Sidebar
Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

Ep. 44 – Dr. John Joy & Dr. Michael Sirilla on “Authentic Magisterium” & the Acta Apostolicae Sedis

Guests: Dr. John Joy, Co-Founder and President of the St. Albert the Great Center for Scholastic studies, and author of the forthcoming book, On the Ordinary and Extraordinary Magisterium from Joseph Kleutgen to the Second Vatican Counciland Dr. Michael Sirilla, Director of Graduate Theology at Franciscan University of Steubenville and author of The Ideal Bishop: Aquinas’s Commentaries on the Pastoral Epistles.

Description: With the recent addition of the letter from Pope Francis affirming the Amoris Laetitia guidelines from the Buenos Aires bishops in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (AAS), many are questioning what making such a letter an “official act of the Apostolic See” really means. Today, we speak with two theologians about exactly that, and what is required from the faithful in response to such an action.

[powerpress]

Related Links:

Please remember to stop by and give us a positive review on iTunes so that more people can find our podcast!

48 thoughts on “Ep. 44 – Dr. John Joy & Dr. Michael Sirilla on “Authentic Magisterium” & the Acta Apostolicae Sedis”

  1. For the record, when I answered Yes before ditching the conversation for a date with my wife, I was answering Yes to the questions: is the faith propositional? And: is it fair to ask what the propositional content here is?

    Reply
    • John, I suspected you meant something like that and that’s why I wished you were still on when I responded. The question was complex – “Is the faith propositional?” Yes, absolutely. But Steve added into his question, “What is it that the pope said in this letter in the Argentinian bishops that I have to assent to?… Is there a proposition here to assent to?” And, as I suspect you might agree, there is no proposition on faith and/or morals in the letter to which we owe assent. Rather, it provides norms (among other things) for interpreting AL, chap. 8. So the response to the letter would be obedience rather than assent.

      In any event, it was a real joy to chat with you and Steve. Your comments were very clear and very helpful. I fear I might have muddied the waters here and there (sorry).

      Reply
      • Mike,
        I caught that when I went back and listened to the rest of the podcast. Sorry to have left you to sort it out! But thanks to you and to Steve for the chat. It was a real pleasure for me as well.

        Reply
  2. I haven’t had time to listen to the podcast yet, but I wanted to get some help on a basic point Dr. John Joy made in his recent article on this issue. Quote:

    “There should be no doubt, therefore, that when we are talking about the authentic magisterium of the pope, we are not talking about infallible teaching. The pope is only infallible when he speaks ex cathedra. And that is usually referred to as his solemn or extraordinary magisterium. Not his merely authentic magisterium.”

    Correct me if I am wrong, but from what I remember from my ecclesiology course, there IS some doubt about when we are talking about infallible teaching. When the pope is and is not speaking ex cathedra is not always and maybe often is not clear. Thus there is debate on whether the abortion issue has been decided infallibly.

    Maybe I’m missing something, but It sure SEEMS like the point of elevating the letter to the authentic magisterium is to elevate Ch. 8 to the solemn magisterium; it sure SEEMS like Francis is pretending he was speaking ex cathedra in Ch. 8.

    In the comments, Dr. John Jay made the point that in this case ultramontanism leads to sedavacantism. But it is an egregious case of begging the question to just say, whenever the pope is wrong he’s not speaking ex cathedra.

    The policy of this website is to ban calling Francis an antipope. I suppose my basic question is this: what does Francis have to do for that policy to change?

    Reply
    • “The policy of this website is to ban calling Francis an antipope. I suppose my basic question is this: what does Francis have to do for that policy to change?”

      Good question, and an up-vote from me.

      Reply
    • Hi Patrick,

      Thanks for your question. It’s a good one. My point about extreme ultramontanism was only that, if one assumes that EVERYTHING the pope officially teaches in matters of faith and morals is infallible (rather than only the things he defines ex cathedra), then one will tend to conclude that the pope is not really the pope anytime he officially teaches error. But Catholic theology has traditionally recognized that a pope could officially teach error (even heresy) when he is not speaking ex cathedra. Sedevacantists frequently miss this point, that it is possible (according to traditional Catholic theology) for a pope to teach heresy, even formal heresy, even in an official capacity. What is not possible, according to the same traditional Catholic theology, is for the pope to be a heretic (not quite the same thing) and still to remain pope, since a heretic is not a member of the Church and the pope is necessarily a member of the Church.

      This is where I think people often get confused: if a pope were to deny a dogma of the faith in his official teaching that would be to teach FORMAL heresy, but that would make him only a MATERIAL heretic. To become a FORMAL heretic one must ALSO persist obstinately in one’s heresy after due correction. What would happen at that point is a matter of speculation in traditional Catholic theology, but whatever the answer, it does hinge upon that point of formal correction.

      To your other point: you are right that there may sometimes be doubt about whether a particular instance of papal teaching counts as ex cathedra. But what I meant to say was only that there should be no doubt about whether the infallibility of the pope extends beyond his solemn teaching to cover all of his authentic teaching. It doesn’t. The pope speaks authoritatively (i.e. his authentic magisterium) whenever he officially TEACHES on matters of faith or morals. But he speaks infallibly only when he officially DEFINES a matter of faith or morals. There’s a huge difference between teaching and defining, and there is absolutely no evidence (nor have I yet seen anyone even attempt to argue) that Pope Francis DEFINED anything in AL itself or in his letter endorsing the BA guidelines, or in those guidelines.

      Since the authentic magisterium is a much broader category than the solemn magisterium, saying that something is authentic magisterium does not imply that it belongs to the solemn magisterium any more than saying that something is an animal implies that it is human. That is, all solemn teaching is also authentic, but not all authentic teaching is also solemn; just as all humans are animals, but not all animals are humans.

      I hope that helps!

      Reply
      • Yes thanks that’s very helpful.

        The distinction between teaching and defining is one I sort of vaguely had in mind, which is why I said it seems like elevating the letter to the authentic magisterium was meant to elevate Ch. 8 to the solemn magisterium. That is to say, the letter sort of defines the chapter when the issue was precisely the chapters ambiguity. I guess that is giving the letter to much credit.

        Reply
        • Patrick,
          I think I can see what you’re getting at, but the term ‘define’ has a special theological sense in this context that it quite distinct from the normal sense of defining terms, as in giving a definition that makes clear what something means in yhr dictionary. ‘Define’ in this context is taken from the Latin root ‘finis’ (meaning end or limit) and it refers to the act of establishing the limits (in an absolute or *definitive* way) of what must or must not be believed. And so a crucial element of a solemn definition is the manifest intention of requiring an absolute assent of faith. So for a pope to say, “Doctrine X is true” is an act of teaching (authentic magisterium). To say “Doctrine X is certainly true and absolutely must be held as such by all faithful Catholics” is an act of definition (solemn magisterium).

          Reply
          • Thanks, I added this after your reply.

            If everything hinges on a formal correction then the question [of whether or not he was pretending to speak ex cathedra] doesn’t matter. In the back of my mind I had this idea that what is holding up the formal correction is a question of whether ch. 8 changes anything, which could only be done if he was claiming to speak ex cathedra.

    • Our policy is designed to stop the unwashed masses, ourselves included, from jumping to conclusions we have no authority to declare with certitude. In other words: we’ve made it a rule not to allow our commenters to write checks with their mouths that their state in life can’t cash.

      But Francis has absolutely done things that make me suspect he may be an anti-pope. I can say that here without breaking the rules. I have my suspicions, I have my reasons, and the only thing I’m not going to do is tell you “That Bergoglio is clearly a heretic, an apostate, and an anti-pope!”

      I don’t think there’s any question that he is a material heretic. If you can’t pin him on anything else, his words on the death penalty alone would put him in the category of having publicly denied an infallible teaching. But as John Joy says in his comment below, that doesn’t make him a formal heretic. He needs to be confronted, to be obdurate, etc.

      I also think that there are real questions about the conclave. Reading The Dictator Pope is the first time I’ve seen it alleged that Bergoglio knew Benedict was abdicating before it was announced (and was super excited about it, which indicates intent), and it also indicated that he was a participant in the collusion of the St. Gallen Mafia. I know there are high prelates in the Church who share my suspicions on this point.

      But again, these are just suspicions. It would certainly be wonderful if his election could be proved invalid, because it would necessitate the nullification of all of his official acts since March 13, 2013.

      But we need to wait for the Church to get there, since there’s nothing we can do about it from our end but speculate.

      Reply
      • Thanks, Steve. This is it pretty much in a nutshell. Both yours and Dr Joy’s explanation are excellent in putting all this in perspective. All we can do is speculate. My state in life certainly does not put me in a position, thankfully I might add, of judging. Having said that, the line gets hard to see sometime especially with PF knowing full well that his words no matter what the context carry weight.

        Reply
      • We have a very long history of plans being formally in place prior to a conclave.

        For instance, it was an open secret that the plan was for John 23rd to be place holder Pope while Montini was marinating in Milan.

        And then there was Cardinal Pole who was elected in a conclave but then refused the election and another was elected a day or so later.

        Me and Thee both know Francis is a heretic but there is little to be done as the VAST majority of Cardinals and Bishops are heretics/modernists and even Cardinal ratzinger was automatically excommunicated for opposing the Popes infallible teachings of the 19th and 20th centuries

        The heresies of Ratzinger are FAR worse than those of Francis.

        Reply
  3. Ok, so how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? This discussion, while interesting, does not go to the heart of the problem for US, here in pew-land.

    What Francis SAID in AL is wrong. What the Bishops SAID in their description of how this would play out in their diocese is WRONG. The letter Francis wrote to these Bishops confirmed the WRONG statements.

    Now to me all discussion of where this letter fits into the Authentic Magisterium of the Church is useless. We MUST continually state that this teaching, whatever level you give to it, is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. Do we not go to first principles? The next council held who knows how far in the future will debate and decide to repeal Vatican II, and all of the erroneous teaching of JPII, Benedict, and Francis.

    Most people who will listen to this podcast won’t come away with anything to hold on to. So what if the letter fits into this or that category. In the meantime the evil spreads. I guess I’m getting a bit steamed about all this, but isn’t it time to leave this sort of discussion and start developing a concrete plan to tell the Truth and nothing but that?

    Men like these on the podcast have a certain amount of power by right of their respective positions, and by their education and therefore they are our knights – the challenge must be brought into the pew, into the Sanctuary, into the Bishops palace.

    Show us what to DO, what to SAY, how to phrase it all, where to take this Truth. Enough with the picking over of magisterial nits. If this podcast was for the learned and was to serve as a theological discussion it isn’t for OnePeterFive’s main audience.

    Steve, I love your blog and I have learned a great deal, but HELP US. It’s TIME. NOW. We need help with organized resistance. That discussion is what we need. I apologize ahead of time if I sound a tad hysterical, but I personally need concrete help in what I’m to do in my diocese and I need to hear what others are DOING to turn parishes around one at a time.

    Reply
    • Barbara, I wanted to do this podcast because the law matters, even if the current occupant of Peter’s throne doesn’t think so. When this mess is all sorted out, these questions are going to have to be parsed carefully if we don’t get the benefit of a complete nullification of the acts of this pontificate.

      I would love to take further steps, but as of yet, no one seems to know what those entail. What power do the laity truly have in a Church that is hierarchical? We can confront error all day long, but we can’t call a council. Up until now, we’ve done the best we can to simply remind the faithful of what the Church really teaches, and what the limits are on papal authority. The point of this podcast is to help Catholics right now, in December 2017, to be able to grasp what this action really means based on what we know today. And as far as we know today, Francis is still the pope, no formal correction or deposition is forthcoming, and we have to live with and grapple with whether he’s gone and done something that should be impossible under the auspices of Christ’s promises to the Church.

      Is it overly technical? In a sense, yes. But as my first and most inspirational theology teacher used to say to our class, “Truth is a matter of semantics!”

      I am asking God for guidance on what else I can do. On what He wants me to do. But to be totally honest, I’m just as befuddled as you are.

      Reply
      • Does anyone really believe that, if called at this time, a Vatican iii would not ratify everything this Pope has done, and worse? He and likeminded modernist have total control of the heirachy of the Church. Those who oppose his “teaching” are a shrinking minority. As he has said , he makes his teachings perfectly clear. Look for the program of Father James Martin to be next enshrined. Do not think that Bergolio will hesitate to involve the infallible magisterium if he need to. He wisely realizes this is not necessary for him to change the dogmas of the Faith. For reasons that perplex me JP ll and Benedict appointed modernist in many cases. Now foxes fill the henhouse, and it just gets worse. Arguing about the rank to give his heretical teaching will not solve the problem. The great majority of the Catholic World sees no problem. I see no answer, but fear for what I may have inflicted on my descendants by converting over thirty years ago. But, “to whom shall we go?”

        Reply
      • Thanks Steve. I do get a little freaked out by all this. I’m a tad childish in that I want to rush out into the streets screaming and tearing my hair. I’m so afraid that many, many Catholics will perish because there is no one to shout the Truth to them. But as has been said many times on this site, each of us must stay in the state of grace to the best of our ability, pray and sacrifice for the conversion of sinners, and trust in Our Lord.

        I forget sometimes that HE knows everything. Nothing escapes His sight, and nothing will escape His judgement. I’m one of those who climbs up onto the Seat of Judgement, in place of Our Lord Who is not moving fast enough, and blasts away…God bless you and your family at this time of year when so much is out there to disturb our Christmas peace.

        Reply
        • No. I do not think you are childish Barbara. And please do not apologize for wanting to rush out into the streets and scream. You are correct! No one is.screaming or shouting the Truth, except for some very, very courageous. Yes, I understand, we all want to stay in a state of “grace”, stay ” peaceful and all that.
          I do as well! But, I am just so sick of the legalize in this Church………sick of the worrying about being seen as less as ” intellectual” for not following the ” the law” of this false Church.
          We are all so afraid as being seen as not being in ” unity” with the Church.

          For every theologian that says this garbage is not authentic Magisterium, there is another one who says, ” well, I don’t know about that” or a cardinal who will say it IS Magisterium, etc.
          And someone needs to call out this rascal, Bergoglio and bring to front his mechanism for ” changing” Church teaching. That is what he is doing, for all purposes.

          ” Liar, liar, pants on fire, Bergoglio………You cannot change Church teaching, what our Lord said regarding divorce and remarriage……..And wake up faithful………this tyrant is trying to do so!”

          Father Weinandy saw this, through all his great training as theologian…..He became God’s priest first, and in his own way, screamed, ” NO”, to the facade……He became simple and faithful by the grace of God.

          I am in no mood for legalize. I have great respect for Steve and many here. But, I am done with “that’.

          So, I will ask the question of my priests, ” Do you renounce the A.L.?” And if my ears hear their itchy words, ” Well, now, there is some good in it and remember Church teaching has not changed……..”
          I shall be very heartbroken.

          Reply
          • Couldn’t agree with you more cs!!! (“I am in no mood for legalize.”) Even though this stunt of his is a ‘non issue’ as far as what kind of ‘magisterium’ it is or is not and what kind of assent we must or must not give to it is always going to be ‘debatable’. Everyone knows (or at least should know) by now that the ‘debate’ will continue among theologians as to the degree of adherence is involved and the type of magisterial teaching it is, etc,etc. The bottom line is, if it goes against past teaching of the Church, it is null and void. To me, it’s as simple as that. But………you will absolutely have Bishops and especially with the amount of modernist Bishops that we are now ‘graced with’ that will demand adherence to this heresy from their priests. I’m sure people can see this coming. It’s not so much the people in the pews that will be ‘directly’ affected except for those in irregular situations, but it will be our priests that some of them will strong arm into heresy, or at least try to. Seriously, we are now watching as Bergoglio burns the Church to the ground……..SLOWLY BUT SURELY.

    • I think we did say at least some things that the faithful, ourselves included, ought to do – very solid things that the listeners can hold on to:

      1. Most importantly, in my opinion, we need to do penance and pray (including no less than 15 minutes of mental prayer) daily for ourselves, for the pope, and for the Church (stated at the end of the discussion) .

      2. If you are in a state of mortal sin, you have to do whatever it takes – even to the point of death, if necessary – to repent and make the necessary life changes in order to follow Christ (that was the point of my discussion with Steve about the suffering involved in conversions).

      3. If you are a teacher of the faith by profession, you need to adhere to infallibly defined dogmas, like the one at Trent cited by Steve, that says God’s law is not impossible to obey (even though it may be very painful to do so).

      4. Realize that non-definitive (i.e., “merely authentic”) teachings of the Magisterium must be read in light of definitive teachings; ambiguous teachings in light of unambiguous teachings; and if there’s a conflict, you must adhere to the definitive and unambiguous teachings. John and I discussed this and I mentioned an excellent article, “Creeping Infallibility,” by Dr. Jessica Murdoch (Theology, Villanova U.) that explains these principles excellently: https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2016/09/creeping-infallibility

      Surely there are other things to be done as well.

      Reply
  4. This is not difficult. Adultery is an intrinsic evil and there are no circumstances that can excuse it – ever. No amount of “discernment” can approve of mortal sin. Compound that by not only approving adultery “in certain cases” but promoting sacrilegious reception of Holy Communion as well. And there is more – the constant teaching of the Church has always said no to those. For those that say it’s only pastoral have clearly separated practice from doctrine, certainly with the intent to “get around” doctrine while appearing it won’t. Cardinal Muller, in one of the few things that he said correctly, indicates that separation of pastoral practice from doctrine is a “subtle Christological heresy.” Stop the fear and get some fortitude.This is heresy being officially published in the AAS by a pertinacious heretic who not only refuses to back down but now pushes this approval of mortal sin as something that we must “obey” as “official Magisterium.” Francis has officially answered the Dubia indirectly now, and has doubled down on his promotion of mortal sin. It’s time for the prelates to call an “Imperfect Council” and remove Francis.

    No matter what anyone says, obey the truth of the TRUE Magisterium, which is the constant teaching of the Church. We are NEVER required to obey sin or acceptance of sin.

    Reply
  5. The Church is facing a crisis. Opposition to statements and positions of Pope Francis are abundant and, at least in many cases, justified. There is a real danger, however, in all the related debates, that Papal authority itself is being undermined. How will we reconcile opposition to some of his statements with maintaining belief in Papal authority? Will Catholics in the future just dismiss papal statements and the papacy itself – as just another set of opinions? I certainly don’t think that the solution is to be found in just accepting whatever he says – in order to preserve papal authority. But, as I said, the Church is facing a crisis.
    It sometimes seems that Pope Francis is deliberately trying to undermine Catholic belief in the papacy by putting forth positions which conservative Catholics will not be able to accept, and will be forced to have to, in fact, deny. The abandonment of papal primacy would be a great victory for two of the obvious items on Francis’ agenda, ecumenism and collegiality.
    Many Catholics are finding themselves cornered into rejecting Francis as a valid Pope. That is one possible approach, but it will not entirely end the present confusion. The entire question of the nature of the papacy has been thrown wide open by this chaotic situation, and this is a problem that will not go away at any time in the near future.

    Reply
    • Doesn’t this go to show the subtle nature of a lot of the damage Francis is causing? How many Catholics who have been so poorly taught even understand half the criticism of this pope?

      We have become nations of simpletons when the least subtlety is too much. Jordan Peterson, a Canadian professor at the University of Toronto has been speaking a lot lately about how Marxism has morphed into Post Modernism, with the morphed theory of “the oppressed vs the oppressor” replacing the older class struggle of the true Marxist.

      Francis, to my mind a Post Modernist, pits the oppressed against the oppressors, and HE gets to say which group belongs in which camp – and that changes daily. The only constant is that anything or anybody “old fashioned or traditional” is the oppressor, and the poor, marginalized masses are the oppressed. Anyone who says he or she is oppressed is oppressed and anyone who states this is patent nonsense is automatically an oppressor.

      Reply
  6. I listened to the entire podcast.

    What still disturbs me are statements and related sentiments along the lines of “We don’t have to deal it with.” Admittedly in a sense this is true, because the laity don’t have teaching authority in the Church. But rhetorically, such statements come across like the message we are getting from people like Fr. Z and the Catholic Answers crowd, which is the old “move along; there’s nothing to see here.” (Although different in nature, cf. the sex abuse crisis.) Or even worse, they can come across as a condescending “you lay people don’t need to worry your pretty little heads about such matters.” (Again, cf. the sex abuse crisis.) I would echo what some of the other posters have pointed out, that spending an hour attempting to (unsuccessfully) explain why the Pope might be “off the hook” in this matter is probably not all that helpful.

    Also, these and similar discussions always seem to take place in an absolute and total vacuum vis-a-vis actual praxis in the U.S. Does what the Pope has done encourage or curb abuses practiced under the “internal forum”? I don’t think any hairsplitting needs to be done in order to answer that question.

    Lay people can begin identifying and then challenging their golden calves—which all too often come in the form of celebrity priests and bishops and/or certain educational institutions—who have tons of shiny objects at their disposal to distract us from this issue. We do “have to deal with it.”

    Reply
    • I’d argue that the only people being let off the hook here is us. The faithful. I wanted to ask these questions because they’re the questions I’m seeing asked. “What does it mean?” “How authoritative is it?” “Does it require assent?” “Can it even be done considering the content?” etc.

      Certainly not a discussion for everyone, but for those who want to know, I hope it was of some benefit.

      As for the rest, this papacy will be condemned one way or another. It’s just a matter of time.

      Reply
    • davend, I’m sorry to read that you got that impression. I assure you we didn’t intend any condescension in the least. May I ask, what specifically was said that gave you that impression?

      When Steve asked the question: What are we to do about this? Both a short and a long answer were given. The short answer was given partly in jest and partly in frustration: most of us don’t have to deal with this (meaning in any official capacity). The longer answer was spread throughout the rest of the discussion:

      first, we have to understand that the letter is a matter of discipline, not doctrine, and that it points to AL chap 8;

      second, that non-definitive and/or ambiguous statements must be read in light of definitive and unambiguous statements;

      third, that we must adhere to the infallible and traditional teaching of the Church, even when it’s painful to do so;

      and fourth, that all of us need to earnestly incorporate daily penance and prayer for this situation.

      There are other things to be done as well, but this is a pretty solid list of things to do for starters and, I believe, it will help folks to understand the status and force of the letter and AL.

      Reply
      • Since you asked, here’s how the podcast comes across as condescending, at least to me. The post begins with a general

        “obviously this is a contentious issue” and that this has “troubled a lot of people.” Digging a bit more at this people-are-saying type of statement, the vast majority of the people who have been troubled by these developments are *lay* people. If bishops (especially) have been concerned by all this, they are being awfully quiet about it.

        The next rhetorical move—and a great many popular bloggers and apologists employ this—is explaining in excruciating technical detail why people, in essence, *shouldn’t* be disturbed and that their sense of outrage is somehow misguided or misplaced or invalid—regular Catholics just don’t (i.e. can’t) understand. Maybe you don’t say that in so many words, but this is how your statements come across. Further, you’ve succinctly reiterated the reasons above why people shouldn’t be disturbed. And as I already mentioned, priests like Fr. Z and groups like Catholic Answers are masters at this tactic.

        But working so extremely hard to dig up confusing, technical reasons why we don’t owe the Pope’s perspective our assent in this matter, obfuscates the real issue. The Pope’s actions are simply a bad band-aid covering up a systemic moral problem that’s existed in the Church since the 1990s, if not longer. Why can’t we just admit that?

        I think Catholics who are concerned about morality already know in their hearts that they don’t owe this Pope’s perspective on adultery the time of day. Their actual concern, at least in my view, is that the Pope is doing a moral end-run around the Ten Commandments and the very clear teachings of Jesus in order to validate long-standing, blatant mis-administration of Holy Communion in the parish, and moreover, that the bishops are saying nothing, more or less, about what the Pope is doing—likely because the Pope is helping to clear them of wrongdoing in this matter. Honestly, the minutiae of the paperwork involved in carrying out this plot isn’t all that important or interesting to me. What’s happening is just wrong. I already know it’s wrong. As another poster mentioned, “this isn’t hard.”

        Lay people deserve to be validated in their outrage (I think) rather than be told that they don’t really understand what’s happening and that the theologians will explain it all to them—but then just leave everyone hanging at the end of the podcast.

        People know. This is bad. Catholics should be very disturbed.

        Reply
        • You’re mistaken. We are all very disturbed and that was expressed throughout. I did so, e.g., when I repeatedly said “It’s heartbreaking.” It’s like we’re listening to different podcasts.

          In any event, let me clear all of this up right here and now and say that we are all very disturbed and the faithful ought to be disturbed and they should respond by praying, doing penance, and adhering to the infallible teachings of Christ and the Magisterium. There really isn’t more I can say than that.

          Reply
          • For what it’s worth Michael, I agree with you totally. I didn’t really get any condescending tone from any of you throughout the podcast. What I am looking at is the ‘fallout’ from this latest stunt. Theologians are going to ‘differ’ in their opinion as to what kind of and of what degree of magisterial ‘teaching’ this is or is not, and Bishops are going to listen to who it is they want to listen to. To me anyway, herein lies the crux of the problem. Nope, it’s not really going to have any direct affect on the laity, except for those in these ‘irregular’ situations, and how many really are in these situations that want to come back to the sacraments? A.L. is a Trojan Horse for allowing everyone and anyone to receive the sacraments, but…….that’s a discussion for another post and another day.

            Anyway, thank you for your faithfulness and for enlightening us in these dark times in the Church.

  7. Whatever. I give up.

    How many more theologians must I read or listen to, that repeat the same song, yet, do not seem to get the ” tune”?

    Reply
  8. QUESTION for Drs. Joy & Sirilla: Is it possible to obey Pope Francis’s direction that AL should be interpreted as the Buenos Aires bishops do specifically because the council of Trent said that there is no one who cannot obey the commandment to live chastely? I believe that the purpose of AL and the Buenos Aires interpretation is to mislead the divorce and remarried into receiving communion, but could the Pope have avoided error because the factual situation upon which the exception is based does not exist? There are no couples for which continence is not feasible. It would be like saying men who do not have original sin do not need justification. Well, yes, but that’s irrelevant to the Church’s mission because they do not exist.

    Reply
  9. I listened to this excellent podcast and thankful to Steve Skojec for presenting it. My difference with Dr Joy and Dr Sirilla is that the important differences in degrees of Authentic Magisterium or simply put Magisterial teaching is best delineated by the Prefect for the CDF Josef Ratzinger in the Doctrinal Commentary on Ad Tuendam Fidem. I don’t perceive the permission given by the Pontiff for the Argentine Bishops to possibly offer communion for D&R who cannot refrain from sexual relations as “disciplinary” belonging to Proposition Three of the Doctrinal Commentary. The reason is it effectively dissolves indissolubility by practice. Any Magisterial expression related to the Deposit of Faith [Proposition One in the Commentary] such as indissolubility of marriage belongs within the requirements of Proposition Two and must either be solemnly pronounced or delivered as sententia definitive intenda, that is when the intention is definitively stated. Although the letters indicate intention that Doctrinal definition of validity of Magisterial expression isn’t found in the Pontiff’s letter of affirmation nor can it be assumed in tandem with the Argentine request. The idea that such a permission is selective and limited to a provincial form of dissemination and thus not a danger to The Gates of Hell Prevailing is speculation. Rather the entire Church is now aware of what is largely considered universal doctrine with a proviso of communion for D&R solely on the presumption “they are unable to refrain from sexual relations”–as if God would not provide the grace to abstain, and which permission effectively dissolves indissolubility since it applies universally.

    Reply
  10. With regard to communion for adulterers, doesn’t canon law allow under certain circumstances, communion for non-Catholics (like eastern Christians). But they’re basically living in a state of objective sin against the faith. Yet I haven’t read any Catholics at all concerned about that.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...