FILIAL CORRECTION of Pope Francis

[McM RSCJ]

To 77:

As to your first point, that Church teaching is the same today as in 1017, any basic course in Church history is likely to disabuse you of that easy assertion.   For example, by 1017, the Church had not even proclaimed marriage a Sacrament.  It took another five hundred years or so for the Church to say the Sacrament of Matrimony required a priest.  Perhaps to you these are not "changes" in "Church teaching."  But why is that view that there are no changes in Church teaching so important to you?  I presume you are not trying to confine God and God's Spirit to a box you have defined.

As for your second point, why not read and pray over Amoris Laetitia?   It is so rich, so challenging, such a wonderful opportunity to meet the Heart of Christ at work in our world. 

And why would you let a tiny group of authors who have apparently decided to keep their anonymity disturb your understanding of what our Church, Pope and Synod, have asked us to study, receive, incorporate, ponder, pray over, act on. . . .

A quick Google search suggests there are over 400,000 Catholic priests in the world and over 5000 Catholic Bishops.  And Phatmass is focusing on forty some priests and one not-exactly-orthodox bishop.  What a skewed lens.

Pope Francis and the whole Catholic Church in Synod have focused on the real threats to Catholic Marriage.  Young people afraid to commit.  Weddings too expensive for the poor--or for any couple starting out.  Insufficient support for our young persons as they contemplate their future.  Abandonment.  Sexual violence by intimate partners.  No real psychological formation for your persons and young couples.  No assistance to couples when they hit the predictable crises of any long-term commitment.  And so on.  And so on.   

[But Phatmass is going to focus on the nit-pickers who won't even step out of the shadows as they label Pope Francis's teaching and that of the Synod "heretical"]  

What does any of this have to do with the Gospel and the faithful following of Jesus in our day? 

"And Jesus wept." 

Edited September 26, 2017 by McM RSCJ

[Maggyie]

On 9/25/2017 at 8:28 PM, McM RSCJ said:

To 77:

As to your first point, that Church teaching is the same today as in 1017, any basic course in Church history is likely to disabuse you of that easy assertion.   For example, by 1017, the Church had not even proclaimed marriage a Sacrament.  It took another five hundred years or so for the Church to say the Sacrament of Matrimony required a priest.  Perhaps to you these are not "changes" in "Church teaching."  But why is that view that there are no changes in Church teaching so important to you?  I presume you are not trying to confine God and God's Spirit to a box you have defined.

As for your second point, why not read and pray over Amoris Laetitia?   It is so rich, so challenging, such a wonderful opportunity to meet the Heart of Christ at work in our world. 

And why would you let a tiny group of authors who have apparently decided to keep their anonymity disturb your understanding of what our Church, Pope and Synod, have asked us to study, receive, incorporate, ponder, pray over, act on. . . .

A quick Google search suggests there are over 400,000 Catholic priests in the world and over 5000 Catholic Bishops.  And Phatmass is focusing on forty some priests and one not-exactly-orthodox bishop.  What a skewed lens.

Pope Francis and the whole Catholic Church in Synod have focused on the real threats to Catholic Marriage.  Young people afraid to commit.  Weddings too expensive for the poor--or for any couple starting out.  Insufficient support for our young persons as they contemplate their future.  Abandonment.  Sexual violence by intimate partners.  No real psychological formation for your persons and young couples.  No assistance to couples when they hit the predictable crises of any long-term commitment.  And so on.  And so on.   

[But Phatmass is going to focus on the nit-pickers who won't even step out of the shadows as they label Pope Francis's teaching and that of the Synod "heretical"]  

What does any of this have to do with the Gospel and the faithful following of Jesus in our day? 

"And Jesus wept." 

Nonsense, McM. The Church's teaching on the indissolubility of marriage MATTERS. I don't agree with this document, but I don't agree with wolves like yourself who want to pretend these issues are not important. Jesus Christ, God Incarnate, the Good Shepherd, teaches explicitly that remarriage after divorce is ADULTERY. 

Are you a racist? You can receive communion, but you must go to confession first and stop being a racist. 

Did you participate in the death penalty process, as a guard who did the injections for instance? You can go to communion, but first you must confess and take steps never to be involved again (you must quit that job).

Beat your wife and children? You can receive communion, but first, confession, and stop beating them.

Lie, rape, cheat on your taxes, hire a prostitute, do IVF, have an abortion... what's the key ingredient? A firm purpose of amendment. 

You and others seem to think that divorcees (and a couple other select kinds of sinners) are Magical Sin Unicorns who don't need to "go and (at least try) to sin no more" in order to get right with God. The people who violate all the other commandments? Our sinful urges don't have to do with having an orgasm so... too bad! No Magical Unicorn exception for us! We are expected to try to exercise our self-control!

There are many divorced and remarried people receiving the sacraments already... guess what... because they are committed to not sinning any more! And sometimes they fail. Then they go to confession and try again! This solution to the problem has been used for CENTURIES. People like you want to pretend that it's asking too much for a man to even TRY to refrain from putting his private parts into a woman who lives with him. Speaking as a woman, it's truly a disgusting point of view and no doubt launched a thousand martial (and non-martial) rapes.

[Guest]

My tuppence: I thought that what Pope Francis is saying is that every case should be taken by its own circumstances, its own merits.  Instead of making sweeping statements such as a divorced and remarried person is in a state of adultery, that certain circumstances might mitigate the moral disposition.  It is a very big might for sure, but not an impossibility.  It is not up to us to judge the moral position of others and to state that someone is an adulterer is to judge their moral position.  Jesus Himself assigns a heavy penalty to morally judging others (as below) and this is what I think Pope Francis is underscoring i.e. every case on its own merits, not sweeping generalisations:

Quote

"Matthew Chapter 7:..........[1] Judge not, that you may not be judged, [2] For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again. [3] And why seest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye; and seest not the beam that is in thy own eye? [4] Or how sayest thou to thy brother: Let me cast the mote out of thy eye; and behold a beam is in thy own eye? [5] Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam in thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."

 

[CatherineM]

Doesn't a filial correction assume they are on equal footing in order to be filial? 

[truthfinder]

20 minutes ago, CatherineM said:

Doesn't a filial correction assume they are on equal footing in order to be filial? 

No, filial would be "son;" the correction by a child of a parent.

"Fraternal" correction would be brotherly - equal footing - and would presumably have to come from the cardinals.

[havok579257]

Ok maybe I am confused but I thought the issue is not weather Pope Francis supports divorce, remarriage and communion but the fact that people on both sides are reading into what they think Pope Francis is saying.  Has Pope Francis actually come out and said he has supported divorce, remarriage and communion or is it just people think he was not being clear enough in AL?

[truthfinder]

1 hour ago, havok579257 said:

Ok maybe I am confused but I thought the issue is not weather Pope Francis supports divorce, remarriage and communion but the fact that people on both sides are reading into what they think Pope Francis is saying.  Has Pope Francis actually come out and said he has supported divorce, remarriage and communion or is it just people think he was not being clear enough in AL?

See https://aleteia.org/2016/09/13/vatican-confirms-pope-francis-letter-to-argentine-bishops-on-amoris-laetitia-is-authentic/

 

[Grateful]

On 9/23/2017 at 10:47 PM, KnightofChrist said:

SUMMARY OF THE “FILIAL CORRECTION”

A 25-page letter signed by 40 Catholic clergy and lay scholars was delivered to Pope Francis on August 11th. Since no answer was received from the Holy Father, it is being made public today, 24th September, Feast of Our Lady of Ransom and of Our Lady of Walsingham. The letter, which is open to new signatories, now has the names of 62 clergy and lay scholars from 20 countries, who also represent others lacking the necessary freedom of speech. It has a Latin title: ‘Correctio filialis de haeresibus propagatis’ (literally, ‘A filial correction concerning the propagation of heresies’). It states that the pope has, by his Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia, and by other, related, words, deeds and omissions, effectively upheld 7 heretical positions about marriage, the moral life, and the reception of the sacraments, and has caused these heretical opinions to spread in the Catholic Church. These 7 heresies are expressed by the signatories in Latin, the official language of the Church.

This letter of correction has 3 main parts. In the first part, the signatories explain why, as believing and practising Catholics, they have the right and duty to issue such a correction to the supreme pontiff. Church law itself requires that competent persons not remain silent when the pastors of the Church are misleading the flock. This involves no conflict with the Catholic dogma of papal infallibility, since the Church teaches that a pope must meet strict criteria before his utterances can be considered infallible. Pope Francis has not met these criteria. He has not declared these heretical positions to be definitive teachings of the Church, or stated that Catholics must believe them with the assent of faith. The Church teaches no pope can claim that God has revealed some new truth to him, which it would be obligatory for Catholics to believe.

The second part of the letter is the essential one, since it contains the ‘Correction’ properly speaking. It lists the passages of Amoris laetitia in which heretical positions are insinuated or encouraged, and then it lists words, deeds, and omissions of Pope Francis which make it clear beyond reasonable doubt that he wishes Catholics to interpret these passages in a way that is, in fact, heretical. In particular, the pope has directly or indirectly countenanced the beliefs that obedience to God’s Law can be impossible or undesirable, and that the Church should sometimes accept adultery as compatible with being a practising Catholic.

The final part, called ‘Elucidation’, discusses two causes of this unique crisis. One cause is ‘Modernism’. Theologically speaking, Modernism is the belief that God has not delivered definite truths to the Church, which she must continue to teach in exactly the same sense until the end of time. Modernists hold that God communicates to mankind only experiences., which human beings can reflect on, so as to make various statements about God, life and religion; but such statements are only provisional, never fixed dogmas. Modernism was condemned by Pope St Pius X at the start of the 20th century, but it revived in the middle of the century. The great and continuing confusion caused in the Catholic Church by Modernism obliges the signatories to describe the true meaning of ‘faith’, ‘heresy’, ‘revelation’, and ‘magisterium’.

A second cause of the crisis is the apparent influence of the ideas of Martin Luther on Pope Francis. The letter shows how Luther, the founder of Protestantism, had ideas on marriage, divorce, forgiveness, and divine law which correspond to those which the pope has promoted by word, deed and omission. It also notes the explicit and unprecedented praise given by Pope Francis to the German heresiarch.

The signatories do not venture to judge the degree of awareness with which Pope Francis has propagated the 7 heresies which they list. But they respectfully insist that he condemn these heresies, which he has directly or indirectly upheld.

The signatories profess their loyalty to the holy Roman Church, assure the pope of their prayers, and ask for his apostolic blessing.

VIEW HERE THE DOCUMENT

http://www.correctiofilialis.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Correctio-filialis_English.pdf

Source: http://www.correctiofilialis.org

And what about our Church Tradition -- with the big "T" -- whereby for the first 800 years had married clergy,  and intringinly all the signatories omitted to mention?   While before that, during the times of our Lord and Savior Jesus the Christ on earth,  there was Peter our First Pope who was married with God-Jesus absolute approval.  My question is:  "Who's Who?"  Do we follow our Redeemer?  The Living Word?  The Magisterium?   Tradition?  O PARACLETE!!!, Helper, Divine Counselor, come upon your Church to clarify,  simplify, and comfort the cries of  your people with your mercy, your consolation, and holy wisdom.  Amen!

On 9/24/2017 at 7:29 PM, havok579257 said:

i understand that, but i was under the impression the issue with AL was with it being misunderstood by some that the Pope was saying divorced and remarried catholic's can receive communion. are you in agreement that if the Pope had said this he would be in error?  obviously the issue seems to be someone people think the Pope was insinuating this and others don't think the Pope was insinuating this.  cause i am confused about the point your trying to make beside the author point you made which I understand that point. 

What if some couples who are divorced and remarried are abstaining from "intimacy" due to illnesses, disabilities or simply because they're too old and desire to live as brother-sister relationship or monastics;  who have perhaps been dispensed by their confessor.  I personally know a family member couple.  What then would be your position?  

[havok579257]

27 minutes ago, Grateful said:

And what about our Church Tradition -- with the big "T" -- whereby for the first 800 years had married clergy,  and intringinly all the signatories omitted to mention?   While before that, during the times of our Lord and Savior Jesus the Christ on earth,  there was Peter our First Pope who was married with God-Jesus absolute approval.  My question is:  "Who's Who?"  Do we follow our Redeemer?  The Living Word?  The Magisterium?   Tradition?  O PARACLETE!!!, Helper, Divine Counselor, come upon your Church to clarify,  simplify, and comfort the cries of  your people with your mercy, your consolation, and holy wisdom.  Amen!

What if some couples who are divorced and remarried are abstaining from "intimacy" due to illnesses, disabilities or simply because they're too old and desire to live as brother-sister relationship or monastics;  who have perhaps been dispensed by their confessor.  I personally know a family member couple.  What then would be your position?  

that they are in full communion with the church.  is anyone really arguing that?  i have yet to hear anyone arguing that a divorced and remarried couple living as brother and sister and who went to confession should not receive communion. there is no argument there.  the argument is weather a couple can be divorced, remarried, continue living as a married couple ans still receive communion.

[Seven77]

On 9/25/2017 at 8:28 PM, McM RSCJ said:

I presume you are not trying to confine God and God's Spirit to a box you have defined.

 

God and God's Spirit choose to be "confined" to a "box" that he Himself has defined and created...  which doesn't mean that he can't act outside of it if he wants...  but he doesn't act outside of nature. He doesn't make something lawful that isn't lawful…

 

Edited September 27, 2017 by Seven77

[McM RSCJ]

To Maggie:  

One question and one comment:

Question:

1.  Have you read Amoris Laetitia--and, if so, what passages are you rejecting and why?  (You went after me for pointing out some teaching in that text I not only believe but find uplifting.)

2.  I am not a "wolf."  And I think it was wrong of you to call me that.  I don't understand why such a comment belongs on a website that professes to be Catholic.

[KnightofChrist]

@Luigi @McM RSCJ @havok579257 and others, have you read the Guide Lines by the Bishops Buenos Aires on AL? Which allows for validly married Catholics who divorce and "marry" a second spouse to receive Communion  without repentance and promising to sin no more. These guidlines were fully endorsed in a letter by Pope Francis, published by one of the Vatican newspapers, stating "there is no other interpretation."

How is this to be squared with Christ teaching on divorce?

[Jack4]

On 9/24/2017 at 11:09 PM, McM RSCJ said:

So I find myself concluding (unless I learn otherwise from a more forthcoming publication) that 1) some small group somewhere decided it is up to them to "set straight" Pope Francis and 2) the overwhelming majority of the Bishops in Synod.

1. The writers have the canonical right, and perhaps even the duty, to act as they did:

Can. 212 §3 [Christ's faithful] have the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church. They have the right also to make their views known to others of Christ's faithful, but in doing so they must always respect the integrity of faith and morals, show due reverence to the Pastors and take into account both the common good and the dignity of individuals.

They make this point in the actual text of the document. 

2. "Overwhelming majority"? What do you mean? 

Text was smuggled .
 

On 9/24/2017 at 9:59 PM, Anastasia (L&T) said:

Do you think anything will happen (other than a few media presuming the Church gives the OK for very liberal actions)?

If the response to the dubia was silence (and vilification), I don't see how this would be treated differently.

On 9/24/2017 at 10:48 PM, Era Might said:

The Inquisition is back.

Yay! 

Edited September 28, 2017 by Jack4

[McM RSCJ]

To Knight of Christ:

No, I have not read or pondered the statement of the Argentine Bishops.  My Spanish, alas, is not adequate to nuanced understanding, and I am not Argentine.

I have read references to the statement--some quite positive, but at least the Correction you posted, as quite negative.

I have been focusing on Amoris Laetitia.  I think the Synod focused on real concerns of the Church--wide-ranging, regarding families and married commitment.  I think Amoris Laetitia communicates the findings of the Synod in the voice and teaching of Pope Francis.  I think Amoris Laetitia does indeed lay out a discernment path for full communion for some who are in a second marriage subsequent on divorce of at least one of the parties. I think it does this without undermining the ideal of faithful commitment in marriage. 

I find this pastoral approach consonant with the Gospel--so therefore confirming and inspiring.  But that is me.  I am just one person trying to listen to the Church and to the Spirit always acting anew in every time and culture.  (That I am not disturbed or confused does not mean I am either a "heretic" or a "wolf.") 

Now, my turn to ask you:

Have you read Amoris Laetitia carefully and prayerfully.  If so, what specific passage do you find problematic and why? 

(I'm not asking you about the Argentine Bishops' statement because if your Spanish is up to the task, mine is not.   If the Argentine Bishops have authored an official translation in English-,point me to it, and I will read when possible, just out of a desire to learn more about the Church universal.)

 

[havok579257]

8 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

@Luigi @McM RSCJ @havok579257 and others, have you read the Guide Lines by the Bishops Buenos Aires on AL? Which allows for validly married Catholics who divorce and "marry" a second spouse to receive Communion  without repentance and promising to sin no more. These guidlines were fully endorsed in a letter by Pope Francis, published by one of the Vatican newspapers, stating "there is no other interpretation."

How is this to be squared with Christ teaching on divorce?

First, I have never never tried to square anything with church teaching.   Go read my previous posts. 

What I have done is complained about the bishop and priest from the SSPX who wrote the letter since they don't hold to all of the Catholic Church teachings.  Why should I listen to one who leads catholics astray as part of the SSPX?

 

Finally, did Pope Francis personally endorse that letter? Or did the newspaper say he did? Is there some document that Pope Francis wrote that shows he endorses this description of AL? Cause maybe I am wrong but I thought the whole point of the dubia earlier was because people were confused what Pope Francis was saying in AL.

15 minutes ago, McM RSCJ said:

To Knight of Christ:

No, I have not read or pondered the statement of the Argentine Bishops.  My Spanish, alas, is not adequate to nuanced understanding, and I am not Argentine.

I have read references to the statement--some quite positive, but at least the Correction you posted, as quite negative.

I have been focusing on Amoris Laetitia.  I think the Synod focused on real concerns of the Church--wide-ranging, regarding families and married commitment.  I think Amoris Laetitia communicates the findings of the Synod in the voice and teaching of Pope Francis.  I think Amoris Laetitia does indeed lay out a discernment path for full communion for some who are in a second marriage subsequent on divorce of at least one of the parties. I think it does this without undermining the ideal of faithful commitment in marriage. 

I find this pastoral approach consonant with the Gospel--so therefore confirming and inspiring.  But that is me.  I am just one person trying to listen to the Church and to the Spirit always acting anew in every time and culture.  (That I am not disturbed or confused does not mean I am either a "heretic" or a "wolf.") 

Now, my turn to ask you:

Have you read Amoris Laetitia carefully and prayerfully.  If so, what specific passage do you find problematic and why? 

(I'm not asking you about the Argentine Bishops' statement because if your Spanish is up to the task, mine is not.   If the Argentine Bishops have authored an official translation in English-,point me to it, and I will read when possible, just out of a desire to learn more about the Church universal.)

 

I am confused, honestly.  In your understanding does AL give a divorced and remarried couple who continues to have sex permission to receive communion while continue their lifestyle? I am honestly confused at what your trying to say, so if you could answer my question it would help out.