Bishop Athanasius Schneider Replies to The Remnant’s Open Letter on Amoris Laetitia
Written by Bishop Athanasius Schneider
Bishop Athanasius SchneiderDear Mr. Christopher A. Ferrara:
On May 9, 2016 you published on “The Remnant” website an open letter to me regarding the question of the Apostolic Exhortation “Amoris laetitia”.
As a bishop, I am grateful and at the same time encouraged to receive from a Catholic layman such a clear and beautiful manifestation of the “sensus fidei” regarding the Divine truth on marriage and the moral law.
I am agreeing with your observations as to those expressions in AL (“Amoris laetitia”), and especially in its VIII’s chapter, which are highly ambiguous and misleading. In using our reason and in respecting the proper sense of the words, one can hardly interpret some expressions in AL according to the holy immutable Tradition of the Church.
In AL, there are of course expressions which are obviously in conformity with the Tradition. But that is not what is at issue here. What is at stake are the natural and logical consequences of the ambiguous expressions of AL. Indeed, they contain a real spiritual danger, which will cause doctrinal confusion, a fast and easy spreading of heterodox doctrines concerning marriage and moral law, and also the adoption and consolidation of the praxis of admitting divorced and remarried to Holy Communion, a praxis which will trivialize and profane, as to say, at one blow three sacraments: the sacrament of Marriage, of Penance, and of the Most Holy Eucharist.
In these our dark times, in which Our Beloved Lord seems to sleep in the boat of His Holy Church, all Catholics, beginning from the bishops up to the simplest faithful, who still take seriously their baptismal vows, should with one voice (“una voce”) make a profession of fidelity, enunciating concretely and clearly all those Catholic truths, which are in some expressions of AL undermined or ambiguously disfigured. It would be a kind of a “Credo” of the people of God. AL is clearly a pastoral document (i.e., by its nature of temporal character) and has no claims to be definitive. We have to avoid to “make infallible” every word and gesture of a current Pope. This is contrary to the teaching of Jesus and of the whole Tradition of the Church. Such a totalitarian understanding and application of Papal infallibility is not Catholic, is ultimately worldly, like in a dictatorship; it is against the spirit of the Gospel and of the Fathers of the Church.
Beside the above mentioned possible common profession of fidelity, there should be made to my opinion, by competent scholars of dogmatic and moral theology also a solid analysis of all ambiguous and objectively erroneous expressions in AL. Such a scientific analysis should be made without anger and partiality (“sine ira et studio”) and out of filial deference to the Vicar of Christ.
I am convinced that in later times the Popes will be grateful that there had been concerning voices of some bishops, theologians and laypeople in times of a great confusion. Let us live for the sake of the truth and of the eternity, “pro veritate et aeternitate”!
+ Athanasius Schneider,
Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana ■
40 comments:
I have met Bishop Schneider. He tells it as it is. Although he (Schneider) is too modest to admit it, Pope Benedict set great store by what he said and the two share the same nationality. Not all German prelates are heterodox.
There are some excellent bishops in every country. In four weeks' time I shall be attending a Solemn Pontifical Mass in the old Rite celebrated at the London Oratory by an American prelate, Archbishop Cordileone; I have also attended Masses celebrated by Cardinal Burke and (in the 13th century chapel of Merton College Oxford) by Bishop Slattery.
Sadly most bishops are bland committee-men of mediocre ability. And since Pope Francis dislikes men of ambition and intellect (he himself has the former but not the latter) the situation is not likely to improve. Fortunately no pontificate lasts for ever. Incidentally, when I learned that AL was mainly authored by the ridiculous Argie Fernandez I am glad that I made the decision not to bother reading it, along with Laudato Si which was no doubt written by Greenpeace.
I believe that Bishop Schneider is a holy man and fine bishop. It is a shame that in regard to AL, The Remnant lashed out originally at Bishop Schneider as they listed him among those bishops they claimed had played "us as fools".
We have the right to make our concerns known to our Churchmen. I appreciate that Bishop Schneider has made known in charitable fashion his concerns with AL.
Bishop Schneider said that in Amoris Laetitia, there are "expressions which are obviously in conformity with the Tradition. But that is not what is at issue here. What is at stake are the natural and logical consequences of the ambiguous expressions of AL. Indeed, they contain a real spiritual danger, which will cause doctrinal confusion, a fast and easy spreading of heterodox doctrines concerning marriage and moral law, and also the adoption and consolidation of the praxis of admitting divorced and remarried to Holy Communion, a praxis which will trivialize and profane, as to say, at one blow three sacraments: the sacrament of Marriage, of Penance, and of the Most Holy Eucharist."
My bishop disagrees with that. In fact, one Cardinal and bishop after another throughout the Church disagrees with Bishop Schneider in regard to the above. In my diocese, and in line with our bishop, our pastors have addressed AL. Our pastors have made it clear that AL is orthodox. They have insisted that unrepentant divorced and "remarried" Catholics may not receive Holy Communion.
Finally, prior to AL, the the Church's teachings on Holy Communion for divorced and "remarried" Catholics were "clear" to Cardinals, bishops, priests, religious, and laity. Divorced and "remarried" Catholics who knew well the teachings in question presented themselves to priests to receive Holy Communion. More than a few priests throughout the Church administered knowingly Holy Communion to divorced and "remarried" Catholics.
The bottom line is that there are Catholics, clergy and otherwise, who refuse simply to obey Church teachings. It does not matter to them one bit that Cardinal Schonborn declared that AL has not changed Church teaching. Disobedient Catholics, clergy and otherwise, will continue to do as they please.
On February 17, 2016 A.D., His Holiness Pope Francis declared publicly that (unrepentant) divorced and "remarried" Catholics were not permitted to receive Holy Communion. On February 18, 2016 A.D....on the 19th, 20th, 21st, etc., there were divorced and "remarried" Catholics who rejected Pope Francis' declaration in question.
On February 18, 2016 A.D....and on the 19th, 20th, 21st, etc., there were priests throughout the Church who administered Holy Communion knowingly to divorced and "remarried" Catholics.
Disobedient clergy and otherwise did not care one bit as to Pope Francis' February 17, 2016 A.D., declaration in question. Regardless as to Amoris Laetitia, said persons, as they see fit, will continue to disobey Church teachings.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Robert Cardinal Sarah spoke recently at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast held in Washington, D.C. In effect, Cardinal Sarah responded to Bishop Schneider concerns related to AL. Cardinal Sarah declared the following:
"In his post-synodal Exhortation on the Family, Amoris Lætitia (“The Joy of Love”), Pope Francis states clearly: “In no way must the Church desist from proposing the full ideal of marriage, God’s plan in all its grandeur … proposing less than what Jesus offers to the human being.”
"This is why the Holy Father openly and vigorously defends Church teaching on contraception, abortion, homosexuality, reproductive technologies, the education of children and much more."
In line with Cardinal Sarah's above remarks, anybody, clergy or otherwise, who attempts to employ Amoris Laetitia to disobey Jesus Christ's (and His True Church's) teachings on marriage and family has acted contrary to Amoris Laetitia.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Is anybody confused as to the Church's teachings on whether (unrepentant) divorced and "remarried" Catholics are permitted to receive Holy Communion? Well, Pope Francis has the solution for you. Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Pope Francis: ENCYCLICAL LETTER LUMEN FIDEI OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF FRANCIS TO THE BISHOPS PRIESTS AND DEACONS CONSECRATED PERSONS AND THE LAY FAITHFUL/
46. "...the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is a fundamental aid for that unitary act with which the Church communicates the entire content of her faith: 'all that she herself is, and all that she believes'".
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1650:
"Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ - "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery" the Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God's law.
"Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists. For the same reason, they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities. Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark, have you read Amoris Laetitia yet?
Marc...I have not completed my reading of AL. What I have read of AL has corresponded to the following statement by Bishop Schneider:
"The recently published Apostolic Exhortation “Amoris laetitia” (AL), which contains a plethora of spiritual and pastoral riches with regard to life within marriage and the Christian family in our times..."
In line with Bishop Schneider's above comment, I have found a "plethora of spiritual and pastoral riches" in AL.
Bishop Schneider added that AL has "led to very contradictory interpretations even among the episcopate." I have not noticed much of that. I have read that Cardinal Kasper said supposedly that AL has opened the door to Communion for divorced and "remarried" Catholics.
Other than that, if that is what Cardinal Kasper stated, are there additional examples of Cardinals and bishops having claimed that AL has overthrown Church teachings in regard to marriage?
I have not seen such examples as I have encountered statement upon statement from Cardinals and bishops who have proclaimed AL as orthodox and magnificent.
Again, I have found that Bishop Schneider's statement, that Amoris Laetitia "contains a plethora of spiritual and pastoral riches with regard to life within marriage and the Christian family in our times...", is accurate.
However, perhaps other than Cardinal Kasper's supposed comment in question, I have not encountered statements from Cardinals and bishops that have supported Bishop Schneider's claim that "very contradictory interpretations" of AL exist "even among the episcopate".
Pax.
Mark Thomas
The following is the opening paragraph from Bishop Schneider's treatment of Amoris Laetitia that he offered this past April:
"The recently published Apostolic Exhortation “Amoris laetitia” (AL), which contains a plethora of spiritual and pastoral riches with regard to life within marriage and the Christian family in our times, has unfortunately, within a very short time, led to very contradictory interpretations even among the episcopate."
From what I have read of AL, I agree with Bishop Schneider opinion that AL "contains a plethora of spiritual and pastoral riches with regard to life within marriage and the Christian family in our times...".
However, I have not found much, if anything, that supports Bishop Schneider's claim that in regard to AL, "...very contradictory interpretations even among the episcopate." Does anybody have statements from Cardinals and bishops that support Bishop Schneider's claim in question?
Bishop Schneider added that "there are bishops...who publicly and openly declare that AL represents a very clear opening-up to communion for the divorced and remarried, without requiring them to practice continence."
Again, are there statements from "bishops" (plural) that support Bishop Schneider's claim in question? If so, about how many bishops have declared publicly that AL has opened the door to Communion for "the divorced and remarried, without requiring them to practice continence"? I question that statement from Bishop Schneider as I have found that bishop after bishop has declared that AL is in line with Church teaching.
Bishop Schneider is, I believe, a holy man and fine bishop. However, that does not make him infallible in regard to his various claims about AL.
Perhaps Bishop Schneider's concerns in regard to AL are valid. Conversely, his concerns regarding AL may be much ado about nothing. In fact, wave after wave of bishops have disagreed with his concerns in regard to AL.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark, please read the entire document before posting about it.
Marc, you can't read chapter 8 as though chapters 1-7 didn't exist and yet that's precisely how the German heterodox and other progressives as well as the arch traditionalist loons read it.
They bypass 300 paragraphs as so much 'fluff' and dive right into paragraphs 301-305 as though that's what it's "really" all about.
There's just one problem with this approach: to be consistent you'll have to do the same with every OTHER papal and church document which is absurd.
None of the controversial paragraphs are "vague" IF READ IN CONTEXT. Not even the footnotes. Those who claim to see loop holes and Gnosticism are simply wrong. They're so eager to find heresy that they ignore glaring, obvious, neon bright paragraphs that contradict their claimed heterodox reading of "the penumbras".
It's like blaming the Constitution for Roe vs. Wade, only here, the liberal or traditionalist spin is based on the penumbras of 5 paragraphs that would vanish if the light of the preceding 300 paragraphs were only turned on to them.
Jusadbellum,
What you say must surely be tempered by the fact that Pope Francis had been advocating a more flexible, even regional, application of moral norms for years before becoming pope. He specifically called for some means of recognizing divine blessings upon Catholics in adulterous unions. It is within that biographical context that we should read this document, and be troubled by it.
Come on, John Nolan, at least give Tucho's kissing methods a try!
Jus, I disagree with you, and furthermore, based on your response, I don't think you have a good grasp on how modernists operate in general or how they have been operating in the Church since the Second Vatican Council.
I agree with you that the troublesome paragraphs and footnotes are not vague when read in context: they quite clearly advocate heterodox practices and undermine the Church's teaching on mortal sin. There's no need to talk about penumbras when the document on its face proposes error.
Frankly, I do not think that anyone is still seriously debating whether the document proposes heterodoxy. The debate is whether that is good or bad.
Jusadbellum said...
" Marc, you can't read chapter 8 as though chapters 1-7 didn't exist and yet that's precisely how the German heterodox and other progressives as well as the arch traditionalist loons read it."
If this indeed is how some Church authorities are reading “Amoris laetitia”, then a problem exists that needs to be addressed. If “Amoris laetitia” is interpreted this way by some, it of course does not represent the advent of some novel approach. It only does so, if those interpreting it in this way, do so with the understanding that this is what the Holy Father intended in issuing AL. Even prior to this apostolic exhortation, there were those prelates who took a liberal pastoral approach in their decisions in what was allowed to those persons in irregular circumstances. At any rate, no one in Church authority can prevent any one of us from being faithful to God's laws in living out with fidelity our baptismal vows. For those who are not doing this, we must pray.
Marc, I don't have to read the entire document. I hope to but until such time, if ever, I am able to comment upon those parts that I have read. I have also read the "heretical" parts of the document and haven't found the "heresies" in question. Finally, I needn't have read the entire document to comment, for example, upon that which my bishop or addition bishops have said in regard to AL.
Marc, I don't know about you, but I have not read every passage from the Sacred Scriptures. I have not read every document that our Popes have issued during my lifetime, which dates to Pope Saint John XXIII. I have not read every document related to the liturgical reform, etc.
However, I comment upon such things. I doubt that anybody has read all of the above. But everybody on Catholic blogs discusses this, that, and the other thing in regard to the Church.
There are Traditionalists who insist that that they will not take one second to read AL, Laudato Si...anything written by His Holiness Pope Francis. But miraculously, they "know" for sure that "everything" that Pope Francis has said and done is "heretical".
At least I attempt to read portions of this or that Church-related document. But I am not required to read every sentence of a Church document "X" before I, for example, relate that which my bishop has said of document "X".
Marc, I rely upon Pope Francis and my bishop to teach, govern, and sanctify me. That doesn't mean that each prudential decision that they make is a holy success. But I trust that they at least know the difference between that which is orthodod and heretical.
At any rate, I don't rely upon The Remnant, Rorate Caeli, Mundabor, OnePeterFive, etc., or any non-Magisterial source to interpret Amoris Laetitia for me. That is, beginning with my bishop, his job. I need not have read every sentence of AL to report that my bishop has pronounced AL orthodox.
Again, I have read AL's "controversial" parts. My bishop, pastors in communion with him, as well as Cardinal Schonborn, whom Pope Francis tapped to present AL to the world via the news media, have explained AL's "controversial" passages in the light of Church teaching. They have pronounced the document orthodox.
Marc, it is through the Magisterium that we hear Jesus' voice.
On February 17, 2016 A.D., Pope Francis declared that (unrepentant) divorced and "remarried" Catholics are not permitted to receive Holy Communion. Pope Francis declared that the CCC informs us of the Faith.
#1650 of the Catechism teaches that unrepentant divorced and "remarried" Catholics are not permitted to receive Holy Communion.
Marc, unless Pope Francis lied on February 17, 2016 A.D. (I don't believe that he did), as well as in regard to the CCC, then we have heard Jesus' voice via Pope Francis in regard to whether divorced and "remarried" Catholics are permitted to receive Holy Communion.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark, you haven't read the entire Bible?
You need to spend less time on the internet and more time studying the faith. I'm sorry, but you should be ashamed that you have not read the entire Bible but have time to post so many things online.
It is easy to dismiss any "advice" you proffer on the basis that you haven't even bothered to study the basic text of the faith about which you presume to lecture me and others.
Marc, I have not read each passage of the Holy Bible. Feel free to dismiss my "advice" which, as I'm a nobody, would constitute an intelligent move on your part.
As to my being ashamed about not having read each passage of Scripture...I have far greater shame in regard that I haven't devoted greater time to the care of the poor, widows, and downtrodden. It is incorrect to claim that I haven't studied "the basic text of the faith". I haven't studied every passage from the basic text. I read Sacred Scripture at home. I encounter Sacred Scripture at Mass. I read Sacred Scripture online. However, I am ashamed that I do not do more for people who are poor financially and in additional ways.
Satan knows the Sacred Scriptures. There are Biblical scholars who traffic in heresy. I know people who have studied the basic text diligently. Unfortunately, they don't abound in charity.
Anyway, I don't blame you for dismissing my "advice".
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Has anyone noticed that Bishop Athanasius and St Pius X share the same surname?
Mark Thomas, so much for you saying that AL is orthodox and that all conservative bishops support it. All the majority are simply saying - reading between the lines - is that AL does not change Church teaching because it is not part of the magisterium (principally Cardinal Burke has said this) and the other reason it doesn't change Church teaching is that the Pope does not have the authority to do so (as per Cardinal Muller).
Not one conservative bishop or cardinal has said point blank AL is orthodox and the fact that we know that it was ghost written by AB Fernandez is proof positive that it is not orthodox because his original publication in 2011 was not regarded as orthodox and Sandro Magister has demonstrated how a number of contentious paragraphs are practically word for word the same. I suppose one could admire your tenacity in sticking to the same line, except that I now feel it boils down to the fact that you know you are wrong but refuse to admit it. There is ample evidence to show that some passages do not conform to Church teaching. Therefore it is impossible to say it is orthodox. Whoever your bishop is he is just tossing out the same line possibly in fear of demotion. It was noted that when Cardinal Burke was demoted that this was to serve warning to others and it certainly seems to have achieved the desired effect.
Of course things are not going to stand still - they will get worse and it's going to be interesting to see how you juggle and twist and turn to make things seem orthodox as now you have started on this line you are bound to continue ...
And for your edification another cardinal has made his views known:
"The cardinal tasked by Saint Pope John Paul II 36 years ago with founding an institute to study marriage and the family has criticized Pope Francis’ recent Apostolic Exhortation on the family for lacking clarity and causing confusion among bishops regarding perennial magisterial teaching on marriage, divorce, and reception of Holy Communion.
“Chapter 8 is, objectively, unclear,” said Cardinal Carlo Caffarra when speaking about Amoris Laetitia, since it causes "'conflict of interpretations' ignited even among bishops." The comments were made last week in an interview the cardinal gave in Italian to the website La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana."
And Mark Thomas you would also do well to read the full text of what Cardinal Schönborn had to say about AL:
"Müller Out, Schönborn In. The Pope Has Changed Doctrine Teachers
For Francis, the right interpretation of “Amoris Laetitia” is not that of the prefect of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, but that of the Austrian cardinal. Here, for the first time, is his complete text.
...
ROME, May 30, 2016 – The prefect of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith is still the same, German cardinal Gerhard L. Müller.
Who diligently continues to carry out his task, most recently with the monumental address he gave in Oviedo on May 4 for a correct understanding of “Amoris Laetitia,” in harmony with the previous magisterium of the Church on the family:
> Reading Exercises. The “Amoris Laetitia” of Cardinal Müller
But it is increasingly evident that for Pope Francis, it is not Müller but another cardinal who is the teacher of doctrine authorized to shed light on the post-synodal exhortation: Cardinal Christoph Schönborn.
...
Already on April 16, questioned by the journalists on the return flight to Rome from the island of Lesbos, Francis had indicated Schönborn as the right interpreter of the document, recommending that his presentation be read and rewarding him on the spot with flattering titles, even mistakenly promoting him to former “secretary” of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith.
But then Müller gave his talk in Oviedo, with the intention of bringing clarity to the carousel of contrasting interpretations and applications of “Amoris Laetitia” that had already gained a foothold. But for the pope, that talk of his wasn’t worth a thing. Just as it wasn’t worth a thing for “L'Osservatore Romano,” which completely ignored it.
For Francis, in fact, the only one that still applies is the interpretation of “Amoris Laetitia” made by Schönborn at the official presentation of the document, in the Vatican press office on April 8, the day of its publication.
But then this presentation must finally be read in its entirety. In its written text and in the extemporaneous additions made by the cardinal. Just as the questions and answers that followed the press conference must also be read."
As can be seen from the full text of what he said - which Francis has absolutely endorsed - Cardinal Schönborn is indicating that communion could be given to individuals living in an irregular state and implies that St John Paul The Great and Pope Benedict agreed - which is patently false. So in fact Schönborn's comments add to the growing weight that AL breaks with the teaching of the Church.
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1351305?eng=y
Jan, I am familiar with the interview in question with Cardinal Caffarra. What about it? Various folks have claimed that via a footnote, AL has overthrown Church teaching. Conversely, Cardinal Caffarra said that Pope Francis did not do any such thing.
Finally, as Cardinal Caffarra declared, AL is to be read in the light of the Magisterium. One bishop after another has done so and, in turn, will implement AL in orthodox fashion. So, what's the problem?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
==================================================================================
Amoris Laetitia "does not permit access to communion for divorced and remarried couples, not even in exceptional cases. This statement is fundamentally correct and desirable."
— Bishop Athanasius Schneider
===================================================================================
Jan said..."I suppose one could admire your tenacity in sticking to the same line, except that I now feel it boils down to the fact that you know you are wrong but refuse to admit it. There is ample evidence to show that some passages do not conform to Church teaching. Therefore it is impossible to say it is orthodox. Whoever your bishop is he is just tossing out the same line possibly in fear of demotion."
I know that I'm wrong about AL? You must know something about me that I don't know. I don't have the least bit of worry about AL.
My bishop is just playing games, huh? Oh. Okay. Anyway, he and one bishop after another has insisted that AL is orthodox and magnificent. They will implement AL in orthodox fashion. I hope that they continue to play that game. That game sounds good to me.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
==================================================================================
Amoris Laetitia "does not permit access to communion for divorced and remarried couples, not even in exceptional cases. This statement is fundamentally correct and desirable."
— Bishop Athanasius Schneider
===================================================================================
Jan said..."There is ample evidence to show that some passages do not conform to Church teaching. Therefore it is impossible to say it is orthodox".
Jan, then please explain the following to me:
Cardinal Caffarra, whom you referenced on this thread, said that AL is to be interpreted in the light of the Magisterium. Bishop Schneider said that as well. One Cardinal and bishop after another has said that. However, you claimed that AL contains false teachings which, of course, has rendered AL unorthodox.
Therefore, Jan, how is it possible to interpreted AL in the light of Church teaching? Why do Cardinals and bishops insist that AL can be viewed in the light of the Church's perennial Magisterium? That would be impossible if, as you declared, AL is from its beginning an unorthodox document.
An unorthodox document is unorthodox. Such a document can never be rendered orthodox. It is impossible for a lie to be viewed as truth. It is impossible for a false teaching to be transformed into a true teaching. Therefore, if Amoris Laetitia is unorthodox, then it's impossible to read AL as a document that is in line with Church teaching.
However, that is precisely what Cardinal Caffarra and one Cardinal and bishop after another has done. They have read AL in the light of the Church's Magisterium. They could not possibly do so if, as you have claimed, AL is heretical.
Therefore, Jan, if your claims in regard to AL are valid, then Cardinal Caffarra, Bishop Schneider, Cardinal Burke, and bishops everywhere who have insisted that AL is capable of being read in the light of the Church's perennial Magisterium are heretics. They and Pope Francis are heretics.
Jan, I wish to make certain of the following: Do you stand by your claim that Amoris Laetitia is heretical?
Pax
Mark Thomas
==================================================================================
Amoris Laetitia "does not permit access to communion for divorced and remarried couples, not even in exceptional cases. This statement is fundamentally correct and desirable."
— Bishop Athanasius Schneider
===================================================================================
Jan said..."I suppose one could admire your tenacity in sticking to the same line, except that I now feel it boils down to the fact that you know you are wrong but refuse to admit it."
Jan, you are wrong. But here is the bottom line about AL: Amoris Laetitia is here to stay. The Remnant, Mundabor, Rorate Caeli...have not and will not knock out AL.
The upcoming gathering of Traditionalists in Rome to demand that His Holiness Pope Francis consign AL to history is a pipe-dream. All the talk that AL is heretical and will be erased from the Church's memory is pipe-dream talk.
Amoris Laetitia left the station long ago. If certain folks did not wish to board AL, well...so be it. The bishops will implement AL. Nobody will stop AL from taking root within the Church. One bishop after another has proclaimed AL orthodox. They will implement AL in light of Church teaching.
Jan, in regard to AL, I am not in denial. But guess who is in denial?
Anyway, I don't know what remains for the AL deniers...except to join a "Pope Venerable Pius XII is the last true Pope" group comprised of bitter "we are the only true Catholics on earth" folks who bash and trash His Holiness Pope Francis and 'Newchurch' 24/7.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
===========================================================================
Amoris Laetitia, which "contains a plethora of spiritual and pastoral riches with regard to life within marriage and the Christian family in our times...does not permit access to communion for divorced and remarried couples, not even in exceptional cases. This statement is fundamentally correct and desirable."
— Bishop Athanasius Schneider
=============================================================================
Jan said..."Therefore it is impossible to say it is orthodox. Whoever your bishop is he is just tossing out the same line possibly in fear of demotion."
Jan, that claim doesn't make sense. You insist that in AL, it is obvious that His Holiness Pope Francis has overthrown Church teaching. You insist that it's obvious that Pope Francis promulgated an heretical document.
Therefore, why would my bishop and, for that matter, one bishop after another, proclaim AL orthodo? If anything, they should have gone along with Pope Francis' supposed program. That way, they would have been on Pope Francis' good side.
However, shouldn't they fear demotion as they have presented AL contrary to that which Pope Francis desires (supposedly)?
Pope Francis desires bishops to authorize priests to administer Holy Communion to divorced and "remarried" Catholics, according to you. However, my bishop, as well as one bishop after another, have made it clear that they will not authorize priests to administer Holy Communion to divorced and "remarried" Catholics. As they have thwarted Pope Francis' obvious plan (supposed plan) in question, they should expect to face Pope Francis' wrath, rather than promotions.
Correct?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
==================================================================================
Amoris Laetitia, which "contains a plethora of spiritual and pastoral riches with regard to life within marriage and the Christian family in our times...does not permit access to communion for divorced and remarried couples, not even in exceptional cases. This statement is fundamentally correct and desirable."
— Bishop Athanasius Schneider
===================================================================================
Mark Thomas, Cardinal Caffarra says "Chapter 8 is, objectively, unclear,” ... since it causes "'conflict of interpretations' ignited even among bishops". Cardinal Caffarra is saying that, despite clause 8 being objectively unclear, that the Magisterium cannot contradict itself. He is therefore effectively tying Francis's hands, as has Cardinal Burke.
Cardinal Burke has already said AL is not part of the magisterial teaching and that it is merely Francis's thoughts (but now we have been further enlightened that it is really AB Ferdandez's thoughts!). According to Cardinal Burke, therefore, it carries no weight whatsoever, so I guess some bishops will be consigning AL to the rubbish bin.
You have not been able to produce a single comment from any bishop to say that AL is orthodox and you will not be able to because they are not saying it is. They are simply saying there is no change in Church teaching DESPITE AL because Francis has no authority to change the teaching. That is a big difference to what you are doing in defending that document.
On the other hand, Cardinal Schonborn - who's interpretation Francis prefers - says that in certain circumstances AL allows for communion to be received by those living in irregular situations. This is what the liberal bishops will do and they have Francis' endorsement to do so.
I note Francis has not endorsed the comments of Cardinal Muller or Cardinal Burke or any of the conservative bishops.
And Mark Thomaas, Bishop Schneider may be thinking of you when he writes the following:
"If we analyze certain statements of AL with intellectual honesty within their proper context, we find ourselves faced with difficulties when trying to interpret them in accordance with the traditional doctrine of the Church. This is due to the absence of the concrete and explicit affirmation of the doctrine and constant practice of the Church, founded on the Word of God and reiterated by Pope John Paul II"
So Bishop Schneider is in effect doing, what none of the other Cardinals and bishops have been prepared to do and that is to say that AL cannot even be interpreted in the light of Catholic teaching ... one can only conclude, therefore, that AL is not an orthodox document - whoever wrote it.
Mark Thomas, I am very shocked that you in the above quotes have deliberately misconstrued Bishop Schneider's words as can be seen from the whole quote:
"On the other hand, there are bishops who claim that AL ought to be read in the light of the perennial magisterium of the Church and that AL does not permit access to communion for divorced and remarried couples, not even in exceptional cases. This statement is fundamentally correct and desirable. In fact, the content of every Magisterial text must, as a rule, be in its content consistent with the former teachings of the Magisterium of the Church, without any break.
It is no secret, however, that divorced and remarried couples are admitted to Holy Communion in a number of churches, without their being required to practice continence. It must be admitted that certain statements in AL could be used to justify an abusive practice that has already been going on for some time in various places and circumstances in the life of the Church."
Far, far different from the way you have set it out in your quotes above. Shame!
Bishop Schneider appears to be the only one with intellectual honesty as he says:
"If we analyze certain statements of AL with intellectual honesty within their proper context, we find ourselves faced with difficulties when trying to interpret them in accordance with the traditional doctrine of the Church. This is due to the absence of the concrete and explicit affirmation of the doctrine and constant practice of the Church, founded on the Word of God and reiterated by Pope John Paul II"
Thanks to Vox for supplying the whole lengthy article in which Bishop Schneider calls on the bishops to request an authentic interpretation of AL and he says it is not good enough to say that it.
http://voxcantor.blogspot.co.nz/p/bishop-athanasius-schneider-speaks-on.html
Father Mcdonald-permitting, Part 1 of 2.
Jan said..."Mark Thomas, I am very shocked that you in the above quotes have deliberately misconstrued Bishop Schneider's words as can be seen from the whole quote:"
Jan, I am very shocked that you are unaware that I have not misrepresent Bishop Schneider's quotes from his treatment of AL. You will find that in the first few comments that I posted to this thread, I presented Bishop Schneider's concerns in regard to AL. I never , as you claimed, "deliberately misconstrued Bishop Schneider's words".
Example: The following is from the first comment that I posted to this thread...June 3, 2016 at 12:01 PM:
"I believe that Bishop Schneider is a holy man and fine bishop. It is a shame that in regard to AL, The Remnant lashed out originally at Bishop Schneider as they listed him among those bishops they claimed had played "us as fools".
"We have the right to make our concerns known to our Churchmen. I appreciate that Bishop Schneider has made known in charitable fashion his concerns with AL.
"Bishop Schneider said that in Amoris Laetitia, there are "expressions which are obviously in conformity with the Tradition. But that is not what is at issue here. What is at stake are the natural and logical consequences of the ambiguous expressions of AL. Indeed, they contain a real spiritual danger, which will cause doctrinal confusion, a fast and easy spreading of heterodox doctrines concerning marriage and moral law, and also the adoption and consolidation of the praxis of admitting divorced and remarried to Holy Communion, a praxis which will trivialize and profane, as to say, at one blow three sacraments: the sacrament of Marriage, of Penance, and of the Most Holy Eucharist."
==================================================================================
June 3, 2016 at 3:18 PM...I noted:
"Bishop Schneider:
"The recently published Apostolic Exhortation “Amoris laetitia” (AL), which contains a plethora of spiritual and pastoral riches with regard to life within marriage and the Christian family in our times..."
In line with Bishop Schneider's above comment, I have found a "plethora of spiritual and pastoral riches" in AL.
Bishop Schneider added that AL has "led to very contradictory interpretations even among the episcopate." I have not noticed much of that. I have read that Cardinal Kasper said supposedly that AL has opened the door to Communion for divorced and "remarried" Catholics.
==================================================================================
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Part 2 of 2.
June 3 at 3:35 pm...
Mark Thomas said...
The following is the opening paragraph from Bishop Schneider's treatment of Amoris Laetitia that he offered this past April:
"The recently published Apostolic Exhortation “Amoris laetitia” (AL), which contains a plethora of spiritual and pastoral riches with regard to life within marriage and the Christian family in our times, has unfortunately, within a very short time, led to very contradictory interpretations even among the episcopate."
=================================================================================
Sorry, Jan. Your claim that I "deliberately misconstrued Bishop Schneider's words" is contrary to the fact that when I began to post comments to this thread, I quoted immediately the concerns that Bishop Schneider has expressed in regard to Amoris Laetitia.
I never attempted to hide Bishop Schneider's concerns with AL. Again, beginning literally with my first post to this thread, my fifth sentence noted the following:
"Bishop Schneider said that in Amoris Laetitia, there are "expressions which are obviously in conformity with the Tradition. But that is not what is at issue here. What is at stake are the natural and logical consequences of the ambiguous expressions of AL. Indeed, they contain a real spiritual danger, which will cause doctrinal confusion, a fast and easy spreading of heterodox doctrines concerning marriage and moral law, and also the adoption and consolidation of the praxis of admitting divorced and remarried to Holy Communion, a praxis which will trivialize and profane, as to say, at one blow three sacraments: the sacrament of Marriage, of Penance, and of the Most Holy Eucharist."
Jan, I don't understand why you claimed that I attempted to misrepresent Bishop Schneider in regard to AL.
That said, there is a reason why The Remnant weeks ago denounced Bishop Schneider as a bishop who has played "us for fools". The reason is that to the chagrin of certain Traditionalists, Bishop Schneider did not condemn AL as heretical.
On the contrary, Bishop Schneider declared that Amoris Laetitia, which "contains a plethora of spiritual and pastoral riches with regard to life within marriage and the Christian family in our times...ought to be read in the light of the perennial magisterium of the Church and that AL does not permit access to communion for divorced and remarried couples, not even in exceptional cases. This statement is fundamentally correct and desirable."
Jan, it is undeniable that that is what Bishop Schneider said. That is why The Remnant, for example, was outraged at him. That is why they denounced him in their article entitled "Amoris Laetitia: Foolish Bishops and Bishops Playing Us For Fools".
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas, you stated:
Amoris Laetitia, which "contains a plethora of spiritual and pastoral riches with regard to life within marriage and the Christian family in our times...does not permit access to communion for divorced and remarried couples, not even in exceptional cases. This statement is fundamentally correct and desirable."
— Bishop Athanasius Schneider
I quote again what Bishop Schneider actually said:
"On the other hand, there are BISHOPS WHO CLAIM that AL ought to be read in the light of the perennial magisterium of the Church and that AL does not permit access to communion for divorced and remarried couples, not even in exceptional cases. This statement is fundamentally correct and desirable. In fact, the content of every Magisterial text must, as a rule, be in its content consistent with the former teachings of the Magisterium of the Church, without any break.
It is no secret, however, that divorced and remarried couples are admitted to Holy Communion in a number of churches, without their being required to practice continence. IT MUST BE ADMITTED THAT CERTAIN STATEMENTS IN AL COULD BE USED TO JUSTIFY AN ABUSIVE PRACTICE that has already been going on for some time in various places and circumstances in the life of the Church."
It is quite clear that Bishop Schneider has stated "THERE ARE BISHOPS" who have stated that AL "OUGHT TO BE READ" in light of the Magisterium, but he clarified that when he said:
"Fortunately, there can be no doubt that AL contains theological affirmations, as well as spiritual and pastoral guidelines of great value. HOWEVER, REALISTICALLY SPEAKING, IT IS INSUFFICIENT TO SAY THAT AL SHOULD BE INTERPRETED ACCORDING TO THE TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE AND PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH. If an ecclesiastical document – which, in our case, is neither definitive nor infallible – is found to contain elements likely to give rise to interpretations and applications that could have dangerous spiritual consequences, all members of the Church, and especially the bishops, as the fraternal collaborators of the Supreme Pontiff in effective collegiality, have a duty to report this and respectfully request an authentic interpretation."
So BISHOP SCHNEIDER IS ACTUALLY DISAGREEING WITH WHAT SOME BISHOPS HAVE SAID. By joining together sentences YOU HAVE GIVEN to readers THE FALSE IMPRESSION that Bishop Schneider agrees with AL when it is quite clear in everything that he says that he does not and, in fact, he calls for bishops to seek an authentic clarification on the AL.
No way can AL be considered orthodox when it needs clarification, as requested by Bishop Schneider. At best, we are told by Cardinal Burke that AL DOES NOT FORM PART OF MAGISTERIAL TEACHING and by Cardinal Muller that it must be read in relation to magisterial teaching - the latter point Bishop Schneider points out that REALISTICALLY SPEAKING it cannot be read in such a light ...
Jan said..."No way can AL be considered orthodox when it needs clarification, as requested by Bishop Schneider."
Jan, of course AL can be considered orthodox, even if AL "needs clarification, as requested by Bishop Schneider".
For example: Rome would say simply to Bishop Schneider, "section "X" from AL means the following"...then would provide the orthodox understanding of section "X".
Rome would add, "Okay, Bishop Schneider? You concerns in regard to section "X" have been answered. You simply failed originally to discern the orthodox understanding of section "X". It was obvious all along that section X" was orthodox. Again, you failed simply to recognize that fact. Anyway, you have the answer that you requested".
That said, Jan, the fact that Bishop Schneider believes that AL requires clarification does not mean that he is correct in that regard. In fact, how many bishops have followed Bishop Schneider's lead in that regard?
The fact is that unlike Bishop Schneider, one bishop after another has not expressed difficulties in their collective understanding of AL. Again, the fact is that one bishop after another disagrees with Bishop Schneider's take on AL. They simply have rejected his comments in question.
You may believe that Bishop Schneider's concerns in question are valid. However, wave after wave of bishops have disagreed with you, and in turn, Bishop Schneider.
The AL train departed from the station weeks ago. It is even beyond a pipe-dream to imagine that AL will be condemned and rescinded by the Church. However, should a handful of folks wish to continue to bash and trash AL and claim that Pope Francis and AL are heretical...well, you few folks stand only with each other.
The People of God reject your claims.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Jan said..."It is quite clear that Bishop Schneider has stated "THERE ARE BISHOPS" who have stated that AL "OUGHT TO BE READ" in light of the Magisterium, but he clarified that when he said: "Fortunately, there can be no doubt that AL contains theological affirmations, as well as spiritual and pastoral guidelines of great value. HOWEVER, REALISTICALLY SPEAKING, IT IS INSUFFICIENT TO SAY THAT AL SHOULD BE INTERPRETED ACCORDING TO THE TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE AND PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH."
Jan, how does that clarify the following from Bishop Schneider?
"On the other hand, there are bishops who claim that AL ought to be read in the light of the perennial magisterium of the Church and that AL does not permit access to communion for divorced and remarried couples, not even in exceptional cases. This statement is fundamentally correct and desirable. In fact, the content of every Magisterial text must, as a rule, be in its content consistent with the former teachings of the Magisterium of the Church, without any break."
Bishop Schneider said that it is "correct" that Amoris Laetitia "ought to be read in the light of the perennial magisterium of the Church and that AL does not permit access to communion for divorced and remarried couples, not even in exceptional cases". It is also "desirable" to do so, according to Bishop Schneider.
Therefore, Bishop Schneider declared that the only "correct" way to interpret AL is "in the light of the perennial magisterium of the Church..."
Bishop Schneider also declared that there are bishops who claim that Amoris Laetitia "does not permit access to communion for divorced and remarried couples, not even in exceptional cases. This statement is fundamentally correct and desirable."
It is "correct" that Amoris Laetitia "does not permit access to communion for divorced and remarried couples, not even in exceptional cases", according to Bishop Schneider.
Therefore, AL does not present any difficulties to Catholics who adhere to Bishop Schneider's orthodox declaration that AL is to be read in light of the Magisterium. Amoris Laetitia does not permit divorced and "remarried" Catholics to receive Holy Communion, according to Bishop Schneider.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
===============================================================
Amoris Laetitia "does not permit access to communion for divorced and remarried couples, not even in exceptional cases", according to Bishop Schneider.
— Bishop Athanasius Schneider
===============================================================
Once again, Mark Thomas, you are quoting Bishop Schneider out of context. Bishop Schneider prefaces what you said with SOME BISHOPS SAID as I have already pointed out. He is not stating that at all. He then says IT IS INSUFFICIENT TO SAY THAT AL SHOULD BE INTERPRETED ACCORDING TO THE TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE AND PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH. Either you don't understand English or you are being deliberately obtuse. I think the latter, not to mention the fact that you
The definition of orthodox is "following or conforming to the traditional or generally accepted rules or beliefs of a religion, philosophy, or practice." When something needs clarification to show that it is conforming to generally accepted rules, then it cannot be said to be orthodox until such time as it is clarified.
==================================================================================
"Amoris laetitia": a need for clarification in order to avoid a general confusion
The paradox of the contradictory interpretations of "Amoris laetitia"
...
THERE ARE BISHOPS WHO CLAIM that AL ought to be read in the light of the perennial magisterium of the Church and that AL does not permit access to communion for divorced and remarried couples, not even in exceptional cases. This statement is fundamentally correct and desirable. In fact, the content of every Magisterial text must, as a rule, be in its content consistent with the former teachings of the Magisterium of the Church, without any break.
It is no secret, however, that divorced and remarried couples are admitted to Holy Communion in a number of churches, without their being required to practice continence. IT MUST BE ADMITTED THAT CERTAIN STATEMENTS IN AL COULD BE USED TO JUSTIFY AN ABUSIVE PRACTICE that has already been going on for some time in various places and circumstances in the life of the Church.
..."
— Bishop Athanasius Schneider
===============================================================
Mark Thomas, as you are continually quoting Bishop Schneider out of context and giving a false impression as to what he has actually said in order to shore up your misplaced views, I can only say that your posts are patently dishonest. By doing this repeatedly you are bringing more and more discredit upon yourself because people can read Bishop Schneider's comments for themselves without the filtering you have applied to them. Shame on you!
"Amoris laetitia": a need for clarification in order to avoid a general confusion
The paradox of the contradictory interpretations of "Amoris laetitia"
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/04/official-response-of-bishop-athanasius.html
Jan, you may claim that my posts are "disohnest". Howver, the bottom line is that I quoted Bishop Schneider's exact words. He said that it's 100 percent "correct" to read AL in the light of Church teachings. It would be impossible to do so if AL contained heresy.
Bishop Schneider also declared that it's 100 percent "correct" that AL "does not permit access to communion for divorced and remarried couples, not even in exceptional cases".
That is why, for example, The Remnant denounced Bishop Schneider as "foolish bishop" who is "playing us for fools". Here is the link to The Remnant article in question:
https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/item/2484-amoris-laetitia-foolish-bishops-and-bishops-playing-us-for-fools
Amoris Laetitia: Foolish Bishops and Bishops Playing Us For Fools
Written by Chris Jackson | Remnant Columnist
The Remnant article said of Bishop Schneider that "our “conservative” bishops still seem to be in abject denial. Archbishop Chaput apparently lives in alternate reality, along with our friends Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider.
"In this new conservative escapist reality, Francis didn’t just allow for sacrilegious Communion, upend Catholic teaching on mortal sin, introduce situational ethics into an official Church document, and destroy the underpinnings of three sacraments (marriage, penance, Eucharist).
"No. To them, Francis’ explicit contradiction of Church doctrine and the moral law is simply imagined to be “ambiguous” or a “misread.”
Jan, there you go. The Remnant denounced Bishop Schneider as a bishop who is "playing us for fools" as he refused to claim that AL is unorthodox.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
===================================================================================
Amoris Laetitia "does not permit access to communion for divorced and remarried couples, not even in exceptional cases".
— Bishop Athanasius Schneider
===================================================================================
===================================================================================
Mark Thomas continues to misconstrue Bishop Schneider's words. Bishop Schneider did not say Amoris Laetitia "does not permit access to communion for divorced and remarried couples, not even in exceptional cases". Bishop Schneider said "Some bishops claim that ..."
Not satisfied with misconstruing the words of Bishop Schneider, Mark Thomas also misconstrues what the Remnant said about the good bishop. The Remnant this of Bishop Schneider:
"To your everlasting credit, but to the Church’s everlasting shame, YOU ALONE among the entire Catholic episcopacy HAVE PROTESTED PUBLICLY AND FORTHRIGHTLY AGAINST THE MANY STATEMENTS IN Amoris Laetitia (AL), particularly in Chapter 8, which appear to derogate from the negative precepts of the natural law, including those against divorce, adultery and fornication. By the divine will, these precepts, as Your Excellency writes, “are universally valid… oblige each and every individual, always and in every circumstance” and “forbid a given action semper et pro semper, without exception”
...
Your Excellency notes with due alarm that in the wake of AL’s promulgation “There are bishops and priests who publicly and openly declare that AL represents a very clear opening-up to communion for the divorced and remarried, without requiring them to practice continence.” And, as you rightly observe: “It must be admitted that certain statements in AL could be used to justify an abusive practice that has already been going on for some time in various places and circumstances in the life of the Church.”
===================================================================================
I note that the Remnant is able to quote Bishop Schneider correctly as to what he said. Mark Thomas's shameful misconstruing of Bishop Schneider's words then puts him in the league of the National Catholic Fishwrap which often misconstrues articles for its own purpose. Mark Thomas's deliberate misconstruing of Bishop Schneider's words seems to solely due to his pride in refusing to admit that the document AL is not orthodox which Bishop Schneider makes abundantly clear in calling for this document to be clarified in the light of Church teaching.
====================================================================================
In the great Arian confusion of the 4th century, St. Basil the Great made an urgent appeal to the pope of Rome, asking him to give though his word a clear direction, so as finally to ensure unity in the thought of faith and charity (cf. Ep. 70).
An authentic interpretation of AL by the Apostolic See would bring to the entire Church (“claritatis laetitia“) the joy in clarity. Such clarity will ensure the joy in love (“amoris laetitia”), a love and a joy that would not be “according to the minds of men, but to the mind of God” (Mt 16: 23). And this is what counts for the joy, the life and the eternal salvation of the divorced and remarried, and of all men.
+ Athanasius Schneider, auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of St Mary in Astana, Kazakhstan
Using a Mark Thomas interpretation of Cardinal Muller's comments on Amoris Laetitia:
"Cardinal Müller argued that … Amoris Laetitia really wanted to 'rescind such a deeply rooted and such a weighty discipline'"
"'the Pope called the arguments of his predecessors into question,' he said."
As regards the contested footnote:
“'Without going into detail, it is sufficient to point out that this footnote refers to … the specific case of civilly remarried divorcees,' Cardinal Müller said."
===============================================================================
"Cardinal Müller argued that … Amoris Laetitia really wanted to “rescind such a deeply rooted and such a weighty discipline”
==============================================================================
What the National Catholic Reporter [aka Fishwrap] had to say about Cardinal Burke's and other bishops' negative comments on AL:
"Some bishops have penned columns that relativized the apostolic exhortation excessively. Cardinal Raymond Burke denied Amoris Laetitia was a magisterial text at all!"
Jan said..."Using a Mark Thomas interpretation of Cardinal Muller's comments on Amoris Laetitia:"
Jan, I don't have an interpretation of my own in regard to AL. To begin, my bishop has interpreted AL for his subjects, among whom I number. He has interpreted AL though the lens of Church teaching. Therefore, AL does not present a problem to me.
As to your claim..."Mark Thomas's deliberate misconstruing of Bishop Schneider's words seems to solely due to his pride in refusing to admit that the document AL is not orthodox which Bishop Schneider makes abundantly clear in calling for this document to be clarified in the light of Church teaching."
Jan, please explain as to how an unorthodox document could be rendered orthodox? How could a document filled with false teachings ever be rendered orthodox? Answer: Such a document could not possibly be rendered orthodox. False teachings cannot possibly be rendered into true teachings.
Therefore, if AL contains false, unorthodox teachings, then how could Bishop Schneider possibly insist that it is "correct" to read AL in the light of the Truth?
Bishop Schneider said: "On the other hand, there are bishops who claim that AL ought to be read in the light of the perennial magisterium of the Church and that AL does not permit access to communion for divorced and remarried couples, not even in exceptional cases. This statement is fundamentally correct and desirable."
1. It is undeniable that Bishop Schneider said that it is "correct" that AL must be read "in the light of the perennial magisterium of the Church..."
Jan, how can that possibly prove valid? How can AL, an unorthodox document, supposedly, be read in the light of the perennial magisterium of the Church?
2. In regard to divorced and "remarried" Catholics, Bishop Schneider declared that Amoris Laetitia "does not permit access to communion for divorced and remarried couples, not even in exceptional cases".
Jan, those are Bishop Schneider's words.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
What will clear all this up(?) is when a divorced, civilly remarried couple is denied communion by a priest, who is then supported by his bishop afterwhich said couple then appeals to Rome.
Mark Thomas, it is undeniable that Cardinal Muller said Amoris Laetitia really wanted to "rescind such a deeply rooted and such a weighty discipline".
It is undeniable that you yourself said, "AL contains false, unorthodox teachings".
It is undeniable that you yourself said, "How could a document filled with false teachings ever be rendered orthodox?"
It is undeniable that you yourself said, "AL contains false, unorthodox teachings".
It is undeniable that you yourself said, "AL, an unorthodox document".
Therefore, I agree with you and Cardinal Muller in what you have undeniably said about AL not being an orthodox document at all and that, in fact, it seeks to, as Cardinal Muller has undeniably stated, "rescind such a deeply rooted and such a weighty discipline" that forbids communion for the divorced and civilly remarried.
And George is indeed right.
====================================================================================
"How could a document filled with false teachings ever be rendered orthodox?"
"AL contains false, unorthodox teachings"
"AL, an unorthodox document"
Mark Thomas June 8, 2016 at 6:18 PM
Post a Comment