Dubia Submitted to the Holy Father

[Jack4]

5 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

One obvious answer, which **none of us want to be true** (insert additional emphasis here), is that Pope Francis himself has written, believes, and wishes to put into practice in the Church, a moral and theological error. 

There are other possibilities, all of which we would prefer to be true. But this is the one that absolutely must be avoided at any cost.

That is why the dubia are a gift to the Holy Father. Our four cardinals have in effect written to Pope Francis saying "please tell us this is not true", for his own sake, for the sake of the Church and us the Church Militant, and for their own sake too, bearing the heavy responsibilities of their episcopal office.

 

12 hours ago, PhuturePriest said:

So, after cancelling his meeting with cardinals (of which there is precedent for), Pope Francis proceeded to have an interview with a paper about the Dubia and decried legalism.

I love the Holy Father, but unless anyone can provide a solid insight or missing factor, I'm afraid this is just petty. The cardinals were simply asking for a clarification. There's no need to humiliate them in a paper and essentially call them pharisees after you've refused to speak with them.

Just some quotes which I just took from the Holy Father's tweets. Whether or not you see a difference in he says and does (or rather,  refrains from doing), join me in praying for him.  

May we make God’s merciful love ever more evident in our world through dialogue, mutual acceptance and fraternal cooperation.

Prophecy is saying that there is something truer, more beautiful, greater, of greater good to which we are all called. 

We don’t have to go far or come up with grand projects to be charitable. Often the people closest to us could use our help.

In a world which has been damaged by the virus of indifference, the works of mercy are the best antidote.

Let us pray for our brothers and sisters who encounter discrimination and pay a personal price for their fidelity to the Gospel.

Let us ask the Lord that his word, source of light and life, may help Christians be ever more united.

Love is a patient effort by persons who dedicate themselves to listening and drawing closer to others.

The logic behind charity is to be willing to give up everything so that unity and love prevail.

We are disciples, but also missionaries, bringing Christ wherever he asks us to be present.

[Guest]

What would exclude a baptised Catholic from Holy Communion is mortal sin - i.e. grave matter, full knowledge and full consent.  Certainly as an example, marrying outside The Church is grave matter - but wouldn't it then be up to one's confessor or a priest to discern if full knowledge and full consent is also present?  If either or both of the latter two is missing, there is no mortal sin?  One of the possible exemptions for full knowledge and consent, according to the CCC, is:

Quote

1860 - Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

I really cannot understand why the dubia had to be very public by authorities in The Church.  Talking it all over (Chapter 8) with Pope Francis quietly would have been better in my book and to keep talking it over until an agreement is reached to share with the faithful.  Even if these bishops simply stated publicly that there are efforts underway to clarify what Pope Francis meant by statements in Chapter 8 and would be made public in due course.  I have read previously when this thread first got going the statement by the bishops about their reasoning re the lack of response to the dubai from Pope Francis .

The "in some cases" in the leaked papal Letter is a huge qualification and from what I do know of Catholics marrying outside The Church, in all cases their knowledge of what The Church actually does teach is very much lacking.  There is a real confusion 'out in the pews' between actual Church Teaching and what some Catholics choose to believe being adopted in ignorance by some Catholics as actual Church Teaching.  There is sufficient confusing "out in the pews" that some to many have just given up trying to understand the complexities (and at times quite 'lengthy quite complex complexities') of Church Teaching and go about what they personally think is right.

And whether the bishops intended it or not and their intentions are commendable, it does seem that those on the conservative side in practice are lining up behind the dubai and those with a liberal lean lining up behind Pope Francis.  

Just as there is tremendous confusion out here where grave matter is viewed as always mortal sin - and such concepts are of concern.

Edited November 19, 2016 by BarbaraTherese

[Guest]

My previous post is a general comment, not addressed to anyone in particular.  I omitted to prefix my post "General comment only"

[Nihil Obstat]

Canon 915 excludes such people from reception of Communion regardless of their imputed subjective culpability.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Canon 915 excludes such people from reception of Communion regardless of their imputed subjective culpability.

Thanks Nihil - I live and I learn.  I had to look up the Catholic Culture Dictionary (see below).  If some situations would indeed fall under interdict or excommunication, then Canon Law is clear under Canon 915 (and I must admit, I still have no idea whatsoever even after reading the definitions, what on earth those might mean).  I think that Canon Law can and does sometimes be changed? if, I guess, the Holy Father and Magisterium (or whomsoever!) felt that it needed changing for some reason.

I have much heartfelt compassion for many Catholics, especially those in the workforce and/or with children.   Living alone at 71yrs of age, I have the time to get on the computer and so some researching - and Phatmass and CA are excellent resources for questions and information.  Many Catholics do not have the time - and today I tend to think not much inclination either very often.  Life is too stressful and if one is going to put bread and butter on the table daily, one needs one's job especially with children.  With children too the cost of Catholic education.  Other stresses too - without delving into the complexities of Church Teaching at times.  It draws my heartfelt compassion.  And most especially where the poor are concerned: no car, no computer, no cell phone or mobile - perhaps not even sufficient funds for bread and butter on the table daily, let alone pay bills - and everything inbetween.

Interdict: A censure forbidding the faithful, while still remaining in communion with the Church, the use of certain sacred privileges, such as Christian burial, some of the sacraments, and attendance at liturgical services. It does not exclude from Church membership, nor does it necessarily imply a personal fault of any individual affected by the interdict. When imposed for a fixed period, it is a vindictive penalty because of some grave act done against the common good of the Church by one or more parishes. Usual religious services are curtailed, but sacraments may be given to the dying, marriages celebrated, and Holy Communion administered if the interdict is general or local (not personal). A general interdict may be inflicted only by the Holy See. Parishes or persons may be interdicted only by the local ordinary.

Excommunication: An ecclesiastical censure by which one is more or less excluded from communion with the faithful. It is also called anathema, especially if it is inflicted with formal solemnities on persons notoriously obstinate to reconciliation. Some excommunicated persons are vitandi (to be avoided), others tolerati (tolerate). No one is vitandus unless that person has been publicly excommunicated by name by the Holy See, and it is expressly stated that the person is "to be avoided," Anyone who lays violent hands on the Pope is automatically vitandus.

In general, the effects of excommunication affect the person's right to receive the sacraments, or Christian burial, until the individual repents and is reconciled with the Church. In order for an excommunication to take effect, the person must have been objectively guilty of the crime charged. (Etym. Latin ex-, from + communicare, to communicate: excommunicatio, exclusion from a community.)

 

______________

Quote

Canon 915: Can.  915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

"Manifest grave sin" I take it would mean mortal sin.  There are three conditions necessary for mortal sin, not only grave matter. 

 

[Nihil Obstat]

No, manifest grave sin is by no means identical to mortal sin. 

[Guest]

 

SHEEESH!

[PhuturePriest]

On 11/18/2016 at 10:36 PM, BarbaraTherese said:

What would exclude a baptised Catholic from Holy Communion is mortal sin - i.e. grave matter, full knowledge and full consent.  Certainly as an example, marrying outside The Church is grave matter - but wouldn't it then be up to one's confessor or a priest to discern if full knowledge and full consent is also present?  If either or both of the latter two is missing, there is no mortal sin?  One of the possible exemptions for full knowledge and consent, according to the CCC, is:

I really cannot understand why the dubia had to be very public by authorities in The Church.  Talking it all over (Chapter 8) with Pope Francis quietly would have been better in my book and to keep talking it over until an agreement is reached to share with the faithful.  Even if these bishops simply stated publicly that there are efforts underway to clarify what Pope Francis meant by statements in Chapter 8 and would be made public in due course.  I have read previously when this thread first got going the statement by the bishops about their reasoning re the lack of response to the dubai from Pope Francis .

The "in some cases" in the leaked papal Letter is a huge qualification and from what I do know of Catholics marrying outside The Church, in all cases their knowledge of what The Church actually does teach is very much lacking.  There is a real confusion 'out in the pews' between actual Church Teaching and what some Catholics choose to believe being adopted in ignorance by some Catholics as actual Church Teaching.  There is sufficient confusing "out in the pews" that some to many have just given up trying to understand the complexities (and at times quite 'lengthy quite complex complexities') of Church Teaching and go about what they personally think is right.

And whether the bishops intended it or not and their intentions are commendable, it does seem that those on the conservative side in practice are lining up behind the dubai and those with a liberal lean lining up behind Pope Francis.  

Just as there is tremendous confusion out here where grave matter is viewed as always mortal sin - and such concepts are of concern.

Canon 915 aside, I don't think anyone except perhaps the most extreme of traddies are saying people who are in invalid marriages without knowing that is a sin are committing a sin when they receive. The point is that, once their pastor has informed them of this, they now know and must cease all conjugal relations until their relationship status can be determined. I think that's one of the main distinctions which has for whatever reason not been made. Many on the "left" like Kasper have been saying much the same that you have, and many on the "right" have objected, but they've been talking past each other and I haven't seen anyone make this distinction. I have no doubt that, due to the horrid catechesis of the previous generation, many genuinely don't know they can't just get remarried over and over again and still receive communion. In such a case their reception is not individually mortally sinful, but it would become so once they were made aware of it.

[Guest]

Quote

 

Canon 915: Can.  915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

BarbaraTherese: "Manifest grave sin" I take it would mean mortal sin.  There are three conditions necessary for mortal sin, not only grave matter. 

Nihil Obstat: No, manifest grave sin is by no means identical to mortal sin. 

 

If "manifest grave sin" is not identical to mortal sin, then someone in the state of Grace could be denied Holy Communion and/or fall under either excommunication or interdict? 

It seems to me such an horrific situation to be denied Holy Communion.  Declaring an excommunication or interdict are extremely serious moves to make and seemingly without any obligation to discern if the person is in the state of Grace or not i.e. observable in some way (manifest) grave (grave matter) sin (three conditions for the matter to be grave) .  If I  am denied Holy Communion, for example, it is an implication that I am in a state of mortal sin?

I don't get it - but then I do know Canon Law is not considered a minefield for nothing.

6 hours ago, PhuturePriest said:

Canon 915 aside, I don't think anyone except perhaps the most extreme of traddies are saying people who are in invalid marriages without knowing that is a sin are committing a sin when they receive. The point is that, once their pastor has informed them of this, they now know and must cease all conjugal relations until their relationship status can be determined. I think that's one of the main distinctions which has for whatever reason not been made. Many on the "left" like Kasper have been saying much the same that you have, and many on the "right" have objected, but they've been talking past each other and I haven't seen anyone make this distinction. I have no doubt that, due to the horrid catechesis of the previous generation, many genuinely don't know they can't just get remarried over and over again and still receive communion. In such a case their reception is not individually mortally sinful, but it would become so once they were made aware of it.

Thank you for the reply, PP.  Trust the studies are all cruising along ok.  Prayer for your vocation too.

When I received the formal letter advising that my annulment had been approved, tacked on to it was the recommendation that I not seek to re-marry.  I had no intention anyway since that annulment many years ago now was sought to allow me back then to at least consider and discern religious life.

But the "tacked on" made me really angry and so I obtained an appointment with the monsignor representative of the Marriage Annulment Tribunal in my diocese.  I asked Msgr. T. if he had ever been married before.  He answered in the negative.  And so I told him he had no idea whatsoever just how hard it was going to be to stay celibate after 15 years of what I had thought was a very healthy marriage in every way (mistakenly incidentally).  After I separated from my then 'husband', I had a dreadful time with celibacy and was advised by a priest to "trust in God" - it was no answer for me really.  I was already trusting in God very desperately, but it was not easing my daily struggle with staying celibate threatening depression - and probably triggering bipolar episodes taking my life apart and landing me in a psychiatric hospital.  Nor, I felt, could I discern religious life with my ongoing struggle. Msgr. T. and I had an in depth discussion and he finally said that I could re-marry if I wanted to do so but to seek counselling first.  I replied "I would do so anyway".  From my perspective (although I did not share it with Msgr. T.) it was to make him aware of what was actually being asked by advising me not to remarry.  I think and hope I just might have got my point across.

I eventually did win my battle with staying celibate.  How and when, I have no idea whatsoever other than Deo Gratius.  It was a long difficult journey not event.

Quote

 In such a case their reception is not individually mortally sinful, but it would become so once they were made aware of it.

So very easy to write I know.  And no reflection on you at all, FP.  It is what The Church teaches.

It is all very well to advise a couple to live as brother and sister or similar such advice - but does our hierarchy have any idea just what a tremendously difficult thing they are asking.  Tremendously! Overwhelmingly so in possibility.  It is made so in such an instance mainly because of the ongoing sexual relationship previously and now needing to abandon same completely.

[PhuturePriest]

1 minute ago, BarbaraTherese said:

If "manifest grave sin" is not identical to mortal sin, then someone in the state of Grace could be denied Holy Communion and/or fall under either excommunication or interdict? 

It seems to me such an horrific situation to be denied Holy Communion.  Declaring an excommunication or interdict are extremely serious moves to make and seemingly without any obligation to discern if the person is in the state of Grace or not i.e. observable in some way (manifest) grave (grave matter) sin (three conditions for the matter to be grave) .  If I  am denied Holy Communion, for example, it is an implication that I am in a state of mortal sin?

I don't get it - but then I do know Canon Law is not considered a minefield for nothing.

Thank you for the reply, PP.  Trust the studies are all cruising along ok.  Prayer for your vocation too.

When I received the formal letter advising that my annulment had been approved, tacked on to it was the recommendation that I not seek to re-marry.  I had no intention anyway since that annulment many years ago now was sought to allow me back then to at least consider and discern religious life.

But the "tacked on" made me really angry and so I obtained an appointment with the monsignor representative of the Marriage Annulment Tribunal in my diocese.  I asked Msgr. T. if he had ever been married before.  He answered in the negative.  And so I told him he had no idea whatsoever just how hard it was going to be to stay celibate after 15 years of what I had thought was a very healthy marriage in every way (mistakenly incidentally).  After I separated from my then 'husband', I had a dreadful time with celibacy and was advised by a priest to "trust in God" - it was no answer for me really.  I was already trusting in God very desperately, but it was not easing my daily struggle with staying celibate threatening depression - and probably triggering bipolar episodes taking my life apart and landing me in a psychiatric hospital.  Nor, I felt, could I discern religious life with my ongoing struggle. Msgr. T. and I had an in depth discussion and he finally said that I could re-marry if I wanted to do so but to seek counselling first.  I replied "I would do so anyway".  From my perspective (although I did not share it with Msgr. T.) it was to make him aware of what was actually being asked by advising me not to remarry.  I think and hope I just might have got my point across.

I eventually did win my battle with staying celibate.  How and when, I have no idea whatsoever other than Deo Gratius.  It was a long difficult journey not event.

So very easy to write I know.  And no reflection on you at all, FP.  It is what The Church teaches.

It is all very well to advise a couple to live as brother and sister or similar such advice - but does our hierarchy have any idea just what a tremendously difficult thing they are asking.  Tremendously! Overwhelmingly so in possibility.  It is made so in such an instance mainly because of the ongoing sexual relationship previously and now needing to abandon same completely.

I have no doubt such a thing is incredibly difficult and was so for you. Thank you for sticking it out with God even when it was really difficult -- it's certainly a testament of faith and fidelity for everyone to look to, especially us seminarians and priests.

[Guest]

At very least, very very least, our priests should be advised and trained fully in offering tremendous compassion indeed to those who are having major struggles with celibacy - and to make that advice and training very public in The Church with complete transparency for all without complex legalistic type jargon which only confuses those 'in the pews' - and sufficiently confused, it seems to me, we have a tendency to do what we think is right personally and ignore all the jargon and complexities we do not have a hope to understand any which way.

3 minutes ago, PhuturePriest said:

I have no doubt such a thing is incredibly difficult and was so for you. Thank you for sticking it out with God even when it was really difficult -- it's certainly a testament of faith and fidelity for everyone to look to, especially us seminarians and priests.

I was posting as you were.  Thank you for the kind words, but it was Grace all the way, not me ... and I would hate to have to write about the journey.  I really would!

I very much understand that it is not only laity who can have tremendous struggles with celibacy.  My hope is that no person who is really trying to stay on the straight and narrow with tremendous struggles is not sent away with "trust in God" - it is like giving a bottle of water to a person dying of thirst, but that person cannot unscrew the top.  If you know what I mean.  

I must add, PP - in the time I have been in the pham phamily, I have truly watched you grow and it is has been wonderful and a privilege.  You are gonna make a jolly darn good priest methinks.    Alternatively, as God may Will, a darn good lay person.  Although my money is on the priesthood - we need young jolly darn good priests.

[Nihil Obstat]

Those in a state of manifest grave sin include those who are living in adulterous unions (typically), politicians who publicly support abortion, people who have entered into "gay marriages", people along those lines. Public sins. Public by their very nature. 

Whether or not guilt can be imputed subjectively to those people is not strictly the point. They are barred from communion because of the public and grave nature of their situations. It is, in part, to protect the Church from scandal.

So yes, in theory it is entirely possible that someone is barred from receiving holy Communion under canon 915, and yet is not in a state of mortal sin. In practice I would argue that such a situation is unlikely. Knowledge and consent are not terribly high hurdles to overcome.

[Guest]

42 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Knowledge and consent are not terribly high hurdles to overcome

I am not so sure at all as any sort of sweeping generalisation...............

I may as well get it all out having come this far…………… glug! 

 

My journey to a completely celibate state was fraught with failure.  I not only had bipolar to contend with, I had the pressure of passion due to the fact that for 15 years I had been sexually active in my marriage.  There were nights when (despite Rohypnol prescribed for sleep – I was diagnosed as insomniac but often could not tell they why i.e. my Catholicism) I could not sleep with the temptation looming up that I knew would put me to sleep.  Sometimes I lost sometimes I won.  Too embarrassed to go to Confession to a priest I knew, I would seek out parishes where I was not known and did not know the pp (I had a vehicle then).  I was vulnerable to any man that came along that offered friendship and warmth – but in reality only wanted to exploit.  I was totally estranged from my family and friends because I suffered an active mental illness and separated and then divorced (he divorced me) with my children taken from me because of MI (probably a good move back then but it almost destroyed me into total despair).   

 

Finally I was unable to work either and was plunged into poverty and homelessness.

 I was almost continually psychotically ill and either in a psychiatric hospital or a psychiatric ward.  Not that that was much help either because my Faith was regarded as a pathology from which I needed to be cured.  Hence I had to fight for my Faith too in the PMH system then.  Public Mental Health eventually, eventually (years on) did come round and insight that my Faith was supportive to me and put it in writing.  After many years in the system and many struggles with the system, if they felt I was well enough, I could walk to daily and Sunday Mass.  If not, then very often the local pp would bring me Holy Communion and hear my Confession.

 

Many years after all the above I had a car accident and because I suffered bipolar I had to see their) psychiatrist (accident not my fault.  He turned out to be a psychiatrist who knew me when he practiced in Public Mental Health.  I was in his waiting room reading a book (will never forget it) titled “The Sea of Faith”.  When I was ushered into his surgery, he asked me what I was reading.  When I showed him the book, his remark was “Do you still read that nonsense?”  I replied “I never gave it up”.

 

With all the times in Confession and out, I tried to explain my position re celibacy and purity with a priest; it was never helpful at all.  Finally my then SD who happened to be a priest religious and theologian living and lecturing then in our seminary, helped me over time to understand that all the failures in my journey to celibacy were not mortally sinful at all.  But I had a long struggle with the black and white of Catholic Teaching and laws before I came to understand and internalize my moral position.   After eventually acquiring a copy of The Catholic Catechism (expensive and I did not have a computer then) I began to have a fuller understanding of why I would not have been in the state of mortal sin at all – that state that separated me from God and His Church, from Jesus denying me Holy Communion.  But to that point the journey really was horrific for me and one where I felt estranged from all that I loved.  It was never a problem of anything but not understanding and comprehending moral theology back then and all tied up in legalism...........and I am not alone I know even today.  Full consent came into the picture because of "The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest." CCC1860

 

Yep! We need young jolly good priests who have heart, understanding, compassion and a loving and merciful disposition close to the Heart of Jesus Himself “Jesus meek and humble of heart, make my heart like unto Thine and please remember me when I die”. 

Eventually our hierarchy due to age just must give way to those young now and hopefully with a better understanding of both theology and life in general in all its aspects.  We will continue to grow and change (growth is change) as a Church with deeper and then deeper again insights until the end of time:

“The Advocate, the holy Spirit

that the Father will send in my name - he will teach you everything

and remind you of all that (I) told you”

 John Chapter 14

Come Holy Spirit, come and bless and inspire our Pope Francis.

(Will be putting a link to this post into to my thread: "Home Mass Private Vows" in Open Mic)

[Nihil Obstat]

Yours is perhaps not a situation representative of the majority.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Yours is perhaps not a situation representative of the majority.

I agree very much so as a perhaps.  However, it is a situation perhaps representative of a minority, even if only a tiny minority of the minority, it is far more than sufficient for attention and note.  We cannot know for sure in that full knowledge and full consent in all instances in a person's journey may not be sufficiently clear at all for infallible invariable absolute culpability at all times.  I am not comfortable with a generalisation that "knowledge and consent are not terribly high hurdles to overcome". 

God alone knows and thankfully He is All Infallible and Invariable Absolute Love and Mercy.  We are only weak and fallible in all things including knowledge and law making in the big picture and scheme of things.  Whereas we cannot go wrong with totally empty hands fully dependant on God's Love and Mercy, in Jesus and His Church.  This is not presumption since one presumes nothing whatsoever, rather one hopes against hope as one picks up any pieces and journeys onwards in confident trust.  The Holy Spirit in the journey does not abandon anyone whatsoever who is dependant on God and His Love and Mercy.  All is well, all is well and all shall be well (St Julian of Norwich)

 

 

Edited November 21, 2016 by BarbaraTherese

[Guest]

This is why I think Pope Francis is advocating that priests meet people where they are at and be prepared to journey with them knowing that “where two or three are gathered in My Name, there I am in the midst of them” i.e. The Holy Spirit and The Father also.  It is not at all difficult I don’t think to extend that into a meditation with implications.  It is a journey undertaken in confident trust dependant very peacefully and simply, without rush and bother, on The Holy Spirit in Divine Providence at work with every person involved, self included for sure.

I too as a lay person am anointed as priest, prophet and king according to my lay status.  I too must be a good shepherd prepared to "leave the other 99 and go after the one who is lost” (without getting ridiculous).  Not at all difficult to extend that into a meditation with implications either.

In the Psalms written under the Inspiration of The Holy Spirit, it can be seen with great clarity in word for word where God’s Mercy flows from His Justice.  And it is prayed every cycle of the four week Psalter.  No time to look up the reference just now.  But I will if anyone wants it - and probably will anyway knowing me ..... eventually.  

4 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

to protect the Church from scandal.

Hasn't enough scandal come from that noble desire!

Edited November 21, 2016 by BarbaraTherese

[Guest]

All the law can do for us is reveal the fact that we are sinners.  St James Chapter 2:

 

However, if you fulfill the royal ⁴ law according to the scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing well.

But if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law, but falls short in one particular, has become guilty in respect to all of it.

For he who said, "You shall not commit adultery," also said, "You shall not kill." Even if you do not commit adultery but kill, you have become a transgressor of the law.

So speak and so act as people who will be judged by the law of freedom. ⁵ For the judgment is merciless to one who has not shown mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment.

 

We are in need of being rescued from the condemnation of laws which continually condemn for we are indeed nothing but sinners and sinful somewhere or other and therefore a transgressor of the whole of The Law - as well as hopefully saints somewhere or other thanks to God's Abundant Grace and Mercy.  And we have been rescued indeed by Jesus, Our Saviour of Love and of Mercy.  Just think of the fact that as long as we go to Confession sorrowful and regretful and with a firm intention to try to sin no more, we are forgiven and God then also forgets.  We have a clean slate.  That is The Love and Mercy we are offered.  Mind boggling!  How honoured and treasured to be called into The Church.

 

Perhaps The Church might split down the middle of those on the side of law and only law - and those on the side of Love and Mercy, which is not the absence of law and laws.   Pope Benedict might be correct that in the future we need to anticipate a Church that is very small and no longer powerful including politically.  A Church returning to basics and a future not of sorrow -

 

"And so it seems certain to me that the Church is facing very hard times. The real crisis has scarcely begun. We will have to count on terrific upheavals. But I am equally certain about what will remain at the end: not the Church of the political cult, which is dead already, but the Church of faith. She may well no longer be the dominant social power to the extent that she was until recently; but she will enjoy a fresh blossoming and be seen as man's home, where he will find life and hope beyond death"

Catholic Education Resource Centre "The Church Will Become Small" - Pope Benedict

________

.......off me pulpit........until next time

Bon soir

[Nihil Obstat]

OnePeterFive ran an interview (not their own interview, but a translation from an Italian site) with a Polish bishop that touches on the dubia.

"In what appears to be the first (of hopefully many) prelates to speak out publicly in favor of the Four Cardinals Letter, Auxiliary Bishop Józef Wróbel of Lublin, Poland, said in an interview with Michele M. Ippolito of La Fede Quotidiana that “The four cardinals were right to ask for clarification on Amoris Laetitia. If anything, it is only just to answer them.”"

Quote

 

[Your] Excellency [Bishop] Wrobel, what do you think of the letter of clarification on Amoris Laetitia sent by four cardinals to the Pope?

They have done well and they have exercised correctly the provisions of canon law. I think it is not only a right, but even a duty. It would have been just to answer to their observations. They asked no questions about the next day’s weather, but on issues concerning the Church’s teaching and therefore the faithful.

The doubts regarding AL, do you find them pertinent?

As I said before, a clarification on the document, and especially on chapter 8 is opportune. The text effectively lends itself to various interpretations, it’s ambiguous.

 

 

Edited November 22, 2016 by Nihil Obstat

[Jack4]

On 11/22/2016 at 8:09 AM, Nihil Obstat said:

In what appears to be the first (of hopefully many) prelates to speak out publicly in favor of the Four Cardinals Letter...

The number's up to three now. 

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/third-bishop-backs-four-cardinals-i-was-overwhelmed-with-similar-questions

I knew +Schneider would come in!

[Nihil Obstat]

Bishop Schneider is a man we can trust. One of our best.