What can TexAgs Catholics tell me about Amoris Laetitia?

2,189 Views | 34 Replies | Last: 7 yr ago by AgLiving06
Drum5343
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I admit I haven't taken the time to read it. I probably should.

I've read some about the Cardinals dubia recently.

I like Pope Francis in general, but I am concerned about this confusion he seems to be allowing.

Are concerns warranted?
booboo91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
My take on Pope Francis

1) We are dealing with difficult issues, with no simple solution. One example- How do you get Catholics who have incorrectly married back into the church?

2) He has called us to focus on love and mercy- amoris Laetitia means " the joy of Love" . Think of Jesus stoning of Woman parable. The Law said she should be stoned, Jesus extends love and forgiveness and also warning not to do it again (Sin)- to obey the law. The difficulty on illegal marriages today is folks are still in their sin. Would be like the woman going back and continuing to sleep around.

3) Francis has not changed any doctrine rules but I think he has caused confusion. Has not provided a clear path forward other than let God fix it. The bishops are asking for more clarification.

Catholic Answers- Amoris Laetitia (Latin, "the joy of love")
Sq16Aggie2006
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I think both sides are being a bit childish, but the blame resides more on the Cardinals, especially Burke.

Pope Francis, should really offer direction, but I'm sure he is tired of Burke and Co, constantly challenging on every statement he makes. Burke is on the path to turning into another Marcel Lefevebre, and starting his own schismatic sect.

Burke has a legitimate complaint this time, and I dont fault him for seeking direction, but he has squandered all his good will by constantly crying wolf.

I think the Pope is right, there has to be some mechanism for allowing divorced and remarried Catholics back to communion, under strict conditions approved by the local bishop.

We had a scenario where a lady's husband ran out on her in another country, and she moved to the US and had never gotten annuled or divorced from her first husband. She met another man and fell in love and they married, and after years they joined the Catholic Church, and in RCIA were told they werent really married, she was committing adultery (even if unintentional) and they couldnt receive the Eucharist.
Drum5343
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Sq16Aggie2006 said:

We had a scenario where a lady's husband ran out on her in another country, and she moved to the US and had never gotten annuled or divorced from her first husband. She met another man and fell in love and they married, and after years they joined the Catholic Church, and in RCIA were told they werent really married, she was committing adultery (even if unintentional) and they couldnt receive the Eucharist.
In this scenario, I could maybe see that an annulment would be impossible because they couldn't find the runaway husband. Am I right in saying an annulment requires both parties?

In that scenario, a period of discernment involving the pastor and maybe even the bishop might be appropriate. IF they determine that her previous marriage was not a valid marriage, then she could receive the Eucharist.

But if they cannot determine that her previous marriage was invalid, I think they are obligated to assume it was valid, right?

In that unfortunate case, wouldn't the best thing for her soul and the soul of her current partner be for them to separate or live as brother and sister?
Win At Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
booboo91 said:

to obey the law
?????!!!!!





[sorry for the thread derail]
Sq16Aggie2006
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Drum5343 said:

Sq16Aggie2006 said:

We had a scenario where a lady's husband ran out on her in another country, and she moved to the US and had never gotten annuled or divorced from her first husband. She met another man and fell in love and they married, and after years they joined the Catholic Church, and in RCIA were told they werent really married, she was committing adultery (even if unintentional) and they couldnt receive the Eucharist.
In this scenario, I could maybe see that an annulment would be impossible because they couldn't find the runaway husband. Am I right in saying an annulment requires both parties?

In that scenario, a period of discernment involving the pastor and maybe even the bishop might be appropriate. IF they determine that her previous marriage was not a valid marriage, then she could receive the Eucharist.

But if they cannot determine that her previous marriage was invalid, I think they are obligated to assume it was valid, right?

In that unfortunate case, wouldn't the best thing for her soul and the soul of her current partner be for them to separate or live as brother and sister?
I believe either both parties are needed or several witnesses who knew both parties well at least; which given the time and the area they were from is not going to happen (I think she was from Cambodia or Laos, and tracking them down and flying them to the area would be impossible, I would bet).

I believe what you said is correct; what is even more confusing is that they can't even prove the guy is alive; but since they can't prove he's dead he's assumed to be living; and the marriage is assumed to be valid.

Apparently they are living as brother and sister; seriously, they're both great people; wonderful Catholics even though they're not officially Catholic yet. They long to take the Eucharist; and I would assume they long for the marital embrace as well; but are in "limbo" possibly forever due to the current canon laws. I don't think that's healthy for them; I understand "carry your cross" but it would seem like it's an issue with the letter and not the spirit of the law.
Drum5343
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

I believe what you said is correct; what is even more confusing is that they can't even prove the guy is alive; but since they can't prove he's dead he's assumed to be living; and the marriage is assumed to be valid.

Apparently they are living as brother and sister; seriously, they're both great people; wonderful Catholics even though they're not officially Catholic yet. They long to take the Eucharist; and I would assume they long for the marital embrace as well; but are in "limbo" possibly forever due to the current canon laws. I don't think that's healthy for them; I understand "carry your cross" but it would seem like it's an issue with the letter and not the spirit of the law.
Yeah, that's a tough, and extremely rare, situation. I'll pray for them to be faithful and for God's mercy on the whole thing.
Drum5343
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Although, I might say that because the husband ran away, he never intended to enter into a "death do us part" union, which would mean a valid marriage never took place. I could see her pastor and bishop telling her she could come to the Eucharist. But that's a tough, sticky situation. I'm glad I'm not the one making the decision.
Sq16Aggie2006
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Drum5343 said:

Quote:

I believe what you said is correct; what is even more confusing is that they can't even prove the guy is alive; but since they can't prove he's dead he's assumed to be living; and the marriage is assumed to be valid.

Apparently they are living as brother and sister; seriously, they're both great people; wonderful Catholics even though they're not officially Catholic yet. They long to take the Eucharist; and I would assume they long for the marital embrace as well; but are in "limbo" possibly forever due to the current canon laws. I don't think that's healthy for them; I understand "carry your cross" but it would seem like it's an issue with the letter and not the spirit of the law.
Yeah, that's a tough, and extremely rare, situation. I'll pray for them to be faithful and for God's mercy on the whole thing.
Extremely rare situation; but I feel it highlights the need for episcopal consideration for many many other cases which might not be so rare.

Take for instance a soldier who has a fling and gets married young, realized he made a mistake, gets divorced; 30 years down the road he meets a Catholic woman; falls in love with the Church; and wants to get married.

A lot of it is based around the idea of a person changing and wanting to have a sacramental marriage where they had an ill-chosen first civil marriage and for some reason are lacking something for an annulment.

This is one of the reasons where I think the Catholic Church boxed itself into a corner of legalism. I understand why they did it; to highlight the sanctity of marriage; but they go a little overboard and start adding codicils and stipulations which they dogmatize and you end up in a situation where its "sure, we can get you an annulment if you can find your husband; but if you can't, I'm afraid you're going to have to live like brother and sister for your whole life; or risk eternal damnation for knowingly committing adultery and receiving the Eucharist in a state of grave sin for the rest of your life, you really should have thought about this harder when you were 18 in war-torn Camboida; but again if we can find your husband everything will be fine."
Drum5343
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

This is one of the reasons where I think the Catholic Church boxed itself into a corner of legalism. I understand why they did it; to highlight the sanctity of marriage; but they go a little overboard and start adding codicils and stipulations which they dogmatize
Quote:

Jesus said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart, he wrote you this commandment Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery "
I don't think this is legalism that the Church just decided to lay out there.
Sq16Aggie2006
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Drum5343 said:

Quote:

This is one of the reasons where I think the Catholic Church boxed itself into a corner of legalism. I understand why they did it; to highlight the sanctity of marriage; but they go a little overboard and start adding codicils and stipulations which they dogmatize
Quote:

Jesus said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart, he wrote you this commandment Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery "
I don't think this is legalism that the Church just decided to lay out there.
I don't think the idea is legalism, the idea is great; it's the mechanisms that are the problem I believe, and it's the lack of flexibility that causes the issues. No one is saying "Let divorced people receive the Eucharist", rather that there be a mechanism behind which the Shepherds that have been entrusted to us can shepherd and exercise their abilities. The pronouncement from Jesus above is great, but I'm not sure if it's all encompassing and nuanced. We know that if a man divorces his wife; and the wife dies; and he marries another woman he has not committed adultery; that much is inferred; however is there also an inference that maybe Jesus (in a sentence) is laying out a teaching that is 100% inflexible and rigid? I don't think so.
Drum5343
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Also, this reminds me of the abortion debate (not saying you're equivalent to a pro-choicer...).

People use the hard cases (like incest, rape, health of the mother) to justify abortion, but not only in those cases. They say it should be available because these rare, rare cases do happen.

Not saying that's what you're necessarily doing. But. I think people will take liberties with and abuse the idea that, because some divorce/remarriage situations are extremely tough, they also have the right to "discern" their way back into receiving the Eucharist when they shouldn't.
Sq16Aggie2006
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Drum5343 said:

Also, this reminds me of the abortion debate (not saying you're equivalent to a pro-choicer...).

People use the hard cases (like incest, rape, health of the mother) to justify abortion, but not only in those cases. They say it should be available because these rare, rare cases do happen.

Not saying that's what you're necessarily doing. But. I think people will take liberties with and abuse the idea that, because some divorce/remarriage situations are extremely tough, they also have the right to "discern" their way back into receiving the Eucharist.
No offense taking at all; and I can understand the worry; but isn't that what the Bishops are for? I think "self-discernment" along with private revelation are minefields that have to be entrusted to "independent" parties; as you well know I've seen people discern themselves away from Mass; or confession; or for actually doing the volunteer hours they've promised; etc.

The interesting thing though; is the the church does use discernment not for abortion; but for terminating a pregnancy under certain extreme conditions (the child will cause the mother to die, which would kill both, etc); mainly through applying the principle of double-effect from Aquinas.
Drum5343
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

The interesting thing though; is the the church does use discernment not for abortion; but for terminating a pregnancy under certain extreme conditions (the child will cause the mother to die, which would kill both, etc); mainly through applying the principle of double-effect from Aquinas.
That's not the way I understand it. The Church teaches that it is always wrong to directly intend to kill an innocent human being. Doctors should make every reasonable effort to save the lives of both patients.

One situation that I've heard the principle of double-effect invoked is an ectopic, or tubal, pregnancy. After determining there is no way to delivery a viable pregnancy in that situation, the doctor can remove the fallopian tube with the intent to save the mother's life, with the foreseen, but unintended, consequence of also ending the fetus' life.

Anyway, don't want to derail this to be an abortion debate thread...
Sq16Aggie2006
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Drum5343 said:




Anyway, don't want to derail this to be an abortion debate thread...
Yes definitely not; it is pointless anyway as we're preaching to the choir as I would assume we're both 100% anti-abortion.
Drum5343
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I think many people's concern (mine included), is that without sufficient teaching and clarification, people will take this too far and we'll have people thinking they can discern their way out of a bad marriage without an annulment and into receiving the Eucharist again after remarrying.

For that, our shepherds will held responsible I'm sure.
texag_89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This has the potential to make the Luther Revolution and the Arian Heresy look like child's play.

This letter is truly Heretical in its nature and despite the fact an Exhortation is "non-binding" this one, via Praxis is becoming binding...... Why else have 4 Cardinals come fowrad with thier Dubia, Latin for Doubt.

Read this and pray for Francis to make public renunciation of AL and for a Metanoi for him as well.

Domus Aurea, Ora pro Nobis.


http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/2464-amoris-laetitia-anatomy-of-a-pontifical-debacle
Drum5343
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
texag_89 said:

This has the potential to make the Luther Revolution and the Arian Heresy look like child's play.




Hmmm... no.
texag_89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ok, so the desecration of our Lord in the Sacrament of the Altar and the denial of Divinely Revealed Truths as held by the Traditions and the Teaching Magisterium of Church are just misques or misstatements, right?

Oh, and it is always the case 4 Princes of the Church stand up - publicly - and ask him to explain himself which has him theologically trapped where his silence is deafening..... That just happens everyday, huh.???

In all actuality, it has been many centuries since anything close to this has happened:

http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/2876-four-cardinals-throw-down-gauntlet-before-cunning-pope
texag_89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yep, you would definitely question the Vicar of Christ with these questions if he was teaching Truths:
---------


The five questions the cardinals presented to Francis, and now to the Church at large, express grave doubts about his teaching in Amoris:
Quote:

1. 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 [as if they were married, including sexual relations] without fulfilling the conditions provided for by Familiaris Consortio, 84 [ending the adulterous relationship by separating or living as brother and sister for grave reasons, such as caring for children], 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?

2. 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?

3. 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)?

4. 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"?

5. 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?
texag_89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Here is challenge for any Catholic out there:

Go ask your Priest if he has had anyone say to him "my homosexual partner and i would like to go to communion now because Pope Francis now says it is ok".....or, "My new Wife and i would like our marriage recognized by the Church and go to communion now even without the annulment because Pope Francis said we can now"

Both of mine said yes from nearly day one when letter came out months ago.

In all but a couple of the great Heresies of the past, the Supreme Pontiff was not leading the charge, even in the 2 great splits in antiquity - now you do and thus the potential for millions of Souls to be Damned.

booboo91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
texag_89 said:

Here is challenge for any Catholic out there:

Go ask your Priest if he has had anyone say to him "my homosexual partner and i would like to go to communion now because Pope Francis now says it is ok".....or, "My new Wife and i would like our marriage recognized by the Church and go to communion now even without the annulment because Pope Francis said we can now"

Both of mine said yes from nearly day one when letter came out months ago.

In all but a couple of the great Heresies of the past, the Supreme Pontiff was not leading the charge, even in the 2 great splits in antiquity - now you do and thus the potential for millions of Souls to be Damned.


Curious- what parish and location? I live in West Houston- no change at my church other than focus on welcoming those who need Jesus (this is Catholic 101 that has not changed).

It is living in mortal sin that is the issue. Homosexuals/ Remarried illegally have now as in the past. They can receive communion by not being in mortal sin. This is done by going to sincere confession (not as a loop hole) and not sleep around .They should also go speak to their priest and church. Every situation is on a Case by Case basis.

See Catholic answers for breakdown of issue. Very important see definition of Mortal Sin. That is the key to understanding Pope Francis

Catholic Answers- Is Pope Francis a Heretic

Is Pope Francis a Heretic PArt 2

swimmerbabe11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Let me know if you'd prefer a new thread on this, I don't want to upset y'all by derailing.

Can you explain the modern day rational for Joan of Arc being a martyr and a saint, but not Jan Hus?
His two challenges to the Catholic Church were that communion served in two kinds (which it is done now) and that he could translate the Bible into the local languages (which is done now)....so why would he not be sainted?
texag_89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
booboo91 said:

texag_89 said:

Here is challenge for any Catholic out there:

Go ask your Priest if he has had anyone say to him "my homosexual partner and i would like to go to communion now because Pope Francis now says it is ok".....or, "My new Wife and i would like our marriage recognized by the Church and go to communion now even without the annulment because Pope Francis said we can now"

Both of mine said yes from nearly day one when letter came out months ago.

In all but a couple of the great Heresies of the past, the Supreme Pontiff was not leading the charge, even in the 2 great splits in antiquity - now you do and thus the potential for millions of Souls to be Damned.


Curious- what parish and location? I live in West Houston- no change at my church other than focus on welcoming those who need Jesus (this is Catholic 101 that has not changed).

It is living in mortal sin that is the issue. Homosexuals/ Remarried illegally have now as in the past. They can receive communion by not being in mortal sin. This is done by going to sincere confession (not as a loop hole) and not sleep around .They should also go speak to their priest and church. Every situation is on a Case by Case basis.

See Catholic answers for breakdown of issue. Very important see definition of Mortal Sin. That is the key to understanding Pope Francis

Catholic Answers- Is Pope Francis a Heretic

Is Pope Francis a Heretic PArt 2


His letter is undermining Truths of the Faith - he is taking Moral laws based on Revelation and the Natural Law and passing them off as mere and near suggestions.

Have you directly ask your Priest my questions, or are you just saying you have not seen or experienced a change?

Also, what if Francis refuses to answer the Cardinals' inquiries..... What do we draw or deduce from that refusal???
texag_89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Booboo.... Here is the answer to your question as well... maybe:


Can the Church Judge a Heretical Pope?

http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/item/2917-can-the-church-judge-a-heretical-pope
texag_89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
swimmerbabe11 said:

Let me know if you'd prefer a new thread on this, I don't want to upset y'all by derailing.

Can you explain the modern day rational for Joan of Arc being a martyr and a saint, but not Jan Hus?
His two challenges to the Catholic Church were that communion served in two kinds (which it is done now) and that he could translate the Bible into the local languages (which is done now)....so why would he not be sainted?



This may answer your question:

http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/1808-john-huss-a-reformer-of-the-church-or-destroyer-of-souls


swimmerbabe11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It is interesting that it doesnt mention the eucharist at all. My understanding was that was his chief complaint.
booboo91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
texag_89 said:



His letter is undermining Truths of the Faith - he is taking Moral laws based on Revelation and the Natural Law and passing them off as mere and near suggestions.

Have you directly ask your Priest my questions, or are you just saying you have not seen or experienced a change?

Also, what if Francis refuses to answer the Cardinals' inquiries..... What do we draw or deduce from that refusal???

1) I am on parish council. My pastor is not happy with the vagueness of Francis. But nothing has changed.

2) I would say Francis is not intentionally trying to undermine the truths of the fiath. He wants us to focus on love and mercy welcoming sinners. It is a difficult problem. Do you kick them out into the street and say you are not welcome or do you try and welcome and bring them in, even though many are living in Mortal Sin?

3 ) As Catholic answers mentioned. This long document from Francis contains many comments but folks get bent out of shape on a few paragraphs. The rules are important but we need to balance with Love.

4) The church moves slowly, I suspect nothing will be addressed, it will continue to be vague for the time being until there is a viable solution.

5) What parish are you at? Or what city? Are you Catholic?
texag_89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
booboo91 said:

texag_89 said:



His letter is undermining Truths of the Faith - he is taking Moral laws based on Revelation and the Natural Law and passing them off as mere and near suggestions.

Have you directly ask your Priest my questions, or are you just saying you have not seen or experienced a change?

Also, what if Francis refuses to answer the Cardinals' inquiries..... What do we draw or deduce from that refusal???


1) I am on parish council. My pastor is not happy with the vagueness of Francis. But nothing has changed.

2) I would say Francis is not intentionally trying to undermine the truths of the fiath. He wants us to focus on love and mercy welcoming sinners. It is a difficult problem. Do you kick them out into the street and say you are not welcome or do you try and welcome and bring them in, even though many are living in Mortal Sin?

3 ) As Catholic answers mentioned. This long document from Francis contains many comments but folks get bent out of shape on a few paragraphs. The rules are important but we need to balance with Love.

4) The church moves slowly, I suspect nothing will be addressed, it will continue to be vague for the time being until there is a viable solution.

5) What parish are you at? Or what city? Are you Catholic?


Booboo... responses to each of yours as listed above:

1. Like you said, at first I thought vague as well, but sit down and read the 300 pages (I have) and you will see that there are clear violations of the moral and natural law.... again, this is the best article written thus far on AL.... Chris Ferrara is a classically trained and educated Attorney who is the President of the Catholic Lawyers Association and represented Terry Shivo.... He is the smartest Catholic in America and is a master at breaking down the minutia of something like AL. He is actually an advisor to several Bishops in the US:

http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/2464-amoris-laetitia-anatomy-of-a-pontifical-debacle

Again, maybe your current Priest will hold the line, but what about the next.... if there is even "wiggle room" some will take advantage of it.

2. How do you know his intentions??? You or I neither know what his intentions are... I am going on evidence, his words, both written and spoken.

And, what is merciful and charitable about (at best by being vague and/or confusing, and at worst I don't even want to say) letting millions of souls damn themselves and continue in their Mortal sins and even add new ones to their ledger by what he says and writes??????????

3. Without the "rules" as you call them, there is no Love - Our Lord himself forgave and said "and go and Sin no more". We must Love the Sinner into giving up their Sins, not to add to the list of things they can do to add to them or perpetuate them.... you have to know that especially being on a Parish Council.

4. What in the name of all that is Holy are you talking about????? A viable solution????? You make it sounds like some ethereal, obscure hickup within some little corner of the Church - THIS IS THE VICAR of CHRIST LEADING MANY OF THE FLOCK (intentionally or not, who knows and I would not dare to try read his heart) INTO VERY PRECARIOUS POSITIONS WITH THIER GOD-GIVEN SOULS!!...... Do you not see the damage that occurs everyday that He speaks or writes???? I pray you will.

5. Yes, I am a Catholic who knows that the Church is all 2000 years of Christendom and one who knows that Mercy and Love are not found in a leader - the Pope - who writes things that allows for the addition to or perpetuation of the Sin of any within his flock. I am a Catholic who knows that the Truth NEVER Changes - it is impossible for it to do so - and that once True, always true. But, I am also a Catholic that knows that knows that ever since Pope Pius X warned us of the synthesis of all Heresy - Modernism - that there have been Churchmen that have attempted - and much of their efforts have succeeded - to use Praxis (as opposed to a Change in magisterium which is impossible) and have implemented their error at the Parish level via confusion and vagueness that has allowed them to do so.

Many past Saints and Scholars call it The Passion of the Church and now it emanates from the Supreme Shepherd himself...... Many Pope's and our Lady have warned of such a time for the last 200-300 years.

Pray for a Metanioa for Pope Francis as the damage is so far incredible and it could become unimaginable.

PS: Booboo... ask your Priest my questions and let me know what he says.

God Bless
_89
booboo91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
texag_89 said:


1. Like you said, at first I thought vague as well, but sit down and read the 300 pages (I have) and you will see that there are clear violations of the moral and natural law.... again, this is the best article written thus far on AL.... Chris Ferrara is a classically trained and educated Attorney who is the President of the Catholic Lawyers Association and represented Terry Shivo.... He is the smartest Catholic in America and is a master at breaking down the minutia of something like AL. He is actually an advisor to several Bishops in the US:

http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/2464-amoris-laetitia-anatomy-of-a-pontifical-debacle

Again, maybe your current Priest will hold the line, but what about the next.... if there is even "wiggle room" some will take advantage of it.

2. How do you know his intentions??? You or I neither know what his intentions are... I am going on evidence, his words, both written and spoken.

And, what is merciful and charitable about (at best by being vague and/or confusing, and at worst I don't even want to say) letting millions of souls damn themselves and continue in their Mortal sins and even add new ones to their ledger by what he says and writes??????????

3. Without the "rules" as you call them, there is no Love - Our Lord himself forgave and said "and go and Sin no more". We must Love the Sinner into giving up their Sins, not to add to the list of things they can do to add to them or perpetuate them.... you have to know that especially being on a Parish Council.

4. What in the name of all that is Holy are you talking about????? A viable solution????? You make it sounds like some ethereal, obscure hickup within some little corner of the Church - THIS IS THE VICAR of CHRIST LEADING MANY OF THE FLOCK (intentionally or not, who knows and I would not dare to try read his heart) INTO VERY PRECARIOUS POSITIONS WITH THIER GOD-GIVEN SOULS!!...... Do you not see the damage that occurs everyday that He speaks or writes???? I pray you will.

5. Yes, I am a Catholic who knows that the Church is all 2000 years of Christendom and one who knows that Mercy and Love are not found in a leader - the Pope - who writes things that allows for the addition to or perpetuation of the Sin of any within his flock. I am a Catholic who knows that the Truth NEVER Changes - it is impossible for it to do so - and that once True, always true. But, I am also a Catholic that knows that knows that ever since Pope Pius X warned us of the synthesis of all Heresy - Modernism - that there have been Churchmen that have attempted - and much of their efforts have succeeded - to use Praxis (as opposed to a Change in magisterium which is impossible) and have implemented their error at the Parish level via confusion and vagueness that has allowed them to do so.

Many past Saints and Scholars call it The Passion of the Church and now it emanates from the Supreme Shepherd himself...... Many Pope's and our Lady have warned of such a time for the last 200-300 years.

Pray for a Metanioa for Pope Francis as the damage is so far incredible and it could become unimaginable.

PS: Booboo... ask your Priest my questions and let me know what he says.

God Bless
_89

1) Curious what church? What location/ city? Trying to see if you are in traditional diocese church. don't worry I won't come track you down. Surprised at your priests answers.

2) I will ask your specific questions to our pastor. It won't change anything. Because we have already had the discussions on this very topic. Also my pastor is very much rules based. He is conservative

3) Agree with your comments about unintended consequences and vagueness causing problems. But don't forget the other side of the coin- Love and Mercy.

4) As Catholics we are blessed to have so many wonderful popes lately with different styles and talents and focuses. We should know and appreciate their unique style .Benedict did not appear to be a people person (by looks alone he looked like evil emperor from star wars) but yet he was a brilliant scholar. Francis has a different style of going to the people and welcoming the people (his focus is on love and mercy). There is a reason his name is Francis
booboo91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
In a similar comment (not saying this applies to you).

I see many conservative Catholics get bent out of shape because Pope Francis appears to be a Democrat, lean Liberal.

We get it all wrong when we try to put Catholic religion in Republican and Democrat boxes. Note: Mother Teresa was accused of being Communist. At end of the day, she just loved and made it happen. I think that is what Francis wants to do.
texag_89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Looks like my comparison to the Arian Heresy is not that out of line:

https://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=30140

Bishop Schneider is a great Churchman and a very Holy Prelate.

PS: Booboo... you and I are not far apart of this whole matter and I very much want and pray for the Church to always show Mercy and Charity to all Sinners (all of us, me being the most sinful of Man) as our Lord did, but he always balanced that with a required Repentance as part of "the deal" if you would....Again, "Go and Sin no More"

I don't see this Pontiff helping Sinners from that side of the 2-sided coin... Plenty from the Mercy side, but not a lot from the Repentance and Change your Life side of the coin.

Also, Cardinal Turkson called for open debate today... something quite unusual for the Hierarchy.

All in all, we have a bad Pope and we just have those from time to time throughout history, just happens to hit now at the absolute WORST time in history where Modernism and Godlessness is at Historic levels.

We really are in need of a Pope Gregory or a Pope Pius V or Pius X right now.... my guess is I am not praying fervently enough, living humbl enough or offering up enough Reparations to make that happen.

Again, pray for this Pontiff

_89
texag_89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Booboo you said:

Quote:

We get it all wrong when we try to put Catholic religion in Republican and Democrat boxes. Note: Mother Teresa was accused of being Communist. At end of the day, she just loved and made it happen. I think that is what Francis wants to do


First of all, you are exactly right with the statement above, except you nor I have know no way of knowing if that is what motivates Francis.... my guess is based on his Liberation Theology upbringing in South America and given all he has said and written as Pope, I would say is he leans too much into the Modernist thought process, HOWEVER I bet you would be surprised to know I very much agree with you on the rest, in fact try these on for size:

- Because of the French Revolution and the Masonic Founders of America, we live in a Society where the Order is completely 180 degrees wrong and backwards.
- If we had the Order correct, we would live - as most of the world did for nearly 1500 years - under the Social Kingship of Christ
- Whether small republics, magistrates or monarchy (which I prefer) the powers and the edicts of the Government would be subservient to and never exceed the Natural Law defined by and promulgated by Holy Mother Church..... IE: Separation of Church and State is a misnomer and an invention of Man .... Christ the King rules in all Matters of Man's days, both Public and Private and to do otherwise is to put Man above God and that is exactly what Robespierre, Voltaire, Locke and Hobbes did during the 2 Revolutions
- Public and private Usury should be outlawed
- A minimum living wage should be paid to all workers that would allow for subsistence, housing, clothing and education.
- The optimal economic model is that of Distributism and Subsidiarity
- Our societal forming documents should - Like in Poland and a few Hungarian countries now - should refer to and defer to Christ as King and no laws of man will supersede those of His Divine Revelation.

That is just a highlight, but it is neither democrat, nor Republican...... it is Catholic.

They are the forms of government and economy that forged and fostered Western Christendom.

Problem is now, Man has put himself above God... in fact in our Masonic land, Man is his own God.

Highly recommend these 2 books on the information and subject matter above...both by Christopher Ferrara:

- Liberty, the God that Failed
And
- The Church and the Libertarian

Hence, _89's manifesto and what the Catholic Republic of West Texas may look like in the very near future.
booboo91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
texag_89 said:



All in all, we have a bad Pope and we just have those from time to time throughout history, just happens to hit now at the absolute WORST time in history where Modernism and Godlessness is at Historic levels.

We really are in need of a Pope Gregory or a Pope Pius V or Pius X right now.... my guess is I am not praying fervently enough, living humbl enough or offering up enough Reparations to make that happen.

Again, pray for this Pontiff

_89

I completely disagree that Francis is bad pope, would say his focus is elsewhere on Love and Mercy. He does not want all the power and the honor with the postion of the pope. He would much rather be in the street caring for the poor. This pope is not a fake, he is not a politician, he geniunely cares for the poor.

Would also say he is influenced by where he grew up in South America (witnesses the corruption there) in the same way JP2 grew up affected by Communism thus his mighty push to end it.

My 2 cents- enjoy what he brings to the table. Don't worry the Catholic church isn't changing (rules). His vagueness will be eventually clarified- may take some time though.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
- Public and private Usury should be outlawed
- A minimum living wage should be paid to all workers that would allow for subsistence, housing, clothing and education.
- The optimal economic model is that of Distributism and Subsidiarity

Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.