Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

Theologians Propose to Re-Write Catechism & Canon Law in Light of Amoris Laetitia


An article published on 12 June by — the Catholic news agency partly funded by the Austrian bishops — has received a great deal of attention in Europe. Two Italian websites — La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana and Il Timone — have both reported on it. So has the Austrian Catholic website The reason for all the attention is that the article at includes several important statements from progressive Catholic theologians who have unmistakably read Amoris Laetitia in a very lax and sentimentally liberal way.

One statement is taken from the Swiss theologian Eva-Maria Faber, who, in a paper written together with a colleague (Martin Lintner), proposes to adapt the Catholic Catechism to the new developments as proposed by the papal exhortation Amoris Laetitia. Additionally, Rainer Bucher — another theologian from Graz, Austria — proposes now to “re-contextualize moral theology and canon law” in light of Amoris Laetitia. According to kathpress, another theologian, Stephan Goertz — a strong defender of homosexuality — sees that Amoris Laetitia has “made free [sic] the path for different interpretations in the local dioceses.”

According to kathpress, another German theologian with a well-known progressive background, Klaus Lüdicke, stresses that Pope Francis has now re-defined “irregular relationships” in general, saying that they cannot per se be any longer regarded as gravely sinful. He has therefore come to the conclusion that all these couples – to include the “remarried” divorcees – should now be permitted access to the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Faber and Lintner reached a similar conclusion, claiming that no “irregular situation” can per se be described as being gravely sinful – according to Amoris Laetitia itself.

Important to remember in this context is that Professor Faber of Chur, Switzerland, was one of the speakers at the controversial May 2015 “Shadow Council” at the Gregorian University in Rome. As German Catholic author Mathias von Gersdorff says, Professor Faber had previously written a book where she puts in doubt the indissolubility of marriage. Martin Lintner had also caused a stir when he was interviewed last summer by the German branch of Vatican Radio, which first published the interview accompanied by a picture showing two women kissing. It was Rome Correspondent Edward Pentin who first reported on the story to the English-speaking world. In the interview, Lintner proposed that it was time to “rethink the Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality.”

The Austrian Catholic news agency’s editorial tone on these issues is noticeably neutral, concluding with these words: “To sum it up: after Amoris Laetitia, it is now up to the local churches and Bishops’ Conferences to draw their own pastoral conclusions from the document.” By way of contrast, La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana offers commentary that is more faithful to the Catholic Church’s own traditional moral teaching. The latter publication questions whether the “novelty of Amoris Laetitia” – which seems to be pastoral, but might also actually lead to a doctrinal “revision of the Catechism” – has, after all, anything to do with a “harmonious development.”

119 thoughts on “Theologians Propose to Re-Write Catechism & Canon Law in Light of Amoris Laetitia”

  1. I was waiting for this to happen. It will be inevitable once the Lund commemorations are complete, since the catechism of the CC will then have to conform to the Protestant & Orthodox catechism, just as our Holy Mass has been turned around in order to conform to their Eucharistic Service. Our apologetics also and church history will eventually become inane. I cannot understand how our Hierarchy doesn’t apparently see schism coming at a gallop.

    • It almost seems that a ‘schism’ is what they are working toward as odd and backwards as that seems. Allowing each diocese or geographic area to implement AL the way they see fit?

      • It mirrors the Protestant ‘afraid to offend’ attitude which is in keeping with the NWO which PF & cronies promote. It certainly isn’t Catholic/Universal, since dividing the Church into geographical areas is splitting it from its centre Rome and thus making it into individual monarchies whose unelected autocratic members rule absolutely. The farcical notion of a particular sin being deemed mortal in one area and not in a neighbouring one will be mundanely acceptable soon.

        • Cultural relativism is the norm already. Hasn’t Bergoglio pushed really hard for cultural sensitivity? Haven’t Jesuits adapted the faith to different milieus from the beginning? Now they are at the finish line. We are going to have their universal, one world religion, even if they have to marginalize, mock, vilify, maybe even eliminate us.
          The end justifies the means. And the end is glorious. A glorious (yet short-lives) triumph of Lucifer.

          • Don’t you believe that we all have had enough of this claptrap? With Lund coming in October & Fatima next May, Catholics will have to decide which side they are on. No-one will be able to jog along any longer – it’s Lucifer or God. I cannot see any way to get back to the REAL CC except by complete Hierarchal cleansing & exorcising of the Vatican where all this deviance emanates from and the sooner it’s done the better for all of us.

      • The biggest problem has been over-centralization creeping in for centuries since Trent. Before Trent, Rome not only tolerated liturgical variation in her own Rite (see the Uses in Paris, Sarum, etc) but specifically legislated to allow them to continue to exist (Ambrosian, Mozarbic, etc) but adopted them into her own (most notable with the Gallican Rite). St. Gregory the Great urged St. Augustine of Canterbury to not restrict himself to Roman usages and encouraged him to adopt whatever was best in the different churches.

        This was quite unlike the East, where the Byzantine way was the only way and to diverge was not only to go into schism and then heresy, but also conflated treason against Caesar and the state.

        Recall also that before the trial system of Urban VIII, the bishop of each diocese could choose who their own local saints were (though canonization was reserved to Rome in the 13th century, the universal calendar was never obligatory). To go back to Rome and the Holy Father, in particular, this is the reason for the papal mandate required for episcopal consecration – and the Pope’s chief duty as the guardian of the deposit of the faith.

        Too many Popes throughout the last century, even those unimpeachable on orthodoxy or tradition have nevertheless felt the need to put their mark in either the liturgy or Canon Law or both instead of just passing on what they received.

  2. While I am all for bringing out God’s love for us all and Jesus as the ultimate and forever perfect gift of this love, I wonder if changing catechism is just changing what we know/understand as the Laws given to us by God as a pure human endeavor for human goals. Does the church have a problem expressing this love God holds for us within the confines of what has been revealed by God as to what is His desire for us on how to live? Is not sex before marriage a sin any more? Or are we to believe that cohabitating couples are chaste? Are they at least engaged? This pope has caused so much confusion, and what is interesting is like the executive orders from the president, the pope seems to think he is right about everything and speaks/does things unilaterally. He does not come out and speak clearly about how these changes can be made while following what God has ordained for us.

    I fully understand the desire to bring people, faithful people fully into the church, I understand that the environment is in need and needs to be respected, I understand the need to help people like immigrants/migrants in dire need like we see with those fleeing war, etc. but I must say something does not add up here either. There is something missing in all this that I cannot put my finger on as well.

    • Pope St. Pius X predicted all of this a century ago. All you have to do is read Pascendi dominici gregis to see that the modernists—who, among other positions, deny the inerrancy of Scripture, think that truth is a relative proposition, and believe that dogma and morals can evolve over time—Pius tried to warn us about have thoroughly infested the Church hierarchy. The language about “bringing people into the Church” is code for “changing Truth”, because, according to the modernists, Catholic Truth is “too hard” for modern man. Once you acknowledge this reality, then this pontificate begins to make perfect, if not horrifying, sense.

  3. Why not just be Episcopalians or Lutherans and do whatever the hell you want and change ‘church teachings’ from year to year so as to compromise with the prince of this world and be what the world wants: sinful.

    • Because the Episcopalians and the Lutherans don’t have the power, the wealth, or the political clout the Catholic Church possesses. Do you think Kasper would have nearly the influence he presently enjoys if he openly defected to Lutheranism?

      These men are cowards. They pay lip service to the Church, while simultaneously working overtime to try and destroy her from the inside. At least non-Catholic Christians are honest about their disagreements with the Faith, unlike so many of our “Catholic” theologians, bishops, and cardinals.

    • Because they will not rest until all opposition to the Sexual Revolution is annihilated, or failing that, so marginalized and discredited that it can no longer be detected in society at large.

    • Because the first tenet of liberalism is to infiltrate into that which is good (in this case the Holy Catholic Church) and destroy it from within. It is their demonic way.

    • That’s toooo easy and honest. For they are already grossly sinful while the latter they can never be. We are watching Satan in the Church.

    • He and the innovators are welcome to join them but leave God’s Church alone. It is all very diabolical, must be, because we know where those ecclesial communities have ended up.

    • Why bother with them. They sold out to the prince of the world.
      The only one worth destroying is the Church of the Lord.
      How mightily is the evil one at work.

  4. Why not just save time and issue an additional paragraph that says “all the contents within should be interpreted in the light of each individual’s conscience.”

    • Just like the progressives have thus far acted as if the Church only came into being circa 1965, the new paradigm will be that everything that preceded Francis’s pontificate is null and void. That’s the modernist MO to a T.

      • If I had a dollar for every reference to Vatican 2 I hear/see, I could retire. If I had a dollar for every reference to any previous council I’d have like five bucks. Every time I hear a priest, theologian or talking head cite Vatican 2, I want to ask them if they have ever studied any earlier councils, you know, the ones that actually dealt with dogma.

  5. These changes should be resisted, of course.

    But all Catholics ready to embrace the eternal teachings of the Church in their greatest clarity and simplicity should bear in mind the words of then-Cardinal Ratzinger on the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X: “The faith, as such, is always the same. Therefore, St. Pius X’s catechism always retains its value, … There can be persons or groups that feel more comfortable with St. Pius X’s catechism. … that Catechism stemmed from a text that was prepared by the Pope himself [Pius X] when he was Bishop of Mantua. The text was the fruit of the personal catechetical experience of Giuseppe Sarto, whose characteristics were simplicity of exposition and depth of content. Also because of this, St. Pius X’s catechism might have friends in the future.”

  6. There are some codexes in the library there at the Vatican he’ll have to take a quill to. And it makes one wonder if Francis knows how to edit illuminated manuscripts.

    • I don’t think that God will allow him to edit Holy Scripture. If I remember correctly, St . John provinces a curse on those who would add or subtract from the Apocalypse, and the same can be said of Scripture in general.

  7. This is such silliness. We all know – because they told us so, that Amoris Laetitia changes nothing, it is merely a difference in tone.

    God help me, I am struggling. I have always hated duplicity. The Catholic Church was the last place I expected to see remake duplicity into the way of… the encounter, the language of moral discourse. There are no irregular unions, and marriages are for the most part invalid. There are no heresies, and faithful Catholics are – without exception, evil heretics.

    Morality, ooops, who talks about morality but legalistic Pharisees? Just do as you will, and let your internal forum be your only judge.

    God help me, I despise these churchmen.

    My question remains: Is it possible that these liars who deceive and mislead and offer false mercy and a false sense of safety to the dumbed-down, demoralized sheeple, will in fact lead them to hell? Does God really allow it?

    • They told us that the documents of Vatican II would not change doctrine – it says so on the Vatican’s website. Yet look what has happened to the Church.

      AL doesn’t change doctrine – but it changes the way it is ‘pastorally applied’ – the fallout will be similar to VII, only worse this time around.

      These ‘theologians’ who ‘propose’ to rewrite the Catechism have already rewritten it years ago – they were simply waiting for ‘their man’ to be installed as Pope and for him to issue AL as a formal document. Everything you see now was already in train decades ago.

      • AL states and teaches a different doctrine. It doesn’t change the Doctrine of the Church, i.e. Church Teaching, but it has placed alongside the unchangeable Church Doctrine/Teaching something foreign to that unchangeable Church Doctrine/Teaching.

        • As did Vatican II – that’s my point. You don’t have to actually change De fide doctrine in order to wreak massive damage upon the Church.

          And AL, likewise, is set to wreak massive damage – this time close to terminal.

          • Nothing in the 16 Vatican II documents themselves [] is contrary to perennial Church Teaching and Doctrine. A council under a pope is infallible. The innovations and damage came post Vatican II. Pope Francis in AL was not speaking ex-cathedra as per the the requirements of the dogma of The Vatican Council [1869-1870]. No infallibility protection here and hence the manifest errors [not that they had to be. Holy Spirit and Church’s assistance and Teaching were there for him to avail himself to should he have chosen to].

          • I KNOW what the status of the Council was – however, infallible or not, certain VII documents (that were NOT supposed to change doctrine) were ‘pastorally applied’ in a manner which emptied churches, wrecked tens of thousands of vocations, destroyed orders by the bushel and created mass confusion.

            AL is similar, in that although it doesn’t change De fide doctrine, the fallout will be similar to VII, only worse this time around.

          • Not only must all of the conditions for infallibility of a council or papal pronouncement be met for protection from error, but prior doctrine cannot be re-defined or re-interpreted as different from its original meaning. If a council formally defines and declares a matter of faith and morals which contradicts prior doctrine, the pronouncement ipso facto looses its infallibility. The past cannot be changed, they haven’t the power to change it, by their own definitions.

          • Infallibility

            In general, exemption or immunity from liability to error or failure; in particular in theological usage, the supernatural prerogative by which the Church of Christ is, by a special Divine assistance, preserved from liability to error in her definitive dogmatic teaching regarding matters of faith and morals. – Catholic Encyclopedia > I > Infallibility []

            From the same article the organs of infallibility in the Church are:
            a) the bishops dispersed throughout the world in union with the Holy See;
            b) ecumenical councils under the headship of the pope; and
            c) the pope himself separately, when he speaks ex-cathedra.
            The understanding here is that even if if these organs of infallibility wanted to define an erroneous dogmatic teaching regarding matters of faith and morals, they would be unable to do it, because of charism of infallibility Christ endowed his Church with [cf. CCC 890 –, his special Divine assistance will preserve them from liability to error.

          • All that is true. But this applies to declarations which have no precedent; here they are protected from error by the Holy Ghost. Regarding those doctrines which have already been infallibly declared, the faithful are protected from the error of future declarations opposed to those doctrines by the Church herself, not by a supernatural imposition. It is the previously declared unchangeable dogma that protects us. I ran this by one of the theologians at Fr. Brian Harrison’s Roman Theological Forum. He said it’s correct. And to my mind, this shows a common misunderstanding faithful Catholics have regarding infallibility, and unnecessary hand-wringing over the implications to the doctrine of indefectability, if a pope were to authoritatively declare that which is opposed to prior dogma. It can happen.

          • But this applies to declarations which have no precedent. If it wasn’t in the Sacred deposit of Faith = Sacred Scripture + Holy Tradition [Cf. CCC 891 – or connected with this deposit, it can’t be defined as dogma by the Church [dogma = defined doctrine/teaching]. For example, the dogma of Immaculate Conception is hinted at in the Old Testament and by Angel Gabriel’s greeting, “Hail, full of grace.” The Holy Spirit teaches the Church all things, and bring her to remembrance all that the LORD said to her. Both dogma, a subset of Doctrine, and Doctrine/Teaching is infallible.
            supernatural imposition. At God’s disposal are both ordinary and extraordinary means [God does as he pleases] to preserve what needs to be preserved from liability of error e.g. much [& heated] debate at the Council of Jerusalem and St. Nicholas punching Arius.

          • Dogma, as you illustrate, is normally grounded in scripture. Doctrine is something we extrapolate through faith and reason. In discussions like these, we often do what both of you did: conflate the two. I think if you insert the word “doctrine” in place of “dogma” when reading John Patrick the result is truth.

          • Dogma – might be described briefly as a revealed truth defined by the Church []. Cf. CCC 88 [
            Doctrine – “the act of teaching” and “the knowledge imparted by teaching” [] or simply Doctrine = Teaching. Cf. Also CCC Index D > Doctrine []

          • Dear FMS There is much within V2 that is contrary to Tradition. You should begin within the analysis of it by a Faithful Thomist, Professor Brunero Gherardini, who authored The Ecumenical Vatican Council II, A MUCH NEEDED DISCUSSION

            Then, you could read for free online, Iota Unum, or, you could continue the self-soothing slogans

          • Dear FMS. Can a Council teach that 2 + 2 = 5 and at the same time insist that teaching binds Catholics?

            Written otherwise, can a council teach a contradiction- a violation of the principle of non-contradiction -and insist that teaching binds Catholics?

          • Nope, that applies ONLY to dogmatic councils, which by the words of three popes, VII was not. It was a pastoral council and haven’t you heard? No new dogma or doctrine was established there. Infallibility does not automatically extend to texts produced from a pastoral council, save that which is already infallible by other means.

            You just cited a BIG liberal LIE, and conservative Catholics have been cooperative in citing it for years.

          • That Vatican II didn’t define dogma, and dogma being defined Doctrine/Teaching, doesn’t mean that Vatican II didn’t teach [Cf. 16 documents] or that it wasn’t an ecumenical councils under the headship of the pope.
            Cf. Catholic Library > The 21 Ecumenical Councils []

          • There is no mistaken teaching in Vatican II. There is some development regarding religious freedom and about the mission of the bishops in the Church, but you won’t find any heresies in it. Read Cardinal Newman’s Essay on the Development of Doctrine.

          • When Vatican II undoes doctrine, THAT is changing it. The claim that no new doctrine was formed is a lie. Libs have been using Newman’s essay as cover for decades, while conveniently avoiding his one caveat that any “developed” aspect to doctrine which contradicts or undermines the essential understanding of that doctrine held by the Church throughout the ages is false and not permitted.

      • Its now time for us all to get and distribute the true catechism of the C.C. There will come a time very soon when it won’t be possible to get them. The true catechism will be for those who want to know the true faith in the future.

  8. With all that’s happening in the secular world and the Church these days I am increasingly reminded of the story line of Star Wars Episode 3 – The Revenge of the Sith. And all this messing around with the rewriting of words just makes it worse, it’s ‘1984’!

  9. No one should be the least bit surprised. After all JPII rewrote not only the Catechism but Canon Law and everything else he could get his hands on to reflect “The Spirit of Vatican II”. We must remember the axioms “Winners write the rules” and “Winners write the history”
    It’s no different here except the push back is starting to build and the enemies within must get revisions done in concrete before too many people wake up. Radicals and Revolutionaries have no shame nor does their true leader, The Father of Lies

    • Pope St. John Paul II the Great has nothing to do with Pope Francis and his magisterial acts that are contrary to perennial Church Teaching. Please stop smearing name of the great and saintly Pope. This very article manifests your erroneous comment. If you were right, the Theologians would not be Proposing to Re-Write [the] Catechism & Canon Law in Light of Amoris Laetitia.

      • Please reread the article. It reports that Liberal Theologians want to rewrite CCC to conform with AL…not stop it.
        As to JP2, with all respect, you are misinformed about him as was I and 90%+ of our fellow Catholics. That is until one really starts to ask “How did we get in this mess” and “Why so much damage during the JP2 papacy. Isn’t he a Saint?” The answers are there when one starts “looking under the hood” so to speak
        Hint: Any Pope who can come up with the phrase…”Reciprocal Integration of the Faith” to explain away blindingly obtuse and clearly contradictory heterodox philosophical/theological positions to Church doctrine clearly confirms the a Modernist bent. In comparison to PP6 & PF1, he looks very conservative.
        There are volumes of information on JP2’s modernism positions and teaching going back pre Vatican 2. Besides Canon Law and CCC, He also changed the rules for canonization….After several hundred years. It went from 4 miracles to 2 miracles for canonization with removal of the Devils Advocate aka Defender of the Church as well. Net result? He canonized more saints than all the Popes combined before him. This can literally go on for pages.
        You might want to check out the works of Fr Luigi Villa, his appointment by Padre Pio and he being formally commissioned by PP12 to fight Freemasonry in the Church. Fr Villa passed in 2012. He wrote critical books on PJ23, PP6 and PJP2. They are documented and footnoted. “Saint” would be the last word one would use when discussing them. In comparison to the Popes before him and PF after him, JP2 looked conservative. He was anything but. A force of personality for sure but “Saint”….not really by any objective and/or historical measure.

      • You do not understand the incremental nature of the forward march as practiced by the Left, do you?

        They’re not so much attacking JPII (though they hate him for a variety of reasons) but to take advantage of the opportunities created by Francis in his Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia.

        It’s to good an opportunity to codify acceptance of their favored sins for them to pass up.

  10. A friend e-mailed me: “Again and again and again I keep wondering why God is punishing us with the ravages of this disastrous pontificate. Why has He burdened us with this clown of a pope? We can only pray, ‘Dear God, please, bring this pontificate to an end, soon, now. Give us a worthy pope’.”

    • 11 Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy.”
      12 “Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense, to repay every one for what he has done.
      – Rev 22:11-12 (RSVCE)

      God’s chastisements serve to purify his holy ones and warn the evil ones.

  11. It is as if the intention is to rid the Church of true believers and replace them with those who are not; truly maddening stuff. The new that trickle in will be gone in half a generation; the ones who depart will never be back. Our leaders are increasingly nearsighted.

  12. I will attend High Mass tomorrow in our brand new SSPX church building (because of the tremendous growth of this parish in recent years) and worship God the way Catholics have for centuries. The true Church will continue…but it’s no longer in the buildings that the heretics and apostates now inhabit. Thank you St. Pius X and Archbishop Lefebvre for warning us…and showing us the way to remain faithful.


    $10 down on the certainty that the Vatican (the Francis Papacy) will issue a call for a commission (if not a synod) to update the Catechism in light of A.L. – by Easter of 2017.

    (For A.L. to secure its pracitial application it needs the imprimatur of an updated catechism.]

  14. Bergoglio is usurping the place of God and he wants to change the Catholic Doctrine.
    This heretic idea come from Bergoglio himself
    “If a thing is prohibited in the canon law, does not mean it should be banned forever. The canon law contains laws but the laws can be changed.”

    “In a private conversation with his longtime friend from Buenos Aires, Oscar Crespo, “Pope” Francis reportedly revealed his plans to change important “archaic” parts of the Catholic rules. Crespo claims the “Pope” intends to overturn the “centuries-old ban” on Catholic priests from getting married and to lift the banishment of divorcees from the Catholic church.”

    LOS ANGELES, CA (Catholic Online) – As it stands now, Catholic priests take a vow of celibacy and cannot be married. The Catholic church simply does not accept divorce, and anyone divorced, who then remarries or starts a sexual relationship with a new person, is committing adultery under Catholic law.

    “He said, these were his priorities as “Pope”. The first of all is to change the rules for divorced couples,” claims Crespo on his conversation with Francis. “The second was to eliminate the law of celibacy. He said it was not part of the doctrine of the church. It was started more than 1,000 years ago by a “pope”, and he considers it archaic, an antiquity which needs to be reconsidered.”

  15. This is nothing new. Pope John Paul II and Card. Ratzinger (as head of CDF) essentially did the same thing regarding capital punishment for murder because of “Evangelum Vitae.” Compare that encyclical to versions of the CCC before its publication, and you’ll see what I mean.

    • Stop maligning those good popes, especially the great and saintly Pope St. John Paul II the Great. Capital punishment is the prerogative of the State and not the Church.

        • The Church has never taught for such and such a crime you must put a man to death. The Church has always taught [and it is in Scripture, part of the divinely revealed Sacred Deposit of Faith e.g. the conversation between Pilate and Jesus] that the State has the power from God to put a man to death. Again, the State can put a man to death not that it must put a man to death.To put or not to put a man to death for a crime belongs to the State [again and not the Church]. Cf. Catholic Encyclopedia > P > Capital Punishment []

          CCC 2267 [] Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

          If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

          Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm – without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself – the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”[John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56. 69 Cf. Gen 4:10.]

          Definitely not an abolitionist stance.

          • Show us Church Teaching that says exactly that i.e. “Execution is the only appropriate punishment for murder because murder is the ultimate desecration of the divine image within humanity.”

          • Genesis 9: 5-6. The Bible is Catholic teaching, right?

            Also, learn about lex talonis, the idea that punishment must be proportional to the crime. It’s the foundation of jurisprudence in the Mosaic Law.

            Better yet, read the link I included.

          • What I suspected, sounded very much like like the Old Law, “eye for an eye”, [or worse revenge], which has been made perfect by the New Law of Charity. Why stop at murder? Homosexual sins much the same as they desecrate the divine image.
            PS I asked for Church Teaching [helping you here, e.g. from say Denzinger –, the Church whose birthday was Pentecost Sunday.
            PPS Bible in NOT Catholic Teaching. It belongs to the Sacred deposit of the faith and Church teaching is drawn from the Sacred deposit of the faith [=Sacred Scripture + Holy Tradition]. Example divorce in Moses’ time now no divorce.
            PPPS Sympathy for a Devil By: Joseph D’Hippolito
   | Monday, November 20, 2006 is NOT Church Teaching.

          • First, “eye for an eye” is not vigilante justice. It’s proportional justice to be executed through due process by unbiased courts. Study Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, if you don’t believe me.

            Second, Genesis 9:5-6 predates the Mosaic Law by centuries. God gave it to Noah after a flood that destroyed sinful humanity. That command was meant for all societies, everywhere. That command is the only one repeated in all five books of the Torah. It has nothing to do with homosexuality. Most of the specific Mosaic Laws were intended solely for Israel, the only nation that has a covental relationship with God. St. Paul himself in Romans 13 stated the government “bears the sword” to protect the innocent and to punish perpetrators. He also said in Acts that if he did anything worthy of death, he would not believe that execution would be unjust.

            Third, Jesus never abrogated either the letter or the spirit of the Mosaic Law during His lifetime. If He did, He would have disqualified himself from serving as the ultimate redemptive sacrifice for human sin.

            Fourth, all sin demands capital punishment from a holy, righteous God. “The wages of sin is death,” as St. Paul said. Only Jesus’ redemptive death on the cross and His resurrection prevents humanity from divine condemnation.

            Before you respond, read the link I posted in my last response.

          • Wrong. The Bible is not self-interpreting. It belongs to the Church to derive authentic teaching from Holy Scripture.

          • The Church cannot contradict Herself. Besides, the question does not turn on whether the Church participates in executions; it is whether, once again, a modernist pope has undermined what the Church has always taught about execution. Today the catechism reflects the personal opinion of a particular pope against the death penalty, without regard to the extensive scriptural and theological substance supporting rather than opposing the death penalty.

            God Himself commanded men to take the lives of those guilty of certain transgressions. I haven’t found it, but Dennis Prager claims that He did so in each of the 5 books of the Torah.

            This is another example of the modernist Church defying the Word of God to suit a contemporary opinion.

      • FM . Actually, you are wrong on this also.

        The One True Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church has a trinitarian power of Government; Legislative, Judicial, Coercive and the Coercitive power includes the Authority to impose BOTH Temporal and Corporal Punishments.

        Both the Church and the Stare are perfect societies in that each has the means at it disposal to achieve the aims it exists for but it would be absurd to think the State has authority superior to that of the Church.

        The Church has not yet – but it legitimately could, for it has the authority- execute heretics (IANS has a growing list if you are interested)

        These truths are, admittedly, recondite amongst we atavistic traditionalists but that does not mean they are not authentic truths.

        The Church of Christ, An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise E. Sylvester Berry, STD, limns the facts there summarised by IANS here

        • Cf. Catholic Encyclopedia > P > Capital Punishment []
          FYI Church has never executed heretics. From the link above:

          Canon law has always forbidden clerics to shed human blood and therefore capital punishment has always been the work of the officials of the State and not of the Church. Even in the case of heresy, of which so much is made by non-Catholic controversialists, the functions of ecclesiastics were restricted invariably to ascertaining the fact of heresy. The punishment, whether capital or other, was both prescribed and inflicted by civil government. The infliction of capital punishment is not contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church, and the power of the State to visit upon culprits the penalty of death derives much authority from revelation and from the writings of theologians. The advisability of exercising that power is, of course, an affair to be determined upon other and various considerations. (My emphasis)

          • Dear FMS.. Yes, thank you for substantiating the point made by IANS.

            The point is the One True Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church could ice heretics and homos if they so desired.

            IANS is sure you know the name of the famous executioner of the Papal States, so there’e that.

            O, and in addition here are more examples from “The Sources of Catholic Dogma and Canon Law:”

            1504 4. The proposition affirming, “that it would be a misuse of the authority of the Church, when she transfers that authority beyond the limits of doctrine and of morals, and extends it to exterior matters, and demands by force that which depends on persuasion and love“; and then also, “that it pertains to it much less, to demand by force exterior obedience to its decrees”; in so far as by those undefined words, “extends to exterior matters,” the proposition censures as an abuse of the authority of the Church the use of its power received from God, which the apostles themselves used in establishing and sanctioning exterior discipline—heretical.

            1697 For, they are not at all ashamed to affirm that “the laws of the Church do not bind in conscience, except when promulgated by the civil power; that the acts and decrees of the Roman Pontiffs relating to religion and the Church, need the sanction and approval, or at least the assent, of the civil power; that the Apostolic Constitutions,* in which secret societies are condemned, whether an oath of secrecy is demanded in them or not, and their followers and sympathizers are punished with anathema, have no force in those regions of the world where societies of this sort are allowed by the civil government; that the excommunication uttered by the Council of Trent and the Roman Pontiffs against those who invade and usurp the rights and possessions of the Church rests upon a confusion between the spiritual order and the civil and political order for the attaining of a mundane good only; that the Church should decree nothing which could bind the consciences of the faithful in relation to the use of temporal goods; that to the Church does not belong the right to coerce by temporal punishments violators of its laws; that it is conformable to the principles of sacred theology, and to the principles of public law for the civil government to claim and defend the ownership of the goods which are possessed by churches, by religious orders, and by other pious places.”



          • Dear MFS What was posted perfectly substantiated IANS’ point about the Coerective power/authority of the One True Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church – that it possesses the perfect right to execute, say, heretics and homos, even though it does not actualise that authority/power in that way.

            As to your response, its meaning is incomprehensible

            O, and what about Maestro Titta?

          • Dear FMS.. You are aware that the One True Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church is not comprised solely of clerics?

            Just give it up, you can not today, or at any future time, refute the truth that the One True Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church possesses the power and authority to execute miscreants.

            The best you can do is cite obvious canons forbidding clerics from flipping the switch or depressing any levers etc.

      • Dear FMS. Is it permissible to note his words publicly castigating traditionalists as unfaithful?

        At Mexico City he was greeted by millions. In haltingly precise but well-accented Spanish, he read his first message in the national cathedral, speaking directly to divisions within the Church, criticizing both right and left: those on the left who “in the name of misinformed propheticism have launched themselves on a risky and utopian construction of a so-called Church of the future”; and those on the right “cannot be considered faithful who remain attached to incidental aspects of the Church, which were valid in the past but which have been superseded.”

        Wasn’t that kind of him to speak so forcefully to those who desired to worship as did their Fathers and Grandfathers, you know, those poor people who desired to worship as did the Cristeros?

        Well, to be fair to him, at least he was willing to speak publicly of at least one example of supersessionism 🙂

        • Aloha & Dear IANS,
          As far as I can see, your problem in general is in your understanding of what an orthodox believer who keep the catholic and apostolic faith [vs. a “traditionalist” – whatever that means] is and applying and interpreting that in particular to what you report the pope as saying, who obviously, I do not speak for to find out for you what he meant by his words.

          • Dear FMS. It is quite clear that when it comes to particular Popes your papolatry is boundless whereas it is even clearer you do not know one-half of what you claim to know.

            You claim to speak about the correction interpretation of an entire pastoral council yet you are perplexed as to the meaning of what that particular pope meant.

            Bye bye..

            O, and you were wise not to take the bait about the council and its violation of the principle of Non-Contradiction 🙂

          • I have declared and shared My Mission [] and I believe it from God, do you think then I would give a pope, any pope a pass?

          • Dear FMS You seem to be a determined man and IANS does not wish to discourage you in your zeal so let’s just agree to drop any future exchanges, ok?

          • I do believe God foresaw all of us at this moment in history. If Catholic we all belong to the Mystical Body so we have a part to play that gives glory to God and builds up his body. I have prayed that you know your part and play it as he has want you to. God bless you and yours and his work at your hands.

  16. This is one of many signs of the return of the Second Coming of our King, Jesus. No one can take down our Catholic Church, as our Lord Jesus has professed. This is obviously an internal attack from inside our church, great apostasy will continue until the end of time. Pray for conversion of hearts. Acknowledge and continue to pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead Pope Francis and lay people.

  17. Where have I heard the term: “Diabolical Disorientation” regarding the last days within the Catholic Church-? Sounds like we are in full blown confusion.

  18. The serpent is certainly having a field day.
    What a prize catch the princes and theologians of the church.
    Pope Francis will have a lot to answer for.

  19. I cannot see Pope Francis doing that, because it could provoke a major schism. I doubt if he that dumb and wants to go down in history as a Pope, the only one who provoked a doctrinal schism in the Church. The Magisterium of the Church has always held that it teaches the truth based on revelation. Now how can he one good morning get up and change the major teachings of the Church as he would be saying indirectly that this doctrine has been taught by the Church for 2000 years, and it is wrong, here I come and declare that is is no longer true. It was a mortal sin to do this, now it no loger is. If fact,it is virtuous. What he tried to do in AL was to fudge, and get around the teaching with much verbosity and confusion. What would be the use of a Catechism or Canon law written in a confusing manner like AL? Vatican I states that it is not the job of a Pope to teach any new doctrine. He can hardly pull the wool over the eyes of a large proportion of the Church and treat them as if they were stupid, or idiots.

  20. Why should this surprise any good practicing Roman Catholic? Since Francis took possession of the holy “Chair of Peter” three year’s ago, the Vatican has gone downhill and is taking making ill-informed Catholic’s souls with her…….

  21. You know this current Pope has said the Word of God is dangerous, or the Bible is dangerous, the Word of God tells us to take refuge in the Word of God. The Pope also said that Jesus Christ’s life ended in failure. The gospels tell us the crucifixion was a victory, He conquered sin and death , made an eternal covenant with his Church , We could not know the Father except Christ died for our sins. This Pope has proven by his words he is not the Lord’s anointed, He is not a leader of the true Church, and is an imposter, a wolf, a false teacher, such as the gospels warn us about. We need to do like the Old Catholic Church and have no Pope, We need a Bishop Council is all, one renewed on an annual basis, where all the Bishops of the Church elect a council on a yearly basis to take care of the appointment of new Bishops or disciplinary actions for Bishops who are corrupt, and all the responsibilities maintaining order and peace in the Church offices.

    • There is so much heresy in most the institutions of the gospels teachings. God is testing us . He only allows this stuff to happen to test us, to sift through the bad seeds. He is testing our faith, only the faithful will inherit the kingdom of heaven. If you cant disown or discern these false teachers and hypocrites you will not pass the Lords tests. He tested the Jews and the Church he tests even more. We don’t need a latin culture in our gospel teachings. We don’t need all the opinions of heretical clergies, all we need is the true gospel. They don’t even teach hebrew to catholics yet it is the Language of Jesus Christ and his apostles. The old and new testaments clearly state not to add to or take away from the Doctrine or terrible things will come upon us. Well we have AIDS, SARS, used to have several plagues that killed people off, how many sexual diseases are there, cancers, Parkinson disease, Lupus, so many illnesses, strange how the doctrines of ministries are so corrupt and there are so many diseases among us like the bible warns. Also it warns not to let woman be authority, for women to wear head coverings , protestant and catholic used to wear head coverings.
      Though I was confirmed by a Jesuit priest in 1993, I was confirmed because the priest believed I already was the Church and just needed to be confirmed catholic. I was told I didn’t need to go through another baptism because he knew I read the bible from talking to me and I sat in on some of the catechism classes, I read the catechism all the way through a few times after confirmation, Its been my experience in 23 years that the Catholic Church needs to get rid of many heresies. The protestant church is as far from the true gospel as can be, so many divisions, false teachers and false prophets. The Jews want to build their third temple and the Vatican owns the site they want to build it on. The Jews are all about law, they still honor the Sanhedrin doctrine of the law, It is of interest for the Jews to want to discredit the catholic canon laws. To my knowledge Christ is the third temple the Jews are waiting for( correct me if I err). He destroyed his temple and raised it again on the third day. That prophesy is fulfilled by Christ having been the third temple in the flesh, we are a temple, the veil ripped when Christ died because he conquered death and a new covenant was made that required no temple for worship, because we are temples , He descended to sheol and set the captives free, He ascended to his throne becoming much higher of a priest than any who atoned sins before, we don’t need an altar because we can go right to the throne of Christ and pray to the father having a mediator and High Priest Forever who intercedes on our behalf, the blood of Christ is eternal atonement for our sins, we can go to the Father without fear of death, we have to keep his commandments but the condemnation of the law we are freed from. Love is the law, why because anyone can obey laws and rules, our faith is not about rules and laws alone. God judges our hearts, that is why it says even if you lust in your heart you have committed adultery. So if we obey canon laws and Jewish laws but don’t have faith or love God and love one another, we are hypocrites and will be judged according to the same laws that condemn us. If we Love Christ and live by virtue of faith and not by virtue of laws, we will inherit the kingdom of the righteous ones , So that said, law is good but we do not need a temple and the Vatican is dangerously becoming like jews about the law, The Pope’s words reveal to me that he cares only about law and rules, not about the gospel and the Word of God, which he said was dangerous, yet we are in danger because the Pope does not fear that the bible tells us not to change the doctrine. I believe we should learn more about Hebrew and share our faith with the Jews not as offensive arrogant liars, but as God’s holy Israel, grafted in the vine by virtue of faith not law, and by the birth of our baptism. If we reform it should be for the glory of God and not for the new world order. We don’t need a pope emperor, we need a priesthood. Peter was no emperor he was an Israelite Hebrew who was given office over the Jewish converts. Paul was given office over the Gentile converts. The gospels tell us not to be offensive to Jews , Gentiles , or one another. Teaching other than true doctrine of law and of the gospels truth regarding the Word of God, is offensive , not obeying simple instructions is offensive, Politics interfering with communion is offensive.

  22. To parphrase the brilliant St. Thonas Acquinas in his writings, Summa Theologica, “when one starts out with a premise and it’s riddles with falsehoods, then the whole premise is false !!!”


Leave a Comment

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

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...