Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => Topic started by: Geremia on July 13, 2019, 05:44:56 PM
-
In September 2016, four cardinals, with the support of many other clerics, questioned the orthodoxy of Francis's docuмent on marriage and the family, Amoris Lætitia, in the form of five dubia ("doubts") (https://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/full-text-and-explanatory-notes-of-cardinals-questions-on-amoris-laetitia):
- It is asked whether, following the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (300-305), it has now become possible to grant absolution in the sacrament of penance and thus to admit to holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person more uxorio without fulfilling the conditions provided for by Familiaris Consortio, 84, and subsequently reaffirmed by Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 34, and Sacramentum Caritatis, 29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in Note 351 (305) of the exhortation Amoris Laetitia be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live more uxorio ["in marital way]?
- After the publication of the post-synodal exhortation Amoris Laetitia (304), does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 79, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, on the existence of absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts and that are binding without exceptions?
- After Amoris Laetitia (301) is it still possible to affirm that a person who habitually lives in contradiction to a commandment of God’s law, as for instance the one that prohibits adultery (Matthew 19:3-9), finds him or herself in an objective situation of grave habitual sin (Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, “Declaration,” June 24, 2000)?
- After the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (302) on “circuмstances which mitigate moral responsibility,” does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 81, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, according to which “circuмstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice”?
- After Amoris Laetitia (303) does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 56, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, that excludes a creative interpretation of the role of conscience and that emphasizes that conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object?
(emphases in original)
Briefly, they question if Francis supports
- Communion for adulterous couples?
- moral relativism?
- living in sin?
- there not being intrinsically evil acts?
(e.g., ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ acts, contraception, abortion, euthanasia, ѕυιcιdє, etc.) - private interpretation of moral norms?
After years of Francis refusing to address these dubia, Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke and four bishops issued the Declaration of the Truths relating to some of the most common Errors in the Life of the Church of our Time (https://www.ncregister.com/images/uploads/Declaration_Truths_Errors_final_version_clean.pdf) on May 31, 2019, which reiterates Catholic teaching on the
- Fundamentals of Faith (#1-2)
- Creed (#3-11)
- Law of God (#12-29)
- Sacraments (#30-40)
in 40 brief points (cf. their accompanying explanatory note (http://www.ncregister.com/images/uploads/Declaration_of_Truths_Explanatory_Note_final_version_clean.pdf)).
For example, the Declaration of the Truths (https://www.ncregister.com/images/uploads/Declaration_Truths_Errors_final_version_clean.pdf) says, in response to dubia (https://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/full-text-and-explanatory-notes-of-cardinals-questions-on-amoris-laetitia) number
37. By virtue of the will of Christ and the unchangeable Tradition of the Church, the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist may not be given to those who are in a public state of objectively grave sin, and sacramental absolution may not be given to those who express their unwillingness to conform to Divine law, even if their unwillingness pertains only to a single grave matter (see Council of Trent, sess. 14, c. 4 (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.v.i.i.vii.html#v.i.i.vii-p8.27); Pope John Paul II, Message to the Major Penitentiary Cardinal William W. Baum, on March 22, 1996).
12. A justified person has the sufficient strength with God’s grace to carry out the objective demands of the Divine law, since all of the commandments of God are possible for the justified. God’s grace, when it justifies the sinner, does of its nature produce conversion from all serious sin (see Council of Trent, sess. 6, Decree on Justification, c. 11 (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.v.i.i.iv.html#v.i.i.iv-p46.10); c. 13 (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.v.i.i.iv.html#v.i.i.iv-p58.18)).
22. Anyone, husband or wife, who has obtained a civil divorce from the spouse to whom he or she is validly married, and has contracted a civil marriage with some other person during the lifetime of his legitimate spouse, and who lives in a marital way with the civil partner, and who chooses to remain in this state with full knowledge of the nature of the act and with full consent of the will to that act, is in a state of mortal sin and therefore can not receive sanctifying grace and grow in charity. Therefore, these Christians, unless they are living as “brother and sister,” cannot receive Holy Communion (see John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio, 84).
15. “No circuмstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God, which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church” (John Paul II, Encyclical Evangelium vitae, 62). There are moral principles and moral truths contained in Divine revelation and in the natural law which include negative prohibitions that absolutely forbid certain kinds of action, inasmuch as these kinds of action are always gravely unlawful on account of their object. Hence, the opinion is wrong that says that a good intention or a good consequence is or can ever be sufficient to justify the commission of such kinds of action (see Council of Trent, sess. 6 de iustificatione, c. 15 (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.v.i.i.iv.html#v.i.i.iv-p73.5); John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation, Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 17; Encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 80).
20. By natural and Divine law no human being may voluntarily and without sin exercise his sɛҳuąƖ powers outside of a valid marriage. It is, therefore, contrary to Holy Scripture and Tradition to affirm that conscience can truly and rightly judge that sɛҳuąƖ acts between persons who have contracted a civil marriage with each other, can sometimes be morally right or requested or even commanded by God, although one or both persons is sacramentally married to another person (see 1 Cor 7: 11 (http://drbo.org/x/d?b=drl&bk=53&ch=7&l=11-#x); John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio, 84).
(my emphases)
Since all these truths are interconnected, read the full docuмent (https://www.ncregister.com/images/uploads/Declaration_Truths_Errors_final_version_clean.pdf) for a complete explanation.
(source (https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/71731/1787))
-
And what good is this docuмent?
-
And what good is this docuмent?
Why do you ask that?
-
The docuмent has been issued. The pope has ignored it. The Church is proceeding without regard to the docuмent. It sounds like the docuмent has no value. After nearly three years the authors aren't even following up on it. So, what good is the docuмent?
-
The docuмent has been issued. The pope has ignored it. The Church is proceeding without regard to the docuмent. It sounds like the docuмent has no value. After nearly three years the authors aren't even following up on it. So, what good is the docuмent?
Simple. Francis and the whole Church by this dubia have been publicly shown that Francis is propagating serious moral errors in the lives of the laity. When the time comes it will be much simpler for the proper ecclesiastical authorities to denounce, anathemize, and excommunicate him and declare him an anti-pope.
Those who seem to be invincible today are but human debris in hell in the future.
-
Simple. Francis and the whole Church by this dubia have been publicly shown that Francis is propagating serious moral errors in the lives of the laity. When the time comes it will be much simpler for the proper ecclesiastical authorities to denounce, anathemize, and excommunicate him and declare him an anti-pope.
Those who seem to be invincible today are but human debris in hell in the future.
It must be nice living in the fantasy land that you inhabit.
-
Simple. Francis and the whole Church by this dubia have been publicly shown that Francis is propagating serious moral errors in the lives of the laity. When the time comes it will be much simpler for the proper ecclesiastical authorities to denounce, anathemize, and excommunicate him and declare him an anti-pope.
Those who seem to be invincible today are but human debris in hell in the future.
If this was describing the "formal correction" that Burke promised and never delivered on, I might say you had a point with the bolded part. I might.
As for the rest? I agree with TKGS. If you think that there are any "proper" (ie. Catholic) ecclesiastical authorities in Rome that will actually declare him an anti-pope, you are living in a fantasy world.