intention of interpreting the same text. And this is an undeniable fact, because facts are stubborn, as David Hume said. The way out of this ‘conflict of interpretation’ was recourse to fundamental theological interpretative criteria by the use of which, I think, one can reasonably show that Amoris laetitia does not contradict Familiaris consortio. Personally, in public meetings with laity and priests I have always followed this method.

Nevertheless, we realized that this epistemological model was not sufficient. The contrast between these two interpretations continued unabated. "

(underlines mine)

 

[Amppax]

I think it's important to note that in terms of the dubia, most of the commentary I've seen from Vatican insider types is that Caffara was probably the primary author. The reason I think that's important is because a lot of us tend to focus on Card. Burke, but he may not be the most important player. 

[Amppax]

Another thought. I think both @Peace and @Socrates made good points in their most recent posts re: magisterial authority. One thing, however, Peace that I don't think you're taking into account is that past magisterial statements have stated what is and is not anathema/heretical to say regarding divorce and remarriage and administration of the sacraments (here I'm thinking specifically of Trent - here's an article talking about what I mean). What we have not seen (and I believe we won't) is something that directly contradicts that. However, it does seem that in practice, especially in specific places (Germany, Malta, etc) there is contradiction.

However, the Church will not contradict herself. That's why we've seen the likes of Card. Muller (here) and Archbishop Chaput (guidelines for Philly; Chaput is/was also the head of the USCCB's ad hoc committee on the implementation of AL) interpret AL as they have. I largely agree with Peace that I personally would not have released the dubia, however, the Cardinals are privy to a lot that I am not, so I just have to trust their judgment of the situation.

Edited February 27, 2017 by Amppax

[Jack4]

29 minutes ago, Amppax said:

What we have not seen (and I believe we won't) is something that directly contradicts that. However, it does seem that in practice, especially in specific places (Germany, Malta, etc) there is contradiction.

However, the Church will not contradict herself. That's why we've seen the likes of Card. Muller (here) and Archbishop Chaput (guidelines for Philly;

I'd add Archbishop Alexander Sample of Portland, Oregon. He issued a pastoral letter to clarify “misuses” of Amoris Laetitia. It is a powerful affirmation of Veritatis Splendor. It is, as far as I know, the only such letter by a diocesan ordinary.  

http://archdpdx.org/documents/2016/10/PASTORAL LETTER A True and Living Icon FINAL-1.pdf

[Socrates]

On 2/26/2017 at 10:40 PM, Peace said:

Well we are all unworthy to receive the sacraments. I think the above issue has been discussed sufficiently in other threads. 

 

 

It's always been the teaching of the Church that one must be in a state of grace (any mortal sins confessed and repented of)  to worthily receive Holy Communion.  This is not just some opinion, but Church's constant teaching, as found in the Catechism.  Those living in public grave sin should be counseled, and not given Communion if they persist in the sin.

Quote

Or it could be a good decision. But that has also been discussed sufficiently other threads.

FWIW - if the Pope came out and said "Jesus is not God" I would be right there with you in declaring him a heretic.  That is extreme. With respect to the communion issue there are plenty of good arguments on both sides (as you may remember, even Pope Benedict was in the "allow them" camp back in 1970's).

As pointed out in the article Ampax linked to, the issues of divorce and remarriage being adultery, as well as worthiness to receive Communion, have already been decided by the Magisterium.

Quote

The question is - would you accept or reject the decision, although you disagree with it? I suppose you do not want to answer that question. That is fine by me.

As a Catholic, I would not support a decision which encouraged persons to disregard Church moral teaching, or sacrilegiously receive Communion.  But again, you're discussing a hypothetical, rather than reality.

[Peace]

9 hours ago, Socrates said:

It's always been the teaching of the Church that one must be in a state of grace (any mortal sins confessed and repented of)  to worthily receive Holy Communion.  This is not just some opinion, but Church's constant teaching, as found in the Catechism.  Those living in public grave sin should be counseled, and not given Communion if they persist in the sin.

As pointed out in the article Ampax linked to, the issues of divorce and remarriage being adultery, as well as worthiness to receive Communion, have already been decided by the Magisterium.

As a Catholic, I would not support a decision which encouraged persons to disregard Church moral teaching, or sacrilegiously receive Communion.  But again, you're discussing a hypothetical, rather than reality.

This is not completely true, but I don't desire to go through it again. Agree to disagree. Have a nice day.