The Pope must revoke parts of Amoris Laetitia

Josef Seifert: The Pope must revoke parts of Amoris Laetitia

Gloria.tv
9/19/16

Speaking to Gloria.tv the Austrian philosopher Josef Seifert stated that different statements in Pope Francis’ apostolic exhortation Amoris laetitia are “objectively heretical”. Seifert makes clear that he does not believe that Pope Francis is heretical, “I think he made certain statements which are heretical.“

Francis writes in Amoris Laetitia: “No one can be condemned for ever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel!“ According to Seifert this claim can hardly be interpreted in any other way than as a denial of hell. Seifert adds: “But Christ himself warns in the Gospel of the reality of hell.”

Furthermore Seifert criticizes Francis’ claim that in certain circumstances adultery can be allowed and can even be considered as God’s will. A partner in a second illegitimate relationship should – according to Francis – not refuse sexual intercourse if the other partner would otherwise seek a third illegitimate relationship in order to attain sex. Seifert points out that this statement contradicts however the dogmas of the council of Trent and other solemn Church teachings.

He thanks Bishop Athanasius Schneider who asked Pope Francis in a letter for clarifications regarding Amoris Laetitia. Seifert goes one step further: He solicits Francis to revoke certain statements made in this document.

See video at susanna-media.gloria.tv/bonifacius/g/cc/njp1o3kpqgjmkzgcyoat2lri4vvmn9utcwg8zrety8.mp4?sum=N9xE5EfKBOazIvN4iW1eTw&due=1474416000

Facebook
Twitter
Google+
http://angelqueen.org/2016/09/20/the-pope-must-revoke-parts-of-amoris-laetitia/
Get AQ Email Updates
AQ RSS Feed

6 comments on “The Pope must revoke parts of Amoris Laetitia

  1. Bergoglio has a habit of speaking imprecisely and making emotivist statements rhetorically that are either ambiguous or open to heretical interpretations by progressive modernists and secular progressives who enjoying contradicting orthodox Catholic teachings. The infamous “Who am I to judge?” statement was one of those. Professor Seifert should debate Mirus on the question of whether heresy is involved or not in the novelties of the Bergoglian revolution.

    “Furthermore Seifert criticizes Francis’ claim that in certain circumstances adultery can be allowed and can even be considered as God’s will. A partner in a second illegitimate relationship should – according to Francis – not refuse sexual intercourse if the other partner would otherwise seek a third illegitimate relationship in order to attain sex. Seifert points out that this statement contradicts however the dogmas of the council of Trent and other solemn Church teachings.”

    Someone could write a book on Bergoglio’s casuistry, modernist Situation Ethics, and soteriology. Perhaps it is God’s will that Professor Seifert should write this book. Bergoglio does not want to hear about the dogmas of the council of Trent and other solemn Church teachings that his progressive spin on Amoris Laetitia contradicts, but “who are we to judge” Professor Seifert in pointing them out since he is following his conscience and his own idea of the Good?

    Are the Church’s teachings on marriage and sex only a matter of discipline or are doctrines involved?

    • A partner in a second illegitimate relationship should – according to Francis – not refuse sexual intercourse if the other partner would otherwise seek a third illegitimate relationship

      Sinning to prevent further sin, eh?

      What if the partners ran an air-conditioning manufacturing company and one partner threatened to go build his own factory?



  2. Captain Kirk: Mister Spock! The danger of a second marital sexual partner purchasing another air conditioner…analyze using your usual superior Vulcan logic which we no longer call “superior” in order to avoid being accused of excessive rigidity and neo-Pelagian triumphalism by progressive modernists and secular progressives who may dispute claims on behalf of Aristotelian logic in their emotivist sloganeering for multiculturalism and political correctness….



    Spock: Fascinating, Captain. There is no doubt that Professor Seifert is vulnerable to accusations of neo-Pelagian triumphalism by progressive modernist supporters of the novelties of the Bergoglian paradigm. However, the dangers of a second or third air conditioning unit in the domestic arrangements of multiple marriages could pose certain risks for climate change and global warming.



    Captain Kirk: And the risks for climate change and global warming outweigh the advantages of adulterous sexual intercourse in a third relationship?



    Sulu: There are other risks, Captain.



    Captain Kirk: Spock!



    Spock: These are different values, Jim. I could consult the ship’s computer for a complete analysis of values clarification for the issues involved.



    Captain Kirk: Will that take very long, Mister Spock?



    Spock: I will need Lieutenant Sulu’s Enneagram number.



  3. The logical lacunae in the document Amoris Laetitia cannot be wished away by referring to the pope’s speech. If he (or his assistants) have committed their collective pathetic pabulum to paper Seifert is correct in stating that any errors need correcting.



  4. Captain Kirk: Is that right, Mister Spock?



    Spock: I’m afraid that it looks like heresy and jesuitical hair-splitting in progressive modernist Situation Ethics, Captain.



    Captain Kirk: And that’s bad, right?



    Spock: There is a double effect when it involves both writing and spoken speech in airplane interviews, Captain.



    Father Mulcahy, S.J.: Of course, the carbon units of paper used for writing have the double effect of contributing to climate change and global warming.

Leave a Reply