St. John Henry Newman famously noted that during the Arian crisis, “the governing body of the Church came short” in fighting the heresy, and orthodoxy was preserved primarily by the laity. “The Catholic people,” he says, “were the obstinate champions of Catholic truth, and the bishops were not.” Even Pope Liberius temporarily caved in to pressure to accept an ambiguous formula and to condemn St. Athanasius, the great champion of orthodoxy. Newman wrote:
The body of the Episcopate was unfaithful to its commission, while the body of the laity was faithful to its baptism… at one time the pope, at other times a patriarchal, metropolitan, or other great see, at other times general councils, said what they should not have said, or did what obscured and compromised revealed truth; while, on the other hand, it was the Christian people, who, under Providence, were the ecclesiastical strength of Athanasius, Hilary, Eusebius of Vercellae, and other great solitary confessors, who would have failed without them.
As Newman emphasized, this is perfectly consistent with the claim that the pope and bishops “might, in spite of this error, be infallible in their ex cathedra decisions.” The problem is not that they made ex cathedra pronouncements and somehow erred anyway. The problem is that there was an extended period during which, in their non-ex cathedra (and thus non-infallible) statements and actions, they persistently failed to do their duty. In particular, Newman says:
There was a temporary suspense of the functions of the ‘Ecclesia docens’ [teaching Church]. The body of Bishops failed in their confession of the faith. They spoke variously, one against another; there was nothing, after Nicaea, of firm, unvarying, consistent testimony, for nearly sixty years.
Newman goes on to make it clear that he is not saying that pope and bishops lost the power to teach, and in a way that was protected from error when exercised in an ex cathedra fashion. Rather, while they retained that power, they simply did not use it.
In recent years, some have borrowed Newman’s language and suggested that with the pontificate of Pope Francis, we are once again in a period during which the exercise of the Magisterium or teaching authority of the Church has temporarily been suspended. Now, this “suspended Magisterium” thesis is not correct as a completely general description of Francis’s pontificate. For there clearly are cases where he has exercised his magisterial authority – such as when, acting under papal authorization, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under its current prefect Cardinal Ladaria has issued various teaching documents.
To be sure, there may nevertheless be particular cases where the “suspended Magisterium” characterization is plausible. Consider the heated controversy that followed upon Amoris Laetitia, and in particular the dubia issued by four cardinals asking the pope to reaffirm several points of irreformable doctrine that Amoris seems to conflict with. As Fr. John Hunwicke has noted, because Pope Francis has persistently refused to answer these dubia, he can plausibly be said at least to that extent to have suspended the exercise of his Magisterium. Again, this does not mean that he has lost his teaching authority. The point is rather that, insofar as he has refused to answer these five specific questions put to him, he has not, at least with respect to those particular questions, actually exercised that authority. As Fr. Hunwicke notes, he could do so at any time, so that his teaching authority remains.
Again, though, it doesn’t follow that the “suspended Magisterium” thesis is correct as a general description of Pope Francis’s pontificate up to now. However, recently there has been a new development which, it seems to me, could make the thesis more plausible as a characterization of the remainder of Francis’s pontificate. The pope has announced that Cardinal Ladaria will soon be replaced by Archbishop Víctor Manuel Fernandez as Prefect of what is now called the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF).
Fernandez is a controversial figure, in part because he is widely thought to have ghostwritten Amoris. What is relevant to the present point, however, is what Pope Francis and the archbishop himself have said about the nature of his role as Prefect of DDF. In a publicly-released letter to Fernandez describing his intentions, the pope writes:
I entrust to you a task that I consider very valuable. Its central purpose is to guard the teaching that flows from the faith in order to “to give reasons for our hope, but not as an enemy who critiques and condemns.”
The Dicastery over which you will preside in other times came to use immoral methods. Those were times when, rather than promoting theological knowledge, possible doctrinal errors were pursued. What I expect from you is certainly something very different…
You know that the Church “grow[s] in her interpretation of the revealed word and in her understanding of truth” without this implying the imposition of a single way of expressing it. For “Differing currents of thought in philosophy, theology, and pastoral practice, if open to being reconciled by the Spirit in respect and love, can enable the Church to grow.” This harmonious growth will preserve Christian doctrine more effectively than any control mechanism…
“The message has to concentrate on the essentials, on what is most beautiful, most grand, most appealing and at the same time most necessary.” You are well aware that there is a harmonious order among the truths of our message, and the greatest danger occurs when secondary issues end up overshadowing the central ones.
There are several points to be noted here. First, the pope makes it clear that he wants the DDF under Archbishop Fernandez to operate in a “very different” way than it has in the past. Second, he indicates that part of what this entails is that the DDF should focus on “essentials” and “central” issues rather than “secondary issues.” Pope Francis doesn’t spell out precisely what this means, but the context indicates that he regards many of the issues the CDF has dealt with in the past to be “secondary.” Third, when the DDF does address an issue, it should not do so as a “control mechanism” that “pursue[s]… possible doctrinal errors” or “impos[es]… a single way of expressing” the Faith. Fourth, it should speak “not as an enemy who critiques and condemns.”
In a recent interview, Archbishop Fernandez has commented on his own understanding of his role as head of DDF, and his remarks echo and expand upon the pope’s. Fernandez says:
So you can imagine that being named in this place is a painful experience. This dicastery that I am going to lead was the Holy Office, the Inquisition, which even investigated me…
There were great theologians at the time of the Second Vatican Council who were persecuted by this institution…
[The pope] told me: ‘Don’t worry, I will send you a letter explaining that I want to give a different meaning to this dicastery, that is, to promote thought and theological reflection in dialogue with the world and science, that is, instead of persecutions and condemnations, to create spaces for dialogue.’…
The archbishop went on to say that he wants the DDF to avoid:
All forms of authoritarianism that seek to impose an ideological register; forms of populism that are also authoritarian; and unitary thinking. It is obvious that the history of the Inquisition is shameful because it is harsh, and that it is profoundly contrary to the Gospel and to Christian teaching itself. That is why it is so appalling…
But current phenomena must be judged with the criteria of today, and today everywhere there are still forms of authoritarianism and the imposition of a single way of thinking.
Here too there are several points to be noted. First, like the pope, the archbishop indicates that he wants the DDF to move away from the sort of activity that occupied it in the past, but he is a bit more specific than the pope was. He cites, as examples, investigations of theologians at around the time of Vatican II, and the investigation the CDF made of his own views (which, as the interview goes on to make clear, had to do with some things he’d written on the topic of homosexuality). So, he doesn’t have long-ago history in mind, but the recent activity of the CDF. Furthermore, he criticizes even this sort of investigation (and not merely the harsh methods associated with the Inquisition) as a kind of “persecution.”
Second, the archbishop says that what the pope wants is for the DDF not only to avoid such “persecutions” of individuals, but also to refrain from “condemnations” of their views. In place of such persecutions and condemnations, he wants “dialogue.” Third, he takes this to entail that the DDF will refrain from “the imposition of a single way of thinking.”
Taking all of Pope Francis’s and Archbishop Fernandez’s comments into account yields the following. The DDF, which has heretofore been the main magisterial organ of the Church:
(a) will in future focus on central and essential doctrinal matters and pay less attention to secondary ones;
(b) where it does address some such matter, will not approach it by way of ferreting out doctrinal errors or imposing a single view;
(c) will emphasize dialogue with individual thinkers rather than the investigation, critique, and condemnation of their views;
(d) should in all these respects be understood as playing a role very different from the one played by the CDF in recent decades.
In short, this main magisterial organ of the Church will largely no longer be exercising its magisterial function. It will issue statements about central themes of the Faith, but it will no longer pay as much attention to secondary doctrinal matters, will no longer pursue the identification and condemnation of errors, will no longer investigate wayward theologians or warn about their works, and will in general promote dialogue rather than impose a single view. Hence it will no longer do the sort of job it did under popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI, let alone the job that Newman says the bishops failed to do during the Arian crisis. And notice that, followed out consistently, this means that the teaching of Pope Francis himself (let alone the deposit of Faith it is his job to safeguard) is not something the DDF is in the business of imposing. It too would simply amount to a further set of ideas to dialogue about.
The implications of these recent remarks are, accordingly, quite dramatic. And while it is possible that the remarks will be clarified and qualified after Archbishop Fernandez takes office, the trend of Francis’s pontificate is precisely one of avoiding the clarification and qualification of theologically problematic statements. But whereas, in the past, this avoidance pertained to a handful of specific issues, it now seems as if it is being raised to the level of general DDF policy.
If so, let us hope that this “temporary suspense of the functions of the ‘Ecclesia docens’” does not last sixty years, as the previous one did. St. John Henry Newman, ora pro nobis.
(Editor’s note: This essay originally appeared on Dr. Feser’s blog in a slightly different form and is reprinted here with the author’s kind permission.)
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
I recall that I think it was Boff who was summoned to see Ratzinger at the CDF was expecting rack and thumb screw, yet discovered that the Vatican Rottweiler was nothing of the sort, his desire to understand and to listen created a different atmosphere. Sadly, such accomodation or” accompiament” was to bear much fruit and Boff continued going down the nutty route! My point is, as Cardinal Sarah quite rightly stated: The Church does not listen; She teaches!!!
Exactly. Ratzinger was very mild with wild theologians. He invited them to discuss their ideas. He wanted a civil, back and forth conversation, where he would gladly give in if the theologian could show he was correct.
The evil left wing media, however, always smeared Ratzinger and the questionable theologians always would go straight to the media, claiming they were being oppressed. Usually, they were just communists and could not defend their positions.
“The implications of these recent remarks are, accordingly, quite dramatic.”
I understand your pain, Edward, strong, sharp, disruptive. It was not only yours alone.
Many feel those expressions as they have been reported, like a violent earthquake.
Some, distant from faith, will certainly rejoice in them.
Many believers, on the other hand, have suffered. It seemed to them that faith had been overturned.
Many (and sometimes I as well) have succumbed to temptation regarding Pope Francis. Those who have caused all this will have to answer to God because inflicting such intense suffering due to faith to the point of putting it in crisis is a grave offense against charity.
Being Christians, however, does not simply mean adhering to a perfect moral code, but rather adhering to Christ.
His teachings certainly present us with eternal truths, and what He has conveyed both through Himself and through the apostle Paul endures.
Christian faith, however, primarily consists in welcoming Christ into our lives, in becoming one with Him, just as branches are one with the vine.
I’d like to share some expressions from a sublime prayer of Pope Saint Paul VI when he was still the Archbishop of Milan.
“You are necessary to us, the only true teacher of life’s hidden and indispensable truths, to know our being, our destiny, the path to achieve it.
You are necessary to us, our Redeemer, to discover our misery and heal it; to have the concept of good and evil and the hope of holiness; to deplore our sins and obtain forgiveness for them.
You are necessary to us, the firstborn brother of humankind, to rediscover the true reasons for fraternity among men, the foundations of justice, the treasures of charity, the highest good of peace.
You are necessary to us, the great bearer of our sorrows, to understand the meaning of suffering and to give it a value of expiation and redemption.
You are necessary to us, the conqueror of death, to free us from despair and denial, and to have certainties that do not betray us for eternity.
You are necessary to us, O Christ, O Lord, O God with us, to learn true love and walk in the joy and strength of your charity along the path of our toilsome life, until the final encounter with You, loved by You, awaited by You, blessed by You through the ages” (prayer written for Lent in 1955).
Let’s just refer to this pontificate (and possibly its successor) as “The Second Arian Period” of Church history.
In order to survive this Second Arian Period, local churches will have to fortify themselves with the teachings and promulgation of the perennial teachings of the Faith most notably found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church as sanctioned under the pontificate of Pope John Paul II.
On my part, I have ceased listening to anything that comes out of this pontificate, including its Synod on Synodidolatry. Unless this Pope speaks intentionally and ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals that I would be duty-bound to abide by, his utterances and considered by me as just the ramblings of yet another hackneyed woke politician.
Evelyn Waugh once remarked that living in England under the 1945 Labour government was like living in an occupied country. At times since the 1960s, and frequently during the last ten years, this has been my experience in the Catholic Church. The classic options in such a situation appear to be resistance, collaboration, or internal exile. It would be interesting to consider how the first and the last of these might most successfully be achieved. (We already have plenty of collaborationist examples to follow.)
Thanks, dear Christopher Allen: yup, that’s the sort of quip Evelyn Waugh was renowned for.
As John the Beloved Apostle shows us in Revelation chapters 2 & 3, The Church was from the earliest days compounded of resistors, collaborators, & internal exiles!
Saint Paul put it more strongly to the elders at Ephesus (see Ephesians 20:30).
As the faithful have commented in CWR articles: “Our faith is in The Lord Jesus Christ and the Apostolic New Testament revelations of His Life & words, not in human beings, even if they put on miters or a triple-crown.
Jesus is always lovingly WITH us Catholics individually as well as collectively; so, what could ever disturb us or rob us of the king of our heart? Nothing!
Not a good pope, nor a bad pope; not a good cardinal nor a bad cardinal; not a good bishop nor a bad bishop; not a good priest nor a bad priest; not a good nun nor a bad nun; not a good parishioner nor a bad parishioner; not a resistor nor a collaborator. Nothing can stand against the cherishing, saving, power of Christ in our lives, if we but stand firm, listen to Him & follow Him (crystal clear at John 10:27-30 – verses worth memorizing & repeating to ourselves).
The great lesson of The Holy Eucharist is that Jesus’ mercy incorporates us in His atoning sacrifice, in His resurrection, in His reigning on God’s throne, and, eternally in His magnificent New Jerusalem. With that in mind is there anything that could snatch us from His precious hands? It’s not by our strength we will succeed but by enduring faith of our being IN Christ and He IN us. [‘Ethical Encounter Theology’ has that reality as ‘ideoentheism’ – never panentheism, pantheism, deism, etc.] {* Pope Francis seems to be a covert panentheist}
Ever in the grace & mercy of Jesus Christ; love & blessings from marty
I agree, sadly. We are feeling quite like sheep without a shepherd. I fear for my children and grandchildren. When WILL the Catholic Church resume its teaching authority? I don’t expect to live long enough to see it again. Younger generations have no reason to take seriously what the Church “authorities” say on ANYTHING!
I feel the Lord is punishing us for our disobedience, and we are “stuck” with “leaders” who appear that they are actually TRYING to lead us to Hell.
I’d like to be wrong about that assessment, but I see no reason to think otherwise.
A cry from the heart, dear Mary P. Bennett!
I’ve found Mathew 13:44-46 (& many other NT verses) helpful.
Jesus anticipated these situations when He taught that we faithful buy a field, not for its own sake at all but for The Hidden Treasure we have found in it!
We faithful search a chaotic, malodourous marketplace, not for its sake at all, but for the sake of The Pearl of Great Price that we know is there.
Finding (being found by) The Pearl; owning (being owned by) The Treasure, we are immune against all the unfaithful nonsense going on in the paddock & marketplace!
Ever in the love of Jesus Christ; blessings from marty
Saint Bishop Sheen prophesied that the laity will save the church from the Luciferian ape church. For myself I shall always reject and despise a Francis magisterium that justifies homosexuality which one might surmise is the purpose of this latest gambit. What difference, one might ask, between homosexuality and bestiality? Yet the beasts above us seem intent to force it upon us. Most ‘Catholics’ will submit… it seems a mere 10% or so try to take the Faith to Heart.
I will not comply! I pray others wont either. It will be our job to again save the church. The latest synod is made up of some would call heretics. My faith is in Jesus Christ – not men!
Well said, dear Anne M. Parks.
Jesus Christ: our one & only teacher, shepherd, friend, resurrection & life eternal.
Exactly!
Thank you, Dr. Feser and CWR, for preparing us for what is to come.
The Bergoglian regime — with all of its “dialoguing” and synodaling, while failing to condemn errant views (heresies) — will no longer be protecting the faithful from the wolves that Jesus warned us against.
If anything, the Begoglians might actually be marinating souls for the wolves to feast upon.
Let us pray that the laity will be inspired in its mission of being “the obstinate champions of Catholic truth,” as St. John Henry Newman so crisply put it
We need to do our best to steel ourselves and one another as the Dark Vatican is employed against us by the enemy.
Jesus, I trust in You.
Only freemasons refer to the CDF as the Inquisition. This is the language and thinking of the “enemies of the Church” within.
The expression “enemies of the Church” was employed by His Holiness PPBXVI to refer to the “co-authors” of a set of books by Jorge Mario Bergoglio : which Pope Benedict Refused to Read and Comment in a scabdalously doctored and subsequently published letter. That “Lettergate” letter should be considered in the light of his very short posthumous “Last Testament”. PPBXVI refers to ideological groups that have failed one after the other during his lifetime. He gives a list of names for each. Except the last: Marxists. To not infer the missing list are the same “enemies of the Church” who co-author with the Argentinian is difficult when the two texts are placed side by side.
What Francis/Fernandez (Double F) call the DDF was for more than 400 years known as the Holy Office. Fr. Hardon’s 1980 Modern Catholic Dictionary defined it:
A Roman congregation founded by Pope Paul III in 1542. It was reconstituted in 1965 to become the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but the original functions have not substantially changed. The purpose of the Holy Office was to defend Catholic teaching of faith and morals. It censored and condemned books judged dangerous to Catholic orthodoxy and granted permission to read such books. It could dispense priests from the midnight fast required before celebrating Mass. It had exclusive jurisdiction over questions about the Pauline privilege and the impediments of worship and mixed religion. As a tribunal, it judged heresy and all offenses leading to a suspicion of heresy. Its members were bound to the strictest secrecy, called the secret of the Holy Office.
https://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2015/06/june-26-and-the-future.html
May Our Blessed Mother’s Immaculate Heart Triumph soon! 🙏💕🌷
Since a decade of synodaling has birthed the Dicastery for the Doctrine of Fernandez, perhaps Synodaling should go beyond the narrow confines of Rome? Why should Pope Xi just appoint Bishops? Constantine got to work with the Arians to call Synods.
Just imagine: Synod on Synodaling II, Shanghai! Cardinal-elect Bin, assuming his appointment by Pope Xi, can host the papal guests. Everyone can get a welcome package: a little red book with instructions how to synodal, a spyware kit, a Winnie the Pooh squishmallow, etc.). When we are taking breaks from synodaling, there can be feasting and games, like taking turns caning those annoying underground CINO people (Communists in Name Only). Ah, synodaling is epic!
Fernandez has said a lot of nutty things. I remember hearing him speak of the church in the middle ages, and it was clear he had no idea what the history of the church really was. He was merely repeating Communist/Marxist/leftist talking points about the church. He is not a very smart guy. He is simply a political leftist, who does not have much to do with the church at all.
Bravo, Dr Feser! While Father Hunwicke’s interpretation of Saint John Henry Newman’s teaching has been characterised by some as a ‘magic on and off switch’ to be used when one ‘dislikes’ a particular pontifical act, I certainly don’t believe it is that, and I appreciate your elaboration here.
The challenge today is that there is a true civil war happening in the Church. There are clergy and laity on both sides and many somewhere in between. Ideally the Pope should be the focal point of ecclesial unity and orthodoxy, but he too gives mixed signals. We are at a very confused crossroads where heterodoxy and orthodoxy occupy the same institution…from the highest levels right down to the local parish. I think at a certain point the cognitive dissonance will be too much and a schism will have to occur. In fact, a schism of sorts has already occurred…it’s just not official or out in the open yet. But think about it. The liberals have their parishes, printing houses, newspapers, schools/universities and fave bishops and clergy. So do the orthodox crowd. Two versions of Catholicism occupy the same institution. It’s becoming both confusing and exhausting.
Good points, and I’m not sure the problem can be fixed as things stand now. Some type of break may be necessary.
Sorry, dear ‘Athanasius’, I can’t agree with the comment of dear’ Anon’.
The Protestant reformers like Luther and Calvin had many legitimate complaints. Their fatal error was to bail out.
Catholics who are faithful to the Apostolic witness should stay – even as a minority – then The Church will attract the mercy of King Jesus who will anoint them to be yeast, to leaven the whole batch, even if it takes a generation.
Stay SALTY everyone! If there is one thing The Church needs amidst the PF mess, it is the cleansing power of salty, prayerful, long-suffering, Apostolic Catholic lovers of Christ’s Word.
Am praying to never forget that it is the humble who will inherit.
Ever in the grace & mercy of King Jesus Christ; love & blessings from marty
There you go again Dr. Marty pants, always being right. To overemphasize, wasn’t the whole point of St. Athanasius that he remained a faithful Catholic despite the Arian apostasy?
To be more blunt, St. Catherine of Siena said that “a schismatic is a fool.” (Present company excluded, of course;)
Dear “gods’ fool”. Fun in the thought you’d prob. identify the Apostoles as ‘smarty-pants’ in their unashamed witness to Christ’s teaching! What joy!
Take care, brother. Be yeasty! Be salty!
Always in the love of The Lamb; blessings from smarty
Summarizing the article of an Italian Dominican, unpublished, in English but in the process of translation:
As it is known, Cardinal Danneels, once elected Pope Francis, publicly declared that he and other cardinals with a Rahnerian orientation, such as Cardinals Martini, Lehmann, Kasper, Silvestrini, Murphy O’Connor, Baskys, Van Luyn, and others, had been preparing the election of Pope Francis since 1996. Therefore, it is not surprising that Pope Francis’ pastoral approach may be reminiscent of Rahner’s ideas. However, it is noteworthy that the Pope himself has never mentioned Rahner. Particularly, it is worth noting that in Pope Francis’ Magisterium, despite the ambiguity of certain expressions, there is no trace of Rahner’s heresies.
Furthermore, it is significant how the modernists completely overlook praising the Pope for his real and excellent, albeit rare, merits in theological, doctrinal, and spiritual fields. These include his condemnation of gnosticism and pelagianism, devotion to the Holy Spirit, rosary devotion, and valuable instructions regarding the fight against the devil.
On one hand, no Pope had ever done or even considered doing what Pope Francis calls “integral ecology,” the Abu Dhabi agreement, condemning gnosticism and pelagianism, organizing a Synod on the Amazon, and reaching an agreement with Communist China. On the other hand, the negative aspect of this extraordinariness is that Francis challenges the virtue of faith, which has never happened before. While there have been Popes with all kinds of possible sins, there have never been Popes who created doubts about the faith or gave the impression of changing the dogmas or the content of the doctrine of faith, seemingly relativist, lax, heretical, Masonic, modernist, or Rahnerian Popes. This has caused great dismay among Catholics, including Cardinals, Bishops, theologians, moralists, and ordinary faithful, leading to divisions, controversies, schisms, and moral corruption among Catholics and delight among modernists, Masons, Communists, Rahnerians, Muslims, and non-believers.
Pope Francis could be compared to a family father who, instead of dedicating his care primarily to his wife and children’s education, spends too much time outside the home, more interested in maintaining good relations with others than with his family members. He seems unconcerned about resolving conflicts that arise within the family. Similarly, the pastoral approach of Vatican II seems to have a similar defect.
Unfortunately, right after the council, there arose a disastrous intra-ecclesial fracture between traditionalists and modernists, which has reached unprecedented seriousness with Pope Francis. This division is not so much due to the presence of heresy, which has always existed in the Church, but rather because both opposing currents within the Church, in their fight against each other, claim to represent true Catholicism and the true Church, despite their common disobedience to the pontifical magisterium.
While it is true that Pope Francis may be negligent in repressing heresy and appears excessively indulgent towards modernists while being too harsh against anti-conciliar traditionalism, this does not justify the derogatory language used by the latter to refer to the “neochurch” or the “Church of Bergoglio,” as if the Pope had conceived an idea of the Church contrary to Tradition and was trying to impose it on the Church. This idea is false and malicious, only inspired by the devil.
Paolo, ma che sta di’??? Stai scherzando? Non, ti spagli. AL is just one example of what is contrary to God the Holy Spirit’s Teaching and Tradition in His Spouse and it is being imposed, and this imposal defended and applauded presently [especially in Argentina, and in Rome’s Pachamama, et al], on the Spousal People. Svegliati, vi pregho, per Carita`! Dio vi benedica.
The papal power to comment on this or that matter of the Church’s teaching is also exercised in a decision not to comment in a particular case: it is the same power possessed of the same authority. The pope’s not commenting on an issue that preoccupies Edward Feser is neither here nor there to the rest of us. In fact, the Pope’s not commenting on it ought to suggest the opposite, namely that Feser should ease up and reflect.
If the issue you are referring to is the reception of Communion by those divorced and remarried, why must the faithful “ease up and reflect” when there are plenty of serious and legitimate questions that have not been answered?
If I needed a clarification of some point of Catholic doctrine, I would trust the writings of Prof. Feser before I would trust those of either the present pope or the newly-appointed head of the entity formerly known as the CDF.
What an incredibly daft comment
Daft? St. Pollyanna! Who are you to judge? If you want to come here and gaslight, learn how to be more subtle.
Anyway, Dr. F would make a wonderful substitute shepherd. And apparently, since no one responsible is going to feed us, why not? (Jn. 21:17). Habemus Substituto! Substitute Pope Ed I. Better than nothing, right? I tried being my own shepherd in the 80s and it was awful. And I’m tired wondering over old fields of saintly shepherds looking for something to eat today.
So you agree with the Cardinal that essential Catholicism is “secondary?” Did God ever decide to abandon His creation to a tortuous capricious understanding of how we ought to order our lives together or not?
How could this be in any way secondary, especially since for two thousand years, starting with the Sermon on the Mount, when Our Lord was personally present in this vale of tears world, and ever since, all three persons of the Trinity instilled the truth of our divinely endowed nature to recognize natural law and right from wrong into our souls, self-evident when we are honest to ourselves, by which we were created to live in harmony, which our Church has affirmed to the whole world in thousands of ways for two thousand years, but was implicitly denied in Amoris Laetitia. How is the Dubia that gave Francis the chance to correct his grave and evil mistake before the whole world secondary? And by what authority can he fail God to not correct his error?
When writing your opinion, it’s accurate to say “It’s neither here nor there to me.”
(Unless, of course, you are speaking “ex cathedra.”)
not so, it is not exercised when one is Triunely Obliged ‘to speak confirming the brethren’; it is contrary to Divine Justice and Divine Charity and a mortal sin in this situation to not speak…
Remember, “just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak, not to please man, but to please God who tests our hearts” (1 Thessalonians 2:4). And just as the Lord said to Paul in Acts 18:9, “Do not be afraid, but go on speaking and do not be silent,” so must we obey the call to evangelize or confirm the brethren in the Truth of the Gospel, especially when we did speak and left confusion and a mess.
Then there is this: This excerpt on the duty of bold preaching is from the Pastoral Guide by Saint Gregory the Great. It highlights pastors’ duty to speak out and preach the truth calling out imprudent silence as dereliction of duty (Lib 2, 4: PL 77, 30-31). This excerpt on preaching appears in the Roman office of readings for the 27th Sunday in Ordinary Time.
Indiscreet speech may lead men into error and an imprudent silence may leave in error those who could have been taught. Pastors who lack foresight hesitate to say openly what is right because they fear losing the favor of men. As the voice of truth tells us, such leaders are not zealous pastors who protect their flocks, rather they are like mercenaries who flee by taking refuge in silence when the wolf appears.
The Lord reproaches them through the prophet: They are dumb dogs that cannot bark. On another occasion he complains: You did not advance against the foe or set up a wall in front of the house of Israel, so that you might stand fast in battle on the day of the Lord. To advance against the foe involves a bold resistance to the powers of this world in defense of the flock. To stand fast in battle on the day of the Lord means to oppose the wicked enemy out of love for what is right.
When a pastor has been afraid to assert what is right, has he not turned his back and fled by remaining silent? Whereas if he intervenes on behalf of the flock, he sets up a wall against the enemy in front of the house of Israel. Therefore, the Lord again says to his unfaithful people: Your prophets saw false and foolish visions and did not point out your wickedness, that you might repent of your sins.
Blessings, Padre
this on Pope Gregory came from another’s witness but I didn’t think one is permitted to post links…blessings
At the risk of mis-synodaling by stating the obvious, the DDF will allow for the blessing of same-sex unions because women no longer wear veils. Duh.
Finalmente! Synodaling is the handmaiden of sociology.
Based on the very correct premise that it is wise to understand the ways of one’s adversary, I recommend for all – “Rules for Radicals” by Saul Alinsky. His scaly touch is unmistakable in the tactics of today’s left, even if they themselves don’t realize it.
Question: Take a look at the pictures of both Cardinal Newman and (soon to be) Cardinal Newman, and ask yourself – to which of these men would I confess my sins?
Yes. One wears pink and a seeming smirk. The other’s visage bears lines creased by deep thought, wisdom, and suffering. Heavy lids draping the eyes suggest weariness, yet his gaze is direct, kind, and patient.
What effect does the penitent want from the confessional act? Grace of forgiveness/amendment or a ‘go-ahead, do-it-again until it feels good type advice’?
Thank you, Dr. Fester, for this article. Very informative for us non Newman scholars. Also very disturbing. A DDF without doctrine or moral truth??!! So what is the substitute version, a bunch of meaningless accompaniment mush?
My analysis is as follows: The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, which for much of history has included and been led by the Pope and the Hierarchy. But there have indisputably been other difficult times in history for the laity when the opposite has been true such as but not limited to the Arian heresy period.
St John Newman pray for us in this time of difficulty for the faithful laity.
Certainly the four Cardinals had the right to submit their dubia, but Pope Francis was within his rights to choose not to reply to the dubia. What magisterial teaching requires the Pope to reply to every dubium or dubia? According to Lumen Gentium, 25, Catholics are to adhere to teachings of the ordinary papal magisterium according to the Roman Pontiff’s “manifest mind and will.” Pope Francis has made it clear that the interpretation of Amoris laetitia given by the Bishops of the Pastoral Region of Buenos Aires in September of 2016 represents how he wishes AL to be applied. Now Dr. Feser, F. Hunwicke, and others might not like the way Pope Francis wishes AL to be applied, but they’re not the Pope. Pedro Gabriel, in his 2022 book, “The Orthodoxy of Amoris Laetitia” (imprimatur by the Diocese of Ponce, Portugal) devotes an entire chapter to “the Dubia,” and he provides reasons why he believes the dubia–though intended to bring clarity–have only led to more division. On page 88 of his 2020 book, “Let US Dream: The Path to a Better Future,” Pope Francis explains that AL does not “change Church law, but only how it is to be applied.” I will cite his explanation below. I suspect that Dr. Feser and Fr. Hunwicke will object to the Holy Father’s reasoning. If they do, they have the right to communicate their objections to Pope Francis himself. Who, though, has the authority to decide whether their objections are valid? Ultimately, it will be the Pope himself.
Here is the Pope’s explanation that is an indirect reply to the dubia:
“Because of the immense variety of situations and circumnstances people found themselves in, Aquinas’s teaching that no general rule could apply in every situation allowed the synod to agree on the need for a case-by-case discernment. There was no need to change the Church’s law, only how it was applied. By attending to the specifics of each case, attentive to God’s grace operating in the nitty-gritty of people’s lives, we could move on from a black and white moralism that risked closing off paths of grace and growth. It was neither a tightening nor a loosening of the ‘rules’ but an application of them that left room for circumstances that didn’t fit neatly into categories.”
Pope Francis does not wish to change Church law or Church teaching on marriage. He merely recognizes that there are difficult cases that require discernement at the local level. This is his manifest mind and will on the matter. Pope Francis knows some Catholics prefer “a more rigorous pastoral care” (see AL, 308). But he sincerely believes the pastoral approach he has chosen corresponds to the will of Jesus.
“Now Dr. Feser, F. Hunwicke, and others might not like the way Pope Francis wishes AL to be applied, but they’re not the Pope.” ~ Fastiggi
Fastiggi is also not the pope. Yet he apparently is able to channel the mind of the man since he claims to know what Pope Francis believes, wishes, knows, and recognizes the man;s mind and will (which Fastiggi then goes on to claim correspond to the will of God). No small feat, these.
I yearn to learn how and why a person becomes so privileged?
And when did Jesus change his mind regarding the words he once spoke to a woman caught in adultery or his teaching on the indissolubility of marriage?
Dear Merion,
You are correct. I am not the Pope. I was only quoting what the Holy Father said himself. Pope Francis never justifies adultery, and Amoris Laetitia affirms the indissolubility of marriage 11 times. Interpreting writings of Pope Francis or of anyone does not involve “channeling.” It simply involves reading the words of the author and understanding them according to their meaning and context. It is Pope Francis who says: “I sincerely believe Jesus wants a Church attentive to the goodness which the Holy Spirit sows in the midst of human weakness, a Mother who, while clearly expressing her objective teaching, ‘always does what good she can, even if in the process, her shoes get soiled by the mud of the street'” (AL, 308). It was in light of this passage that I said Pope Francis “sincerely believes the pastoral approach he has chosen corresponds to the will of Jesus.”
Dear Robert Fastiggi: ‘Pope Francis “sincerely believes the pastoral approach he has chosen corresponds to the will of Jesus.”’
That was my view, too, up until about a year ago. Since then the excellent, factual and logical articles we are blessed with in CWR have caused me to look deeper. Am now certain that I was deceived by PF’s patina of orthodoxy & decency he employs to conceal an hubristic revolt against the Apostolic teachings of The New Testament and thus against The Holy Spirit of God and against Jesus Christ, our lord.
Check out the heretical teachers who have influenced Jorge Bergoglio. Check out his disastrous betrayal of our suffering brother & sister Chinese Catholics to a monstrous communist military regime. Check out PF’s flouting of even basic Catholic family ethics by – for goodness-sake – giving the Holy Eucharist to public adulterers & advocates of baby murder. Check out PF’s tolerance of a fellow Jesuits multiple sexual abuses of vulnerable women. Check out the sordid history of his injustices to minors abused by fellow clergy.
And, dear Robert Fastiggi, sadly there is much more of the same. I pray that your eyes would be opened as mine have been. Not that anyone delights in the rotten fruit being born by the present incumbent of The Chair of Saint Peter; but is it not the duty of everyone who follows Jesus to abjure Frankolatry and frankly speak the truth, no matter how distasteful . . .
Blessings in the Name of Christ; always in the love of The Lord; from marty
He must have meant to change the Teaching, for when he used FC 84 and GS 51, in footnote 329 for para 298, he did via incomplete quoting make each document conclude with the exact opposite Teaching of each document.
AL makes FC 84 says it is the duty for the sake of the children that one must continue in adulterous activity, not remain in complete chastity/abstinence for the sake of the children {go and sin more}. Yet FC 84-5 actually Teaches, that it is ‘the duty for the sake of the children that the couple must remain in complete chastity/abstinence and refrain from adulterous sins for the sake of the children’ {“go and sin no more”, “do not do evil for the sake of a good’}.
AL makes GS 51 say that the dishonorable solution of adultery and complete non-abstinence cannot only be found to have the presuming but the justifying of the dishonorable solution of adultery and complete non-abstinence. Yet, GS 51[.2 Sent.1] actual says do not presume, or propose, justify, “to offer dishonorable solutions”, like adultery and complete non-abstinence, in times where ‘the certain expressions of intimacy are lacking, “it often happens that faithfulness is endangered and the good of the children suffers to the problems”.
GS 51.1 and 51.2 are divorced in AL footnote 329 and render the opposite of GS 51, which says this problem ‘cannot find anyone presuming to offer a dishonorable solution’ as sinful adultery and complete non-abstinence for the sake of going and sinning more (for the sake of the children).
Lastly, all of this Teaching is rejected from FC 84.5-8:
Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. 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.”[180]
Similarly, the respect due to the sacrament of Matrimony, to the couples themselves and their families, and also to the community of the faithful, forbids any pastor, for whatever reason or pretext even of a pastoral nature, to perform ceremonies of any kind for divorced people who remarry. Such ceremonies would give the impression of the celebration of a new sacramentally valid marriage, and would thus lead people into error concerning the indissolubility of a validly contracted marriage.
By acting in this way, the Church professes her own fidelity to Christ and to His truth. At the same time she shows motherly concern for these children of hers, especially those who, through no fault of their own, have been abandoned by their legitimate partner.
With firm confidence she believes that those who have rejected the Lord’s command and are still living in this state will be able to obtain from God the grace of conversion and salvation, provided that they have persevered in prayer, penance and charity.
Blessings
I would add:
not so, it is not exercised when one is Triunely Obliged ‘to speak confirming the brethren’; it is contrary to Divine Justice and Divine Charity and a mortal sin in this situation to not speak…
Remember, “just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak, not to please man, but to please God who tests our hearts” (1 Thessalonians 2:4). And just as the Lord said to Paul in Acts 18:9, “Do not be afraid, but go on speaking and do not be silent,” so must we obey the call to evangelize or confirm the brethren in the Truth of the Gospel, especially when we did speak and left confusion and a mess.
Then there is this: This excerpt on the duty of bold preaching is from the Pastoral Guide by Saint Gregory the Great. It highlights pastors’ duty to speak out and preach the truth calling out imprudent silence as dereliction of duty (Lib 2, 4: PL 77, 30-31). This excerpt on preaching appears in the Roman office of readings for the 27th Sunday in Ordinary Time.
Indiscreet speech may lead men into error and an imprudent silence may leave in error those who could have been taught. Pastors who lack foresight hesitate to say openly what is right because they fear losing the favor of men. As the voice of truth tells us, such leaders are not zealous pastors who protect their flocks, rather they are like mercenaries who flee by taking refuge in silence when the wolf appears.
The Lord reproaches them through the prophet: They are dumb dogs that cannot bark. On another occasion he complains: You did not advance against the foe or set up a wall in front of the house of Israel, so that you might stand fast in battle on the day of the Lord. To advance against the foe involves a bold resistance to the powers of this world in defense of the flock. To stand fast in battle on the day of the Lord means to oppose the wicked enemy out of love for what is right.
When a pastor has been afraid to assert what is right, has he not turned his back and fled by remaining silent? Whereas if he intervenes on behalf of the flock, he sets up a wall against the enemy in front of the house of Israel. Therefore, the Lord again says to his unfaithful people: Your prophets saw false and foolish visions and did not point out your wickedness, that you might repent of your sins.
Blessings, Padre
Paul didn’t like what Peter said or did, and he wasn’t Pope, but he was right and had the Teaching of the Holy Trinity, the Pope Peter was wrong and did not have God’s Teaching.
Thus God Teaches us the Pope’s doings are not always His doings, that the Pope does not always have God’s Will, but another’s…so one does not need to be Pope to know the Divine Revelation, the Truth, after all someone says, “Father, what you have hidden from the learned and clever, You have revealed to the merest babes”, or that the Pope is wrong, “not Teaching the truth of the Gospel” as the Holy Spirit said in and through Paul to the Pope Peter…seems like many in the Vatican love to speak about the sensus fidelium until it shows the infidelity and errors occurring, then its off with you, you rigid sensus (fidei) fideliums!
Padre: Read Galatians 2: 11-14 closely. Paul did not question Peter’s doctrinal authority or the orthodoxy of his teaching. Paul was admonishing Peter for his hypocrisy and inconsistency on the level of personal conduct and behavior. Feser in this article and the dissenting authorities he cites, like most of today’s borderline Protestants among the serial bashers of Pope Francis, are questioning Pope Francis’ doctrinal authority and the orthodoxy of his magisterium. Understanding this biblical account more clearly, invalidates its rampant use (or even misuse or abuse) by the usual suspect dissenters to justify their questioning, resistance and rejection of papal magisterium.
Deacon, please stop the dark game playing. First, The Holy Spirit through and with Paul corrected Peter (and those with him) for ‘not be straightforward or sincere about the truth of the Gospel’, that is orthodoxy***; second your point was since someone is not the pope, they cannot say anything, especially to correct the error of the Pope. That was the point I made, the Pope can be corrected by those who are not pope, just as and like Saint Catherine of Sienna. Of course if you had read prayerfully and carefully you would known this, or acknowledge this.
It seems one projects the very way the liberal personages work. They use the same words while changing the meaning and Teaching of God the Holy Spirit, and then say they are not and enter into ad hominem attacks on those defending the Beloved and His Truth in love, as evil, serial bashers, et al, etc.
Yet, this is of the father of hell, his deeds, Jesus says (cf. John 6).
Deacon, blessings and mercies
*** What the Holy Spirit did with and through Paul for Peter and His Spousal Church is and was about the Truth/s of orthodoxy and the Gospel, viz., salvation, justification, Faith, and what happens when you are not sincere or straightforward about it {the point is not about the insincerity or sin involved, it is and was about the truth of the Gospel/orthodoxy which was the substance and object on the insincerity that lead to failure to live or teach it}: Gal 2:14ff:
14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?
15 “We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles 16 know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in[d] Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.
17 “But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we Jews find ourselves also among the sinners, doesn’t that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! 18 If I rebuild what I destroyed, then I really would be a lawbreaker.
19 “For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”[e]
Padre: Read Galatians 2:11-14 again. My point is that it is disingenuous and self serving (misuse and abuse) to use this passage from Galatians for present day self-compared Pauls to criticize the successor of Peter on doctrinal matters because the text and context of the passage clearly show that Paul’s admonition of Peter was for his hypocrisy (for not eating with Gentile Christians in fellowship) not doctrinal error. These papal bashers get their exegesis and hermeneutics simply wrong. Read about Catherine of Sienna again. Her rebuke of the Pope was on matters of governance and the state of the Church, not on matters of doctrine. These dissenters on the other hand question the orthodoxy of Pope Francis’ magisterium. They obviously do not know about the “charism of divine assistance” that the office and ministry of the Pope gets assuring it from error. Read Luke 22:32.
Deacon Dom, the point I witnessed is and was the pope can be corrected, he can error, he can not be straightforward about the Teaching and Will of the Lord and His Gospel…you change the points being made and shuffled off into a different and non-verdant pasture – why?, that is not of the Christ and His Way of Truth – do we not desire Him and His Pasture of Truth/Gospel??
AUGH!
Padre: I invite you again, take up and read Luke 22:32. Also read, search the internet, about the “the charism of divine assistance.” It will surprise you to know that John Paul II and Benedict XVI cited this gift attested to by scripture given to the Petrine ministry that they called on Catholics to assent to for all generations. Here you have his predecessors confirming Pope Francis’ doctrinal authority and teaching.
Paul was the agent of divine assistance to Peter.
You write as if it is God’s fault that He is Perfect. Wasn’t that the problem Satan had with God? Why should God have to unite with our sins? Isn’t it our job to repent, like St. Augustine? Why do you teach that His grace is insufficient? Do you honestly believe that concubinage is ever good or God’s will? Or that enabling people to live that way will lead them to beatitude? No? Then stop pretending heterodoxy is pastoral. Hold out for objective truth. Gaslighting God is foolish.
Doctor Fastiggi, Dio vi Benedica!
It seems he must have meant to change the Teaching with AL, for when he used FC 84 and GS 51, in footnote 329 for para 298, he did via incomplete quoting make each document conclude with the exact opposite Teaching of each document.
AL makes FC 84 says it is the duty for the sake of the children that one must continue in adulterous activity, not remain in complete chastity/abstinence for the sake of the children {go and sin more}. Yet FC 84-5 actually Teaches, that it is ‘the duty for the sake of the children that the couple must remain in complete chastity/abstinence and refrain from adulterous sins for the sake of the children’ {“go and sin no more”, “do not do evil for the sake of a good’}.
AL makes GS 51 say that the dishonorable solution of adultery and complete non-abstinence cannot only be found to have the presuming but the justifying of the dishonorable solution of adultery and complete non-abstinence. Yet, GS 51[.2 Sent.1] actual says do not presume, or propose, justify, “to offer dishonorable solutions”, like adultery and complete non-abstinence, in times where ‘the certain expressions of intimacy are lacking, “it often happens that faithfulness is endangered and the good of the children suffers to the problems”.
GS 51.1 and 51.2 are divorced in AL footnote 329 and render the opposite of GS 51, which says this problem ‘cannot find anyone presuming to offer a dishonorable solution’ as sinful adultery and complete non-abstinence for the sake of going and sinning more (for the sake of the children).
Lastly, all of this Teaching is rejected from FC 84.5-8:
Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. 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.”[180]
Similarly, the respect due to the sacrament of Matrimony, to the couples themselves and their families, and also to the community of the faithful, forbids any pastor, for whatever reason or pretext even of a pastoral nature, to perform ceremonies of any kind for divorced people who remarry. Such ceremonies would give the impression of the celebration of a new sacramentally valid marriage, and would thus lead people into error concerning the indissolubility of a validly contracted marriage.
By acting in this way, the Church professes her own fidelity to Christ and to His truth. At the same time she shows motherly concern for these children of hers, especially those who, through no fault of their own, have been abandoned by their legitimate partner.
With firm confidence she believes that those who have rejected the Lord’s command and are still living in this state will be able to obtain from God the grace of conversion and salvation, provided that they have persevered in prayer, penance and charity.
Sia Lodato Gesu` Cristo!
Dottore Fastiggi, c’è anche questa changing of Teaching: Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 14 September 1994, Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross
In this the Holy Father John Paul presents through the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith the Teaching, in summary form, that all the same or similar (analogous)situations, as proposed in AL, are not authentic or valid for the development into the position that AL takes about special circumstances, subjective conscience decisions, prayerful reflection, etc, permitting the unchangeable Teaching that the divorced and remarried can conclude they may come to Holy Communion.
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
CONCERNING THE RECEPTION OF HOLY COMMUNION
BY THE DIVORCED AND REMARRIED MEMBERS OF THE FAITHFUL
1. The International Year of the Family is a particularly important occasion to discover anew the many signs of the Church’s love and concern for the family(1) and, at the same time, to present once more the priceless riches of Christian marriage, which is the basis of the family.
2. In this context the difficulties and sufferings of those faithful in irregular marriage situations merit special attention(2). Pastors are called to help them experience the charity of Christ and the maternal closeness of the Church, receiving them with love, exhorting them to trust in God’s mercy and suggesting, with prudence and respect, concrete ways of conversion and sharing in the life of the community of the Church(3).
3. Aware however that authentic understanding and genuine mercy are never separated from the truth(4), pastors have the duty to remind these faithful of the Church’s doctrine concerning the celebration of the sacraments, in particular, the reception of the Holy Communion. In recent years, in various regions, different pastoral solutions in this area have been suggested according to which, to be sure, a general admission of divorced and remarried to Eucharistic communion would not be possible, but the divorced and remarried members of the faithful could approach Holy Communion in specific cases when they consider themselves authorised according to a judgement of conscience to do so. This would be the case, for example, when they had been abandoned completely unjustly, although they sincerely tried to save the previous marriage, or when they are convinced of the nullity of their previous marriage, although unable to demonstrate it in the external forum or when they have gone through a long period of reflection and penance, or also when for morally valid reasons they cannot satisfy the obligation to separate.
In some places, it has also been proposed that in order objectively to examine their actual situation, the divorced and remarried would have to consult a prudent and expert priest. This priest, however, would have to respect their eventual decision to approach Holy Communion, without this implying an official authorisation.
In these and similar cases it would be a matter of a tolerant and benevolent pastoral solution in order to do justice to the different situations of the divorced and remarried.
4. Even if analogous pastoral solutions have been proposed by a few Fathers of the Church and in some measure were practiced, nevertheless these never attained the consensus of the Fathers and in no way came to constitute the common doctrine of the Church nor to determine her discipline. It falls to the universal Magisterium, in fidelity to Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to teach and to interpret authentically the depositum fidei.
With respect to the aforementioned new pastoral proposals, this Congregation deems itself obliged therefore to recall the doctrine and discipline of the Church in this matter. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ(5), the Church affirms that a new union cannot be recognised as valid if the preceding marriage was valid. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Holy Communion as long as this situation persists(6).
This norm is not at all a punishment or a discrimination against the divorced and remarried, but rather expresses an objective situation that of itself renders impossible the reception of Holy Communion: “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 his 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”(7).
The faithful who persist in such a situation may receive Holy Communion only after obtaining sacramental absolution, which may be given only “to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when for serious reasons, for example, for 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'”(8). In such a case they may receive Holy Communion as long as they respect the obligation to avoid giving scandal.
5. The doctrine and discipline of the Church in this matter, are amply presented in the post-conciliar period in the Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio. The Exhortation, among other things, reminds pastors that out of love for the truth they are obliged to discern carefully the different situations and exhorts them to encourage the participation of the divorced and remarried in the various events in the life of the Church. At the same time it confirms and indicates the reasons for the constant and universal practice, “founded on Sacred Scripture, of not admitting the divorced and remarried to Holy Communion”(9). The structure of the Exhortation and the tenor of its words give clearly to understand that this practice, which is presented as binding, cannot be modified because of different situations.
6. Members of the faithful who live together as husband and wife with persons other than their legitimate spouses may not receive Holy Communion. Should they judge it possible to do so, pastors and confessors, given the gravity of the matter and the spiritual good of these persons(10) as well as the common good of the Church, have the serious duty to admonish them that such a judgment of conscience openly contradicts the Church’s teaching(11). Pastors in their teaching must also remind the faithful entrusted to their care of this doctrine.
This does not mean that the Church does not take to heart the situation of these faithful, who moreover are not excluded from ecclesial communion. She is concerned to accompany them pastorally and invite them to share in the life of the Church in the measure that is compatible with the dispositions of divine law, from which the Church has no power to dispense(12). On the other hand, it is necessary to instruct these faithful so that they do not think their participation in the life of the Church is reduced exclusively to the question of the reception of the Eucharist. The faithful are to be helped to deepen their understanding of the value of sharing in the sacrifice of Christ in the Mass, of spiritual communion(13), of prayer, of meditation on the Word of God, and of works of charity and justice(14).
7. The mistaken conviction of a divorced and remarried person that he may receive Holy Communion normally presupposes that personal conscience is considered in the final analysis to be able, on the basis of one’s own convictions(15), to come to a decision about the existence or absence of a previous marriage and the value of the new union. However, such a position is inadmissable(16). Marriage, in fact, because it is both the image of the spousal relationship between Christ and his Church as well as the fundamental core and an important factor in the life of civil society, is essentially a public reality.
“But note, Lumen Gentium 20 also goes on to speak of the office (munus) granted (by the Lord) individually to Peter, the first among the apostles, is permanent and is to be transmitted to his successors.”
“For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might make known new doctrine, but that by His assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the Revelation, the Deposit of Faith, delivered through the Apostles. ”
Catholics and Catholic Institutions are Called to be Temples For The Holy Ghost, they are not called to misrepresent The Word Of God Made Flesh.
Here are the words of Our Loving Savior, “Now Go, and sin no more.”
No where, does Christ tolerate, accommodate, justify, or mandate, exchanging The Truth Of Love, for a lie.
The Papacy is not actually vacant, as The Deposit Of Faith, Christ’s Revelation to His Church , Through Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, And The Teaching Of The Magisterium, Grounded In Sacred Tradition And Sacred Scripture, Remains Through The Unity Of The Holy Ghost.
It would be accurate to say the Office Of The Ministerium is currently vacant, but the office of the Munus remains, Through The Deposit Of Faith, In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, In Communion With Christ, And His One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church, outside of which, there is no Salvation, due to The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, although there will be some, hopefully a multitude, who, like The Good Thief, will, at the moment of their death, recognize Christ, In All His Glory, and come late to The Fold, The One Body Of Christ.
Perfect Love does not divide, it multiplies, as in The Loaves And Fishes.
“4For it is impossible for those who were once illuminated, have tasted also the heavenly gift and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5Have moreover tasted the good word of God and the powers of the world to come…”, to not believe that Christ’s Sacrifice On The Cross will lead us to Salvation, but we must desire forgiveness for our sins, and accept Salvational Love, God’s Gift Of Grace And Mercy; believe in The Power And The Glory Of Salvation Love, and rejoice in the fact that No Greater Love Is There Than This, To Desire Salvation For One’s Beloved.
“Hail The Cross, Our Only Hope.”
Dear Blessed Mother Mary, Destroyer Of All Heresy, Who Through Your Fiat, Affirmed The Filioque, Hear Our Prayers
🙏💕🌷
N.D. nobly begins Hebrews 6:4-5, but the sentence and the sense is complete only by Hebrews 6:6, as here:
4For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.
Yes. Check it if your eyes do not believe what they’ve seen. But remember, too, that what is impossible for men remains possible for God.
Dr. Feser points out these writings from Francis and Fernandez that do no seem very pastoral, from a viewpont of a shepherd guiding his flock. More like saying nice things and praying for the flock as it goes off the cliff to its death. Shepherd Hook is much too authoritarian.
Yup, they are leading us off a cliff, like a buffalo jump.
“There will be such diversity of opinions and schisms among the people, the religious and the clergy, that, except those days were shortened, according to the words of the Gospel, even the elect would be led into error, were they not specially guided, amid such great confusion, by the immense mercy of God… Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it under foot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days JESUS CHRIST WILL SEND THEM NOT A TRUE PASTOR, BUT A DESTROYER.” –Saint Francis
Thanks, dear ‘JP’.
A remarkably apt prophetic word. Take heart! Stand firm!
Made me remember the Gospel descriptions of the opposition to Jesus & His disciples by Annas, Caiphas, Herod, Pharisees, Sadducees, Scribes, Priests, High Priests, and the general riffraff.
The conversion of the worst of them – Saul of Tarsus – should be the basis of our prayers for Pope Francis and his coterie of Anti-Apostolic appointees.
Ever in the grace & mercy of Jesus Christ; love & blessings from marty
Brother JP, this quote, like this pontificate, has nothing in common with the teachings of St. Francis. Let’s get him out of the bird bath. “This is how God inspired me, Brother Francis, to embark upon a life of penance. When I was in sin…” (Saints are such rigorists!). https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/testament-of-st-francis-5488
As a philosopher, Edward Feser is showing here that his theological acumen is very low, he’s just repeating the talking points of serial dissenters in this philosophical gymnastics to advance his resistance to the teaching authority of and contempt for Pope Francis. I invite him and those who have taken his views here to take a watch at the refutation of this article by the theologian Michael Lofton in the YouTube channel Reason and Theology.
Always with the petulant and personal attacks. That is truly low. Especially for a deacon.
It is further significant to highlight Ed Feser’s passionate Pro-Death advocacy in opposing Pope Francis Pro-Life position in articulating the Church’s development of doctrine in opposing the death penalty. In 2018, when the Pope revised the Catechism of the Catholic Church no. 2267 declaring that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person,” Feser afterwards went on a vehement Pro-Death campaign through lectures, articles (including here in CWR) and a book questioning the Pope’s teaching authority. This prime example of the papal exercise of the magisterium about which Feser is personally engaged contradicts Feser’s “suspended magisterium” thesis. Also, Michael Lofton has a number of videos in his YouTube channel Reason and Theology that demolish Edward Feser’s Pro-Death views.
Blessing Deacon, be attentive not to do the deeds of the adversary. Quoting persons who are not hearing the Voice of the Beloved doesn’t make for a refutation, only an exposition that the Beloved is correct – ‘ignore them. They are the blind leading the blind, they will both fall into the pit’. Draw near to Mary, the Mother of the Ordained, She will show you and each of us the Light of Truth…blessings
Padre: You obviously are making a rash judgement here without watching the video I cited. That’s a bad and illicit argument to declare. I invite you to watch the video I cite above before you make a proper and just assessment.
Dear ‘Deacon Dom’.
Surely this is not a matter of theological and rational equivocation but of calm, factual observation, then dispassionate measurement against the clear witness of The New Testament, our Catholic Rule of Life.
Change your criterion & I think you’ll find Fesser is spot-on.
Always in the love of Jesus Christ; blessings from marty
When the teachings of Pope Francis contradict the teachings of Pope St. John Paul II (and every previous pope, AND the Bible, AND JESUS), which one do we obey?
Is adultery still a mortal sin?
In a way I feel relieved; the cat came out of the sack! Bergoglio and Fernandez don’t hide it anymore. The Dicastery of Faith shall no longer safeguard the Truth of Christ and expose heretics. “A different current of thought” is introduced. “Who am I to judge?” “There are still forms of authoritarianism of a single way of thinking.” That evil intent to endless synodal debates to reach the conclusion that the Truth of Christ is very debatable to them and the commandments of God as well. Do we still have a successor of Saint Peter? The apostles chose seven deacons so that “we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the Word” (Acts 6:4). Called to proclaim the Truth of the Gospel continually is their calling, not to destroy it and replace it with their own will of evil desires. “(Christ) HE will not abandon his church!” (Cdl Sarah). We too need to continually pray for the Church and the people of God and for those who are in defiance of God, His Holy Will and Holy Truth. Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us!
I think Michael Lofton brings out some legitimate points in his critique of Dr. Feser’s article. His main point is that Feser alludes to the magisterial character of documents of the CDF (now the DDF) under Pope Francis while minimizing the Magisterium of Pope Francis himself. We need to consider this statement of Feser:
“Now, this ‘suspended Magisterium’ thesis is not correct as a completely general description of Francis’s pontificate. For there clearly are cases where he has exercised his magisterial authority – such as when, acting under papal authorization, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under its current prefect Cardinal Ladaria has issued various teaching documents.”
Pope Francis has issued 3 encyclicals, 5 apostolic exhortations, and numerous apostolic letters during his time as Pope. These documents are expressions of his ordinary papal Magisterium. The notion of a “suspended Magisterium” is refuted much more by these papal documents than by the documents of the CDF issued under Pope Francis’s authority. These CDF documents do have magisterial authority, but that is because they share in a vicarious manner in the ordinary papal Magisterium. St. John Paul II makes this clear in his 1988 apostolic constitution, Pastor Bonus, no. 8.
This thread has clarified much, and as a non-credential bleacher-sitter, yours truly welcomes the opportunity, again, to clarify the clarifications…
Dr. Fastiggi, in your comment and citation of July 16 at 10:36 p.m., we find this contribution: “On page 88 of his 2020 book, “Let US Dream: The Path to a Better Future,” Pope Francis explains that AL does not “change Church law, but only how it is to be applied.”
About which, yours truly would respond to both you and Dr. Feser, with whom I am in general agreement with this tweak: the issue is not exactly a “suspended magisterium,” but rather “exemptions” from an affirmed magisterium. Magisterial schizophrenia, as in the affirmation of truth while exempting (!) concrete cases, almost as if the historical incarnation of Jesus Christ (the concrete universal) is partly an abstraction, and the concrete cases are not. The reality, ultimately, of the very personal “thou shalt not.”
About which, the anticipatory (!) and routinely sidelined (!) Veritatis Splendor offered these clarifications:
“A separation, or even an opposition [!], is thus established in some cases between the teaching of the precept, which is valid and general, and the norm of the individual conscience, which would in fact make the final decision [no longer a ‘moral judgment’!] about what is good and what is evil. On this basis, an attempt is made to legitimize so-called ‘pastoral’ solutions [!] contrary to the teaching of the Magisterium, and to justify a ‘creative’ hermeneutic according to which the moral conscience is in no way obliged, in every case, by a particular negative precept [thou shalt not!]” (Veritatis Splendor as the basis of the legitimate and ambiguously ignored dubia, n. 56).
And!
“This is the first time, in fact, that the Magisterium of the Church [!] has set forth in detail the fundamental elements of this [‘moral’] teaching, and presented the principles for the pastoral discernment necessary in practical and cultural situations which are complex and even crucial” (n. 115).
And, ““The Church is no way [!] the author or the arbiter of this [‘moral’] norm” (n. 95).
Yours truly humbly offers these remarks not as judgments, but as self-evident observations. After all, who am I to judge?
Thank you, Peter, for your comments. I certainly affirm what St. John Paul II teaches in Veritatis Splendor. Amoris Laetitia is a different type of document, and it should not be read in opposition to Veritatis Splendor. Pedro Gabriel devotes an entire chapter in his book explaining why this is so. Here is the Amazon link to Dr. Gabriel’s book: https://www.amazon.com/Orthodoxy-Amoris-Laetitia-Pedro-Gabriel-ebook/dp/B09VLGGRYF/ref=sr_1_1?crid=OGVL1AZUF3IG&keywords=the+orthodoxy+of+amoris+laetitia&qid=1689708862&s=books&sprefix=The+Orthodoxy+of+Amoris+Laetitia%2Cstripbooks%2C108&sr=1-1
Pope Francis is not saying that individual conscience is the ultimate arbiter as to what is good and evil. He is simply recognizing that there are situations in which people are not fully culpable for violating objective moral norms. This is standard Catholic teaching articulated in the CCC 1859-1860. Dr. Gabriel explains the matter very clearly:”Veritatis Splendor deals with the objectively evil nature of sin, and especially of intrinsically evil acts. Amoris Laetitia deals with the subjective culpability of the sinner. The latter does not change the former” (p. 169).
Dear Robert Fastiggi,
Strikingly, what you are equivocating is thoroughly cast down by the fact – evident even to Catholic children – that culpability has never been the issue, other than in the Francis clique’s ‘novel’ moral theology.
As every well-instructed, faithful Catholic knows, the issue is that of REPENTANCE. Serious, serial sinners like Saul of Tarsus, Mary Magdalene, Zachaeus, etc. received total forgiveness when they repented.
It goes without saying that repentance is only effective when it fully affirms that God’s Will rules and our will must give way, both now and always.
Sadly, the current pope (for the first time in Church history) welcomes into Catholic eucharistic fellowship serious, serial sinners who are UNrepentant.
Worse: he affirms them in elevating their will over The Will of God.
If that is not damnable, dear Robert, please tell me something that is!
Ever in THE JOY OF OBEDIENCE given us by King Jesus Christ; love & blessings from marty
Thank you, Dr. Fastiggi. But, ships passing in the night, or is it an ice berg?
Four broad perspectives:
FIRST, Dr. Gabriel’s analysis is beside the point.
Why, it must be asked, after decades of bland evangelization, are the laity still burdened by “unintentional ignorance” (CCC 1860)? Or, with regard to LGBTQ accommodation, the cited margin afforded in CCC 2352 applies to individual cases, not to any category of persons (the LGBTQ demographic) as has now infiltrated into synodal discourse. (For any cleric to say that “God made you that way,” does not make it so, e.g., genome research points in other directions–absentee fathers, early sexual abuse, getting locked-in by sexual experimentation, etc.)
And, after fatally compromising synodality, how is it that Cardinal Hollerich is not rebuked or even removed for signaling as he does?
“I believe that the sociological-scientific foundation of this teaching [on sexual morality] is no longer true [….] I think it’s time we make a fundamental revision [not even application!] of the doctrine.” And what say ye of Cardinal McElroy who basically let the cat out of the bag re the revolutionary intent, in his published media interview? “Silence means consent.”
Further, to the extent that the Fundamental Option hovers above this conversation, we neglected to cite Veritatis Splendor on this point:
“Consequently, the fundamental orientation can be radically changed by particular acts” (n. 70). Not abstract, but particular as in “concrete!”
SECOND, we read that that following the 2023 session, the synodal “leadership” will suggest topics for reflection. Saw this before, when synodality itself was incongruously tacked onto the Synod on Youth in 2018. Connecting the dots for such choreography, what might we expect to see?
Having marinated the Church in the ambiguous layering of signals, half-truths and silences with regard to moral absolutes, might we fully expect that, in a “welcoming” (c)hurch, the margin awarded in Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia to “irregular” marriages also extends to unnatural sex, and even to a layering of similar verbiage to cancel Humanae Vitae (HV)? Perhaps only a footnote, below the water line, as in the Titanic.
Otherwise, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith might have to blow the whistle on a culture of anti-conceptive and now expansively anti-binary sexual license—not imposed by “public authorities” alone as warned by Pope Paul VI (HV n. 17), but also as inflicted by unrooted society itself. And, involving more than abortion which was only the opening wedge to rainbow diversity—as all but the willfully blind now see with clarity.
THIRD, of all of the above, the proof is in the pudding…
In addition to deconstructing the transcendent dignity of the human person (previous point), does the current trajectory also point to a disrupted ecclesiology? Will we be informed in 2025, by “expert” word merchants, that even the Council of Nicaea (on the 1700th anniversary) was really a “walking together” synod and essentially inclusionary? Rather than a “standing together” (!), and exclusionary of Arianism?
Let me stoop so low as to quote myself, just as Archbishop Fernandez quotes himself in documents ghost written for Pope Francis. From yours truly, an opinion: https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2022/10/18/opinion-yesterdays-council-of-nicaea-and-todays-synodism/
FOURTH, we can appreciate the efforts of some commentators to still salvage the machinery (set in motion by Pope Francis) from its own excesses and worse. But the square wheel does not convince. The philosophical, non-demonstrable first principle of non-contradiction—more basic than theological shadow boxing—sticks around.
In the long run, the layman Etienne Gilson got it right that whatever the undertaking, “philosophy always buries its undertakers.”
Fastiggi and friends say: Amoris changes nothing. So why read it? Previous Popes were pastoral, but none of them sought to enable objectively grave sin, like tolerating concubinage. And even a fool can see that the Pope and his monkey are about to enable us to stay in every objective sin. “More of your conversation would infect my brain.”
The great mother St. Monica obeyed Holy Mother Church and told her son the future St. Augustine to give up his concubines. St. Thomas More was cut to pieces to defend the bond of Holy Matrimony. So what if a few careers are at risk. Since Pope Francis will not be a good father by teaching his children to obey God’s Commandments, that is no excuse for us. When did it become Catholic to worship the Pope? We are not his sheep. He was simply asked by our Good Shepherd to feed us. The enabling clericalism of Pope Francis abuses my ability to teach God’s Commandments to my children. “I do desire that we may be better strangers.”
No, the point is that on the Magisterium is God the Holy Spirit’s, and the present persons are suspending, disrupting, discontinuing Him and His Magisterium. There seems to be a contrived ignorance to what is being witness by Dr. Feser (and others) so that God’s Magisterial Truth is not the same today, yesterday and forever, we must be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings’. Just because someone says, ‘the Teaching has not changed, does not mean that objectively it has not, it only means they are being false or are ignorant. But it has changed, it is not organic, it is not a grace, it is not willed by the Beloved. Blessings.
in the end, the last word is the Word of God. But let’s salute the last word of the CDF before we bury it:
Someone play Taps:
https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2021/03/15/210315b.html
A reflection on Galatians 2:11-14.
Peter’s behaviour was the result of being carried off by a wrong idea of circumcision and an unwillingness to go against its imposing effects. Can we say, “The matter forms the man”? Or as Paul asserts later in Corinthians, “Bad company corrupts good morals” (1 Cor. 15:33). The script testifies works must be born of faith (Gal. 2:16-20); and so we find that the story relates about the many things of faith and works not just one single thing. Peter got upbraided for allowing himself and thus everyone else to be misled; his “hypocritical behaviour” being but one manifestation of shortfall of his own office and of his own responsibilities with himself, in the Lord. Here you can not separate out the behaviour from doctrine and authority. It bears out that the truth binds and doesn’t come to a standstill or accommodation with its opposite, with half-measures and the indistinct. There was an objective reality that required definitive allocation. Now we can attest confidently, the part defines the whole. The passage indicates further that we don’t just walk and talk and assemble while things trip into place but must be going “on the right road in line with the truth of the Gospel”. The very account of what happened has it so.
I see that my comments on Amoris Laetitia have generated several more reactions. Perhaps this article will explain how I understand the exhortation and the way to answer the dubia:https://www.lastampa.it/vatican-insider/en/2018/03/12/news/responding-to-the-five-dubia-from-amoris-laetitia-itself-1.33989886/ I wrote this article before reading Rocco Buttiglione’a fine book, “Risposte amichevoli ai critici di Amoris Laetitia (Friendly responses to the critics of Amoris Laetitia), which was published in Milan in 2017 with an introductory essay by Cardinal Gerhard Müller. Pedro Gabriel makes frequent references to Buttiglione in his 2022 book. My 2018 article in La Stampa’s Vatican Insider corresponds very much to the way Buttiglione and Gabriel read Amoris Laetitia. The only difference is they provide more examples that might apply to the first dubium. I am sorry people have trouble understanding how Amoris Laetitia is orthodox. Perhaps my article and the books I have mentioned will help. Let us pray for each other and for Pope Francis.
Fastiggi your points are weak in the sense that you do not discuss the different dioceses’ guidelines in detail comparing with Amoris and other papal statements, or between guidelines.
I know of a situation in the ’80’s and ’90’s where the cohabiting couple was taking communion. One was Episcopalian divorced and the other was Catholic and they married the Baptist Church. The Episcopalian had had a vasectomy by the time of “remarrying”. The Episcopalian never got a nullity either way and refused the RC parish priest’s invitation to go into the original marriage. The more the errors were detailed (privately) the more they found new justifications for getting to communion. First it was understandable. Then it was discernment. Then it was admitted they would live as brother and sister even though this idea was only then just introduced. Then some other RC priest “coming on the scene” had a quasi-wedding ceremony for blessing of the couple. The Episcopalian continued receiving communion at will, without fulfilling the Sunday obligation in any recognizable way. Later it was said sex was no longer possible anyway because of kidney transplant treatments and dialysis.
“Mitigating factors”?
The Episcopalian never became Catholic. Regarded as legendary now in death.
To mention incidentally that when I spoke up against these things I was rejected everywhere; and now after all these years Amoris seems to yield forth what would look like rationales no-one else could have assembled.
I suppose one is expected to “admit” that they succeeded in “keeping the peace”?
So your essay also skips on moral-practical laxity, sectionalized dialogues, incoherences, “don’t care” and “come-what-may”. Which are not abandonment in the Spirit. As well as the problem of calling something discernment but it is not discerning what is actually there to be noticed. As well as the problem of noticing but then not acting on it (because it would no longer be discernment?).
More conceptually, Amoris wants to suggest (presume?) there will be a good and right outcome but how does it provide for guarding the faith and the faithful
1. in the interim period and
2. when the outcome is improvident.
I note this “conceptually” but in fact it has been the constant concern of the Church from which Amoris would seem to be exempt. This is large.
Maybe the idea is that at least one person will be saved so it is alright to subsist with many scandals even those that would relent?
I do not agree that the dubia have been addressed. That said I am not a priest and I do not have any ordinary insight into the actual internals in there in any given situation nor have I any specific training in pastoral care.
‘ To suggest that no purpose of amendment is required is to read into the Buenos Aires Guidelines something that is not there. Some might object that the Guidelines are silent on the purpose of amendment so we can’t assume that it is required. Such an argument based on silence, however, is extremely weak. It is as weak as the argument that Pope Francis, in footnote 351 of AL, is giving permission to divorced and civilly remarried Catholics to receive Holy Communion without living in continence. Footnote 351, however, only says that—for those living in irregular situations—the assistance offered by the Church can, in certain cases, “include the help of the sacraments.” Because no change in the doctrine or discipline of the sacraments has been made by Pope Francis we must assume—in both justice and charity—that the help of the sacraments conforms to the doctrine and discipline of the Church. ‘
https://www.lastampa.it/vatican-insider/en/2018/03/12/news/responding-to-the-five-dubia-from-amoris-laetitia-itself-1.33989886/
Pray? Yes. But for Amoris, my prayer is for a clear correction.
Many Popes took concubines. Amoris Laetitia teaches that it can be the will of God to tolerate such concubinage.
No father who loves his children would ever teach such a thing. It will be the privilege of a future, saintly Pope to correct that pastoral error.
The Church is already correcting as she should and not waiting for the future Pope to act alone. The sense of this is given in Scripture for example in the events described at the wedding of Cana.
And the Church is very clear – which is how it should be.
Your example of concubinage by a Pope sensationalizes the unresolved issue.
It is not just some fathers who teach their children badly but also some mothers, as you discover with Herodias.
In 1930, the Anglicans at Lambeth taught that contraception could be moral as a pastoral exception. Now, who could deny its ubiquitous use?
Amoris Laetitia taught that adultery could be moral as a pastoral exception. Quo vadis?
Taken as it is put forward by Pope Francis and Archbishop Fernandez, the Magisterium is not in process of suspension. It’s in process of extinction. Reason is we’re not in a process of discussing limited exemptions, or with one theological error, the Arian heresy. Rather the entire spectrum of Catholic doctrine is being neutralized. The premises of Amoris Laetitia achieve this.
Primacy of individual conscience, mitigation proposed as a theological category that removes responsibility for sin, the argument that permanent moral principles are nonexistent assures this. The onus is placed on the priest to give the benefit of the doubt to the penitent. What Tucho Fernandez and Francis are aiming for is a Church absent of repentance and conversion to the eternal truth of Christ’s self revelation of the Father.
Well-reasoned, dear Fr Peter. Seems to have resonances with:
‘The man of sin’ (Greek: ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἁμαρτίας, ho anthrōpos tēs hamartias) or ‘man of lawlessness’, (ἀνομίας, anomias), ‘man of rebellion’, ‘man of insurrection’, or ‘man of apostasy’ is a figure referred to in St Paul’s Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, who sets himself up as God.
Even if this is so, let’s not worry, for Our Lord Jesus Christ also predicted such times and His beloved Apostle John instructs us (in Revelation 14:12): “Here is a call for the endurance of the saints, those who keep the commandments of God and hold fast to the faith of Jesus.”
Exciting times! Yet we also keep in mind Acts 1:7: ‘Jesus said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates The Father has set by His own authority.”‘
Stay strong in faith, hope & love. Ever in Christ; blessings from marty
This was my fifth reading. I’m posting here because I do not see the need to post about Lofton any further who got what was coming to him -and without my having to add anything to it.
The Pope’s letter to Fernandez is a mere guideline and it can’t displace the Council of Jerusalem which OBLIGES POSITIVELY to abstain from certain things. When this has to come to a head it is not offensive to charity or any grace or anything about the Church or in the Church.
When on the other hand, it has to be pointed out – which is how it will ordinarily start out; but yet it gets opposed with a determination to defy it, the offenses are being committed by those (already) proposing the alternative to the Council. If it is done surreptitiously as happened in a case in my parish in the 1990’s, making sure to get it brought to light is not uncharitable, untruthful, neo-Peagian, incurvatus, rigid, gnostic, mani, intellectualist, smug, backwardist, indietrist, etc.
Actually at that time they were already hurling names like fundamentalist and bully and “no room at the inn”. One localese name I got is hard baked.
Another name I got was “holier than the Pope” but I doubt it is localese. I must say I could never figure out this one, to my knowledge I had no connect with the Pope at the time on any content whatsoever, nor feedback.
The First Council would be but one example.
Abuse takes many forms not only to do with sexualisms and Pope Francis has to make sure that the sexualism focus does not define the limits of abuses of the Church. Maybe it is time for him to take stock on why he would adapt zero tolerance to sex abuse but yet actually denounce zero tolerance on other non-negotiable abuses.
Maybe he also must look AS WELL at the risk of giving too much exhibition and time on the sexualism theme as a way to somehow prove orthodoxy being constantly updating “all highly publicized”.
In addition it is not the purpose of VATICAN II to produce a placate-only apostolate and such an idea, that one obligingly must only seek to placate, is not in the Documents or in the Tradition. And it’s not in common sense.
Such are more in the objective arena.
The guide to Fernandez may be subjectively deficient. For instance, Pope Francis has floated in public a glaring contradiction, in that one can not profess to legalize homosexual civil union and not be Pelagian and gnostic or be true to grace. Such a situation can not be dealt with in the brief expressed in the guiding letter.
If Pope Francis can not discern this error and Fernandez is caught up in placatings with mysticisms about the mouth and who knows what else, but everyone is in denial that subjectivities and blindness can cause trouble; obviously there will then continue to be clashes and “upsets”.
Lastly there is the question of learning, Pope Francis said homosexuality is a sin not a crime -which trashes the learning on both items.
In law it is a crime when committed or induced. In faith it is a sin when held to or led. He thus offends law and faith. But in the first place he has no right in terms of teaching, to so condense the topics as to render them anti-faith and anarchical. And have the rest of us bring him up on it as if we wanted to with others getting up high on their horses that we are bashing him.
In both faith and law if you are affected by that thing you have to MAKE SURE to do something against it.
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2023/07/22/loftons-youtube-straw-man/
Excellent scholarship to add to the Amoris debate. This poor priest got fired from his teaching job by his Bishop for this book:
https://www.tradimentodellasanadottrina.it/en/libro/