The most disturbing ¶ in w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/docuмents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20160319_amoris-laetitia.html Amoris Lætitia I've seen so far:

Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end.

Look at the footnote to the passage you quoted. Footnote 351 says that "receiving Church's help to this end" might include the sacraments of Eucharist and Confession.

In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments. Hence, “I want to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with Lord’s mercy” (Apostolic  Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium [24 November 2013], 44: AAS 105 [2013], 1038). I would also point out that the Eucharist “is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak” (ibid., 47: 1039).

What exactly are these "certain cases", is not explained. Door for the Communion for divorced and remarried seems to be open.


Of course, it is certainly true that there are different degrees of culpability and in internal forum things might be different than in external forum. However, the error of Francis and his fellow modernists which is visible in Amoris Laetitia, is judging by internal forum, which removes any grounds for objective rules. The Church goes by external forum - no one can read people's hearts. Francis is trying to overthrow that in favor of a subjective judgment emphasizing internal forum.  

305. For this reason, a pastor cannot feel that it is enough simply to apply moral laws to those living in “irregular” situations, as if they were stones to throw at people’s lives. This would be speak the closed heart of one used to hiding behind the Church’s teachings, “sitting on the chair of Moses and judging at times with superiority and superficiality difficult cases and wounded families”. Along these same lines, the  International Theological Commission has noted that “natural law could not be presented as an already established set of rules that impose themselves a
priori on the moral subject; rather, it is a source of objective inspiration for the  deeply personal process of making decisions”. Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can
love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end.

Francis seems to be saying that the Church cannot just judge by moral rules and apply them to external forum (such as prohibition of approaching Eucharist for the divorced and remarried), but must be ready for a "personal process of decision making" based on internal forum. He says a similar thing earlier:

303. Recognizing the influence of such concrete factors, we can add that individual  conscience needs to be better incorporated into the Church’s praxis in certain  situations which do not objectively embody our understanding of marriage.

The whole thing is of course riddled with ambiguity, which was to be expected.

The most disturbing ¶ in w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/docuмents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20160319_amoris-laetitia.html Amoris Lætitia I've seen so far:

Quote

Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end.

What is "objective state of sin" vs. "subjective state of sin"? Sin means separation from God. How can one be objectively separated from God but not subjectively separated from Him‽

This is pure Modernism.

I want to make use of this thread to manifest my rejection of Bergoglio as a false pope. I am deeply sorry for having attacked the sedisvacancy position on this forum earlier this year.

"Amoris laetitia" is a filthy pile of text. Truly horrible.

Look at the footnote to the passage you quoted. Footnote 351 says that "receiving Church's help to this end" might include the sacraments of Eucharist and Confession.

Quote from: Amoris Laetitia, footnote 351

In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments. Hence, “I want to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with Lord’s mercy” (Apostolic  Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium [24 November 2013], 44: AAS 105 [2013], 1038). I would also point out that the Eucharist “is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak” (ibid., 47: 1039).

What exactly are these "certain cases", is not explained. Door for the Communion for divorced and remarried seems to be open.


Of course, it is certainly true that there are different degrees of culpability and in internal forum things might be different than in external forum. However, the error of Francis and his fellow modernists which is visible in Amoris Laetitia, is judging by internal forum, which removes any grounds for objective rules. The Church goes by external forum - no one can read people's hearts. Francis is trying to overthrow that in favor of a subjective judgment emphasizing internal forum.  

Quote from: Amoris Laetitia

305. For this reason, a pastor cannot feel that it is enough simply to apply moral laws to those living in “irregular” situations, as if they were stones to throw at people’s lives. This would be speak the closed heart of one used to hiding behind the Church’s teachings, “sitting on the chair of Moses and judging at times with superiority and superficiality difficult cases and wounded families”. Along these same lines, the  International Theological Commission has noted that “natural law could not be presented as an already established set of rules that impose themselves a
priori on the moral subject; rather, it is a source of objective inspiration for the  deeply personal process of making decisions”. Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can
love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end.

Francis seems to be saying that the Church cannot just judge by moral rules and apply them to external forum (such as prohibition of approaching Eucharist for the divorced and remarried), but must be ready for a "personal process of decision making" based on internal forum. He says a similar thing earlier:

Quote from: Amoris Laetitia

303. Recognizing the influence of such concrete factors, we can add that individual  conscience needs to be better incorporated into the Church’s praxis in certain  situations which do not objectively embody our understanding of marriage.

The whole thing is of course riddled with ambiguity, which was to be expected.

What do we need the Church for anymore?

I want to make use of this thread to manifest my rejection of Bergoglio as a false pope. I am deeply sorry for having attacked the sedisvacancy position on this forum earlier this year.

Forget what I wrote in the above citation; it was an erroneous reaction. I reject the new docuмent published by the Pope, but not the validity of his pontificate.

I have been mistaken about the safety of official papal docuмents. They clearly can contain evil elements, as is the fact with Dignitatis humanae and the new one, Amoris laetitia.

I need to stop posting on this forum and leave writing publically on theological matters to actually trained theologians.

Quote from: Alexandria

Quote from: Arvinger

Look at the footnote to the passage you quoted. Footnote 351 says that "receiving Church's help to this end" might include the sacraments of Eucharist and Confession.

Quote from: Amoris Laetitia, footnote 351

In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments. Hence, “I want to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with Lord’s mercy” (Apostolic  Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium [24 November 2013], 44: AAS 105 [2013], 1038). I would also point out that the Eucharist “is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak” (ibid., 47: 1039).

What exactly are these "certain cases", is not explained. Door for the Communion for divorced and remarried seems to be open.


Of course, it is certainly true that there are different degrees of culpability and in internal forum things might be different than in external forum. However, the error of Francis and his fellow modernists which is visible in Amoris Laetitia, is judging by internal forum, which removes any grounds for objective rules. The Church goes by external forum - no one can read people's hearts. Francis is trying to overthrow that in favor of a subjective judgment emphasizing internal forum.  

Quote from: Amoris Laetitia

305. For this reason, a pastor cannot feel that it is enough simply to apply moral laws to those living in “irregular” situations, as if they were stones to throw at people’s lives. This would be speak the closed heart of one used to hiding behind the Church’s teachings, “sitting on the chair of Moses and judging at times with superiority and superficiality difficult cases and wounded families”. Along these same lines, the  International Theological Commission has noted that “natural law could not be presented as an already established set of rules that impose themselves a
priori on the moral subject; rather, it is a source of objective inspiration for the  deeply personal process of making decisions”. Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can
love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end.

Francis seems to be saying that the Church cannot just judge by moral rules and apply them to external forum (such as prohibition of approaching Eucharist for the divorced and remarried), but must be ready for a "personal process of decision making" based on internal forum. He says a similar thing earlier:

Quote from: Amoris Laetitia

303. Recognizing the influence of such concrete factors, we can add that individual  conscience needs to be better incorporated into the Church’s praxis in certain  situations which do not objectively embody our understanding of marriage.

The whole thing is of course riddled with ambiguity, which was to be expected.

What do we need the Church for anymore?

I don't get your point, Alexandria.

You don't?  If Francis is right, what do we need him or the church for anymore?

(Fr Conrad Saldanha is from the Bombay Archdiocese)
search frconrad wordpress

https://frconrad.wordpress.com/

https://frconraddotwordpressdotcom
POPE FRANCIS: DECEPTU LAETITIA


Sunday
10 Apr 2016

Posted by frconrad in Uncategorized   



If the end to be achieved is to subvert the sound traditional teaching of the Catholic Church, at whatever cost, then the means can only be lies, deception and self-glory and the Apostolic Exhortation of Pope Francis manifests it in abundance amidst some sound teachings.

It is unfortunate that one has to rummage as if through a heap of garbage a few morsels of bread contaminated by its milieu. At times one may find sound nuggets of gold in his teachings but they are only meant to deceive just the way truth is mixed with lies to achieve the same end.

Deception is a tremendous evil, which is usually not forced on to others in free society but definitely strips a person naked to hell.

“The Joy of Love experienced by families is also the joy of the Church.”

The very starting point of the docuмent is heretical; then what more can we expect from Pope Francis in his 325 paragraph, spread over 9 chapters, Apostolic Exhortation.

PAPaMOR

In the above statement the subjective love experienced by families is made universal by Pope Francis; Alas for his contextual theologising! He then leads us on through such subjective reasonings, situational ethics, objectifying conscience, ambiguous and vague arguments in the ever progressive abyss of damnation which his notorious Papacy advocates.

Where from does the Church draws its joy and inspiration: is it from the “joy of love experienced by families”? The church has thus abandoned its creator who has purchased it with his own blood shed on the cross.

Such is the confusion and contradiction manifested in the very first sentence of Pope Francis’s Apostolic Exhortation “Amoris Laetitia”: “the desire to marry and form a family remains vibrant, especially among young people, and this is an inspiration to the Church”.

No longer will the Church draw its doctrine from the inspiration flowing from the inspired word of God and sacred tradition but from the mortal man and his activities and his carnal love. Even the scripture has to be subjected and ordered to the glory of man.

By advocating such a gospel the Pope definitely seems to be preparing a church to be recipients of the wrath of God as revealed in scripture.  “For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they did not know until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of man.” Matt 24:38-39

The second and third para is strangely shocking, absolutely subjective and even judgmental:

What is still worst is that the concept of mystery in the Church; it is subject to the whims and fancies of Pope Francis and at the outset seeks the licence to do what he wants. “Unity of teaching and practice is certainly necessary in the Church, but this does not preclude various ways of interpreting some aspects of that teaching or drawing certain consequences from it.” (Para #3)

Lead on to ever new vicissitudes of erroneous teachings; from a call to unity to chaos in the same third para: “Each country or region, moreover, can seek solutions better suited to its culture and sensitive to its traditions and local needs. For “cultures are in fact quite diverse and every general principle… needs to be inculturated, if it is to be respected and applied” (Para #3)

Hence an Apostolic Exhortation from a universal authority to subjectivise church teaching is an absurdity dumped on the church by an imposter in shepherds clothing.

What then can one expect from the first chapter? The very first chapter of the Apostolic Exhortation treats the family from a scriptural and yet very subtly from a deceptive angle; an abundant verbosity.  It begins on a very universal note with quotation from a secular poet and reference to scripture as even Jєωιѕн.  But there is no emphasis on the sacramental nature of marriage and its relevance from a specifically Catholic point of view.

If the sacramental nature of marriage is not emphasised nor the traditional teachings on it then the solution offered can in no way be Catholic in its entirety. The Pope is only hoodwinking the masses with part traditional and part self-arrived cleverly devised reflection.

Later in Para#38 of Chapter 2: “Many are touched by the power of grace experienced in sacramental Reconciliation and in the Eucharist, grace that helps them face the challenges of marriage and the family”:  Which could mean that there are yet many there who are not touched by the Sacraments and need not be helped through the right sacramental processes.

Therefore the motive becomes all the more evident; is there need to progress further with a perjured docuмent by a pontiff who is out to deceive. Has he not taken an oath to faithfully hand down the teachings of the Catholic Church?

The Church’s primary mission is proclamation of the gospel in its entirety but what is evident in the Pope’s teaching right from the beginning of his ministry is fraudulent teachings of his own dogmas, humanised to extent of avoiding the cross by all means and even using scripture to suit his agenda, mixed and coloured at times; enemies of the cross of Christ (cfr. Phil. 3:18).

Let me repeat: the Cross, which is the centre of the Christian faith goes missing in the Apostolic Exhortation (1 Cor. 2:2).

Hence, let me repeat: If the motive of the Apostolic Exhortation is to misrepresent church teaching then all that it says, even if good in certain portion becomes irrelevant. It is like Satan’s approach to Jesus at the temptation, it was with sound scripture quotes and yet it had to be rejected because the truth was suffused in deception.

Hence some of his statements are worthy for crafty politician steeped in humanism and populism.

For example: “In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments. Hence, ‘I want to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy’ (Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium [24 November 2013], 44: AAS 105 [2013], 1038). I would also point out that the Eucharist ‘is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak.’” (Footnote #351)

The confessional by its nature can be a moment of torture, like the purgatory that painfully cleanses, therefore referred to as the sacrament of penance. Unless he intends to change it all into a counselling chamber of the new earthly gods of human conscience. On the other hand the Eucharist indeed is medicine for the weak but not meant for all kinds of weaklings, Mr. Politician, but for the weak who are willing to risk their life for Christ through earnest repentance.

Like social scientist he wants to interpret and teach through social realities and historical milieu: “we do well to focus on concrete realities, since ‘the call and the demands of the Spirit resound in the events of history’, and through these ‘the Church can also be guided to a more profound understanding of the inexhaustible mystery of marriage and the family’” (AL 31)

How far is this assertion Catholic? History and social realities are always coloured by the sinful interpretation of one’s experience and hence a whole hearted dependence on such realities will end in falsities that seem true. To base the Christian doctrine purely on such realities is sure apostasy arrived through blasphemy of God’s word!

“The humility of realism helps us to avoid presenting “a far too abstract and almost artificial theological ideal of marriage, far removed from the concrete situations and practical possibilities of real families” (AL 36).

The Objective doctrine on marriage is from the word of God and develops from it and is ordained towards it.  The church is duty bound to preach this truth within the truth of the gospel (good news) which is able to deal with any particular problems. No pastor or teacher can absolve oneself and treat the problem from a purely humanistic point of view as done by the political and social scientist Pope Francis.  If the solution to any problem of marriage, morality and relationship is not sought through the sacramental life of the Church then the church is only manifesting bankruptcy and is stealthily communicating that Christ and his word is no longer relevant in a modern world.

The attitude required is this: you do your best to preach, practise and follow the truth and God will do the rest, i.e. if God is indeed the ultimate reason to live.

Thus the betrayal of Jesus by Judas is the stark reality in which the faithful Christians of today live, these faithful Christians includes the few miniscule faithful Cardinals, Bishops, priests, religious and laity.

Therefore the ambiguous teaching of Pope Francis teaches that marriage leads to a worldly end rather than the divine for which we were created; “Idealism does not allow marriage to be understood for what it is, that is, a “dynamic path to personal development and fulfilment”. (AL 37)

“Might we say that the greatest mission of two people in love is to help one another become, re­spectively, more a man and more a woman? Fos­tering growth means helping a person to shape his or her own identity. “(AL 221)

Alas for the Pope’s concept of mercy: “No one can be condemned for ever, be­cause that is not the logic of the Gospel!” (AL 297)

What about the persons who are already in a state of condemnation and opts for it by rejecting God’s mercy in Christ forever: hence do not overlook the miserable state of condemnation the larger humanity is already in, as revealed in the scripture. (cfr. Jn. 3:18)

Hence those obstinately in the state of sin has to be integrated at some point or the other!

In conclusion:

Amoris Laetitia can be termed more as a political agenda than an encyclical because in it the Pope speaks like a politician who offers hope to humanity but with a praxis oriented pastoral approach based on falsity, lies and deception. He creates a new church where the priests will be called upon to worship the consciences of the penitents as sacred and the priests will no longer be instruments of God but gods themselves. (Deification of humanity= a new religion of Pope Francis; Humanism).

Conscience which is a subjective norm for judging all things is now in vague language is made an objective norm. What formation of conscience can one talk about in the vagary of teachings in all ambiguity: “We also find it hard to make room for the consciences of the faithful, who very often respond as best they can to the Gospel amid their limitations, and are ca­pable of carrying out their own discernment in complex situations.” (AL 37)

Ultimately, the docuмent can be termed as a slow poison that will eat into the edifice of the church slowly but surely.