“Pope Francis”: “Sustained and Wholesale Assault on the Faith”
God have mercy on His Holy Church.
There's no other way to put it: The pope's Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia is a catastrophe.
Though released only this morning,
Catholic observers and commentators have already begun to identify several
objectionable passages in which the doctrine and discipline of the Church's
Faith is elided, wrested, and contradicted. We at Rorate Caeli will have more to say on this subject,
but we can affirm that the headline of Dr. Maike Hickson's commentary at
OnePeterFive is correct: "Pope Francis Departs from
Church Teaching in New Exhortation." Also correct is Voice of the Family's
observation, "There are many passages that faithfully reflect
Catholic teaching but this cannot, and does not, lessen the gravity of those
passages which undermine the teaching and practice of the Catholic
Church." (Be sure to read all of Voice of the Family's excellent
critique.)
Do read Dr. Hickson's comments, and when you have time, visit Canonist Edward
Peters' weblog and read his "First thoughts on the
English version of Pope Francis' Amoris laetitia." His
criticisms isolate what are probably the worst aspects of the pope's
exhortation (there are many others that are also very bad),
To understand the enormity of Francis' teachings, compare and
contrast Amoris
laetitia 300-310 with Pope John Paul II'sFamiliaris consortio 84.
The doctrine and discipline that persons living in a persistent, objective
state of adultery may not receive Holy Communion is not found anywhere in the
pope's exhortation. On the contrary, Amoris
laetitia 301 and footnote 351 contradict the Church's doctrine on this
point. Again, the Church's teaching, "Contracting
a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the
rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent
adultery"
(CCC 2384), is nowhere explicitly affirmed in the exhortation.
To these criticisms we must add our objection against Amoris laetitia 301's general principles, which
are corrosive to all sacramental disciple. Indeed, in light of the pope's
reflections there, how could the Church bar anyone from receiving Communion?
Also objectionable is the pope's reference to some people being "in
a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and
decide otherwise without further sin," as if the Law of Christ regarding marriage and divorce
cannot be obeyed -- something that contradicts paragraph 297, which affirms
that "the fullness of God’s plan . . . is always possible by the power
of the Holy Spirit."
So, on the one hand, we have the Church's doctrine as expressed in
documents such as Familiaris
consortio and theCatechism of the Catholic Church. On the other hand, we
have Pope Francis' teaching in Amoris
laetitia.
The exhortation is effectively a sustained and wholesale assault
on the Faith.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/04/08/pope-francis-releases-key-text-family-matters/82782602/
ReplyDeleteArchbishop Blase Cupich, who leads the 2 .3 million Catholics living in the Chicago Archdiocese, praised the document as "liberating" and said the pope was calling pastors and believers to "an adult spirituality."
"It is a significant development," Cupich said. "It’s not a slippery slope but a pathway forward for people who have otherwise found themselves stuck. I have found, by and large, Catholics across the spectrum — however they identify themselves as liberals or conservatives — really live day-to-day with family members who are falling short, as they would say, of the ideal. We all fall short to some degree."
John, what happens when popes write contradictory encyclicals; ie how does one decide which one to obey, do priests get conscience clauses, and is there some mechanism to decide which rule is to be followed? THis is making things dicey for the rad trads, who will have to disobey, become sede's, join or form a continuing church, or just plain suck it up. Tsk, tsk.
ReplyDeleteKirk, I honestly don't know. I think they've tried very hard until now not to be contradictory. I have a blog post here, discussing the origins of "papal infallibility" as a way of preventing that very thing from occurring.
DeleteSteve observed below, "Bryan Cross needs a new label: papal consumerism. Contemporary Catholics can shop around for the pope of their choice. Indeed, they have to decide which pope to follow given the diversity of papal teaching. Are they submitting to the papacy, or submitting to their private judgment regarding the best pope?"
I think that summarizes the quandary they are in.
Kirk, that's always been a problem. http://reformedapologist.blogspot.com/2012/12/why-i-hate-roman-catholicism.html?m=1
ReplyDeleteIt's saddening to once again see the Romanist idolaters bristling at their idols being knocked over while nary a nod or a wink is given to the fact their communion is a synagogue of Satan and anti-christ.
ReplyDeleteI'm reminded of the scrupulous Pharisees Christ rebuked for ignoring the weightier matters of the Law while obsessing and persecuting over the lesser matters.
I mean, they're angry about a false teacher contradicting the false teachings of prior false teachers with new false teaching? Isn't that the entire foundation and edifice upon which Rome's system of accreted blasphemy has been erected?
Perspective people.
CR, I don't think anyone here would say anything different. What is most notable about this is that the conservatives, who usually dismiss the liberals as "not real Catholics", can't easily do that this time, because the offender is a pope elected by their own laws, who is supposed to be their one big epistemological safeguard over Protestants, who is wrecking the thousand-year-old edifice. Those of us who tangle with Roman apologists on a regular basis can't fail to see the bind this puts them in.
DeleteJohn,
ReplyDeleteWhy can't the conservatives dismiss the pope as a liberal? Sure, it's uncomfortable for them to do so but as long as he's not speaking from the chair he's just bloviating, or if one prefers "pontificating." Again, it's not comfortable for them but that's not an uncommon situation, is it? They've been on a bit of a rollercoaster for quite a while.
Ron, at one level you're right. They can ignore him, as a liberal, beat on their chests because he's not making "ex cathedra" statements. On the other hand, especially for the "Catholic convert" industry, he is a public embarrassment who won't go away, who is espousing and building up positions that many of them hate, reinforcing "the hierarchy" at all levels along his way of thinking, emboldening the "liberal" bishops and cardinals who will be recruiting others like them. Setting norms by breaking ("wiggling around") the current established norms (such as they are). What "Pope Francis" is doing is being called "development". Future popes will call these "Pope Francis" irregularities "the ancient and unanimous consent of the fathers". The longer he lives, the worse it gets for them.
DeleteAnd this "communion for married and divorced" is only one thing that they can try to get around. It is trend setting. Who knows what other positions the liberals will want to take on as morality projects.
They can "dismiss him as liberal", but he is causing very real damage to their pretty little worlds.
I know personally of a number of Anglicans who converted to Rome because of all the moral problems in Anglicanism. Where now can those types of converts go?
DeleteThey will face the same problems that Prots who crossed the Bosporus faced when they landed on GOARCH and OCA beachheads; ie all the same moral chaos, coopted and corrupted leadership they found on their native soil.
Deleterorate-caera is IMHO about one step away from the SSPX and I care little what those idiots have to say. I am Catholic they will soon be no better than Protestants with Rosary and a more High Church theme.
ReplyDeleteCanon Lawyer Edward Peters is the antidote to their hysterical nonsense.
https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2016/04/10/the-law-before-amoris-is-the-law-after/
I have found across the internet what can only be described as grieving disappointment in the Holy Father’s letter. This disappointment is from the left and the reactionary pseudo-Catholic right in that the Pope did not change doctrine on marriage and did not formally revoke Pope St John Paul II’s teaching and discipline on adulterous pseudo marriages & taking the Eucharist. The left is upset because the mythology they have crafted around the Holy Father as this great liberal reformer has not manifested itself and the disappointment from the reactionary pseudo-right is in having egg on their faces that their prognostications of doom have not come to pass. Having been humiliated in this way by the Holy Spirit fulfilling Christ’s promise in Matt 16:18 they have turned to reading into AL heresies that are simply not evident in the text but based on what they pretend to discern are the Holy Father’s true motives behind his words. A simple Catholic mentality would be to take the whole of Apostolic Tradition, Scripture & Church teaching and read AL threw that lens and interpret it accordingly in harmony with the faith. But I do not see this being done by people like Skojec and his anti-Francis Partisans. I see what can only be described as a Protestant private interpretation mentality. Reading error into Church documents. The Protestants do that with Holy Writ to support their false doctrines formulated during the so called Reformation. The anti-Francis Partisans do so to slander, undermine & discredit the Holy Father without thought how this hurts the faith. I find the whole enterprise vulgar and disloyal. Which is not good in these evil times.
Peters cited above shows what it means to read a document with the mind of the Church. Would that clowns like Steve Skojec would get on board.
It's refreshing to see the Romanist heart on clear display in your post SoY. Such "unity" and "holy love" for your brethren in the Roman communion, and such "filial mercy" toward your "separated brethren" (according to a prior "Holy Father") outside the Roman communion.
DeleteAh yes, the sweet fruit of Rome!