Vatican Newspaper: 'Amoris Laetitia' is Authoritative Church Teaching

Catholic News Service ^ | 8/23/16 | Cindy Wooden

[marshmallow]

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Pope Francis' apostolic exhortation on the family is an example of the "ordinary magisterium" -- papal teaching -- to which Catholics are obliged to give "religious submission of will and intellect," said an article in the Vatican newspaper.

Father Salvador Pie-Ninot, a well-known professor of ecclesiology, said that while Pope Francis did not invoke his teaching authority in a "definitive way" in the document, it meets all the criteria for being an example of the "ordinary magisterium" to which all members of the church should respond with "the basic attitude of sincere acceptance and practical implementation."

The Spanish priest's article in L'Osservatore Romano Aug. 23 came in response to questions raised about the formal weight of the pope's document, "Amoris Laetitia" ("The Joy of Love"). For instance, U.S. Cardinal Raymond L. Burke has said on several occasions that the document is "a mixture of opinion and doctrine."

Father Pie-Ninot said he examined the document in light of the 1990 instruction from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the vocation of the theologian.

The instruction -- issued by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now-retired Pope Benedict XVI -- explained three levels of church teaching with the corresponding levels of assent they require. The top levels are: "Infallible pronouncements," which require an assent of faith as being divinely revealed; and teaching proposed "in a definitive way," which is "strictly and intimately connected with revelation" and "must be firmly accepted and held."

A teaching is an example of "ordinary magisterium," according to the instruction, "when the magisterium, not intending to act 'definitively,' teaches a doctrine to aid a better understanding of revelation and make explicit its contents, or to recall how some teaching is in conformity with the truths of faith, or finally to guard against ideas that......

[Arthur McGowan]

BTW: Joseph and Mary were not Catholics. Therefore, they were not bound by Canon Law. Which, as it happens, did not yet exist.

Your mind, poisoned by anti-Catholic fury, is disorganized.

[armydoc]

As a matter of fact, all the de fide propositions taught by the Church can be listed. They are identified as such in every manual of dogmatic theology, and in the catechism. If you want them listed, use google.

Are the opinions of the authors of these manuals infallible and/or "de fide"? Is the entire CCC "de fide"?

The sources for the Catholic Faith are Scripture and Tradition, principally the liturgy.

All of which require considerable interpretation, which brings us back to my original point.

[Arthur McGowan]

Of course, reading the Catechism requires an act of faith that you are not reading a forgery put out by the National Council of Churches. It also requires an act of faith that you have hands. And eyes. And that you are not in an Army experimental hospital having images fed into your brain.

You are no longer actually making ANY “point” at all. You have descended into a cartoon version of Universal Doubt—to go along with the cartoon version of “Catholicism” you are trying to peddle to me.

[ealgeone]

BTW: Joseph and Mary were not Catholics. Therefore, they were not bound by Canon Law. Which, as it happens, did not yet exist.

You illustrate my point perfectly of man-made rules.

[ealgeone]

She was not “open to children”?

Hmmm. The angel Gabriel came to visit her, and asked if she would consent to be the mother of the savior. She said Yes.

This, among Protestants, is what passes for “reading the Bible”?

Wow...again you illustrate your lack of reading comprehension.

Has anyone said Mary was married to anyone other than Joseph?

[ealgeone]

Of course, reading the Catechism requires an act of faith that you are not reading a forgery put out by the National Council of Churches. It also requires an act of faith that you have hands. And eyes. And that you are not in an Army experimental hospital having images fed into your brain.

You are no longer actually making ANY “point” at all. You have descended into a cartoon version of Universal Doubt—to go along with the cartoon version of “Catholicism” you are trying to peddle to me.

Wow...I see that catholic seminary training of yours is coming through.

I bet you're something in the confessional.

[armydoc]

Of course, reading the Catechism requires an act of faith that you are not reading a forgery put out by the National Council of Churches. It also requires an act of faith that you have hands. And eyes.

Not entirely sure of your point here. Is the CCC on the vatican website de fide?

And that you are not in an Army experimental hospital having images fed into your brain.

I'm thinking this is some sort of attempt at an ad hominem. Here's a free tip for you- ad homs generally don't help your argument. Bad ones really don't help. This one is just bizarre.

[Arthur McGowan]

Propositions are de fide, not the books or websites on which they appear.

Rest assured, I was not making an ad hominem argument. I was ridiculing your preposterous questions, not you personally.