Going trad - day 7: Ite missa est

The Apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary in Akita, Japan, to Sr. Agnes Sasagaw, October 13, 1973:
"My dear daughter, listen well to what I have to say to you. You will inform your superior."

After a short silence:

"As I told you, if men do not repent and better themselves, the Father will inflict a terrible punishment on all humanity. It will be a punishment greater than the deluge, such as one will never seen before. Fire will fall from the sky and will wipe out a great part of humanity, the good as well as the bad, sparing neither priests nor faithful. The survivors will find themselves so desolate that they will envy the dead. The only arms which will remain for you will be the Rosary and the Sign left by My Son. Each day recite the prayers of the Rosary. With the Rosary, pray for the Pope, the bishops and priests."

"The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against bishops. The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their confreres...churches and altars sacked; the Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord.

"The demon will be especially implacable against souls consecrated to God. The thought of the loss of so many souls is the cause of my sadness. If sins increase in number and gravity, there will be no longer pardon for them".


Going Trad - day 6: Lex Vivendi

"Christian perfection consists not only in the habit of charity, i.e. the possession of sanctifying grace and the constant will of preserving that grace, but also in the pursuit or practice of charity, which means the service of God and withdrawal of ourselves from those things which oppose or impede it...

The perfection of the soul increases in proportion with the possession of charity.

He who possesses the perfection which excludes mortal sin obtains salvation, is united to God, and is said to be just, holy, and perfect.

The perfection of charity, which excludes also venial sin and all affections which separate the heart from God, signifies a state of active service of God and of frequent, fervent acts of the love of God. This is the perfect fulfillment of the law (Matthew 22:37), as God is the primary object of charity. The secondary object is our neighbor. This is not limited to necessary and obligatory duties, but extends to friends, strangers, and enemies, and may advance to a heroic degree, leading a man to sacrifice external goods, comforts and life itself for the spiritual welfare of others. This is the charity taught by Christ by word (John 15:13) and example.

...Seculars are obliged to perfection by the observance of the precepts or commandments...

For those of you who came into contact with any of the 'conservative' movements that occupied the void after V2, the trad means to achieve this, that is, the means through which the Grace of God flows through our lives, excites our cooperation and leads us to Heaven are not much different from what you've been taught:

The old catechisms and books teach us to lead an ordered life where the love of God (love for God) takes precedence, motivates and guides all our endeavors. Several devotions and practices are mentioned: Morning and evening prayers, the rosary, prayer, spiritual reading, daily Mass, frequent confessions and communion, the practice of virtue, the works of mercy, fulfilling the duties of state, voluntary mortification, joyfully accepting the Will of God in all circumstances of life, following the motions of the Holy Spirit (and not the other spirit), etc...

The spiritual readings are much better, though.

I bought Divine Intimacy a few years ago (the original edition, not the aggiornata edition published after the author's death). Ever since I laid my eyes on it I understood that this was the real thing. I wouldn't go as far as stating that we were "given watered down milk and been told it was wine", but there is indeed a certain degree of watering down in more recent writings.

There's something more to it. When you read pre-V2 catholic books and manuals available for free at archive.org and elsewhere you can here the Lord's 'rigid, legalistic, unmerciful' command: "if thy hand, or thy foot scandalize thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee. It is better for thee to go into life maimed or lame, than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into everlasting fire. And if thy eye scandalize thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee. It is better for thee having one eye to enter into life, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire".

Other sources tend, in practice, to be more open to compromise with the modern world and try to accommodate sin to contemporary sensibilities: Compare any recent pastoral pronouncements with the Curé D'Ars' fight against religion ignorance, the profanation of Sunday, taverns, blasphemy and dancing ...


Going Trad - day 5: Lex Credendi

Although I started this 7-post series with Lex Orandi, my actual starting point was Lex Credendi.

One of the first casualties of bergoglism was the 'hermeneutics of continuity in reform'. Let's face it: if Pope Francis is right, Pope Benedict XVI, Pope John Paul II, the CCC and the previous magisterium are wrong. There is no rhetorical escape from the contradiction between SC29, CCC1650, FC84, Holy Scripture and what Pope Francis is promoting.

Once it became clear that the 'hermeneutics of rupture' was the only choice left on the menu, I had to decide which side of the broken chain to hang on to.

What does the Church teaches? What has the Church always taught? What did the Saints and the Fathers taught?

Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, and the Catholic Encyclopedia helped me at this stage as did the old(er) Catechisms and the Council of Trent. (In fact when people asked me if I had read the latest Pope Francis' broadside I replied: "I'm a little behind on my reading, I'm still going through Session 6 of the Council of Trent"...)

The 'doctrinal change' series of posts more or less sums it up: Doctrine cannot change, otherwise the Church is neither indefectible, nor One; nor can development of doctrine lead to contradiction (Vatican Council I); Popes have erred in matters of Faith; St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that the believer "must not give assent to a prelate who preaches against the faith"; Tradition is the rule of faith when members of the magisterium teach error.


Going Trad - day 4: Latin, etc...

Latin could've been a 'barrier to entry' (inside joke).

But latin is just a rigid, legalistic form of Portuguese and in my (very) conservative parish we had the NO in latin.

So, not only can I understand what's in the Missal, I actually already knew (by heart) several parts and prayers of the Vetus Ordo.

In spite of this, I admit to having spent several of my first TLM's trying to understand what the priest was whispering, worrying about when to stand, kneel or seat or trying to synchronize the missal page with what was happening at any given moment.

I spent mass "troubled about many things" and neglected the "one thing ... necessary... the best part".

I realized this by browsing through one of my Father's prayer books (aptly titled "Rejoice in the Lord"). This prayer book actually included a bilingual ordinary of the mass. But in place of the Epistle there's a non-scriptural exhortation to virtue, the Gospel is Mt v, 1-12 (the beatitudes), the canon is replaced by a meditation, followed by prayers for before and after communion, etc... So I imagined my Father at Mass going through his prayer book and, Sunday, after Sunday, after Sunday, repeatedly reading the exhortation to virtue, the beatitudes, the meditations and the prayers and somehow I got it.

Further help came from Fr. Goffine's invaluable "Devout instructions..." which includes 'A method of hearing mass' (!).

I also found an 18th century "Manual de orações para assistir à Missa" with a brief comment, a prayer and a picture for each part of the Mass.

On the other hand, for hundreds of years, millions of illiterate catholics were able to attend Mass, understand what was going on and keep the "dogma of the Faith"... while many current mass goers will be able to recite the NO and read all the 'propers' while being functionally protestants (or worse)*.

(*) Do an informal survey among your nominally catholics friends about the Real Presence if you dare...


Going Trad - day 3: Missal

I inherited three missals one of which went overseas during the war. Inside I found a prayer card signed: 'your military chaplain' !

I guess there were not many TLM's in the bush in the years by Father was over there because this missal returned home almost intact. War is a terrible thing.

(Come to think of it, that is why there are so few TLM's in my city at present; we're fighting a war in our streets, workplaces and homes. And we are loosing this war just like we lost the bush wars: Our leaders are consorting with the enemy and deliberately poisoning hearts and minds.)

The (mostly young) people that go to these masses also carry old missals. Somehow the missals managed to survive the '50 year war' and reach the hands of the younger generations unscathed.

P.S. ORDINÁRIO DA SANTA MISSA – Guia Prático de estudo do rito latino e Mass Propers for Weekdays.


Going Trad - day 2: Mass center

Where should I go to Mass?

There are not many options available in my diocese. The implementation of Summorum Pontificum was effectively blocked by our bishops for many years (dissidents you say? Nooo, no way). But in the beginning of 2017 the intermittent, sort of monthly, diocesan TLM became an almost daily mass. So I felt compelled to attend these masses.

(I'm not being rigid or legalistic about this. If you attend a SSPX priory or an 'independent' chapel and you are earnestly seeking God, who am I to judge?)

It's not easy to get there on time on a daily basis. But I have been doing my part and my Guardian Angel has been taking care of the rest. Deo Gratias !


Going Trad - day 1: Why?

'They' were right after all. I finally did it. I'm going trad.


The short hashtag answer is: #FrancisEffect.

The longer answer is this very blog. An almost four-year long answer.


An Open Letter to Confused Catholics (Msgr. Marcel Lefebvre)



A new religion: a different god

In the days when Cd. Mueller was still allowed to do his job, back in 2013, he had an article published in L'Osservatore Romano (ON THE INDISSOLUBILITY OF MARRIAGE AND THE DEBATE CONCERNING THE CIVILLY REMARRIED AND THE SACRAMENTS), where he presented and defended the doctrine of the Church against those who want to allow unrepentant adulterers to receive the Eucharist.

In this article there was an intriguing reference that is now plainly (and painfully) clear to all who have eyes to see.

A different God

Cd. Mueller stated:
"A further case for the admission of remarried divorcees to the sacraments is argued in terms of mercy. Given that Jesus himself showed solidarity with the suffering and poured out his merciful love upon them, mercy is said to be a distinctive quality of true discipleship. This is correct, but it misses the mark when adopted as an argument in the field of sacramental theology. The entire sacramental economy is a work of divine mercy and it cannot simply be swept aside by an appeal to the same. An objectively false appeal to mercy also runs the risk of trivializing the image of God, by implying that God cannot do other than forgive. The mystery of God includes not only his mercy but also his holiness and his justice. If one were to suppress these characteristics of God and refuse to take sin seriously, ultimately it would not even be possible to bring God’s mercy to man. Jesus encountered the adulteress with great compassion, but he said to her “Go and do not sin again” (Jn 8:11). God’s mercy does not dispense us from following his commandments or the rules of the Church. Rather it supplies us with the grace and strength needed to fulfil them, to pick ourselves up after a fall, and to live life in its fullness according to the image of our heavenly Father."
This god that "cannot do other than forgive" and whose holiness and justice were, for all practical purposes, suppressed is not God.

A different Jesus

Around one year after the previously quoted article, Cd. Mueller spoke to the International Theological Commission (this was recently mentioned in a EWTN GB article), and stated:
"[A] division between 'theory' and 'practice' of the Faith would reflect a subtle christological 'heresy'. It would be the fruit of a division in the mistery of the eternal Word of the Father which became flesh. It would be the omission of the incarnational dynamic of each sane theology and of all the evangelizing mission of the Church. Christ who can be said to be the first theologian of Scripture, the theologian par excelence, said 'I am the way, the truth and the life'. There is no truth without life and no life without truth."
The Jesus that is being preached by many is a counterfeit Jesus.

A fickle Holy Spirit

Proponents of communion for adulterers 'blame' the Holy Spirit for all that has happened in the last few years and accuse those who stand by the doctrine of the church of 'not being open to the 'Spirit' or the 'god of suprises'.

What they are saying could be rephrased in the following way: For about 2.000 the Holy Spirit suggested a certain course of action and in the last few months, changed his mind, and  started suggesting the opposite.

But as a recent crisis article states, the "Holy Spirit leads us into truth, because the Spirit is God, and God is Truth. And truth does not change, just as God does not change. Our understanding of the truth may improve—it may sharpen or clarify or elaborate—but it will not move us to say “yes” one moment and “no” another...

The 'spirit' that is being invoked in defense of all these innovations is not the Holy Spirit.

Man takes the place of God

As I argued a year ago, at the heart of all this is regnocentrism. Bergoglism is the most recent incarnation of the post-christian ideology which posits the end of God and the exaltation of Man.

[UPDATE] After I wrote the last two posts, Steve Skojec published a more thorough account of the recent history of 'communion for protestants' which ends like this:
"Elevating man over God — a theme that arose in the first exhortation of this pontificate — is really a form of idolatry. The kind of idolatry that leads, as I’ve said before, to the prioritization of things like “excessive concern for the material well-being of the poor, distribution of resources, or care for the environment – over and above concern for the salvation of souls.”

We are moving far too quickly toward the next milestone. More damage will be done. More souls harmed, or even lost.

Formal correction can’t come soon enough.


Next episode

This is the next step in the revolution. Remember the October 31st, 2016 Joint Statement signed by Pope Francis and Bishop Mounib Younan, President of the Lutheran World Federation, on the occasion of the Joint Catholic-Lutheran Commemoration of the Reformation, which included the following:
"Many members of our communities yearn to receive the Eucharist at one table, as the concrete expression of full unity. We experience the pain of those who share their whole lives, but cannot share God’s redeeming presence at the Eucharistic table. We acknowledge our joint pastoral responsibility to respond to the spiritual thirst and hunger of our people to be one in Christ. We long for this wound in the Body of Christ to be healed. This is the goal of our ecumenical endeavours, which we wish to advance, also by renewing our commitment to theological dialogue."
Unfortunately, I have been right every step of the way. So, barring divine intervention, the 'spirit' will lead Francis to allow another Sacrilege.

P.S. This people either hate the Eucharist or don't believe in the Real Presence.


An open letter to Pope Francis (John Finnis and Germain Grisez)

  • An open letter to Pope Francis

  • Full text

  • Eight erroneous positions:

    • Position A: A priest administering the Sacrament of Reconciliation may sometimes absolve a penitent who lacks a purpose of amendment with respect to a sin in grave matter that either pertains to his or her ongoing form of life or is habitually repetitive.

    • Position B: Some of the faithful are too weak to keep God’s commandments; though resigned to committing ongoing and habitual sins in grave matter, they can live in grace.

    • Position C: No general moral rule is exceptionless. Even divine commandments forbidding specific kinds of actions are subject to exceptions in some situations.

    • Position D: While some of God’s commandments or precepts seem to require that one never choose an act of one of the kinds to which they refer, those commandments and precepts actually are rules that express ideals and identify goods that one should always serve and strive after as best one can, given one’s weaknesses and one’s complex, concrete situation, which may require one to choose an act at odds with the letter of the rule.

    • Position E: If one bears in mind one’s concrete situation and personal limitations, one’s conscience may at times discern that doing an act of a kind contrary even to divine commandment will be doing one’s best to respond to God, which is all that he asks, and then one ought to choose to do that act but also be ready to conform fully to the divine commandment if and when one can do so.

    • Position F: Choosing to bring about one’s own, another’s, or others’ sexual arousal and/or satisfaction is morally acceptable provided only that (1) no adult has bodily contact with a child; (2) no participant’s body is contacted without his or her free and clear consent to both the mode and the extent of contact; (3) nothing done knowingly brings about or unduly risks significant physical harm, disease transmission, or unwanted pregnancy; and (4) no moral norm governing behavior in general is violated.

    • Position G: A consummated, sacramental marriage is indissoluble in the sense that spouses ought always to foster marital love and ought never to choose to dissolve their marriage. But by causes beyond the spouses’ control and/or by grave faults of at least one of them, their human relationship as a married couple sometimes deteriorates until it ceases to exist. When a couple’s marriage relationship no longer exists, their marriage has dissolved, and at least one of the parties may rightly obtain a divorce and remarry.

    • Position H: A Catholic need not believe that many human beings will end in hell.



"Resistance and Fidelity to the Church in times of crisis" (Prof. Roberto de Mattei)

Prof. Roberto De Mattei's conference transcript deserves to be read in its entirety.

Many themes and references of this conference have been previously mentioned in this blog (see right-hand column - scroll down). I would like to highlight one particular issue with which I have wrestled with before and that Prof. De Mattei now puts to rest:
"The authority of the Pope has precise limits however, which cannot be ignored. Javier Hervada in his well-known manual on Constitutional Canon Law, writes: “The power of the pope is not unlimited: it is circumscribed within determined limits. The limits may regard the validity or lawfulness in his exercise of power. The limits regarding validity are given as: a) of the natural law: b) of the positive Divine law; c) of the nature and the ends of the Church”.

If the Pope oversteps these limits he deviates from the Catholic Faith. It is common doctrine that the Pope as a private doctor, may deviate from the Catholic Faith, falling into heresy. The hypothesis of a heretic Pope is treated as [a]“scholion” in all theological treatises.

It should be emphasized that the expression “private doctor” does not refer to the Supreme Pontiff’s acts of a private nature, but to his “public” function as supreme Pastor of the Church”. In his final relatio on the dogma of infallibility at the First Vatican Council, Monsignor Vincenzo Gasser (1809-1879), representative of the Deputation of the Faith, stated precisely that as a “public person” it must be understood that the Pope is speaking ex cathedra, with the intention of binding the Church to his teaching.
And so, returning to the issue that troubled me at the time of my first attempt at dealing with the bergoglian "confusion", I must now conclude that the Pope can indeed teach heresy in his ordinary magisterium.

Prof. De Mattei goes on to explain why this does not go against the indefectibility of the Church and what does the Sensus Fidei mean in this regard (all matters that have been mentioned here before).

Curiously, he quotes the pre-March 13, 2013 writings of several Opus Dei theologians... those were the days.


In defense of the Four Cardinals (Bishop Athanasius Schneider)

[Texto completo no Rorate Caeli]

  • "The entire Church in our days has to reflect upon the fact that the Holy Spirit has not in vain inspired Saint Paul to write in the Letter to the Galatians about the incident of his public correction of Peter. One has to trust that Pope Francis will accept this public appeal of the Four Cardinals in the spirit of the Apostle Peter, when St Paul offered him a fraternal correction for the good of the whole Church".

  • May the words of that great Doctor of the Church, St Thomas Aquinas, illuminate and comfort us all: "When there is a danger for the faith, subjects are required to reprove their prelates, even publicly. Since Paul, who was subject to Peter, out of the danger of scandal, publicly reproved him"

  • "Augustine comments: "Peter himself gave an example to superiors by not disdaining to be corrected by his subjects when it occurred to them that he had departed from the right path" (Summa theol., II-II, 33, 4c)."

  • "Pope Francis often calls for an outspoken and fearless dialogue between all members of the Church in matters concerning the spiritual good of souls. In the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia, the Pope speaks of a need for “open discussion of a number of doctrinal, moral, spiritual, and pastoral questions. The thinking of pastors and theologians, if faithful to the Church, honest, realistic and creative, will help us to achieve greater clarity

  • "The negative reactions to the public statement of the Four Cardinals resemble the general doctrinal confusion of the Arian crisis in the fourth century... It is helpful to all to quote in the situation of the doctrinal confusion in our days some affirmations of Saint Hilary of Poitiers, the “Athanasius of the West”.

    You [the bishops of Gaul] who still remain with me faithful in Christ did not give way when threatened with the onset of heresy, and now by meeting that onset you have broken all its violence. Yes, brethren, you have conquered, to the abundant joy of those who share your faith: and your unimpaired constancy gained the double glory of keeping a pure conscience and giving an authoritative example” (Hil. De Syn., 3).
    Your [the bishops of Gaul] invincible faith keeps the honourable distinction of conscious worth and, content with repudiating crafty, vague, or hesitating action, safely abides in Christ, preserving the profession of its liberty. For since we all suffered deep and grievous pain at the actions of the wicked against God, within our boundaries alone is communion in Christ to be found from the time that the Church began to be harried by disturbances such as the expatriation of bishops, the deposition of priests, the intimidation of the people, the threatening of the faith, and the determination of the meaning of Christ’s doctrine by human will and power. Your resolute faith does not pretend to be ignorant of these facts or profess that it can tolerate them, perceiving that by the act of hypocritical assent it would bring itself before the bar of conscience” (Hil. De Syn., 4).

    I have spoken what I myself believed, conscious that I owed it as my soldier’s service to the Church to send to you in accordance with the teaching of the Gospel by these letters the voice of the office which I hold in Christ. It is yours to discuss, to provide and to act, that the inviolable fidelity in which you stand you may still keep with conscientious hearts, and that you may continue to hold what you hold now” (Hil. De Syn., 92).

  • "The following words of Saint Basil the Great, addressed to the Latin Bishops, can be in some aspects applied to the situation of those who in our days ask for doctrinal clarity, including our Four Cardinals: “The one charge which is now sure to secure severe punishment is the careful keeping of the traditions of the Fathers. We are not being attacked for the sake of riches, or glory, or any temporal advantages. We stand in the arena to fight for our common heritage, for the treasure of the sound faith, derived from our Fathers. Grieve with us, all you who love the brethren, at the shutting of the mouths of our men of true religion, and at the opening of the bold and blasphemous lips of all that utter unrighteousness against God. The pillars and foundation of the truth are scattered abroad. We, whose insignificance has allowed of our being overlooked, are deprived of our right of free speech” (Ep. 243, 2.4).

  • "Another champion of the Catholic faith during the Arian crisis was Saint Gregory Nazianzen. He wrote the following striking characterization of the behavior of the majority of the shepherds of the Church in those times. This voice of the great Doctor of the Church should be a salutary warning for the bishops of all times: "Surely the pastors have done foolishly; for, excepting a very few, who either on account of their insignificance were passed over, or who by reason of their virtue resisted, and who were to be left as a seed and root for the springing up again and revival of Israel by the influences of the Spirit, all temporized, only differing from each other in this, that some succumbed earlier, and others later; some were foremost champions and leaders in the impiety, and others joined the second rank of the battle, being overcome by fear, or by interest, or by flattery, or, what was the most excusable, by their own ignorance" (Orat. 21, 24).

  • "When Pope Liberius in 357 signed one of the so called formulas of Sirmium, in which he deliberately discarded the dogmatically defined expression “homo-ousios” and excommunicated Saint Athanasius in order to have peace and harmony with the Arian and Semi-Arian bishops of the East, faithful Catholics and some few bishops, especially Saint Hilary of Poitiers, were deeply shocked. Saint Hilary transmitted the letter that Pope Liberius wrote to the Oriental bishops, announcing the acceptance of the formula of Sirmium and the excommunication of Saint Athanasius. In his deep pain and dismay, Saint Hilary added to the letter in a kind of desperation the phrase: “Anathema tibi a me dictum, praevaricator Liberi” (I say to you anathema, prevaricator Liberius), cf. Denzinger-Schönmetzer, n. 141. Pope Liberius wanted to have peace and harmony at any price, even at the expense of the Divine truth. In his letter to the heterodox Latin bishops Ursace, Valence, and Germinius announcing to them the above-mentioned decisions, he wrote that he preferred peace and harmony to martyrdom (cf. cf. Denzinger-Schönmetzer, n. 142)."

    “In what a dramatic contrast stood the behavior of Pope Liberius to the following conviction of Saint Hilary of Poitiers: “We don’t make peace at the expense of the truth by making concessions in order to acquire the reputation of tolerance. We make peace by fighting legitimately according to the rules of the Holy Spirit. There is a danger to ally surreptitiously with unbelief under the beautiful name of peace.” (Hil. Ad Const., 2, 6, 2).

  • "Blessed John Henry Newman commented on these unusual sad facts with the following wise and equilibrated affirmation: “While it is historically true, it is in no sense doctrinally false, that a Pope, as a private doctor, and much more Bishops, when not teaching formally, may err, as we find they did err in the fourth century. Pope Liberius might sign a Eusebian formula at Sirmium, and the mass of Bishops at Ariminum or elsewhere, and yet they might, in spite of this error, be infallible in their ex cathedra decisions” (The Arians of the Fourth Century, London, 1876, p. 465).

  • "remembering the words of Saint Paul: “We cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth” (2 Cor 13: 8). Surely, at the Last Judgment the above-mentioned mostly clerical critics of the Four Cardinals will not have an easy answer for their violent attack on such a just, worthy, and meritorious act of these Four Members of the Sacred College of Cardinals.

    The following words inspired by the Holy Spirit retain their prophetic value especially in view of the spreading doctrinal and practical confusion regarding the Sacrament of Marriage in our days: “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry” (2 Tim. 4: 3-5).


Misera et Misericordia ...

'Misera et Misericordia' is a quote from St. Augustine's Tract.33 on Jo 8:1-11 (the stoning of the adulteress):

How this justifies giving communion to unrepentant practicing adulterers I don't know ...


FOUR CARDINALS OFFICIALLY QUESTION THE POPE ON AMORIS LAETITIA: ‘Seeking Clarity: A Plea to Untie the Knots in Amoris Laetitia’

[full documentation relating to the cardinals’ initiative]

The letter is signed by Card. Walter Brandmüller, Card. Raymond L. Burke, Card. Carlo Caffarra, Card. Joachim Meisner.

Summary - the dubia:

  1. It is asked whether, following the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (nn. 300-305), it has now become possible to grant absolution in the sacrament of penance and thus to admit to Holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person more uxorio without fulfilling the conditions provided for by Familiaris Consortio n. 84 and subsequently reaffirmed by Reconciliatio et Paenitentia n. 34 and Sacramentum Caritatis n. 29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in note 351 (n. 305) of the exhortation Amoris Laetitia be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live more uxorio?

  2. fter the publication of the post-synodal exhortation Amoris Laetitia (cf. n. 304), does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor n. 79, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, on the existence of absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts and that are binding without exceptions?

  3. After Amoris Laetitia (n. 301) is it still possible to affirm that a person who habitually lives in contradiction to a commandment of God’s law, as for instance the one that prohibits adultery (cf. Mt 19:3-9), finds him or herself in an objective situation of grave habitual sin (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Declaration, June 24, 2000)?

  4. After the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (n. 302) on “circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility,” does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor n. 81, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, according to which “circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice”?

  5. After Amoris Laetitia (n. 303) does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor n. 56, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, that excludes a creative interpretation of the role of conscience and that emphasizes that conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object?