Dubia Submitted to the Holy Father

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

I should have had the shot earlier, when they first started offering them. Now it does not really matter anymore, but I feel bad that I may have been spreading this over the last few days too. Tried to stay inside, but there are those things that must be done regardless.

I wouldn't feel too bad about it - you have "done what you can, leave the rest to God" (St Mary of The Cross MacKillop - Aussie).  A mask might help along with hand washing if there should be a next time - and that would be about all one can do I would think. Sometimes one just have to go out.  Once I was able to go out, I didn't even think of others to be honest, other than hand washing.  I now have those very cheap little white mouth and nose masks one can buy almost anywhere.  Of course, one need take care with wearing a mask of any kind in public nowadays

[Jack4]

http://www.onepeterfive.com/theological-censures-amoris-laetitia-revealed/

I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned so far. 

In the link, you can find a pdf of the theological critique. 

[Amppax]

3 hours ago, Jack4 said:

http://www.onepeterfive.com/theological-censures-amoris-laetitia-revealed/

I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned so far. 

In the link, you can find a pdf of the theological critique. 

Oh Steve 

Quote

“The censures are a detailed and technical theological document whose contents are not readily accessible to a non-specialist audience, and are easily misrepresented or misunderstood. Making the document public would impede the cardinals in their task by the media coverage and frequently uninformed debate and polemics it would raise.”

This is my problem with so much of this coverage. It is good to be concerned about this, and we should all pray for our bishops, cardinals, and the Pope, but there is an unhealthy level of involvement at play, I think, from certain sectors. I'm not going to say that anyone here is guilty of this, though perhaps it is a good point for self-examination, but it is good to step back, and realize just what our role as laity is. 

[Jack4]

43 minutes ago, Amppax said:

Oh Steve 

There are some people here who are not "non specialist". There are most who will not "misunderstand" and raise "uninformed debate". 

[Guest]

 

7 hours ago, Amppax said:

but it is good to step back, and realize just what our role as laity is. 

........and that role is......?.........

[Nihil Obstat]

http://reginamag.com/rome-in-eye-of-storm/

Edward Pentin has a sterling reputation. That is something we can count on.

[Guest]

Since Amoris Laetitia is addressed also to "All The Lay Faithful" it is necessary that we, laity, also strive to understand what it is saying and to arrive at conclusions through debate or discussion if one chooses or needs to do so. It is inclusive of our role to do so i.e. understand a Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation, by Pope Francis in this instance, addressed also to those of us in the lay state of life. 

There might have been some debate re the dubia of the four cardinals, but to date to my knowledge no debate in this thread anyway re the censure back in June 2016 (appeared on website in July 2016) - not referred to anyway as quoting from the actual censure nor referring to it.  It was the censure only that stated : "contents are not readily accessible to a non-specialist audience, and are easily misrepresented or misunderstood."  And on no other document to my knowledge.

 

 

 

 

[Jack4]

23 scholars sign letter supporting four Cardinals https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/23-catholic-scholars-release-letter-supporting-dubia-the-church-is-facing-a

Two prominent professors ask Pope to address ‘The Misuse of Amoris Laetitia to Support Errors against the Catholic Faith’  https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/promiment-philosophers-ask-pope-francis-to-address-eight-erroneous-position

Edited December 11, 2016 by Jack4

[Guest]

https://youtu.be/VG1_zmn-Ryc  World Over - 2016-12-15 – Amoris Laetitia and the Dubia, Cardinal Raymond Burke with Raymond Arroyo

 

Is Pope Francis trying to help people who can't afford annulments? Aren't they usually approved more often then not if you can afford them? I realize up to a 1000 dollars can be alot of money but most people can come up with it if it means they can marry again with no guilt. On the other hand something seems wrong about someone poor not being able to get an annulment yet someone who can afford it can.

Edited December 17, 2016 by Guest

[Guest]

With that said I see Cardinal Burke's point about not changing the teaching. Yet if everyone can get annulments how is it really different? Although I guess if someone is careless enough to not get an annulment if they can afford it and still try to take Communion they should be called out. It becomes fairly obvious at this point in most cases the person wouldn't be examining their conscience and would be carelessly approaching Christ in the Eucharist. 

Edited December 17, 2016 by Guest

[Nihil Obstat]

Of course money is a concern for those who do not have it. But it is not integral to the process (obviously), and in cases of genuine need there are arrangements that can be made. 

[Guest]

Just now, Nihil Obstat said:

Of course money is a concern for those who do not have it. But it is not integral to the process (obviously), and in cases of genuine need there are arrangements that can be made. 

So why is Pope Francis doing this then? If it's easy to get annulments why not just do that? Not trying to be blatantly cynical. I know a divorse or annulment should never be the goal. I've never been married. Parents divorced when I was in the 5th grade. Mom remarried and stayed married or "married" until my protestant stepfather recently passed. I'm guessing she could of got an annulment but just chose not to. I never asked her.

Edited December 17, 2016 by Guest

[Nihil Obstat]

7 minutes ago, Josh said:

So why is Pope Francis doing this then? If it's easy to get annulments why not just do that? Not trying to be blatantly cynical. I know a divorse or annulment should never be the goal. I've never been married. Parents divorced when I was in the 5th grade. Mom remarried and stayed married or "married" until my protestant stepfather recently passed. I'm guessing she could of got an annulment but just chose not to. I never asked her.

I am not sure what you are asking. 

[Guest]

Just now, Nihil Obstat said:

I am not sure what you are asking. 

Why is Pope Francis trying to change the teaching? If annulments are fairly easily attainable(I'm not saying they necessarily should be but I've heard they are?) then why don't people just do that? Why does the pope feel the need to change the teaching? If certain people were more easily getting annulments than other certain groups then I could see why the pope may be taking this approach. That's not the case though right? Everyone has the same accessibility to annulments. So just get an annulment. No need for Priest's to discern each individual case then.

 

Edited December 17, 2016 by Guest

[Nihil Obstat]

30 minutes ago, Josh said:

Why is Pope Francis trying to change the teaching? If annulments are fairly easily attainable(I'm not saying they necessarily should be but I've heard they are?) then why don't people just do that? Why does the pope feel the need to change the teaching? If certain people were more easily getting annulments than other certain groups then I could see why the pope may be taking this approach. That's not the case though right? Everyone has the same accessibility to annulments. So just get an annulment. No need for Priest's to discern each individual case then.

 

Well because in reality not all marriages can be annulled. Because they are valid. In fact it is prudent to presume that most marriages cannot be annulled. Although Pope Francis has expressed opinions to the contrary... 

To be more exact, we are talking about a marriage being found null, not being made null. And some marriages, being valid, could not be found null without major mistakes or negligence somewhere in the process.

[Nihil Obstat]

2 hours ago, Josh said:

https://youtu.be/VG1_zmn-Ryc  World Over - 2016-12-15 – Amoris Laetitia and the Dubia, Cardinal Raymond Burke with Raymond Arroyo

 

 

(By the way, this is an excellent interview, and I highly recommend everyone following this topic to watch it.

If you would rather read a transcript, it is available in full at this link.)

[Nihil Obstat]

Interesting point from his eminence. Mr. Arroyo asks "has the pope already answered your questions", for instance through his response to the policies of the bishops of Buenos Aires to which the Pope responded favourably. Cardinal Burke says in essence "no, because the question is not 'what does the pope think' or 'what does the pope intend A.L. to mean', but rather 'what does the Church teach?'"

Burke: Not at all. He’s given his own opinion on the matter. The question can only be answered in terms of what the Church has always taught and practiced, as for instance is illustrated in the book which was published for the 2014 synod Remaining in the Truth of Christ. And it’s one thing [for] the pope can say what is written in Amoris Laetitia is interpreted correctly to mean that an individual priest can permit someone who’s in an irregular matrimonial union to receive the Sacraments without a firm purpose of amendment, but that doesn’t resolve the question. The question is, what does the Church teach? It’s not a matter of…some speculative idea I may have about how to approach these questions, but how does Christ in His Church address such questions? That’s, until that answer is provided, we remain in a confused state.

[Jack4]

Lifesitenews previews of +Sarah's God or Nothing

- One of the major difficulties at present is found in ambiguities or personal statements about important doctrinal points, which can lead to erroneous and dangerous opinions. These bad habits disorient many of the faithful. Sometimes contradictory answers to very serious questions are given by the clergy and the theologians. How can the people of God help but be disturbed by such behaviour? How can the baptized be certain of what is good or bad? Confusion about the right direction to take is the worst malady of our era.

- Contrary to the surrounding subjectivism, the church must know how to tell the truth, with humility, respect, and clarity.

 

See also https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/cardinal-sarah-idea-of-separating-magisterial-teaching-from-pastoral-practi

[Peace]

Apparently before his election Pope Benedict was in the "allow some divorced and remarried to participate in communion" camp but later changed his view to conform with Familiaris. His article below goes a bit into lenient practices among certain early fathers of the Church, but here was his conclusion at the time:

http://www.pathsoflove.com/texts/ratzinger-indissolubility-marriage/

Quote

Where a first marriage broke up a long time ago and in a mutually irreparable way, and where, conversely, a marriage consequently entered into has proven itself over a longer period as a moral reality and has been filled with the spirit of the faith, especially in the education of the children (so that the destruction of this second marriage would destroy a moral greatness and cause moral harm), the possibility should be granted, in a non-judicial way, based on the testimony of the pastor and church members, for the admission to Communion of those in live in such a second marriage. Such an arrangement seems to me to be for two reasons in accord with the tradition:

a) We must emphatically recall the room for discretion that is built into every annulment process. This discretion and the inequities that inevitably come from the educational situation of the affected parties and from their financial possibilities should warn against the idea that justice can in this way be flawlessly satisfied. Moreover, many things are simply not subject to legal judgment and are nonetheless real. The procedural affair must necessarily limit itself to the legally provable, but can for that very reason pass over crucial facts. Above all, formal criteria (formal errors or conscious omission of ecclesiastical form) thereby receive a preponderance that leads to injustices. Overall, the transferal of the question to the act establishing the marriage is indeed legally unavoidable, but still a narrowing of the problem that cannot fully do justice to the nature of human action. The annulment process provides a concrete set of criteria to determine that the standards of marriage among believers are not applicable to a particular marriage. But it does not exhaust the problem and therefore cannot claim that strict exclusivity that had to be attributed to it under the reign of a certain form of thought.

b) The requirement that a second marriage have proven itself over a long time as a moral greatness and have been lived in the spirit of faith in fact corresponds to that type of forbearance that is palpable in Basil, where after a long penance Communion is granted to the “Digamus” (= the one living in a second marriage) without terminating the second marriage: in trust in in the mercy of God, who does not leave the penance unanswered. If in the second marriage moral obligations to the children, to the family, and so also to the woman have arisen, and no similar commitments from the first marriage exist, and if thus for moral reasons the abandonment of the second marriage is inadmissible, and on the other hand practically speaking abstinence presents no real possibility (magnorum est, says Gregory II), the opening up of community in Communion after a period of probation appears to be no less than just and to be fully in line with the Church's tradition: The granting of communio cannot here depend on an act that is either immoral or practically speaking impossible.

The distinction attempted with the mutual relatedness of thesis 1 and 2 seems to be in accordance with the caution of Trent, although as a practical rule it goes beyond it: the anathema against a teaching that wants to make the Church's fundamental form an error or at least a custom that should be overcome, remains in full vigor. Marriage is a sacramentum, it stands in the irrevocable fundamental form of the decisive decision. But this does not mean that the Communion community of the church does not also encompass those people who accept this teaching and this life principle, but are in a special predicament, in which they especially need the full communion with the Body of Christ. The Church's faith will also thus remain a sign of contradiction: That is essential to it, and precisely by this fact it knows that it is following the Lord, who foretold to his disciples that they should not expect to be above the master, who was rejected by the pious and by the liberals, by Jews and by Gentiles.

Even as late as 1998 Pope Benedict seemed to believe that there might be room for consideration of the question:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19980101_ratzinger-comm-divorced_en.html#_ftnref2

Quote

c. Admittedly, it cannot be excluded that mistakes occur in marriage cases. In some parts of the Church, well-functioning marriage tribunals still do not exist. Occasionally, such cases last an excessive amount of time. Once in a while they conclude with questionable decisions. Here it seems that the application of epikeia in the internal forum is not automatically excluded from the outset. This is implied in the 1994 letter of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in which it was stated that new canonical ways of demonstrating nullity should exclude “as far as possible” every divergence from the truth verifiable in the judicial process (cf. No. 9). Some theologians are of the opinion that the faithful ought to adhere strictly even in the internal forum to juridical decisions which they believe to be false. Others maintain that exceptions are possible here in the internal forum, because the juridical forum does not deal with norms of divine law, but rather with norms of ecclesiastical law. This question, however, demands further study and clarification. Admittedly, the conditions for asserting an exception would need to be clarified very precisely, in order to avoid arbitrariness and to safeguard the public character of marriage, removing it from subjective decisions.

Of course, his past views have no authoritative weight considering that he currently appears to view the possibility as closed.  But I think the fact that even Benedict has been on both sides of the fence on this issue indicates that the issue is not so black and white as many would have it.

12 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Interesting point from his eminence. Mr. Arroyo asks "has the pope already answered your questions", for instance through his response to the policies of the bishops of Buenos Aires to which the Pope responded favourably. Cardinal Burke says in essence "no, because the question is not 'what does the pope think' or 'what does the pope intend A.L. to mean', but rather 'what does the Church teach?'"

Burke: Not at all. He’s given his own opinion on the matter. The question can only be answered in terms of what the Church has always taught and practiced, as for instance is illustrated in the book which was published for the 2014 synod Remaining in the Truth of Christ. And it’s one thing [for] the pope can say what is written in Amoris Laetitia is interpreted correctly to mean that an individual priest can permit someone who’s in an irregular matrimonial union to receive the Sacraments without a firm purpose of amendment, but that doesn’t resolve the question. The question is, what does the Church teach? It’s not a matter of…some speculative idea I may have about how to approach these questions, but how does Christ in His Church address such questions? That’s, until that answer is provided, we remain in a confused state.

Hmm. It seems to me that the question is "Who decides what the Church teaches?"

Unless either of them is quoting Scripture verbatim or repeating an infallibly defined statement, strictly speaking Pope Francis has an opinion as to what the Church teaches, and Cardinal Burke has an opinion as to what the Church teaches.

I can't help see statements like the one above and think that Cardinal Burke's reaction would be "That is what the Church teaches" if Pope Francis replies to the dubia with an answer that Cardinal Burke agrees with, but would respond with "That is not what the Church teaches" if Pope Francis replies to the dubia with an answer that Cardinal Burke disagrees with.

But perhaps that is an unfair judgment. Perhaps we should expect that Cardinal Burke would get in line if Pope Francis reaches a conclusion that differs from Cardinal Burke.

Ultimately it seems to come back to a question of authority to decide. And the living Pope has it.

[Nihil Obstat]

But the question of what the Church teaches is an objective one. It is perfectly possible, objectively, that Pope Francis' opinion and Church teaching are not identical. No pope has the authority to change that.