<div dir="ltr"><h1 class="m_-8500620700707462123m_-4307103005339123470m_1549604738778561491gmail-article-title"><font size="2">Josef Seifert, katolikus filozófus és más katolikus filozófusok, teológusok szerint, Ferenc pápának az Amoris Laetitia apostoli buzdításban tett <u><span style="background-color:rgb(234,209,220)">eretnek kijelentéseit</span></u> vissza kell vonnia!</font></h1><p><br></p><p><br></p><p></p><h1 class="m_-8500620700707462123m_-4307103005339123470m_1549604738778561491gmail-article-title">Top philosopher: Pope must revoke ‘objectively heretical’ statements to avoid schism
</h1>
<p class="m_-8500620700707462123m_-4307103005339123470m_1549604738778561491gmail-article-tags m_-8500620700707462123m_-4307103005339123470m_1549604738778561491gmail-hide-print"> <a href="https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/top-philosopher-pope-must-revoke-objectively-heretical-statements-to-avoid" target="_blank">https://www.lifesitenews.com/n<wbr>ews/top-philosopher-pope-must-<wbr>revoke-objectively-heretical-s<wbr>tatements-to-avoid</a><br>
</p>
<p>September 21, 2016 (<a href="http://www.lifesitenews.com" target="_blank">LifeSiteNews</a>)
—<span style="background-color:rgb(217,234,211)"><b> <span style="background-color:rgb(208,224,227)">Josef Seifert, Austrian Catholic philosopher and close friend of the
late Pope St. John Paul II, said</span> </b></span>in a new interview that <span style="background-color:rgb(208,224,227)"><b>he hopes Pope
Francis <span style="background-color:rgb(255,229,153)">revokes </span>the <span style="background-color:rgb(234,209,220)">“objectively heretical” statements </span>in <i>Amoris Laetitia</i> to avoid “schism,” <span style="background-color:rgb(234,209,220)">“heresy,</span>” and “the complete<span style="background-color:rgb(234,209,220)"> split </span>in the Church.”</b></span></p>
<p>Speaking to Gloria.TV about a letter he wrote Pope Francis and an <a href="http://aemaet.de/index.php/aemaet/article/view/35/pdf" target="_blank">essay</a>
<span style="background-color:rgb(217,234,211)"><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">he penned outlining</span><b> some of his concerns with the exhortation,</b></span> Seifert
explained that there are four conclusions one can draw from <i>Amoris Laetitia</i>.</p>
<p>These four conclusions “are radically distinct and therefore I think one must clarify which is the true answer,” he said.</p>
<p>The first conclusion is that<span style="background-color:rgb(234,209,220)"><b> it remains sacrilegious for those in a
state of unrepentant mortal sin</b></span> <span style="background-color:rgb(255,229,153)"><b>to receive Holy Communion</b></span>,<span style="background-color:rgb(234,209,220)"><b> even though
footnote 351 opens the door for this.</b></span></p>
<p>Supporters of this argument “can say that<span style="background-color:rgb(217,234,211)"><b> the text is not a
magisterial document,</b></span> like Cardinal Burke says, that it is not a
document that has the proper form to change the Catholic catechism [and]
the 2,000-year-old tradition of sacramental discipline by a few
stroke[s] of pen. … So nothing changed, basically, and<span style="background-color:rgb(234,209,220)"><b><span style="background-color:rgb(217,234,211)"> the document</span>
perhaps tried to change something</b></span> <span style="background-color:rgb(255,229,153)"><b>but it didn’t change anything.”</b></span></p>
<p><span style="background-color:rgb(252,229,205)"><b>“The second [conclusion] is the opposite — the contrary and absolute
and radical opposite,” Seifert said. “And that is that every couple, all
homosexuals, all lesbians, all adulterers, all remarried, not remarried
— everybody is welcome at the table of the Lord.</b>” </span>He noted that this is
essentially the interpretation <a href="https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/vatican-approved-newspaper-exhortation-allows-holy-communion-for-remarried" target="_blank">embraced by the bishops of the Philippines</a>, who “made a big pronouncement to this effect.”</p>
<p><span style="background-color:rgb(252,229,205)"><b>“This interpretation</b></span> cannot be what the pope really means — must not
be what the pope really means because it <span style="background-color:rgb(252,229,205)"><b>leads to countless sacrileges,</b></span>
<span style="background-color:rgb(252,229,205)"><b>all kinds of <span style="background-color:rgb(234,209,220)">grave sinners [coming] out</span> <span style="background-color:rgb(255,229,153)">to the Sacrament of Holy
Communion</span>,”</b></span> Seifert said. Allowing <span style="background-color:rgb(234,209,220)"><b>this “opens the door to transforming <span style="background-color:rgb(255,229,153)">
the Church, temple of God</span>, [into] a kind of temple of Satan.”</b></span></p>
<p><span style="background-color:rgb(208,224,227)"><b>Seifert called on Pope Francis to</b></span> <span style="background-color:rgb(255,229,153)">“</span><u><span style="background-color:rgb(208,224,227)"><b><span style="background-color:rgb(255,229,153)">absolutely and obligatorily
declare</span> <span style="background-color:rgb(207,226,243)">t</span><span style="background-color:rgb(252,229,205)"><span style="background-color:rgb(207,226,243)">hat</span><font size="2"> this [interpretation] </font></span>is <span style="background-color:rgb(234,209,220)">a completely false </span>understanding
of the <span style="background-color:rgb(255,229,153)">Church teaching</span>.”</b></span></u></p>
<h4><b>Internal forum would be a ‘pastoral catastrophe’ </b></h4>
<p><span style="background-color:rgb(249,203,156)"><b>The third possible interpretation of <i>Amoris Laetitia</i> </b></span>is that
<span style="background-color:rgb(208,224,227)"><b><span style="background-color:rgb(249,203,156)">couples may “discern” with the help of a priest whether they are really
guilty of the actions they continually commit, which the Church labels</span><span style="background-color:rgb(234,209,220)">
objectively sinful.</span></b></span></p>
<p>“How should that be applied?” Seifert asked. “Should a priest say to
the one adulterer, ‘you are a good adulterer, you are in the state of
grace, you are [a] very pious person, so you get my absolution without
changing your life and then [you can] go to Holy Communion. … And then
come another, and he says, ‘Oh, and you are a real adulterer. You must
first confess, you must revoke your life, you must change your life, and
then you can go to Communion.’ I mean, how should that work?”</p>
<p><span style="background-color:rgb(249,203,156)"><b>This “seems completely inappropriate” and could become a “pastoral
catastrophe,”</b></span> Seifert warned. He said <span style="background-color:rgb(249,203,156)"><b>it could also confuse Catholic
divorced and remarried couples, some of whom might be told by their
priest to go ahead and receive Holy Communion and others who might be
told by the same priest to live abstinently in order to receive Holy
Communion.</b></span> Seifert noted that this third conclusion contains “<span style="background-color:rgb(249,203,156)"><b>the
problem of logical fallacy”</b></span> that assumes that if a person “doesn’t
understand that what he does is wrong, that he is innocent and in a
state of grace, but the blindness for the wrongness of an action can be
itself gravely [sinful].”</p>
<p>“It’s a false assumption that the many couples who do not find
anything wrong with remarrying and getting divorced are all innocent
sinners in the state of grace, because their blindness [to the fact that
they are committing adultery] itself [may be a sin],” Seifert said.</p>
<h4><b>Seeming ‘denial of hell’ must be corrected ‘for clarity’s sake’</b></h4>
<p>According to Seifert, <span style="background-color:rgb(244,204,204)"><b>the fourth possible interpretation of <i>Amoris Laetitia</i>
</b></span>is <span style="background-color:rgb(244,204,204)"><b>people can say in good conscience that their first marriage was
invalid, even if <span style="background-color:rgb(255,229,153)">an ecclesiastical court has said otherwise</span>, and
therefore may divorce, “marry” again, and receive the Sacraments while
maintaining a sexual relationship with their second spouse.</b></span></p>
<p><span style="background-color:rgb(255,229,153)"><b>“It must not <span style="background-color:rgb(234,209,220)">be left to the conscience of the individual</span> to judge
whether or not his marriage was valid, and also not to <span style="background-color:rgb(234,209,220)">the judgment of a
single priest, </span>because to judge … the existence of a Sacrament requires
a careful investigation and that’s [exactly] the task of Church
tribunals </b></span>and therefore one simply cannot … in conscience say, I was not
married and now I marry again,” Seifert explained. He also said <u><span style="background-color:rgb(255,229,153)"><b>the<span style="background-color:rgb(234,209,220)">
notion that a person can declare for himself</span> that <span style="background-color:rgb(208,224,227)">his marriage was
invalid</span> was condemned by the Council of Trent and therefore is NOT
harmonious with Church teaching.</b></span></u></p>
<p><span style="background-color:rgb(234,209,220)"><b>It is “objectively heretical” </b><b>to claim</b></span>, as <i>Amoris Laetitia</i> does,<span style="background-color:rgb(234,209,220)"><b> that someone may be simply unable</b></span> <span style="background-color:rgb(255,229,153)"><b>to live according to the demands of the Gospel, </b></span>Seifert said. <i>Amoris Laetitia</i>
suggests that people can “recognize that it’s God’s will to live in an
adulterous relationship,” but <span style="background-color:rgb(234,209,220)"><b>“that contradicts clearly</b></span> <span style="background-color:rgb(255,229,153)"><b>quite a few
dogmas of the Tridentine Council and</b></span> <span style="background-color:rgb(234,209,220)"><b>it clearly contradicts</b></span> <span style="background-color:rgb(255,229,153)"><b><i>Veritatis Splendor</i> and other solemn teachings of the Church,</b></span>” he said.</p>
<p><span style="background-color:rgb(208,224,227)"><b>Seifert stressed that he was not calling the pope <span style="background-color:rgb(234,209,220)">a heretic</span>, simply
pointing out that he made</b></span> <span style="background-color:rgb(234,209,220)"><b>heretical statements that </b></span><span style="background-color:rgb(255,229,153)"><b>should be corrected.</b></span></p>
<p>“<span style="background-color:rgb(208,224,227)"><b>He (Pope Fr.) says </b></span><span style="background-color:rgb(234,209,220)"><b>that (")nobody is condemned forever(") </b></span>… which in the context can
be interpreted in different ways, but it’s hard to interpret it in any
other way than <span style="background-color:rgb(234,209,220)"><b><u>denial </u>of hell,”</b></span> he said. <span style="background-color:rgb(255,229,153)"><b>Christ “warns us for </b></span><span style="background-color:rgb(234,209,220)"><b>the great,
real danger of eternal damnation</b></span>,”<span style="background-color:rgb(255,229,153)"><b> as have many saints and the Blessed
Virgin Mary in apparitions approved by the Church, “and therefore,</b></span><span style="background-color:rgb(234,209,220)"><b> for
the pope to invite people in a serious state of sin to go to</b></span> <span style="background-color:rgb(255,229,153)"><b>the
Sacraments </b></span><span style="background-color:rgb(234,209,220)"><b>and at the same time to say</b> </span><u><b><span style="background-color:rgb(234,209,220)">nobody will be condemned forever</span>,</b></u>
I think <span style="background-color:rgb(208,224,227)"><b>risks to be understood that</b></span> <span style="background-color:rgb(234,209,220)"><b><span style="background-color:rgb(217,234,211)">he (Pope Fr.)</span> <u>denies</u> <span style="background-color:rgb(217,234,211)">the possibility </span>of
damnation.”</b></span></p>
<p>“So I told the pope that he has to first of all clarify that he
didn’t want to deny hell in this statement, which would be against the
Holy Scripture, and against several [dogmas<span style="background-color:rgb(208,224,227)"><b>],” Seifert said. Even if
Pope Francis <span style="background-color:rgb(255,229,153)">didn’t mean</span> the statement to seem to be <u><span style="background-color:rgb(234,209,220)">a denial</span></u> <span style="background-color:rgb(234,209,220)">of hell,</span>
“I think many people understand it in that way and he <span style="background-color:rgb(255,229,153)">should </span>therefore <span style="background-color:rgb(255,229,153)">
clearly say</span> what is <span style="background-color:rgb(255,229,153)">the truth of the Gospel</span> </b></span>and not appear to deny
hell,” he said. This must be done for “clarity’s sake and for pastoral
care.”</p>
<h4><b>Seifert will speak up ‘even if I am murdered for it’</b></h4>
<p>Pope Francis would only “grow in esteem and respect in the world” if he retracted the statements in <i>Amoris Laetitia</i> that seemingly contradict Catholic doctrine, Seifert said.<span style="background-color:rgb(255,229,153)"><span></span></span> If he “persists in it,” then there is the “danger of schism.”</p>
<p>“To avoid schism and to avoid heresy and to avoid the complete split
in the Church, I think it is necessary that the pope … be told [these]
problems” and revoke them, Seifert said.</p>
<p>Seifert pointed out that he is not the only Catholic academic raising the alarm about <i>Amoris Laetitia</i>. <span style="background-color:rgb(255,229,153)"><b>Professor Robert Spaemann, a leading German philosophy professor and close friend of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, and <a href="https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/45-catholic-academics-urge-cardinals-to-ask-pope-francis-to-fix-exhortation" target="_blank">Dr. Jude P. Dougherty</a>,
the dean emeritus of the School of Philosophy at Catholic University of
America, both raised serious concerns with the <span style="background-color:rgb(234,209,220)">exhortation.</span> </b></span><a href="https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/popes-exhortation-is-a-breach-with-catholic-tradition-leading-german-philos" target="_blank">The former called it a “breach” with Catholic tradition</a> and the latter wrote that Pope Francis’ ambiguity means “what was certain before has become problematic.”</p>
<p>“Even if I am murdered for it, I think I have to speak up because <span style="background-color:rgb(255,229,153)"><b>one
cannot remain</b></span> <span style="background-color:rgb(234,209,220)"><b>silent</b></span><span style="background-color:rgb(217,234,211)"><b> if one feels that </b></span><span style="background-color:rgb(255,229,153)"><b>important truths which are also
very important for the eternal salvation of the faithful </b></span><span style="background-color:rgb(234,209,220)"><b>are obscured </b></span>…
in the document,” Seifert said.</p></div>