I must admit that the process of parsing and commenting upon the public statements that have been made by the authors of the dubia (most recently, Cardinal Caffara) is growing somewhat tiresome; likely as much for readers as anyone.
Even so, I do believe that the exercise has merit inasmuch as it provides an opportunity to shed additional light on the evil nature of Amoris Laetitia and its various offenses against Christ, as well as the mindset of the only men in Rome who appear willing to address it however weakly.
As an aside, if you are growing so weary of looking at this train wreck that you’re thinking to yourself why bother?, take a look at this minute-and-a-half excerpt from a recent conference for some encouragement:
With this in mind, we’ll look in this post at portions of Cardinal Caffara’s recent interview with the Italian publication, Il Foglio (an English translation of which is available HERE).
First, let’s begin with a real head scratcher.
Cardinal Caffara states:
The way out of this ‘conflict of interpretations’ was recourse to fundamental theological interpretative criteria, using those by which, I think, one can reasonably demonstrate that Amoris laetitia does not contradict Familiaris consortio.
Well, then, if this is true, why all the fuss?
The reality is that Amoris Laetitia objectively contradicts Familiaris consortio, and what’s more, all indications are that this contradiction is not inadvertent, but rather Francis’ deliberate intent.
Cardinal Caffara went on to describe the task at hand as follows:
…to see whether the famous paragraphs nos. 300-305 of Amoris laetitia and the famous footnote n. 351 are, or are not, in contradiction with the previous magisterium of the Pontiffs who have addressed the same question” [of access to the sacraments for those who persist in objective grave sin].
The aforementioned “previous magisterium” is rather straightforward:
The Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried … Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who … are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage … [taking] on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples. ( Familiaris Consortio 84)
The portions of Amoris Laetitia cited by Cardinal Caffara (paragraphs nos. 300-305, footnote n. 351) likewise speak for themselves in a rather straightforward manner:
It is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end … In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments. Hence, I want to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy. I would also point out that the Eucharist is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak. (AL 305, footnote 351)
This isn’t complicated, folks. Francis is plainly stating (and has since affirmed that “there are no other interpretations” – see letter to the bishops of Buenos Aires) that even when the objective state of sin endures (i.e., there is no firm purpose of amendment to avoid the sin going forward), such persons can be admitted to the sacraments, specifically, Confession and Communion.
All that is needed in order to see whether a contradiction exists between Amoris Laetitia and Familiaris Consortio (representative of the “the previous magisterium of the Pontiffs” and the bi-millennial practice of the Church) is to read the two texts.
And yet, Cardinal Caffara states later in the interview:
But it is not that a priest can say ‘the help [on] his path [can include] even giving him the sacraments’. And it is on this [point] that the text of footnote 351 is ambiguous.
Ambiguous?
Nonsense! Footnote 351 isn’t ambiguous in the least! It plainly states “this can include the help of the sacraments.”
Cardinal Caffara’s conclusion that “one can reasonably demonstrate that Amoris Laetitia does not contradict Familiaris Consortio” is nothing short of irrefutable evidence that His Eminence has fallen victim to precisely the diabolical disorientation of which Our Lady of Fatima forewarned.
Elsewhere in the interview, Cardinal Caffara states:
It is not relevant to appeal to ignorance or to error regarding the indissolubility of marriage, a fact [that is] unfortunately very widespread. This appeal has an interpretative value, not a [pastoral] policy one. It should be used as a method to discern the imputability of acts already committed, but it cannot be a principle for acts to be committed [in the future]. A priest – said the Cardinal – has the duty to enlighten the ignorant and to correct the errant.”
In this, Cardinal Caffara is partially correct (ignorance and error cannot be a principle for acts to be committed in the future), but far more important to recognize is the degree to which he is lending credence to the fundamental and grave error upon which all of the heresies and blasphemies found in Amoris Laetitia rest.
Specifically, Caffara is suggesting that it is in fact possible for a confessor or spiritual director to “discern the imputability” of acts that are evil by their very nature (i.e., acts that are intrinsically evil).
While it may be useful for a confessor to weigh such things as a penitent’s knowledge and formation in determining how best to pastor them, the reality is that no one – not even the sinner himself – has the ability, much less the right, to discern imputability.
The internal disposition of souls and the matter of imputability belong to God alone. Period.
Cardinal Caffara, not unlike his American counterpart, Burke, is a walking contradiction; on some level he seems to “get it,” saying:
Even if I use only right reason, I see that by denying the existence of intrinsically evil acts, I deny that there exists a limit outside of which the powers of this world cannot and should not go. Adultery, in fact, is always regarded among the intrinsically evil acts.
As I said at the outset, it is tiring to parse the inconsistencies and contradictions these men so often spout…
Caffara rightly zeroed in on Amoris Laetitia’s treatment of conscience (presented therein as a valid arbiter for determining culpability for grave sin) as being central in this matter. He said:
These are matters of a disturbing gravity. It would elevate private judgment to the ultimate criterion of moral truth.
He even went so far as to issue what one may consider something of a warning shot, intentional of not; one that seems to suggest that he believes that Francis may be on the verge of removing himself from the papacy:
Newman – recalls Caffarra – says that ‘if the Pope were to speak against Conscience in the true sense of the word, he would commit a suicidal act. He would be cutting the ground from under his feet.’
In any case, with all of this in mind, Cardinal Caffara singled out one of the five dubium in particular as being the “most important” of them all:
That is why among the five dubia, dubium number five is the most important. There is a passage of Amoris laetitia, at n. 303, which is not clear; it seems – I repeat: it seems – to admit the possibility that there is a true judgment of conscience … in contradiction to that which the Church teaches as pertaining to the deposit of divine Revelation. It seems. And so, we put the dubium to the Pope.”
Now, take a look at Amoris Laetitia 303, and you tell me if it “is not clear” and only “seems” to stand “in contradiction” to that which the Church teaches:
Yet conscience can do more than recognize that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel. It can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits. (AL 303)
Bear well in mind that Francis is here speaking of adultery and fornication as being “what God himself is asking!”
In response to this blasphemy, Cardinal Caffara found it necessary to qualify his concerns by saying “it seems” no less than three times…
Is that the best he has to offer the Father, Son and Holy Ghost? Where is the sense of outrage on the part of our leaders? Where are their calls for prayers and sacrifices made in reparation for these terrible offenses against the All Holy God?
Our Lord asked His disciples:
“But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?” (Luke 18:8)
With every passing day it is becoming ever more clear that He will not find faith on earth, at least not in Rome.
And yet, we dare not be discouraged!
Just prior to asking the rhetorical question above, Our Lord said:
And will not God vindicate his elect who cry to him day and night? And will he have patience in their regard? I say to you that he will quickly vindicate them. (Luke 18:7-8)
And so, tiresome though it may be, we must not refrain from looking at the terrible offenses that are being committed against God in our day, no matter how painful doing so may be – not simply to have something to complain about, but so that we may be moved to cry out to Him all the more for the vindication He promised.
Ethicist says ghostwriter’s role in ‘Amoris’ is troubling – by Michael Pakaluk @cruxnow.com. This should be read thoroughly by every theologian, canon lawyer etc. as it could signal that AL must be rescinded or re-written by someone who knows how to write a Papal Exhortation. It must not, through apathy, be allowed to become part of the ordinary Magisterium of the CC. Malta may have to cancel its recent directions to their priests to allow persistent sinners to receive Holy Communion.
First, Louie, I would like to thank you for your persistence with this topic. Also, I would seriously doubt that any of your followers would tire of discussing the issue anytime soon. Not only has it not been resolved, but any resolution short of a complete rejection of that section of Amoris Laetitia completely undermines our faith. Please stay with it.
That being said, I’m wondering if you or any of your readers have discussed the possibility of the pope and his followers trying to accomplish the same result, but in a different way that may not be heretical? I’m thinking that if their immediate objective is simply that of allowing the divorced/remarried to receive Holy Communion, a different approach might work. Of course if this has been covered in an earlier topic I apologize.
Anyhow, I’m thinking that maybe the pope could orchestrate the Church into changing Canon law in such a way that would redefine those circumstances under which a person could validly receive Holy Communion? Essentially, they might allow a relaxation of the rules so that the individuals they are trying to cover could receive. Certainly that would be outrageous, but I don’t believe it would rise to the level of a heresy, as I believe that is a prohibition that is imposed by the Church.
Perhaps I’m simply wrong about that, but if I am, I’d appreciate it if you or one of your knowledgable commenters cleared this up for me. Of course, I’m not losing sight for a moment that this entire action is Satanically-inspired, with the ultimate objective being to destroy the Church and lead as many souls as he can to perdition. But that being said, inasmuch as the A/L seems to be running into more headwind than they might have been anticipated, maybe they might be looking at a fallback position––if that were even possible, of course.
The deviant who wrote “art of kissing”, Victor Fernandez”? Yeah it is disgusting….and shows you where bergoglio’s head is. Ive known about this perv for about 2 years now. He’s actually a NO “arch bishop”.
http://novusordowatch.org/2015/06/francis-ghostwriter-wrote-book-on-kissing/
Thanks very much Louie.
I have heard so many people say, “just ignore what’s going on in Rome, and I knew that that is not the right approach.
You nailed it in one in that clip. What about the offences against God?
“Where there is no hatred of heresy, there is no holiness. ”
– Fr. Frederick Faber, The Precious Blood, 1860
As far as I know, it is not possible at all. Canon Law can never contradict Divine Law.
This is why the entire 1983 New Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope St John Paul II The Great is completely invalid, as it allows reception of the Sacraments for schismatics and heretics. Canon 844, 3&4.
The 1917 Code is still in force, and Canon 188.4 makes it impossible for the post Vatican II popes to actually be popes. No wonder they tried to can it.
Fr. Frederick William Faber:
“If we hated sin as we ought to hate it, purely, keenly, manfully, we should do more penance, we should inflict more self-punishment, we should sorrow for our sins more abidingly. Then, again, the crowning disloyalty to God is heresy. It is the sin of sins, the very loathsomest of things which God looks down upon in this malignant world. Yet how little do we understand of its excessive hatefulness! It is the polluting of God’s truth, which is the worst of all impurities.
Yet how light we make of it! We look at it, and are calm. We touch it and do not shudder. We mix with it, and have no fear. We see it touch holy things, and we have no sense of sacrilege. We breathe its odor, and show no signs of detestation or disgust. Some of us affect its friendship; and some even extenuate its guilt. We do not love God enough to be angry for His glory. We do not love men enough to be charitably truthful for their souls.
Having lost the touch, the taste, the sight, and all the senses of heavenly-mindedness, we can dwell amidst this odious plague, in imperturbable tranquillity, reconciled to its foulness, not without some boastful professions of liberal admiration, perhaps even with a solicitous show of tolerant sympathies.
Why are we so far below the old saints, and even the modern apostles of these latter times, in the abundance of our conversations? Because we have not the antique sternness? We want the old Church-spirit, the old ecclesiastical genius. Our charity is untruthful, because it is not severe; and it is unpersuasive, because it is untruthful.
<b.We lack devotion to truth as truth, as God’s truth. Our zeal for souls is puny, because we have no zeal for God’s honor. We act as if God were complimented by conversions, instead of trembling souls rescued by a stretch of mercy.
We tell men half the truth, the half that best suits our own pusillanimity and their conceit; and then we wonder that so few are converted, and that of those few so many apostatize.
We are so weak as to be surprised that our half-truth has not succeeded so well as God’s whole truth. Where there is no hatred of heresy, there is no holiness.
A man, who might be an apostle, becomes a fester in the Church for the want of this righteous indignation.”
http://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/n092_Heresy.htm
The Faith is unchangeable – the Blessed Sacrament may not be received by one who is not a member of the Church, nor by one who is in a state of mortal sin, such sin to include abandonment of husband or wife, sexual relations with someone other than one’s husband or wife, etc. If one leaves one’s spouse and lives as man and wife with another, one is in a state of public mortal sin.
Amen. Love of God, the Faith and fellow man means great anger at public heretical offences against God, more especially by priests or bishops.
My concern, and the reason why I was raising the issue, is that I was unaware of any support, either in scripture or tradition, that speaks to denying the Holy Eucharist to someone who is not in the State of Grace. It certainly is in Canon Law, but as we all know, the Church once taught that it was mortal sin for anyone but a Catholic priest to touch a Consecrated Host. They changed that rule in the dead of night and no one said a word.
Faithful Catholics (the ones who still abide by the earlier rules, such as abstaining from food or drink after midnight, and observing Friday as a day of abstinence), wouldn’t consider receiving Holy Communion unless they were in the State of Grace. Unfortunately, however, I really don’t believe the proposed changes in A/L are directed at the faithful Catholics. I’d be surprised if most modern Catholics do not accept everything that a pope or bishop might say as the Gospel truth. And while that may have been a reasonable thought at some time in the distant past, it is not today.
Fantastic!
May God grant me the grace to have this holy zeal for His honor!
Thank you, Louie. Your video clip is perfect.
You hit the nail on the head again! Just the words that were needed for the thoughts rolling around in my head today.
He is no pope…and he is no saint. Shame on those who acknowledge the the 1983 code of masonic canon law law or the masonic CCC…both vatican 2 masonic/jew heresy.
Louie, an edit option would be very welcome…lol.
Let us not forget the suffering we must aspire to emulate.
http://www.theimmaculateheart.com/fatima_hell.jpg
Thank you, Cortez.
Great visual reminder.
Thank you for this. What a sad day when we can better expect exhortations to remain vigilant from laypersons, rather than clergy. That’s where we are.
One of the concerns I have about all this is this, if they can hold out, they will win, in the short-term. Not ultimately, because God would not allow it, but, history shows that people tend to get more liberal as time goes on. We get tired, defenses start to break down, it is natural, even if we fight against it.
It has already happened.
Imagine for a moment, it is 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, it doesn’t matter which. The sitting pope during any of those years suddenly teaches that adulterers with no intention to repent, indeed, without even a need to verbalize the sins or express repentance, should receive not only absolution, but approach the altar for Holy Communion.
He states that to claim this is not right makes one a “rigid, heartless Pelagian” or any number of other insults directed at laypeople or priests or bishops who would dare to defend Catholic teaching and practice.
What would the reaction be? A lot more than we are seeing now. Even by we laypeople.
We, and I include myself, are in danger of corruption, even though we are vehemently resisting this diabolical movement to destroy our faith and our church.
Discouragement and a crisis of faith, these are real dangers. Time is not our friend here. I pray the formal correction comes soon. We prefer open schism to virtual schism, which is what we have. At least then there will be a church to belong to. I am no longer sure this is what we actually have, despite the happy talk, I’m seeing and hearing too much I can’t and won’t support.
You are right, Mr. Verrechio, we cannot follow the advice of those who advise us to turn away from this. We can’t afford to do that for too long, although, I admit, I may need to take more breaks from it, it’s downright depressing.
The Good Lord always seems to use weak creatures to accomplish great things. Perhaps He will act through four more.
There is nothing wrong with AL if you believe the bread and wine received in Holy Communion is symbolic of the Body and Blood of Christ and not the TRUE PRESENCE. Is this what we are overlooking when we examine the New Order pseudo “church”, although they will never publicly admit it? Why would AL be such a terrible problem when the vast majority of Catholics no longer believe in the Holy Eucharist? Is this the reason there is no outrage from clergy and laity alike? After more than 50 years of V2, why are we waiting for the toothpaste to go back into the tube? As Louie says, this is a great offence against Our Lord Jesus Christ. We need strong leadership. We need an army lead by strong, dedicated Generals.
JP2 basically gave the green light to give communion to anyone.
Where is your doctorate in canon law from, for reference?
JP2 was canonized by the pseudo”church” because he gave the green light to many outrageous anti-Catholic novelties.
Where are siscoe’s and salza’s doctorates in canon law, being that you quote them non-stop?
Ironically, even they don’t listen to John Paul II.
In fact, I sleep comfortably knowing that Modernists will never ever invoke Papal Infallibility (only Papal authority), because they know that to achieve their plan they need to be in a constant state of revolution and reinvention. Therefore they cannot even make their own novelties irreformable least they create trouble for their next innovative successor who needs all the vagueness he can get to work with. So as usual, their plan will be carried out not by doctrine, but through discipline, for doctrine to them does not exist. But the position to make general commands does.
Anyway, don’t forget to pick up your Martin Luther Commemorative Stamps from the Vatican. Use them whenever you send mail to CMTV and other outlets who dismissed the recent Lutheran Ecumenistic affair as no big deal. The Pope’s not gonna get up in front of Lutherans and condemn them all like he’s supposed to you guys…. c’mon now…
The Church in the Second Vatican Council, adopted the Judaeo-Masonic-Communist ideology of Karl Marx and Luther’s shameful heresy of justification, with the added subversive ideology of feminism and “gender theory”, and the humanist-New Age theology of Teilhard Chardin of a “cosmic god” with the addition of using the seditious “historical-critical method” of interpreting Scripture and at the same time, establishing a new liturgy incorporating the revolutionaries of the Liturgical Reform Movement’s suggestions.
This and much more. That is why the leadership of the Church is so dangerous. Souls are being destroyed daily with each new “reform” or “exception” to God’s Immutable Laws and destruction of the true faith with their purposeful opening of the way to the coming of the Antichrist so much easier than ever before.
Johnno: You hit the nail on the head with “Therefore they cannot even make their own novelties irreformable least they create trouble for their next innovative successor who needs all the vagueness he can get to work with. So as usual, their plan will be carried out not by doctrine, but through discipline, for doctrine to them does not exist. But the position to make general commands does.”
This is the typical path of the revolutionary Modernist and the only successful method to incrementally indoctrinate the faithful out of Catholicism completely. There is no explanation other than the Spirit of Satan working in them for the clever words and ways in which they deny the Truth while convincing the majority they are actually defending it. Both JPII and Benedict XVI were brilliant in this using different methods to deceive.
Even the unorthodox Conciliar Church teaches that to receive Holy Communion worthily it is necessary to be free from mortal sin, to have a right intention, and to obey the Church’s laws on the fast before Holy Communion out of the reverence for the Body and Blood of our Divine Lord. (Their catechism #367.)
Here is an excerpt from a wonderful book on the Eucharist and partaking of Holy Communion worthily.
http://catholictradition.org/Eucharist/blessed-eucharist10.htm
The only way the Church could “redefine” the circumstances under which a person could validly receive Holy Communion is to redefine sin. And that has been one of the goals of the Modernist usurpers all along. Why is there both a common “communal forgiveness of sins” and a very short time allowed in most Novus Ordo parishes for confession? Because it has been ignored, downplayed, refuted, and basically thrown in the dustbin of history. With the now common belief that everyone is saved, how can there be a standard definition of sin any longer?
As The Papal Subject pointed out Lynda, JPII’s new Code of Canon Law refutes the unchangeable Faith by allowing anyone to receive the Blessed Sacrament.
I sincerely doubt there are many Novus Ordo priests anywhere who do not already allow anyone who comes forward a partaking of the Blessed Sacrament and have done so for the decades since the schismatic revolution of Vatican II.
Waiting…..
For A Catholic Thinker to reply to you Rich.
JPII’s Code of Canon Law is worse. So are the Vatican II documents. Only a small remnant of Catholics still raise their voices against this schismatic revolution against Christ and His Church. With them, there could be no “Francis” nor any of his anti-Christ/anti-Church diabolically inspired rantings and ravings.
Thank you for your response, Katherine, but I’m not sure I’ve clearly made my point, as I do not disagree at all with that assessment. The idea I’m advancing is that as evil as such a possible change in the Canon Law would be, the Church has the authority to make such modifications without it rising to the level of a heresy. Of course, no responsible Catholic would support such a change, but it seems that this pope could fashion a revision that would accomplish his immediate, diabolic end without finding himself in heresy.
The A/L speaks of the situation where the Catholic wishing to receive Holy Communion would have to enter into a “serious process of discernment” where it would ultimately be concluded that the potential Communicant was not be violating the “Divine Law” by entering into the second marriage. At least that’s my understanding. Therein lies the heresy.
But if the pope were to “merely” change Canon law so as to allow the would-be Communicant, after the period of discernment, to create an “exceptional case” which would allow that individual to determine that “in spite of the fact that he or she may not be in the state of Sanctifying Grace because of the second marriage”, they would still be eligible to receive the Sacrament.
There would be, of course, a tacit admission that the second marriage is invalid, and that he or she is living in adultery. Thus Divine Law was not breached. But if the pope changed the Canon Law so as to allow this recipient to receive Holy Communion––yes, while in the state of moral sin––the Divine Law would not be breached and there would be no heresy.
Certainly it would be an outrageous change in Canon law, but there were many such outrageous changes in the 1984 revision…and as evil as they were, those were not heresies––just very wrong and almost surely sinful.
Hopefully I am wrong on this analysis, but if I am, I would appreciate someone pointing out my specific error. But if I am not wrong, I would sincerely hope that 150 cardinals or more would publish something far more forceful than a Dubia.
The folks who brought us Francis were appointed by Benedict and JP2. Benedict and JP2 were no friends at all of tradition. If the 4 cardinals somehow take back the V2 church from Francis there is no indication that they will be better friends of tradition than JP2 or Benedict.
irishpol: Regarding your response to me – you certainly have brought up an interesting theory. The truth is, as diabolical as your theory is, it would not be a surprise to me at all if it isn’t already the plan. After all, with the other transformations of the Catholic religion into the new religion of Modernism, and the daily blasphemy’s and sacrileges against Our Lord a common practice, nothing at all should be a surprise.
So many offenses against God have been publicly documented in the last 50 years, books larger than the entire Bible or one of the Vatican II documents could not cover them.