Wednesday, January 03, 2018

Pope Francis is Anathema by Infallible Trent: "If anyone says that the Commandments of God are, even for one that is Justified and Constituted in Grace, Impossible to Observe, let him be Anathema."


On January 3, Crux reported that Pope Francis said he believed in grave sin:

“'There are, in fact, grave sins, the so-called ‘mortal sins’ because they cause the eternal life in us to die,' Francis said. 'For those sins, in order to be forgiven, confession and sacramental absolution are necessary.'”
[https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2018/01/03/pope-mercy-talks-penance-opening-public-act-2018/]

Unfortunately, Francis's concept of sin appears to be contrary to "the Sixth Commandment and to Saint Paul’s prohibition outlined in 1 Cor. 11:27-30" and the infallible Council of Trent.

Dr. Luca Gili, a professor of philosophy at the University of Quebec in Montreal, told LifeSiteNews:

“By saying that ‘there is no other interpretation’ [to [the Argentinian] guidelines that appear to blatantly approve Communion for adulterers], the pope is stating that he is (magisterially) proposing a doctrine which is contrary to the Sixth Commandment and to Saint Paul’s prohibition outlined in 1 Cor. 11:27-30."

Dr. Gili in speaking of heresy said:

“Any denial of a divinely revealed truth is (material) heresy, according to the definition of heresy in CIC 751. In conclusion, the pope is (allegedly) teaching a plain heresy.”
[https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.lifesitenews.com/mobile/news/pope-francis-supporters-demand-faithful-catholics-accept-communion-for-adul#ampshare=https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-francis-supporters-demand-faithful-catholics-accept-communion-for-adul]

The Argentinian Bishops Guidelines says couples in adulterous second marriages not living in continence in "other more complex circumstances... Amoris Laetitia opens up the possibility of access to... the Eucharist." (Aleteia.org, September 13, 2016)

Pope Francis's letter to the Argentinian Bishops on their guidelines says there is "no other interpretation." (Aleteia.org, September 13, 2016)

In simple words, Francis is officially saying couples committing the grave sin of the sexual act of adultery can receive Holy Communion with the excuse of "complex circumstances" which is against God's Divine Law and Revelation as taught be the infallible Council of Trent:

Trent's decree on justification: "If anyone says that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to observe, let him be anathema."

Versus

Amoris Laetitia, 301: Hence it is can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values”, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin.'
[http://www.catholicworldreport.com/2016/04/22/five-serious-problems-with-chapter-8-of-amoris-laetitia/]

On January 2, Vatican expert Edward Pentin reported that Pope Francis's president of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio unwittingly said that the official endorsement of the Argentine directive of Amoris Laetitia contradicted the infallible doctrine of Trent:

"In comments to the Register last month, Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio insisted the Pope’s official endorsement of an Argentine directive on the issue did not contradict canon law."

"The president of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts said it is true that 'divorced and remarried (or cohabiting) cannot be admitted to Holy Communion because they are ‘in manifest grave sin.'”"

"But he added that there are 'divorced and remarried (or cohabiting) who have the intention to change their condition but cannot. Therefore such faithful are only in objective sin, not subjective sin, precisely because they have the intention to change, even if they cannot. This intention makes a difference!”

He further noted that the relevant canon, number 915, states that Holy Communion cannot be allowed if the person remains “obstinately persevering” in grave sin. The word “obstinate” means “without any intention to change,” Cardinal Coccopalmerio said, “so these faithful can be admitted to Holy Communion because they have the intention to leave the condition of sin and therefore they are not in sin.'”

"He added that the “doctrine of sincere repentance” which contains the purpose of changing one's condition of life as a necessary requisite to be admitted to the sacrament of Penance 'is respected' because the faithful in such hypothesised situations 'are conscious, have conviction, of the situation of objective sin in which they currently find themselves.' They also 'have the purpose of changing their condition of life, even if, at this moment, they are not able to implement their purpose.'”

"'The cardinal added that the doctrine of 'sanctifying grace as a necessary requisite to be admitted to the sacrament of the Eucharist is also respected' because the faithful in this case 'haven’t yet arrived at a real change of life because of the impossibility of doing so, but have the intention of implementing this change.'”

"He said it is 'precisely this theological element that allows absolution and access to the Eucharist, always — we repeat — in the presence of an impossibility to immediately change the condition of sin.'”
[http://m.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/three-bishops-issue-profession-of-truth-about-sacramental-marriage#.Wkx_mDWIbqA]

The Cardinal in the above statement said it is impossible to "change the condition of sin" which is another way of saying Amoris Laetitia's "in concrete situations which does not allow him or her to decide otherwise."

Trent said "If anyone says that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified  and constituted in grace, impossible to observe, let him be anathema."

Coccopalmerio's above statement of the Pope's understanding of sin is important because he was Francis's selected Vatican official who stated:

"While the content of the pope's letter itself does not contain teachings on faith and morals, it does point toward the interpretations of the Argentine bishops and confirms them as authentically reflecting his own mind." [https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2017/12/05/pope-francis-makes-his-letter-argentine-bishops-amoris-laetitia-part-official]       

As stated by Francis's own selected Vatican official Coccopalmerio to explain the pontiff's authentic interpretation:

The Pope's Amoris Laetitia appears to have fallen into the heresies of Martin Luther and situation ethics which are condemned by Trent and Veritatis Splendor.


Pope Francis said of the heresy of Luther on justification which includes his teaching on sin:

"Lutherans and Catholics, Protestants, all of us agree on the doctrine of justification. On this point, which is very important, he did not err." (patheos.com/blog/scotticalt, "Pope Francis is Wrong about Luther and Justification," April 5, 2017)

On May 25, 2016, the Catholic Herald said new "revelations suggest that some of Amoris’s most contentious paragraphs – relating to “situations of sin” and “mitigating factors” – had their origin in Archbishop Fernández’s articles, which gave a critique of John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor."

The evidence shows that the Pope’s intimate friend and ghostwriter Archbishop Víctor Manuel Fernandez did a "cut and paste" from his ten year old anti-John Paul II tracts which made up some of the most controversial parts of the papal document according to a May 25 article of The Spectator.

Francis' friend, The Spectator said, is seen as "a joke figure" in terms of his reputation as a theologian who wrote a silly book called “Heal me with your mouth. The art of kissing.”

All these revelations came from Vatican expert Sandro Magister's blog. Magister said Pope John Paul II condemned the situational ethics of "theologians" like Fernandez in his important and magisterial encyclical ‘Veritatis Splendor.’ [http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1351303?eng=y&refresh_ce ]

The Vatican expert in the article showed how intimate a friend then Archbishop Bergoglio and the future pope was to his protege:

"Partly on account of those two articles, the congregation for Catholic education blocked the candidacy of Fernández as rector of the Universidad Católica Argentina, only to have to give in later, in 2009, to then-archbishop of Buenos Aires Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who fought tooth and nail to clear the way for the promotion of his protege."

The Catholic Herald quoted a passage from Fernandez's situational ethics articles which were "consciously echoed" in Amoris Laetitia’s paragraph 301:

“A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding ‘its inherent values’, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin.”

This passage according to the Catholic Herald may be directly counter to defined Catholic doctrine:

"This paragraph of the exhortation has been criticised by theologians including E. Christian Brugger, who argued that it apparently goes against Church teaching: 'This seems to contradict the defined doctrine in Trent on Justification, canon 18: 'If any one says the commandments of God are impossible to keep, even by a person who is justified and constituted in grace: let him be anathema.'”

First Things, in "Francis's Argentine Letter And The Proper Response " by Elliott Milco, says the exact same thing about Francis's letter which endorses the Argentine norms.

America's most influential journal of religion and public life, First Things' Deputy Editor Milco says:

"The Church teaches and has always taught, from St. Paul to the Council of Trent and beyond, that grace strengthens and liberates us from the bonds of sin, and that while we may never, in the present life, be perfectly free from the inclination to do wrong, it is possible through grace to keep the commandments."

"This doctrine was given force of law in Trent's decree on justification: 'If anyone says that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to observe, let him be anathema.'"

"'The same decree explains that 'God does not command impossibilities, but by commanding admonishes you to do what you can and to pray for what you cannot, and aids you that you may be able.'"

"The real problem with the Argentine norms is their deviation from this larger and more fundamental principle: that grace truly sanctifies and liberates, and that baptized Christians are always free to fulfill the moral law, even when they fail to do so. Jesus Christ holds us to this standard in the Gospel. It is presumptuous of Francis—however benign his intentions—to decide that his version of 'mercy' trumps that given by God himself."

Brugger and Milco are not speaking about the Kasper proposal, but the Catholic doctrine of infused grace which was denied by Martin Luther and the other "reformers"

On that other issue, Fr. Raymond de Sousa's article "What Argentina's 'Amoris Laetitia' Guidelines Really Mean" in the National Catholic Register tries to make the case that the Kasper proposal in it's totality actually suffered a lose despite media hype claiming otherwise and despite Francis's efforts to implement the total proposal.

De Sousa tries to makes the case that the Argentine norms is not mistaken because it could be treated in pre-Amoris Laetitia "standard principles of moral theology and confessional practice, analogous to the the moral culpability of contraception when the spouses do not agree."

On this separate issue from the topic of grace, Brugger in the Catholic World Report with the article "The Catholic Conscience, the Argentine Bishops, and "Amoris Laetitia" destroys the De Sousa attempt to justify the Argentine norms by using Pope John Paul II's Veritatis Splendor that shows it creates a "destructive dichotomy, that which separates faith from morality."

He demonstrates that the only solution to the problematic Argentine norms is to form consciences not create loopholes so persons can sin in invincible ignorance.

Be that as it may, the point is that the Kasper proposal isn't the issue here, but Amoris Laetitia and the Argentine norms apparent denial of a defined doctrine of the Council of Trent on grace which the "reformers" denied.

The "reformers" idea of imputed grace saw man as "totally depraved" and corrupt who even after justification was not infused with grace and truly changed on the inside.

Luther's image of imputed grace was that of man as a pile of dung covered with snow.

Man isn't changed on the inside (he is still a pile of dung), but "justified" man is covered with grace (snow) while not being changed on the inside.

As Milco said Trent's doctrine on infused grace says "that graces truly sanctifies and liberates, and that baptized Christians are always free to fulfill the moral law, even when they fail to do so."

It is a very big and scary moment in Church history when it appears that a Pope is openingly teaching error that is anathema by the infallible Trent:

Moral Theologian Dr. E. Christian Brugger, on April 22, wrote Amoris Leatitia (A.L.) in 301 is "inconsistent with the teaching of Trent on grace."

Brugger then writes that it appears that Canon 18 of Trent, which is infallible doctrine, gives an anathema to Pope Francis's 301 teaching on grace.

Pray a Our Father now for the Dubia Cardinals to issue the correction.

     

Endnotes and quotes from Dr. E. Christian Brugger's CWR article:

Dr. E. Christian Brugger is the J. Francis Cardinal Stafford Professor of Moral Theology at St. John Vianney Theological Seminary in Denver and Senior Fellow of Ethics at the Culture of Life Foundation in Washington, D.C. He has a forthcoming book with Catholic University of America Press on the indissolubility of marriage and the Council of Trent.

Dr. Brugger said of Amoris Laetitia, 301 in the Catholic World Report:

'Inconsistency with the teaching of Trent on grace

301. Hence it is can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values”, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin."

 Again, the 'rule” is the norm against adultery articulated in the sixth precept of the Decalogue, which Jesus says is violated by one who divorces his spouse and marries another (cf. Mt. 5:32, 19:9; Mk. 10:11-12; Lk. 16:18). Here chapter 8 teaches that someone who knows full well the “rule” (and is by hypothesis justified in Trent’s/Paul’s sense) can “be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further
sin” (emphasis added). This seems to contradict the defined doctrine in Trent on Justification, canon 18: “If any one says the commandments of God are impossible to keep, even by a person who is justified and constituted in grace: let him be anathema.”

It might be replied that no. 301 is addressed to pastors and is about mitigation, not objective possibility, not subjects in their deliberations about possible options.  But in fact it is addressed to everyone, and no. 300 has identified “responsible personal and pastoral discernment” as proceeding on the same logic and as extending to personal discernment of possible present options, a logic that 301 is just unfolding.

What AL is ignoring is the adequacy of grace to enable people to respond to the overall objective demands of the Gospel.

ENDNOTES:
1 The note reads: “This is also the case with regard to sacramental discipline, since discernment can recognize that in a particular situation no grave fault exists.”
2 See no. 301 where “rule” clearly refer back to the “demands of the Gospel”
3 Note 336 makes clear that participation in the sacraments is one of the forms of participation in play in this passage.
4 The note references the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Declaration Concerning the Admission to Holy Communion of Faithful Who Are Divorced and Remarried (June 24, 2000), no. 2. AL references the text to help overcome the potential judgment excluding remarried divorcees from Holy Communion. But the Pontifical text is saying just the opposite. The relevant passage reads:
“The Code of Canon Law establishes that ‘Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to Holy Communion’ (can. 915). In recent years some authors have sustained, using a variety of arguments, that this canon would not be applicable to faithful who are divorced and remarried…. [These] authors offer various interpretations of the above-cited canon that exclude from its application the situation of those who are divorced and remarried. For example, since the text speaks of ‘grave sin’, it would be necessary to establish the presence of all the conditions required for the existence of mortal sin, including those which are subjective, necessitating a judgment of a type that a minister of Communion could not make ab externo; moreover, given that the text speaks of those who ‘obstinately’ persist in that sin, it would be necessary to verify an attitude of defiance on the part of an individual who had received a legitimate warning from the Pastor….
“The reception of the Body of Christ when one is publicly unworthy constitutes an objective harm to the ecclesial communion: it is a behavior that affects the rights of the Church and of all the faithful to live in accord with the exigencies of that communion. In the concrete case of the admission to Holy Communion of faithful who are divorced and remarried, the scandal, understood as an action that prompts others towards wrongdoing, affects at the same time both the sacrament of the Eucharist and the indissolubility of marriage. That scandal exists even if such behavior, unfortunately, no longer arouses surprise: in fact it is precisely with respect to the deformation of the conscience that it becomes more necessary for Pastors to act, with as much patience as firmness, as a protection to the sanctity of the Sacraments and a defense of Christian morality, and for the correct formation of the faithful.
“Any interpretation of can. 915 that would set itself against the canon’s substantial content, as declared uninterruptedly by the Magisterium and by the discipline of the Church throughout the centuries, is clearly misleading. One cannot confuse respect for the wording of the law (cfr. can. 17) with the improper use of the very same wording as an instrument for relativizing the precepts or emptying them of their substance. The phrase ‘and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin’ is clear and must be understood in a manner that does not distort its sense so as to render the norm inapplicable. The three required conditions are: a) grave sin, understood objectively, being that the minister of Communion would not be able to judge from subjective imputability; b) obstinate persistence, which means the existence of an objective situation of sin that endures in time and which the will of the individual member of the faithful does not bring to an end, no other requirements (attitude of defiance, prior warning, etc.) being necessary to establish the fundamental gravity of the situation in the Church; c) the manifest character of the situation of grave habitual sin.”
5 The encyclical Veritatis Splendor (Aug. 6, 1993) was the last papal document to be addressed to these issues, and is known to be an unprecedentedly serious effort to expound the Church’s understanding on moral norms from the apostles until today.
6 The note says: “In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments.”             


1 comment:

Praypraypray said...

Excellent, clear, well written article!!! Thank you very much! God bless you.