Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. One may disregard Abp. Fernández’s entire defense of #AmorisLaetita’s Ch. VIII

Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernández, Titular Archbishop of Tiburnia, Rector de la Pontificia Universidad Católica Argentina Santa Maria de los Buenos Aires [EN]

In his defense of Ch. VIII of Amoris Laetitia [translated in English: Chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia: What is left after the storm | Victor Manuel Fernández], Abp. Fernández claimed that there have been recent changes [in] discipline regarding the divorced in new unions and went to state that:

1) “[T]he prohibition against funerals and any public funeral service” has changed without all the beliefs that supported that praxis falling away.

2) (Canon 2336[sic]) in the Code of Canon Law (1917): “If, spurning the admonition of the Ordinary, they stay in the illicit relationship, they are to be excommunicated according to the gravity of the deed or struck with personal interdict” is no longer in the current Code (1983).

Can 2356. Bigami, idest qui, obstante coniugali vinculo, aliud matrimonium, etsi tantum civile, ut aiunt, attentaverint, sunt ipso facto infames; et si, spreta Ordinarii monitione, in illicito contubernio persistant, pro diversa reatus gravitate excommunicentur vel personali interdicto plectantur.

In his article Clarifying what we can | In the Light of the Law A Canon Lawyer’s Blog, August 23, 2017, Dr. Edward Peters, JD, JCD, Ref. Sig. Ap. disputes these factual claims by Abp. Fernández and argues that:

1) [D]ivorced and ‘remarried’ Catholics are still recognized as figuring among those to whom ecclesiastical burial may be denied.

2) Catholics were not excommunicated under the 1917 Code for being divorced and remarried.

From the plain reading of the Canon 2336 2356 referenced by the Archbishop, it deals specifically with bigamy and the one twice married, and infamous for that very fact, faced the ecclesiastical sanctions of either excommunication or personal interdict only after disregarding the admonitions of the Ordinary and persisting in their bigamy.

This is very significant for the Archbishop to be just confused or mistaken when his truncated English profile reads [compared to the extensive one in Spanish]:

Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernandez holds a Doctorate Degree in Theology and has been the President of the Pontifical Catholic University of Argentina [UCA] since 2009. He was previously Dean of the School of Theology of UCA (2008-2009) and Chairman of the Argentine Theological Society (2007-2009). He is also member of the Pontifical Council for Culture since 2014.

Rev. Fernandez’s service to Higher Education and the Catholic Church is extensive and broader. He was in charge of a parish in Rio Cuarto, Cordoba, where he founded the Seminary, the Sacred Science Institute for Teachers, and the Lay Centre for continued faith formation. He also advised local movements and lay institutions, while providing support to catechetical and ecumenical education programs.

He participated in the 5th General Conference of the Episcopate of Latin America (2007) and was member of its Editorial Committee. He has been an expert in several commissions of the Argentine Conference of Catholic Bishops (Comision Espiscopal Argentina-CEA) and, since 2014, is member of the Commission for Faith and Culture. On that same year, for the 3rd Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, Pope Francis appointed Rev. Fernandez as Vice-president for the Message and member of the Editorial Commission in charge of the Report of the Synod entitled Relatio Synodi, on “Pastoral Challenges of the Family in the Context of Evangelization”. On September 2015, for the 14th Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, he was also member of the Editorial Commission in charge of the Report of the Synod on the topic of “Vocation and mission of families in the Church and the Contemporary World.”

Since July 2016, Rev. Fernandez is advisor of the Congregation for Catholic Education. He has more than 350 publications in books and articles both in international and national journals from Argentina, Latin American and Europe.

Since we are dealing with Canon Law and Archbishop Fernández – Rector of a Catholic University and with such extensive relevant educational background – has made false factual claims on which his defense is based, by invoking the venerable legal principle Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, one may disregard his entire defense of Ch. 8. of Amoris Laetitia.

Endnote

For those still wanting to consider the rest of the Archbishop’s defense, be warned that together with the false factual claims, the Archbishop will draw you into his  labyrinth by first questioning what the Church has never taught to be exceptions to the 5th and 7th Commandments [cf. CCC 2263 – 2267 and Catholic Encyclopedia > Theft] and proposing that they be considered as exceptions.

Conclusion

Abp. Fernández’s defense of Ch. 8. of Amoris Laetitia and his arguments contained therein are a non-starter.

It is clear that the Archbishop’s defense supports an agenda which is opposed to the Truth.

Pope St. John Paul II and his Exhortation Familiaris Consortio (November 22, 1981) a Stumbling Block to the Viri Probati Argument


Post-Vatican II, the innovators have co-opted the term viri probati, which in Church Teaching and Tradition refers to ‘approved men who are to be successively chosen to continue the ministry of the Holy Orders after those who appointed them have died’, to mean ‘tested married men, potential candidates for priestly ordination, witnesses of a mature and contrasted Christian life’.

If the viri probati are such tested married men, then their married life would be exemplary, and we would expect of them, for example, to have been married only once, and that they manage their children and their households well, and that they are also temperate, gentle, and live the virtue of poverty [cf. 1 Tim 3:1-13 (RSVCE)].

Most likely they are also fathers of large and poor families and spend their lives for their children and who with their effort and constancy — often without complaining of their needs — bring up their family, creating a cheerful home in which everyone learns to love, to serve and to work. [cf. The Virtue of Poverty | St. Josemaría Escrivá].

And finally, a clear sign of the holiness in the marriage of a true vir probatus [innovators’ definition] and his wife is precisely the joy with which they welcome and ask the Lord for vocations among their children. Their family will be open to transcendent values, and serve its brothers and sisters with joy, it will fulfil its duties with generous fidelity, and will be aware of its daily sharing in the mystery of the glorious Cross of Christ, becoming the primary and most excellent seedbed of vocations to a life of consecration to the kingdom of God” (Familiaris consortio, n. 53) [Cf. Apostolic Journey of His Holiness John Paul II to Rio de Janeiro, on the Occasion of the 2nd World Meeting for Families (October 2-6, 1997) | Mass in the Cathedral of St. Sebastian in Rio de Janeiro | Homily of John Paul II, 4 October 1997]. (My emphasis)

(What irony then that it is Brazilian bishops – with Pope Francis apparently in agreement – who are pushing for the ordination of viri probati [innovators’ definition] in remote, indigenous communities in the Amazon when the great and saintly pope spoke these words in Brazil).

Conclusion

If there are viri probati [innovators’ definition] in remote, indigenous communities in the Amazon or elsewhere, and if these viri probati are true, vocations to the priesthood and religious life would arise naturally from their holy families. There will be no need for the innovator bishops to presumptuously present such men for ordination.

Once again, the great and saintly Pope St. John Paul II and his Exhortation Familiaris consortio (November 22, 1981) are a stumbling block to the innovators and their wrecking plans.


“I saw a great power rise up against the Church. It plundered, devastated, and threw into confusion and disorder the vine of the Lord, having it trampled underfoot by the people and holding it up to ridicule by all nations. Having vilified celibacy and oppressed the priesthood, it had the effrontery to confiscate the Church’s property and to arrogate to itself the powers of the Holy Father, whose person and whose laws it held in contempt.

– Jeanne le Royer (Sister of the Nativity), born in 1731 and became a nun in 1755. | Catholic Prophecy by Yves Dupont

The Roman Catholic Military Ordinariate of Canada’s Document on Chapter Eight of #AmorisLaetitia is full of #AmorisLaetitia’s Poison

+ Most Reverend Scott C. McCaig, C.C.
Bishop of the Military Ordinariate of Canada

The article, Canadian dioceses clarify Pope’s teaching on marriage by Deborah Gyapong, Monday, 13 March 2017 | The B.C. Catholic reported that:

Two more Canadian dioceses have joined the Alberta and Northwest Territories Bishops in issuing guidelines on Communion for the divorced and civilly remarried.

Like their western Canadian counterparts, the Archdiocese of Ottawa and the Military Ordinariate of Canada have responded to the controversial chapter eight of Pope Francis’ post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia by interpreting it in light of the Church’s constant teaching on the indissolubility of marriage and her discipline on the reception of the sacraments.

This is far from being true. The document itself On the Implementation of Chapter Eight of the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia in the Military Ordinariate of Canada is full of Amoris Laetitia‘s poison. Read on:

For Those Unable to Separate: Continence

Those divorced and civilly remarried couples who for serious reasons cannot separate, in order to receive absolution in confession which would open the way to receiving Communion, must take on the duty to live in complete continence:

Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they “take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.”xi

The Prefect of the Congregation for the Faith, Cardinal Müller, recently stated that this requirement, “is not dispensable, because it is not only a positive law of John Paul II, but he expressed an essential element of Christian moral theology and the theology of the sacraments.”xii

The Apostolic Exhortation recognizes the difficulties inherent in couples living together in continence (cf. AL note 329) and insists that human frailty must be taken into account:

Perhaps out of a certain scrupulosity, concealed beneath a zeal for fidelity to the truth, some priests demand of penitents a purpose of amendment so lacking in nuance that it causes mercy to be obscured by the pursuit of a supposedly pure justice. For this reason, it is helpful to recall the teaching of Saint John Paul II, who stated that the possibility of a new fall “should not prejudice the authenticity of the resolution” (AL, Note 364)

Although this practice has been formally recognized as a valid pastoral solution since the time of the publication of the Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio, it is still an example of an extraordinary circumstance which will be examined in greater detail in the next section.

IV. Extraordinary Circumstances

Special Consideration

Required Having established the ordinary discipline of the Church, it is now possible to examine extraordinary pastoral situations with much greater precision. These require special consideration precisely because, for one reason or another, the pastoral situation differs in important respects from those envisioned by the ordinary discipline of the Church. As Pope Francis stated, “While upholding a general rule, it is necessary to recognize that responsibility with respect to certain actions and decisions is not the same in all cases” (AL 302).

The Help of the Sacraments

In very specific situations the Church’s help for those in irregular situations can include the help of the sacraments (AL, note 351). The conditions indicated in Amoris Laetitia for such a pastoral exception to the ordinary discipline of the Church (as declared in Can. 915, CCEO, Can. 855) are as follows: 8

The Law of Gradualness

1. First, the “law of gradualness” must be applied. With this moral principle we have the recognition that the fullness of God’s life-giving law must always be our aim, but also that moral conversion is often a slow and gradual process:

“…the law is itself a gift of God which points out the way, a gift for everyone without exception; it can be followed with the help of grace, even though each human being “advances gradually with the progressive integration of the gifts of God and the demands of God’s definitive and absolute love in his or her entire personal and social life” (AL 295).

From a ministerial point of view this moral principle requires that when facing difficult and irregular situations we must be “merciful and helpful”, patiently guiding and assisting people to advance, at whatever pace they require, toward the fullness of God’s law and loving design:

“… all these situations require a constructive response seeking to transform them into opportunities that can lead to the full reality of marriage and family in conformity with the Gospel. These couples need to be welcomed and guided patiently and discreetly”. That is how Jesus treated the Samaritan woman (cf. Jn. 4:1-26): he addressed her desire for true love, in order to free her from the darkness in her life and to bring her to the full joy of the Gospel” (AL 294).

What is critical to note is that “this is not a gradualness of the law” (AL 295). We are not speaking of accepting an irregular situation as normative:

Naturally, if someone flaunts an objective sin as if it were part of the Christian ideal, or wants to impose something other than what the Church teaches, he or she can in no way presume to teach or preach to others; this is a case of something which separates from the community (cf. Mt 18:17). Such a person needs to listen once more to the Gospel message and its call to conversion (AL 297).

Practically this means that there must be a firm purpose of amendment; the intention on the part of the recipient of Penance or Holy Communion to bring their lives into full conformity with the Gospel, even though there may be grave circumstances that presently prevent this.

Absence of Mortal Sin

2. Secondly, the person in this objectively irregular situation must not be in the state of mortal sin. Amoris Laetitia, quoting the Catechism of the Catholic Church (articles 1735 & 2352), insists that “a negative judgment about an objective situation does not imply a judgment about the imputability or culpability of the person involved” (AL 302). Due to serious mitigating factors it is possible that someone be in an objectively sinful situation and yet not be in the subjective state of mortal sin:

The Church possesses a solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations. Hence it 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 (AL 301).

Once again it is incumbent upon the minister to accompany the person in question to gain a true picture of the full pastoral situation:

Consequently, there is a need “to avoid judgements which do not take into account the complexity of various situations” and “to be attentive, by necessity, to how people experience distress because of their condition” (AL 296).

Danger of Further Harm

3. Finally, there must be a grave pastoral reason why embracing the ordinary discipline of the Church would only cause further harm. Several examples of such grave situations are specifically mentioned in the exhortation:

One thing is a second union consolidated over time, with new children, proven fidelity, generous self-giving, Christian commitment, a consciousness of its irregularity and of the great difficulty of going back without feeling in conscience that one would fall into new sins. The Church acknowledges situations “where, for serious reasons, such as the children’s upbringing, a man and woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate.” There are also the cases of those who made every effort to save their first marriage and were unjustly abandoned, or of “those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children’s upbringing, and are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably broken marriage had never been valid”. Another thing is a new union arising from a recent divorce, with all the suffering and confusion which this entails for children and entire families, or the case of someone who has consistently failed in his obligations to the family (AL 298).

When Continence is not Feasible

Ordinarily, receiving the sacraments for those in an irregular situation requires continence, but there are extreme situations wherein abstaining from conjugal relations is not feasible. Below is a succinct explanation of just such a situation and the underlying moral principles involved:

The situation foreseen here is apparently that of one party desiring such abstinence [as required by the Church for those divorced and civilly remarried without a decree of nullity] but the other refusing and threatening dire consequences in the absence of conjugal life. The first party then agrees to sexual relations against his or her will, for example, to preserve the welfare of the children. In such cases, the practicing Catholic party may not be guilty of serious sin and could therefore, in some cases, be admitted to the sacraments of reconciliation and the Eucharist. This case, it should be noted, could be treated in such a manner even before Amoris Laetitia, according to application of 10 the standard principles of moral theology and confessional practice, analogous to the determination of the moral culpability of contraception when the spouses do not agree.xiii

As noted, these were already accepted foundational principles of moral theology and confessional practice. The application of these principles explicitly to the divorced and civilly remarried in a magisterial document is seen by some as an example of the authentic development of doctrine.

The Need for Pastoral Discernment

Considering the nature of these criteria it is unlikely to encounter a large number of these cases. It is possible, however, to imagine other circumstances in which they could apply. This only emphasizes the need for careful attention to, and discernment of, each individual situation.

To illustrate, the section “When Continence is not Feasible” ought to stand out. How is it that a divorced and civilly remarried couple [with one or both parties having valid prior marriage] can be said to engage in conjugal relations?

One also ought to see Kasper’s Pope Francis’ Proposal.

It is evident that Bishop McCaig is engaging in the now tried and tested modernists’ M.O. which is, state Catholic Doctrine/Teaching saying it is not changing, yet place a contrary doctrine or teaching alongside it.


[UPDATE: March 1, 2017]
LifeSiteNews article Canada’s military bishop reaffirms Catholic teaching on marriage in Amoris Laetitia guidelines by Lianne Laurence fails to uncover the insidious nature of Bp McCaig’s guidelines.

Who exactly are viri probati? – That they are “tested MARRIED men” is a pure invention by the innovators.

Where does the term viri probati appear in Church documents?

The term viri probati appears in Caput III, 20, in Constitutio Dogmatica de Ecclesia Lumen Gentium, a Vatican II document.

  1. […]

Constituerunt itaque huius modi viros ac deinceps ordinationem dederunt, ut cum decessissent, ministerium eorum alii viri probati exciperent.(42) Cf. S. CLEMENS ROM., Ad Cor. 44, 2: ed. FUNK, 1, p. 154s.)  […]

The English translation being [cf. Lumen Gentium – EN]

  1. […]

They therefore appointed such men, and gave them the order that, when they should have died, other approved men would take up their ministry.(6*) S. Clem. Rom., ad Cor. 44, 2; ed. Funk, I, p. 154 s. […]

The footnote references the only genuine writing of Pope St. Clement I, the fourth pope, which is a letter to the Church of Corinth.

Pope St. Clement I

In Chapter 44. The Ordinances of the Apostles, that There Might Be No Contention Respecting the Priestly Office, the saintly pope writes:

Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that you have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour. –  Fathers of the Church > Letter to the Corinthians (Clement) – http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm [cf. also http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ii.ii.xliv.html | Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL)]

From these two Church documents, nowhere does it appear that viri probati [= approved men] means “tested MARRIED men”

So when and how did viri probati come to mean “tested MARRIED men”?

From these web articles What is viri probati? A proposal for extreme situations, which did not advance | ROME REPORTS and VIRI PROBATI DicEc, it appears the idea was floated as such within the Second Vatican Council and got nowhere and it was post-Vatican II that viri probati became a “technical” expression for married men, potential candidates for priestly ordination, witnesses of a mature and contrasted Christian life [Google translated].

Conclusion

Clearly then what Church Teaching and Tradition means by viri probati, that is, approved men who are to be successively chosen to continue the ministry of the Holy Orders after those who appointed them have died, is not what the innovators have co-opted to mean “tested MARRIED men”.

This has nothing to do with “salus animarum” criteria or solving a shortage of priest in certain areas, but everything to do with the attempted destruction of the Holy Orders and of the Church.

This seems to be a to-do on Pope Francis’ very disturbing and destructive agenda and he has floated the idea before, as he is wont to do, via an interview in 2014 [cf. Pope says married men could be ordained – if world’s bishops agree by Christa Pongratz-Lippitt, 10 April 2014 | The Tablet], only in the latest interview, he doesn’t mention the bishops being in agreement, perhaps having learned from the Synods on the Family in 2014 & 2015.

(All emphases mine)




Exclusive interview with Cdl. Raymond Burke – Part II. | 2017. szeptember 08. írta: Katolikus Válasz

Katolikus Válasz: One of the Hungarian bishops recently said that he is about to write a letter to Pope Francis asking him to allow the priestly consecration of ‘viri probati’ in the Latin Church. This has opened up a debate in the Hungarian Catholic Church about this issue and other possible solutions, including the abolishment of mandatory celibacy, to the shortage of priests in the Western world.

Do you think that ‘viri probati’ becoming priests will happen soon in the Latin Church? Can the Eastern Catholic or even the Orthodox practice be an example for the Latin Church?

Do you think that any form of relaxation in the mandatory priestly celibacy would be a good solution for the shortage of priests in the West? What is the main reason for the decline in the number of priestly vocations in the West, and what solution would you suggest to this problem?

Cdl. Burke: No, I do not anticipate any change in the Church’s discipline regarding priestly celibacy because of its roots in the example of Christ the High Priest, in whose person the ordained priest acts. It is my hope that only viri probati, in the sense in which Saint Clement of Rome first used the phrase, will be ordained, that is, men proven through an appropriate period of seminary formation. I do not anticipate the ordination of viri probati, in the sense of married men of proven virtue, according to a current use of the phrase, in the Roman Catholic Church.

The practice of the Eastern Churches regarding priestly celibacy must be understood thoroughly and deeply. It does not constitute an argument for a change in the discipline of the Latin Church. A relaxation of the discipline regarding priestly celibacy will not increase the number of vocations. A priestly vocation is a response to a divine call which includes the grace of celibacy or perpetual continence.

The reason for the lack of response to the priestly vocation is the loss of faith in our times and the lack of instruction of the young in the faith. God is certainly calling a sufficient number of young men to serve His Church. The worldliness of the culture in which we live makes it difficult for a man to hear the call.

Also, the failure of families, parish priests and other Christians to foster priestly vocations deprives those being called of an essential help in understanding and responding to the call.


“I saw a great power rise up against the Church. It plundered, devastated, and threw into confusion and disorder the vine of the Lord, having it trampled underfoot by the people and holding it up to ridicule by all nations. Having vilified celibacy and oppressed the priesthood, it had the effrontery to confiscate the Church’s property and to arrogate to itself the powers of the Holy Father, whose person and whose laws it held in contempt.

– Jeanne le Royer (Sister of the Nativity), born in 1731 and became a nun in 1755. | Catholic Prophecy by Yves Dupont

In the Wake of #AmorisLaetitia, will ‘A Simple Prayer Book’ be Revised? (A Response to Dr. Edward Peters: ‘I do not think that Francis changed any doctrines in Amoris’)

From THE MASS SIMPLY EXPLAINED in A Simple Prayer Book by the Catholic Truth Society [CTS] in His Eminence Vincent Gerard Cardinal Nichols‘ London, there is:

a-simple-prayer-book25

Who may receive Holy Communion

To receive Holy Communion, we must be “in communion” with the Church: we should be in a state of grace, keep the fast of one hour (not required for the elderly or sick), and we should prepare devoutly to receive the sacrament. The Church encourages those who are properly disposed to receive Holy Communion whenever they participate in the Mass.

Those who are living together as husband and wife but who are not married, or who are married outside the Church without permission may not receive Holy Communion.

If we are conscious of having committed a mortal sin, we should make a sacramental confession before receiving Holy Communion.


Now when

[asked] if the exhortation modified church teaching, Nichols said: “There is no question of that…The issues raised by Amoris Laetitia are not core doctrinal issues, these are about how do we live, in very traditional terms actually, everything in Amoris Laetitia is drawn from the tradition of the Church: how do we live the mercy of God and how do we enable people who feel judged, feel excluded, feel as if they have no place, to begin to explore that.” – UK cardinal says on ‘Amoris’, we follow the pope’s lead by Austen Ivereigh, February 22, 2017 | CRUX

The immediate above is from an article which occasioned Dr. Edward Peters to write:

Cardinal Vincent Nichols’ echoing of claims that Amoris laetitia changed no doctrines occasioned a question for me: Am I the only (or among the few) Amoris critics who agrees with Amoris defenders that Pope Francis made no doctrinal changes in Amoris?I am a lawyer, not a mind-reader, February 23, 2017 | In the Light of the Law – A Canon Lawyer’s Blog

Now if the Cardinal says, ‘on ‘Amoris’, we follow the pope’s lead’ and that no core doctrinal issues are raised by Amoris Laetitia and Dr. Peter ‘agrees with Amoris defenders that Pope Francis made no doctrinal changes in Amoris’, surely THEY MUST AGREE that the teaching [=doctrine] in ‘Who may receive Holy Communion’ in CTS’ ‘A Simple Prayer Book’ MUST BE REVISED in the wake of #AmorisLaetitia, for example, as follows:

Who may receive Holy Communion
(Revised in the Wake of Amoris Laetitia)

To receive Holy Communion, we must be “in communion” with the Church: we should be in a state of grace, keep the fast of one hour (not required for the elderly or sick), and we should prepare devoutly to receive the sacrament. The Church encourages those who are properly disposed to receive Holy Communion whenever they participate in the Mass.

Those who are living together as husband and wife but who are not married, or who are married outside the Church without permission may not receive Holy Communion but following Pope Francis’ Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (March 19, 2016), in certain cases, the sacraments may also be given to people who live in ‘irregular’ situations.[1],[2],[3],[4]

If we are conscious of having committed a mortal sin, we should make a sacramental confession before receiving Holy Communion.


Footnotes:

[1] 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” (Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium [24 November 2013], 44: AAS 105 [2013], 1038). I would also point out that the Eucharist “is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak” (ibid., 47: 1039). – Cf. Footnote 351 [paragraph 305], Amoris Laetitia (March 19, 2016).

[2] “Naturally this poses the question: what does the Pope say in relation to access to the sacraments for people who live in ‘irregular’ situations?”, continued the cardinal. “Pope Francis reiterates the need to discern carefully the situation in keeping with St. John Paul II’s Familiaris consortio. ‘Discernment must help to find possible ways of responding to God and growing in the midst of limits. By thinking that everything is black and white, we sometimes close off the way of grace and of growth, and discourage paths of sanctification which give glory to God’. … In the sense of this ‘via caritatis’, the Pope affirms, in a humble and simple manner, in a note that the help of the sacraments may also be given in ‘certain cases’. But for this purpose he does not offer us case studies or recipes, but instead simply reminds us of two of his famous phrases: ‘I want to remind priests that the confessional should not be a torture chamber but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy’ and the Eucharist ‘is not a prize for the perfect but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak’”. – Presentation of the post-Synodal apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia: the logic of pastoral mercy, 08.04.2016

[3] Expressing his appreciation for the ‘pastoral charity’ contained in the bishops’ document, Pope Francis insists “there are no other interpretations” of the apostolic exhortation which he wrote at the conclusion of the two synods on the family in 2014 and 2015. – Pope endorses Argentine bishops’ document on Amoris Laetitia

Cf. Francisco > Cartas > 2016 > Carta del Santo Padre Francisco a los Obispos de la Región Pastoral de Buenos Aires en Respuesta al Documento “Criterios Básicos para la Aplicación del Capítulo VIII de la Amoris Laetitia” (5 de Septiembre de 2016)

[4] And a few days later, during the flight from Lesbos to Rome, Francis once again proposed Schönborn as the main exegete of the post-synodal exhortation, he being a “great theologian [who] knows well the doctrine of the faith,” as the pope described him. To the question of whether for the divorced or remarried there now is or is not the possibility, formerly precluded, of receiving communion, the pope responded with a peremptory and for once unmistakable: “Yes. Period.” But he recommended that none other than Schönborn be consulted for a more detailed reply. – The German Option of the Argentine Pope


[UPDATE: April 6, 2017]

Pope Francis Thanks Maltese Bishops for ‘Amoris Laetitia’ Guidelines by Edward Pentin | NCR
Gratitude sent through a letter from Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, secretary general of the Synod of Bishops.


Conclusion

Cardinal Nichols, Dr. Peters, and all of Amoris defenders who say that Pope Francis Pope Francis made no doctrinal changes in Amoris, MUST ACCEPT THAT he has done so de facto even when they insist he hasn’t done so  de jure i.e., he hasn’t changed the Church teaching on the matter in, for example, the Catechism of the Catholic Church or the Code of Canon Law, etc.


Episode 12: Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke | TWTC By CHRISTOPHER R. ALTIERI | APRIL 2, 2017:

CRA: On the broader issue – because we got very quickly down to some very narrow and quite technical things – going back to the slightly broader question: we’ve seen bishops’ conferences, individual bishops, offer different interpretations of the post-Synodal Exhortation and especially [of] the things that appear to be in chapter 8. I have to say that I was sort of surprised to see whole conferences crafting more-or-less legally binding implementations of a thing that the Holy Father himself has said changes neither doctrine nor discipline. Is there a simple misunderstanding here about the right interpretative key? I know you’ve talked about this a little be, but I’d like – on a practical level – I’d like to dig into it.

RLCB: Yes, well. I travel a great deal now to different parts of the Church, and what I find everywhere is a great confusion about these matters, and division: between priests, and between bishops, and even between conferences of bishops, and this is the difficulty when people try to make change without respect for the doctrine – the constant doctrine and discipline of the Church – and so you end up with sometimes radically different practices [from] one part of the Church to another, and this cannot possibly be, because marriage and the Holy Eucharist are the same in every time and every place of the Church. So, we need to deal – right now – with all this confusion and put an end to it.

That’s one of the reasons why, together with three other Cardinals, we proposed these questions, or dubia, to the Pope: so that he could set this forth, and dispel a great deal of this confusion, because confusion is never helpful – and I don’t know what it means to say that changes neither doctrine nor discipline. Change has to follow doctrine and discipline. If it doesn’t, then in fact it is either weakening doctrine or even contradicting doctrine and discipline. Reason itself teaches us this.

CRA: That’s the thing that is consternating to me here – and I can speak as a Catholic – reading the document, and having the insistence from people who are the Holy Father’s appointed interpreters and mouthpieces on this, saying that this is development in continuity with doctrine, with standing doctrine, so we’re seeing doctrinal development in continuity with the tradition. I can see how, for a certain value of the term, we are dealing with doctrinal development. It’s developing from one doctrine into another, it would seem.

RLCB: And that can’t be. In other words, doctrinal development means that we have come to a deeper understanding of what is the constant teaching of the Church, and are able to give fuller expression to it, but it does not mean that we change the doctrine or that we go away from it, and that’s the difficulty with the people who call this interpretation of the famous chapter 8 a “doctrinal development”. If the doctrinal development means that now, in the Church, those who are living in irregular matrimonial situations may receive the Sacraments, then this isn’t doctrinal development: this is a change in the Church’s teaching.

In fact, there is a commentator in the United States, Ross Douthat – [Do-that] I think – is how you pronounce his name, but I could be pronouncing it incorrectly – and a certain bishop in the United States gave an interpretation [to Amoris 8], which was radically contrary to what the Church has always taught and practiced, and this commentator – I believe he is a convert to Catholicism, but – he just simply said [that] from the point of view of reason, this is the end of the Church’s teaching on the indissolubility of marriage – and I believe that he’s correct.

(All emphases mine)


[UPDATE: April 6, 2017]

Of course, the innovators are not fools. They realize that the de facto changes MUST translate de jure.

Cf. Reform movement says canon law must be amended by Christa Pongratz-Lippitt, Germany | LA CROIX – “The way the bishops and local Churches have reacted to “Amoris Laetitia” has been an acid test for the Church’s capacity to implement reforms.”

USCCB: God, the author of Sacred Scripture borrowed the plot of Gn 2–11 (creation, the flood, renewed creation) from creation-flood stories in Mesopotamian literature

Given

The plot of Gn 2–11 (creation, the flood, renewed creation) has been borrowed from creation-flood stories attested in Mesopotamian literature of the second and early first millennia. – Genesis introduction, USCCB > Bible

And

CCC 105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. “The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.” [DV 11].

Then one must conclude from USCCB’s Genesis – Introduction that “God, the author of Sacred Scripture borrowed the plot of Gn 2–11 (creation, the flood, renewed creation) from creation-flood stories in Mesopotamian literature.”


Cf. James Perloff’s THE WAR ON CHRISTIANITY, PART 1 and THE WAR ON CHRISTIANITY, PART II: THE ABOMINATION AND BLASPHEMY OF CHRISTIAN ZIONISM


[Update July 14, 2017]

Cf. http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/index.htm

Cf. Vatican removes Bible from its website… | Connecticut Catholic Corner


The Apostate Church | KATEHON

Raymond Cardinal Burke Reflects on DIVINE MERCY & JUSTICE

Cardinal Burke has recently concluded a 5-part series reflection on DIVINE MERCY & JUSTICE in the wake of the publication of Pope Francis’ book: The Name of God Is Mercy. He notes at this time when there is a widespread discussion of mercy, he fears there is a risk of making Mercy a slogan which lacks a profound understanding of its meaning in the Church’s constant teaching and that various difficult situations in the Church today are easily dismissed by invoking God’s mercy.

He focuses his reflection on the teaching in Sacred Scripture as it has been interpreted by Saint Thomas Aquinas and Pope Saint John Paul II and hopes that this reflection, offered during the extraordinary year of Divine Mercy will confirm the readers in their  faith and in their service to the Church. 

He concludes by stating that Mercy does not constitute an easy response to the great challenges of the Christian life in the world, a response which may ignore the demands of justice. It constitutes rather the response which engages all of our intelligence and will, according to the plan of God for us and for our world.

DivineMercy-Justice

Part 1 Opening

Recently, Pope Francis published a book-length interview which is being distributed in six languages in more than 80 countries with the title: The Name of God Is Mercy. This publication and its wide distribution manifests how divine mercy is a central subject of discussion in the Church today.

The centrality of divine mercy is certainly not new in the Church’s teaching and pastoral practice, even though some today would give the impression that it is so. At the same time, the current widespread discussion of mercy risks making it a slogan lacking a profound understanding of its meaning in the Church’s constant teaching. Sadly, for example, one hears of various difficult situations in the Church today rather easily dismissed by invoking God’s mercy.

It is therefore important that we take up a serious consideration of the nature of God’s mercy as He has revealed it to us and as it has been taught in the Magisterium. To assist such reflection, I will concentrate my attention on the teaching in the Sacred Scripture as it has been interpreted by Saint Thomas Aquinas and Pope Saint John Paul II. Then, I will relate that teaching to the natural moral law.

It is my hope that my reflection, offered during the extraordinary year of Divine Mercy will confirm you in your faith and in your service to the Church.

Reflect on the 5 parts here: Catholic Action for Faith and Family Home / Resources / Articles | DEVOTION & PIETY


Cf. Mercy: A Call to Repentance, by Pete Jermann, October 3, 2016 | Crisis Magazine