Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: How the “dubia cardinals” accused and respond to Francis's «Amoris Lætitia»  (Read 408 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Geremia

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3019
  • Reputation: +834/-174
  • Gender: Male
    • St. Isidore e-book library
In September 2016, four cardinals, with the support of many other clerics, questioned the orthodoxy of Francis's document on marriage and the family, Amoris Lætitia, in the form of five dubia ("doubts"):
Quote
  • 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 “circumstances 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 “circumstances 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., homosexual acts, contraception, abortion, euthanasia, suicide, 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 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).
For example, the Declaration of the Truths says, in response to dubia number
  • Quote
    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; Pope John Paul II, Message to the Major Penitentiary Cardinal William W. Baum, on March 22, 1996).
  • Quote
    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; c. 13).
  • Quote
    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).
  • Quote
    15. “No circumstance, 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; John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation, Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 17; Encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 80).
  • Quote
    20. By natural and Divine law no human being may voluntarily and without sin exercise his sexual 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 sexual 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; John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio, 84).
(my emphases)
Since all these truths are interconnected, read the full document for a complete explanation.

(source)
St. Isidore e-book library: https://isidore.co/calibre

Offline TKGS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4497
  • Reputation: +3870/-339
  • Gender: Male
And what good is this document?


Offline Geremia

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3019
  • Reputation: +834/-174
  • Gender: Male
    • St. Isidore e-book library
And what good is this document?
Why do you ask that?
St. Isidore e-book library: https://isidore.co/calibre

Offline TKGS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4497
  • Reputation: +3870/-339
  • Gender: Male
The document has been issued.  The pope has ignored it.  The Church is proceeding without regard to the document.  It sounds like the document has no value.  After nearly three years the authors aren't even following up on it.  So, what good is the document?  

Offline King Wenceslas

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 252
  • Reputation: +70/-80
  • Gender: Male
The document has been issued.  The pope has ignored it.  The Church is proceeding without regard to the document.  It sounds like the document has no value.  After nearly three years the authors aren't even following up on it.  So, what good is the document?  

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.


Offline TKGS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4497
  • Reputation: +3870/-339
  • Gender: Male
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.

Offline 2Vermont

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4582
  • Reputation: +2131/-786
  • Gender: Female
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.
"For there is not any thing secret that shall not be made manifest, nor hidden, that shall not be known and come abroad."- Luke 8:17

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16