Εμείς, αδελφοί μοντερνιστές έχουμε ένα μεγάλο αριθμό ιερατικών και μοναστικών κλήσεων σαν παραδοσιακές εκφράσεις SSPX SSPXII CMRI etc. ενώ εσείς σχεδόν τίποτα.Μόνο στην ταλαίπωρη Αφρικανική Ηπειρο προσπαθείτε  να καλύψετε το καταστροφικό αυτό κενό σας.Συνέλθετε !

A NEW FUTURE FOR WINONA Bishop Fellay, the Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X, has decided that the Brother's Novitiate, which has been at St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Winona, MN since 2005, will remain there even as the seminary departs. Fr. Kenneth Dean, the Master of Novices, will stay in Winona with the brother postulants and the novices. Brother Marcel and Brother Maximilian have been appointed assistants of Fr. Dean in the novitiate to help him teach the postulants and novices in all liturgical, practical, and artistic matters. Fr. Andrew Dwyer will be transferred to Winona from Kansas City and will take care of the buildings in Winona as well as the apostolate in the surrounding chapels. After years of anxious waiting, the long-anticipated move to Virginia has finally occurred. Seminarians, like ants with dolly carts, moved thousands of boxes into eight large red shipping containers (pods) which littered the beautiful lawns of the seminary. Boxes of all shapes and sizes, of various weight and fragility were stuffed into each. The precious library of some 40,000 volumes, meticulously packed, filled two containers, weighing a total of over 91 tons. A huge crane lifted containers and, negotiating trees, buildings, and curious seminarians, carefully placed each on waiting semi-­‐trucks which then hurtled east down the dusty road to Virginia. Another important and valuable shipment, duly insured, was the sacristy, in its own 24-foot truck. While containers were being loaded, other seminarians emptied and cleaned rooms. Others yet were tasked with preparing meals and the final dismantling of systems. The actual departure was carefully planned like a military maneuver. There were five stages, beginning with the containers carrying 120 tons, followed by the rector and vice-­‐rector a day later. The sacristy departed early on Sunday, the 23rd, after the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass was offered in Winona, MN, for the last time under the auspices of St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary. On Tuesday, October 25th, the seminarians left after a 5:30 AM Mass, a quick breakfast, and a final blessing from Fr. Dean. For over 25 years, Winona has been the American seminary of the Society of St. Pius X. After outgrowing the former Dominican monastery, and building a new facility to form future priests of the Church, what does the future hold for this outpost of Tradition in southeastern Minnesota? Winona once again receives a new mission from the SSPX, to form religious for the universal Church. We encourage our readers to continue to pray for the growth of Tradition during this Rosary Crusade.er 4 BP. FELLAY TO GIVE CONFERENCE IN PORTLAND The Third Annual SSPX Conference in Portland, Oregon will focus on the fascinating, turbulent, historical year of 1976. The conference will take place on November 12th, 2016, and features Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the SSPX; Fr. Jurgen Wegner, District Superior of the United States; and Mr. James Vogel, MA, Communications Director of SSPX USA. Why a conference about 1976?  It was a pivotal year for both Archbishop Lefebvre and the nascent Society of St. Pius X.  The refusal of the Archbishop to submit to the sanctions and the requirements of Pope Paul VI sent shockwaves not just through the Catholic Church, but even secular Europe.  In this setting, Archbishop Lefebvre was a man officially divested, canonically sanctioned in his work. Bishop Mamie, the Bishop of Sion (the diocese of Fribourg), had suppressed the Society of St. Pius X, which had been authorized in 1970 by his predecessor. During the summer months of 1976, the Archbishop increased his life-long campaign to exalt the priesthood and publicly demonstrate his attachment to the traditional Mass. He became a public figure. Such was not his intention, but he was present for the first Masses of some of the young priests he had just ordained, and he had just said a Solemn Mass in Lille, on August 29. That was enough. Moved by their devotion to the ancient rite, indignant at the suspension applied to the founder of Econe when so many sacrilegious innovators remained unpunished, the faithful flocked to the Masses he celebrated or honored with his presence, eager also to hear his sermons.   The conference promises to be a historically and culturally fascinating event, with three of the most knowledgeable speakers on this topic gathered together. For further information, please download the flyer here:

Λίγα για την Χριστιανική ιστορία,....

Η ποικιλία των Εκκλησιών του χριστιανισμού είναι μεγάλη.Συνοπτικά μπορούμε να τις κατατάξουμε ως εξής:
ΠΡΩΤΟΙ ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΟΙ
Εκκλησία της Ανατολής
Μονοφυσίτες ( 451 μχ)

Ορθόδοξοι -Καθολικοί ( 1054 με σχίσμα ) -και λίγοι Βάλδοι 1184 εξ΄αυτ΄ν οι Μενονίτες -αναβαπτιστές κλπ
Εκ των Καθολικών έρχονται οι Λουθηρανοι ( 1517 ) και εξ αυτών οι καλβινιστές και βαπτιστές
Επίσης εκ της Καθολικής Εκκλησίας  έχουμε τους Αγγλικανούς ( μερικοί βαπτιστές ),κουακέροι μεθοδιστές.
Από την Εκκλησία της Αγγλίας έρχονται οι Πρεσβυτεριανοί που παράγουν τις ρεφορμιστικές Εκκλησίες  και τους κογκρεγκαλιστές .
Τώρα Από την Εκκλησία της Ανατολής έχουμε τους Ασσύριους και από τους Μονοφυσίτες τις Θωμαϊστικές Εκκλησίες.
Η πρωϊμη για την εποχή της χριστιανική πίστη και πρακτική ήταν μέρος ενός χαοτικού κόσμου,που μέσα σε αυτόν πάλευαν οι χριστιανοί να ορίσουν έναν τόσο τους εαυτούς των όσο και τις παραδόσεις των.Αυτή η διαφορετικότητα φαίνεται δυνατά και σήμερα παρατηρώντας τις αντιθέσεις μεταξύ των Καθολικών-Ορθοδόξων ,των Κοπτών και της συριακής παράδοσης κλπ.
Πυρήνα του Χριστιανισμού αποτελούν η ζωή και η διδασκαλία του Ιησού.
Η πρωϊμη Εκκλησία αποδέχθηκε πώς ο Ιησούς γεννήθηκε συνάμα Θεός και άνθρωπος.΄Ομως για αυτούς ήταν ένα από τρία θεία πρόωπα που συνιστούσαν την Αγία Τριάδα,ενω τα άλλα δύο ήταν Ο Πατέρας και το ΄Αγιο Πνεύμα.
Ενας Μεγάλος διδασκαλος της πρωϊμης Εκκλησίας 'ηταν και ο Αγιος Αθανάσιος ,κατά τον 4ο αιώνα που έλεγε : Ο Θεός έγινε άνθρωπος ,ώστε η ανθρωπότητα να μπορέσει να γίνει Θεός.
Το υπέροχο είναι πώς η ζωή και διδασκαλία του Ιησού υπόσχονται μια καινούργια ζωή για το πνεύμα ,ενα βασίλειο του Θεού στη γη .Σύμφωνα με τον Ευαγγελιστή Λουκά ,τούτη η ζωή σημαίνει μια κοινότητα δικαιοσύνης ,συμπόνοιας και απαλλαγής από την φτώχεια  και την καταπίεση σε αυτή τη ζωή βλ. Λουκάς 4:16-21
΄Εχοντας διδ'αξει πώς η βασιλεία του Θεού βρίσκεται μέσα στούς ανθρώπουςκαι έχοντας προκαλέσει μια βαθειά αναταραχή στον πολιτισμό ( αντ.κατεστημένο ) ,εκεί όπου ζούσε με τις διδασκαλίες του,ο Ιησούς συνελήφθη και δικάστηκε ,και καταδικάστηκε  σε θάνατο.
Με βάση τα Ευαγγέλια της ΚΔ μετά την σταυρωσή του ,αναστήθηκε  και πάλι εκ των νεκρώνγια να φέρει τη σωτηρία στον κόσμο.
Εξη αιώνες αργότερα ,όταν η ιστορία του Ιησού ακούστηκε στην Κίνα ,δηλ.η σούτρα του Ιησού γνωστή με τον τίτλο :Η Σούτρα της Διδασκαλίας Εκείνου που Τιμάται απ΄όλο τον κόσμο ,περιγράφει τη θυσία που δημιούργησε τον χριστιανισμό:
Ας πάμε  στις σούτρες 4,5
"΄Οπως το αρνί πηγαίνει σιωπηλό στη σφαγή,έτσι σιωπηλός ήταν και εκείνος,χωρίς να διακηρύσσει δημόσια τι είχε κάνει,γιατί έπερεπε να υπομείνει  το σώμα του την τιμωρία του Νόμου.Υπέφερε όλα αυτά από αγάπη για να μπορέσει να αλλάξει τα δεινά που είχε προκαλλέσει ο Αδάμ.Και ενώ οι πέντε ιδιότητες του πέθαναν ,εκείνος δεν πέθανε ,αλλά μετά τον θάνατό του πάλι εμφανίσθηκε.
Οπως προέβλεπε ο Νόμος σταυρώθηκε  τον καθορισμένο χρόνο.Τη στιγμή εκείνη η γη σείσθηκε και τα βουνά άνοιξαν ,.... ( 4: 18-20,5:1-2 ,10-11 )
Οι πρώτοι που επηρεάσθηκαν από το μήνυμά Του έτυχε να είνα σχεδόν όλοι Εβραίοι .Αργότερα μέσα σε μια δεκαετία ,από την σταυρωσή Του προσηλυτίσθηκαν  και μη Εβραίοι  και η νέα θρησκεία αναπτυσόταν σε όλα τα κοσμοπολίτικά κέντρα της Ρωμαϊκής Αυτοκρατορίας  και μάλιστα εκεί που οι επικαρατούσες γλώσσες ήταν τα Ελληνικά ! και τα Συριακά.
Η μητρική γλώσσα του Ιησού ήταν βέβαια τα αραμαϊκά  μιας παραλαγής της συριακής γλώσσης.΄Ομως τα Ευαγγέλια γράφηκαν στα Ελληνικά,την διεθνή γλώσσα εκείνης της Εποχής !!!
Μέχρι τον 4ον αιώνα η δυναμική του χριστιανισμού ήταν αυξανόμενη υφιστάμενη απηνείς διώξεις ιδιαίτερα από την Ρωμαϊκή Εκκλησία.
Περί το 300 μχ υπήρχαν δυναμικές χριστιανικές κοινότητες από την Αγγλία ως την Ινδία και από την Αίγυπτο μέχρι την Μαύρη Θάλασσα,αντιμεταπιζομενη σαν ένας μονολιθικός θεσμός με διάφορες δυνάμεις και τρόπους προσπαθόντας να ριζώσει.Διάφορες εκδοχές για την ζωή του Χριστού συγχωνεύθηκαν έχοντας κοινά στοιχεία ,όσες βέβαια ήτα υπερβολικά αιρετικές  ή και ριζοσπαστικές  εξοβελίστικαν ή και απωθήθηκαν.
Το ιδανικό της Μιας και Μοναδικής Εκκλησίας  είναι  μια ιστορική επινόηση του 4ου και 5ου αιώνα,αφού η Δυτική Εκκλησία  της Ρωμαϊκής αυτοκρατορίας  και η αυτοκρατορία έγινε γνωστη ως αγία..
Ευθύς εξ αρχής υπήρξαν έντονες προσωπικές διαμάχες και διαφορές απόψεων για την σημασία και την διδασκαλία του Ιησού.
Σημαντική είναι η διαφωνία ανάμεσα στους Αποστόλους Πέτρο και Παύλο.
Ο Πέτρος πιο ανατολίτης  εκ της φύσεως του προσεκτικός  και δεμένος  με την παράδοση και την ιστορία ,ενώ ο Παύλος  είχε μεγαλώσει  με την νοοτροπία της Ελληνικής Δύσης και την αλληλοεπίδραση της ιουδαϊκής με την Ελληνική φιλοσοφία.΄Ηθελε να δημιουργίσει μια νέα πίστη :πιο ριζοσπαστική πιο ασυνήθιστη που να μην είναι δεμένη στο άρμα της παράδοσης. 
Πέρα από τις διαφωνίες ανάμεσα στους ιδρυτές της ,η πρώιμη Εκκλησία σπαρασσόταν επίσης από θεολογικές και πρακτικές διαφωνίες και αντιθέσεις μερικές φορές σοβαρές: πόσο εβραϊκή  θα έπρεπε να είναι η Εκκλησία?Ο Ιησούς ήταν περισσότερο Θεός η άνθρωπος?Η Π.Δ είχε κάποια θέση στο Χριστιανισμό?Ο υλικός κόσμος ήταν δαιμονικός καλός η αδιάφορος ?Δεδομένου ότι ο πρώΙμος χριστιανισμός δεν έιχε ένα σαφές πιστεύω από το 1ο -4ον αιώνα και παρασυρόταν από διαφορα μοντέλα πίστης που υπήρχαν τριγύρω τότε.Ακόμη και για το σεβασμό των Ρωμαίων για το ήλιο που ανατέλλει εξ ανατολών ,όπου και η Αγία Τράπεζα τίθεται είς Ανατολάς κλπ.Ακόμη και η 25 η Δεκεμβρίου ,ήταν  η ημέρα που γιόρταζαν την γεννηση του ήλιου οι Ρωμαίοοι και έγινε γενέθλια του Ιησού.
Ο Χριστιανισμός αναπτύχθηκε αργά ,παίρνοντας διάφορες μορφές που μερικές φορές  αμφισβητούν την θεϊκή Του υπόσταση π.χ Οπαδοί Απολλιναρίου ,γνωστικοί κ.α
Με την μεταρστροφή του Μ.Κων/νου το 312 μ.χ,πολλοί χριστιανοί άρχισαν να πιστεύουν πώς αυτές οι διχογνωμίες ηταν επικινδυνες και η ενότητα  ήταν απαραίτητη.
΄Οταν λοιπόν η Αυτοκρατορία έγινε χριστιανική,είδαν τότε τη μια Εκκλησία μέσα στη Ρωμαϊκή αυτοκρατορία και ο στόχος της ενότητος ήταν μέσα στίς συγκλίσεις των Συνόδων.Και ΄'οποιες εκκλησίες δεν ακολουθούσαν την επίσημη γραμμή εκδιώκονταν από το κύριο σώμα της εκκλησίας.
Οι Σύνοδοι περιοριζόταν εντός των εδαφών της Ρωμαϊκής Αυτοκρατορίας κατα κύριο λόγο και οι τοπικές εμφανίσεις του Χριστιανισμού δεν είχαν κάμμια σχέση με αυτές.
Για παράδειγμα η περίπτωση της Αγγλίας με τον χριστιανισμό των κελτών κλπ.
Γενικά  πρός το τέλος του 4ου αιώνα ο χριστιανισμός συνασπιζόταν  σε απομακρυσμένα σύνολα.Το δυτικό ,η Ρωμαϊκή Αυτοκρατορία,στην ουσία εξουσιαζόταν από την Εκκλησία που προστατευόταν από το κράτος και χρηματοδοτείτο εξ΄αυτού.
Σε αντίθεση με τα ανατολικά έφνανε και μέχρι τις Ινδίες στα όρια με το Θιβέτ ,της αυτοκρατορίας των Σασσανιδών.
Εκτος αυτού υπήρχαν  και Εκκλησίες που διατηρούσαν την ανεξαρτησία τους κλπ.Για παράδειγμα ,η Εκκλησία της Αγγλίας η Κέλτικη στα ηρετανικά νησιά,η Αρμενική και οι Εκκλησίες στη Νοτια Αιγυπτο και Αιθιοπία.
Δυστυχώς αιρέσεις  εμφανιζόταν προκαλώντας μεγάλη συγχυση προκαλώντας πονοκέφαλο στους υπερασπιστές της ορθοδοξίας κλπ.Μια από αυτές ήταν και  μανιχαϊσμός  και το δυϊσμό του που επιρέασε ακόμη και τον νεαρό Αγιο Αυγουστίνο ,επίσκοπο Ιππώνος ( 396-430 μχ)
Οι σούτρα του Ιησού προήλθαν από την Εκκλησία της Ανατολής
Μέρος Ι

+Γεώργιος Παπαθανασίου PhD


 

New rules and regulations for the Medical Commission for the Recognition of Miracles

St. Peter’s Square during the canonization of Mother Teresa, September 4, 2016.

On September 23, 2016, the Congregation for the Cause of the Saints published the new rules and regulations for its Medical Commission for the Recognition of Miracles.
The first time medical experts intervened in a process was during the canonization of St. Charles Borromeo in 1610. Blessed Pope Innocent XI (1676-1689) made medical consultation obligatory in 1678, and the first order of medical experts was created in 1743, at Pope Benedict XIV’s decision. In 1948, Pius XII instituted a Medical Commission to study the cases of inexplicable and miraculous healing. John XXIII gave this commission a precise handbook of rules that Pope Paul VI had revised on April 23, 1976.
Forty years later, a new set of rules has been born. In September 2015, a commission was created to accomplish this revisal. Cardinal Marcello Bartolucci, secretary of the Congregation for the Cause of the Saints, was its director. A first draft of the rules was submitted to the ordinary assembly of the Congregation and to the president of the Medical Commission, Professor Patrizio Polisca, on June 27, 2016. The prefect of the Congregation for the Cause of the Saints, Cardinal Angelo Amato, finally addressed the final text to the Secretary of State of July 9, submitting it for papal approval. Thus after ten months of work, the Holy See’s Secretary of State, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, approved the new rules on August 24, 2016, in the Holy Father’s name – de mandato Summi Pontificis. This document was published on September 23.
The first consultation is still realized by two doctors, who decide whether to open an in depth investigation – the price of this consultation is 500€. This is in keeping with the 1917 Pian-Benedictine code that called for the obligatory opinion of two doctors on whether or not the healings could be explained (canon 2013, 2); this opinion has to be obtained before any theological examination. The second step is a consultation by a group of seven experts – for a price of 3760€. The new set of rules establishes that the examination of a miracle case cannot be submitted to more than three examinations by three different groups of experts, whereas before the number of examinations was unlimited.
Other novelty: the new rules establish a qualified majority for the recognition of the miracles; a majority of 5 members out of 7 or 4 out of 6 is required. And the president of the Medical Commission can no longer be in office for more than two five-year terms. Lastly, all persons implicated in the procedure are held to absolute secrecy, and they will be paid by bank wires and no longer in cash.
These are the principal dispositions of the new rules. But allow us to point out that the Church can canonize without always requiring a miracle. By the power of the keys, the pope can exceptionally dispense from the obligation of a miracle. Thus did Pope Francis decide not to require a second miracle to proceed with the canonization of John XXIII, which took place on April 27, 2014, and on which we highly suggest you read Doubts on the canonization of John XXIII and Paul VI (DICI no.283 Oct. 18, 2013).
For martyrs, a miracle is not necessary for beatification. Thus, Fr. Engelmar Unzeitig, called “the Angel of Dachau” was recently beatified on September 24, 2016, in Wurzburg, Germany, by Cardinal Angelo Amato, prefect of the Congregation for the Cause of the Saints and representative of the pope. Pope Francis considered him as a martyr, and therefore no miracle was necessary to proceed with his beatification.
Fr. Unzeitig, a Mariannhill Missionary, was ordained in 1939, at the age of 28. Arrested by the Gestapo in April 1941 in his parish in Glöckelberg, Bohemia, he was deported without trial to Dachau on June 8, 1941. He stayed in the “priests’ barracks” where he devoted himself tirelessly for the other prisoners, a true model of faith and charity. In 1944 he cared for the typhoid patients, a sickness that spread quickly with the terrible hygienic conditions and famine. He caught typhoid himself and died on March 2, 1945, shortly after the end of the war and the liberation of the camp by the American 45^th Infantry division under General Troy Middleton on April 29.
Allow us to recall that martyrdom is an unshakable attachment to truth and justice against the assaults of the persecutors, a witness of the faith borne with strength to the shedding of blood: “death suffered for Christ is essential for a true martyrdom,” writes St. Thomas Aquinas. This death can be directly caused out of hatred for the faith, but it can also be the consequence of measures taken out of hatred for the faith, such as prison, exile, or despoliation.

From SSPXII

Για όσους τους ενδειαφερόμενους παραδοσιακούς χριστιανούς υπάρχει η ιστοσελίδα :
marcellefevbre.info
αναφέρεται στο έργο και τη ζωή του Μακαριστού Αρχιεπίσκόπου Marcel Lefevbre

Amoris Laetitia: Critical Analysis

by Mgr.Georges-Gregoire Papathanasiou PhD

---

The apostolic exhortation Amoris laetitia, issued by Pope Francis on March 19th 2016 and addressed to bishops, priests, deacons, consecrated persons, Christian married couples, and all the lay faithful, has caused grief and confusion to many Catholics on account of its apparent disagreement with a number of teachings of the Catholic Church on faith and morals. This situation poses a grave danger to souls. Since, as St. Thomas Aquinas teaches, inferiors are bound to correct their superiors publicly when there is an imminent danger to the faith (Summa Theologiae, IIa IIae q. 33 a. 4 ad 2; a. 7 co.), and the Catholic faithful have the right and at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence, and position, to make known their views on matters which concern the good of the Church (Latin Code of Canon Law, Can. 212, §3), Catholic theologians have a strict duty to speak out against the apparent errors in the document. This statement on Amoris laetitia is intended to fulfil that duty, and to assist the hierarchy of the Church in addressing this situation.

The authority of Amoris laetitia

The official character of Amoris laetitia enables it to pose a grave danger to the faith and morals of Catholics. Although an apostolic exhortation pertains normally or principally to the purely pastoral governing power, nevertheless, on account of the inter-connection of the powers of teaching and of government, it also pertains indirectly to the magisterial power. It can also contain directly magisterial passages, which are then clearly indicated as being such. This was the case for previous apostolic exhortations such as Evangelii nuntiandi, Familiaris consortio, and Reconciliatio et paenitentia.
There is no obstacle as such to the Pope’s using an apostolic exhortation to teach infallibly on faith and morals, but no infallible teaching is contained in Amoris laetitia, since none of its statements satisfy the strict requirements for an infallible definition. It is thus a non-infallible exercise of the papal magisterium.
Some commentators have asserted that the document does not contain magisterial teaching as such, but only the personal reflections of the Pope on the subjects it addresses. This assertion if true would not remove the danger to faith and morals posed by the document. If the Supreme Pontiff expresses a personal opinion in a magisterial document, this expression of opinion implicitly presents the opinion in question as one that it is legitimate for Catholics to hold. As a result, many Catholics will come to believe that the opinion is indeed compatible with Catholic faith and morals. Some Catholics out of respect for a judgment expressed by the Supreme Pontiff will come to believe that the opinion is not only permissible but true. If the opinion in question is not in fact compatible with Catholic faith or morals, these Catholics will thus reject the faith and moral teaching of the Catholic Church as it applies to this opinion. If the opinion relates to questions of morals, the practical result for the actions of Catholics will be the same whether they come to hold that the opinion is legitimate or actually true. An opinion on moral questions that is in truth legitimate for the Supreme Pontiff to hold is one that it is legitimate for Catholics to follow. Belief in the legitimacy of a moral position will thus lead Catholics to believe that it is legitimate to act as if it is true. If there is a strong motivation to act in this way, as there is with the questions being addressed here for the faithful to whose situations these questions are pertinent, most Catholics will act accordingly. This is an important factor in an evaluation of Amoris laetitia, because that document addresses concrete moral questions.
It is however not the case that Amoris laetitia is intended to do no more than express the personal views of the Pope. The document contains statements about the personal positions of the current Holy Father, but such statements are not incompatible with these positions being presented as teachings of the Church by the document. Much of the document consists of straightforward assertoric and imperative statements that make no reference to the personal views of the Holy Father, and that thus have the form of magisterial teachings. This form will cause Catholics to believe that these statements are not simply permissible, but are teachings of the authentic magisterium which call for religious submission of mind and will; teachings to which they must yield not a respectful silence accompanied by inner disagreement, but actual inner assent. (1)

The dangers of Amoris laetitia

The following analysis does not deny or question the personal faith of Pope Francis. It is not justifiable or legitimate to deny the faith of any author on the basis of a single text, and this is especially true in the case of the Supreme Pontiff. There are further reasons why the text of Amoris laetitia cannot be used as a sufficient reason for holding that the Pope has fallen into heresy. The document is extremely long, and it is probable that much of its original text was produced by an author or authors who are not Pope Francis, as is normal with papal documents. Those statements in it that on the face of them contradict the faith could be due to simple error on Pope Francis’s part, rather than to a voluntary rejection of the faith.
When it comes to the document itself, however, there is no doubt that it constitutes a grave danger to Catholic faith and morals. It contains many statements whose vagueness or ambiguity permit interpretations that are contrary to faith or morals, or that suggest a claim that is contrary to faith and morals without actually stating it. It also contains statements whose natural meaning would seem to be contrary to faith or morals.
The statements made by Amoris laetitia are not expressed with scientific accuracy. This can be advantageous for the very small proportion of Catholics who have a scientific training in theology, because such Catholics will be able to discern that the assertions of Amoris laetitia do not demand their religious submission of mind and will, or even a respectful silence in regard to them. Accurate formulation and proper legal form are needed in order to make a magisterial utterance binding in this fashion, and these are for the most part lacking in the document. It is however harmful for the vast majority of Catholics who do not have a theological training and are not well informed about Catholic teachings on the topics that the apostolic exhortation discusses. The lack of precision in the document’s statements makes it easier to interpret them as contradicting the real teachings of the Catholic Church and of divine revelation, and as justifying or requiring the abandonment of these teachings by Catholics in theory and in practice. Some cardinals, bishops, and priests, betraying their duty to Jesus Christ and to the care of souls, are already offering interpretations of this sort.
The problem with Amoris laetitia is not that it has imposed legally binding rules that are intrinsically unjust or authoritatively taught binding teachings that are false. The document does not have the authority to promulgate unjust laws or to require assent to false teachings, because the Pope does not have the power to do these things. The problem with the document is that it can mislead Catholics into believing what is false and doing what is forbidden by divine law. The document is formulated in terms that are not legally or theologically exact, but this does not matter for the evaluation of its contents, because the most precise formulation cannot give legal and doctrinal status to decrees that are contrary to divine law and divine revelation. What is important about the document is the damaging effect it can have on the belief and moral life of Catholics. The character of this effect will be determined by the meaning that most Catholics will take it to have, not by its meaning when evaluated by precise theological criteria, and it is this meaning that will be addressed here. The propositions of Amoris laetitia that require censure must thus be condemned in the sense that the average reader is liable to attribute to their words. The average reader here is understood to be one who is not trying to twist the words of the document in any direction, but who will take the natural or the immediate impression of the meaning of the words to be correct.
It is acknowledged that some of the censured propositions are contradicted elsewhere in the document, and that Amoris laetitia contains many valuable teachings. Some of the passages of Amoris laetitia make an important contribution to the defence and preaching of the faith. The criticism of Amoris laetitia offered here permits these valuable elements to have their true effect, by distinguishing them from the problematic elements in the document and neutralising the threat to the faith posed by them.
For the sake of theological clarity and justice, this criticism of the harmful parts of Amoris laetitia will take the form of a theological censure of the individual passages that are deficient. These censures are to be understood in the sense traditionally held by the Church (2), and are applied to the passages prout iacent, as they lie. The propositions censured are so damaging that a complete listing of the censures that apply to them is not attempted. Most if not all of them fall under the censures of aequivoca, ambigua, obscura, praesumptuosa, anxia, dubia, captiosa, male sonans, piarum aurium offensiva, as well as the ones listed. The censures list i) the censures that bear upon the content of the statements censured, and ii) those that bear upon the damaging effects of the statements. The censures are not intended to be an exhaustive list of the errors that Amoris laetitia on a plausible reading contains; they seek to identify the worst threats to Catholic faith and morals in the document. The propositions censured are divided into those that are heretical and those that fall under a lesser censure. Heretical propositions, censured as ‘haeretica’, are ones that contradict propositions that are contained in divine revelation and are defined with a solemn judgment as divinely revealed truths either by the Roman Pontiff when he speaks ‘ex cathedra,’ or by the College of Bishops gathered in council, or infallibly proposed for belief by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. The propositions that fall under a lesser censure than heresy are included as posing an especially grave danger to faith and morals.
The censures of these propositions are not censures of administrative, legislative or doctrinal acts of the Supreme Pontiff, since the propositions censured do not and cannot constitute such acts. The censures are the subject of a filial request to the Supreme Pontiff, which asks him to make a definitive and final juridical and doctrinal act condemning the propositions censured.
Finally, some of the theologians who are signatories to this letter reserve the right to make minor adjustments to some of the censures attached to some of the propositions: their signatures should be taken as indicating their belief that all the propositions should be censured, and a general agreement with the censures here proposed.

Theological censures of propositions drawn from the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia

A – Heretical propositions.

1) AL 83 : ‘The Church … firmly rejects the death penalty’.
If understood as meaning that the death penalty is always and everywhere unjust in itself and therefore cannot ever be rightly inflicted by the state:

1. Haeretica, sacrae Scripturae contraria.
2. Perniciosa.

Gen. 9:63:

Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.”

See also: Lev. 20-1; Deut. 13, 21-22; Matt. 15:4; Mk. 7:10; Jn. 19:11; Rom. 13:4; Heb. 10:28; Innocent I, Letter to Exsuperius, PL 120: 499A-B; Innocent III, Profession of Faith prescribed for the Waldensians, DH 7954; Pius V, Catechism of the Council of Trent, commentary on the 5th commandment; Pope Pius XII, Address to the First International Congress of Histopathology of the Nervous System, AAS 44 (1952): 787; John Paul II, Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2267.
2) AL 156 : ‘Every form of sexual submission must be clearly rejected.’
If understood not simply as denying that a wife owes servile obedience to her husband or that the husband has authority over his wife that is the same as parental authority, but as also denying that the husband has any form of authority over his wife, or as denying that the wife has any duty to obey the legitimate commands of her husband in virtue of his authority as husband:

1. Haeretica, sacrae Scripturae contraria.
2. Prava, perniciosa.

Eph. 5:24:

As the Church is subject to Christ, so also let wives be to their husbands in all things.”

See also: 1 Cor. 11:3; Col. 3:18; Tit. 2:3-5; 1 Pet. 3:1-5; Pius V, Catechism of the Council of Trent, commentary on the sacrament of matrimony; Leo XIII, Arcanum, ASS 12 (1879): 389; Pius XI, Casti connubii, AAS 22 (1930): 549 (DH 3708-09); John XXIII, Ad Petri cathedram, AAS 51 (1959): 509-10.
3) AL 159 : ‘Saint Paul recommended virginity because he expected Jesus’ imminent return and he wanted everyone to concentrate only on spreading the Gospel: “the appointed time has grown very short” (1 Cor 7:29). . . . Rather than speak absolutely of the superiority of virginity, it should be enough to point out that the different states of life complement one another, and consequently that some can be more perfect in one way and others in another.’
Understood as denying that a virginal state of life consecrated to Christ is superior considered in itself to the state of Christian marriage:

1. Haeretica, sacrae Scripturae contraria.
2. Perniciosa, suspensiva gravis resolutionis.

Council of Trent, Session 24, canon 10:

If anyone says that the married state surpasses that of virginity or celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity or celibacy than to be united in matrimony, let him be anathema” (DH 1810).

See also: Mt. 19: 12, 21; 1 Cor. 7:7-8, 38; 2 Thess. 2:1-2; Apoc. 14:4; Council of Florence, Decree for the Jacobites, DH 1353; Pius X, Response of the Biblical Commission, DH 3629; Pius XII, Sacra virginitas, AAS 46 (1954): 174; 2nd Vatican Council, Decree Optatam totius, 10.
4) AL 295 : ‘Saint John Paul II proposed the so-called “law of gradualness” in the knowledge that the human being “knows, loves and accomplishes moral good by different stages of growth”. This is not a “gradualness of law” but rather a gradualness in the prudential exercise of free acts on the part of subjects who are not in a position to understand, appreciate, or fully carry out the objective demands of the law.’
AL 301: ‘It is [sic] can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values”, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin.’
Understood as meaning that a justified person has not the strength with God’s grace to carry out the objective demands of the divine law, as though any of the commandments of God are impossible for the justified; or as meaning that God’s grace, when it produces justification in an individual, does not invariably and of its nature produce conversion from all serious sin, or is not sufficient for conversion from all serious sin:

1. Haeretica, sacrae Scripturae contraria.
2. Impia, blasphema.

Council of Trent, session 6, canon 18:

If anyone says that the commandments of God are impossible to observe even for a man who is justified and established in grace, let him be anathema” (DH 1568).

See also: Gen. 4:7; Deut. 30:11-19; Ecclesiasticus 15: 11-22; Mk. 8:38; Lk. 9:26; Heb. 10:26-29; 1 Jn. 5:17; Zosimus, 15th (or 16th) Synod of Carthage, canon 3 on grace, DH 225; Felix III, 2nd Synod of Orange, DH 397; Council of Trent, Session 5, canon 5; Session 6, canons 18-20, 22, 27 and 29; Pius V, Bull Ex omnibus afflictionibus, On the errors of Michael du Bay, 54, (DH 1954); Innocent X, Constitution Cum occasione, On the errors of Cornelius Jansen, 1 (DH 2001); Clement XI, Constitution Unigenitus, On the errors of Pasquier Quesnel, 71 (DH 2471); John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et paenitentia 17: AAS 77 (1985): 222; Veritatis splendor 65-70: AAS 85 (1993): 1185-89 (DH 4964-67).
5) AL 297 : ‘No one can be condemned for ever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel!’
If understood as meaning that no human being can or will be condemned to eternal punishment in hell:

1. Haeretica, sacrae Scripturae contraria.
2. Scandalosa, perniciosa.

Matt. 25: 46:

These shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting”

See also: Mt. 7:22-23; Lk. 16: 26; Jn. 17:12; Apoc. 20:10; 16th Synod of Toledo (DH 574); 4th Lateran Council, DH 801; Benedict XII, Constitution Benedictus Deus, DH 1002; Council of Florence, decree Laetentur caeli, DH 1306; John Paul II, Letter of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Recentiores episcoporum, AAS 71 (1979): 941; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1033-37.
6) AL 299 : ‘I am in agreement with the many Synod Fathers who observed that “the baptized who are divorced and civilly remarried need to be more fully integrated into Christian communities in the variety of ways possible, while avoiding any occasion of scandal. The logic of integration is the key to their pastoral care, a care which would allow them not only to realize that they belong to the Church as the body of Christ, but also to know that they can have a joyful and fruitful experience in it. They are baptized; they are brothers and sisters; the Holy Spirit pours into their hearts gifts and talents for the good of all. … Such persons need to feel not as excommunicated members of the Church, but instead as living members, able to live and grow in the Church and experience her as a mother who welcomes them always, who takes care of them with affection and encourages them along the path of life and the Gospel”.’
If understood as meaning that the divorced and civilly remarried who choose their situation with full knowledge and full consent of the will are not in a state of serious sin, and that they can receive sanctifying grace and grow in charity:

1. Haeretica, sacrae Scripturae contraria.
2. Scandalosa, prava, perversa.

Mk. 10:11-12:

Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if the wife shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery”.

See also: Ex. 20:14; Mt. 5:32, 19:9; Lk. 16:18; 1 Cor. 7: 10-11; Heb. 10:26-29; Council of Trent, Session 6, canons 19-21, 27 (DH 1569-71, 1577); Session 24, canons 5 and 7 (DH 1805, 1807); Innocent XI, Condemned propositions of the ‘Laxists’, 62-63 (DH 2162-63); Alexander VIII, Decree of the Holy Office on ‘Philosophical Sin’, DH 2291; John Paul II, Veritatis splendor, 65-70: AAS 85 (1993): 1185-89 (DH 4964-67).
7) AL 301 : ‘It is [sic] can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values”, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin.’
Understood as meaning that a Catholic believer can have full knowledge of a divine law and voluntarily choose to break it in a serious matter, but not be in a state of mortal sin as a result of this action:

1. Haeretica, sacrae Scripturae contraria.
2. Prava, perversa.

Council of Trent, session 6, canon 20:

If anyone says that a justified man, however perfect he may be, is not bound to observe the commandments of God and of the Church but is bound only to believe, as if the Gospel were merely an absolute promise of eternal life without the condition that the commandments be observed, let him be anathema” (DH 1570).

See also: Mk. 8:38; Lk. 9:26; Heb. 10:26-29; 1 Jn. 5:17; Council of Trent, session 6, canons 19 and 27; Clement XI, Constitution Unigenitus, On the errors of Pasquier Quesnel, 71 (DH 2471); John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et paenitentia 17: AAS 77 (1985): 222; Veritatis splendor, 65-70: AAS 85 (1993): 1185-89 (DH 4964-67).
8) AL 301 : ‘It is [sic] can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding its inherent values, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin.’
Understood as saying that a person with full knowledge of a divine law can sin by choosing to obey that law:

1. Haeretica, sacrae Scripturae contraria.
2. Prava, perversa.

Ps. 18:8:

The law of the Lord is unspotted, converting souls.”

See also: Ecclesiasticus 15:21; Council of Trent, session 6, canon 20; Clement XI, Constitution Unigenitus, On the errors of Pasquier Quesnel, 71 (DH 2471); Leo XIII, Libertas praestantissimum, ASS 20 (1887-88): 598 (DH 3248); John Paul II, Veritatis splendor, 40: AAS 85 (1993): 1165 (DH 4953).
9) AL 303 : ‘Conscience can do more than recognize that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel. It can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal.’
Understood as meaning that conscience can truly judge that actions condemned by the Gospel, and in particular, sexual acts between Catholics who have civilly remarried following divorce, can sometimes be morally right or requested or commanded by God:

1. Haeretica, sacrae Scripturae contraria.
2. Scandalosa, prava, perversa, perniciosa, impia, blasphema.

Council of Trent, session 6, canon 21:

If anyone says that Jesus Christ was given by God to men as a redeemer in whom they are to trust but not also as a lawgiver whom they are bound to obey, let him be anathema” (DH 1571).

Council of Trent, session 24, canon 2:

If anyone says that it is lawful for Christians to have several wives at the same time, and that this is not forbidden by any divine law, let him be anathema” (DH 1802).

Council of Trent, session 24, canon 5:

If anyone says that the marriage bond can be dissolved because of heresy or difficulties in cohabitation or because of the wilful absence of one of the spouses, let him be anathema” (DH 1805)

Council of Trent, session 24, canon 7:

If anyone says that the Church is in error for having taught and for still teaching that in accordance with the evangelical and apostolic doctrine, the marriage bond cannot be dissolved because of adultery on the part of one of the spouses and that neither of the two, not even the innocent one who has given no cause for infidelity, can contract another marriage during the lifetime of the other, and that the husband who dismisses an adulterous wife and marries again and the wife who dismisses and adulterous husband and married again are both guilty of adultery, let him be anathema” (DH 1807).

See also: Ps. 5:5; Ps. 18:8-9; Ecclesiasticus 15:21; Heb. 10:26-29; Jas. 1:13; 1 Jn. 3:7; Innocent XI, Condemned propositions of the ‘Laxists’, 62-63 (DH 2162-63); Clement XI, Constitution Unigenitus, On the errors of Pasquier Quesnel, 71 (DH 2471); Leo XIII, encyclical letter Libertas praestantissimum, ASS 20 (1887-88): 598 (DH 3248); Pius XII, Decree of the Holy Office on situation ethics, DH 3918; 2nd Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes, 16; John Paul II, Veritatis splendor, 54: AAS 85 (1993): 1177; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1786-87.
10) AL 304 : ‘I earnestly ask that we always recall a teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas and learn to incorporate it in our pastoral discernment: “Although there is necessity in the general principles, the more we descend to matters of detail, the more frequently we encounter defects… In matters of action, truth or practical rectitude is not the same for all, as to matters of detail, but only as to the general principles; and where there is the same rectitude in matters of detail, it is not equally known to all… The principle will be found to fail, according as we descend further into detail”. It is true that general rules set forth a good which can never be disregarded or neglected, but in their formulation they cannot provide absolutely for all particular situations.’
Understood as meaning that moral principles and moral truths contained in divine revelation and in the natural law do not include negative prohibitions that absolutely forbid particular kinds of action under any and all circumstances:

1. Haeretica, sacrae Scripturae contraria.
2. Scandalosa, prava, perversa.

John Paul II, Veritatis splendor 115:

Each of us knows how important is the teaching which represents the central theme of this Encyclical and which is today being restated with the authority of the Successor of Peter. Each of us can see the seriousness of what is involved, not only for individuals but also for the whole of society, with the reaffirmation of the universality and immutability of the moral commandments, particularly those which prohibit always and without exception intrinsically evil acts” (DH 4971).

See also: Rom. 3:8; 1 Cor. 6: 9-10; Gal. 5: 19-21; Apoc. 22:15; 4th Lateran Council, chapter 22 (DH 815); Council of Constance, Bull Inter cunctas, 14 (DH 1254); Paul VI, Humanae vitae, 14: AAS 60 (1968) 490-91. John Paul II, Veritatis splendor, 83: AAS 85 (1993): 1199 (DH 4970).
11) AL 308 : ‘I understand those who prefer a more rigorous pastoral care which leaves no room for confusion. But I sincerely believe that Jesus wants a Church attentive to the goodness which the Holy Spirit sows in the midst of human weakness, a Mother who, while clearly expressing her objective teaching, “always does what good she can, even if in the process, her shoes get soiled by the mud of the street”.’
If understood as meaning that Our Lord Jesus Christ wills that the Church abandon her perennial discipline of refusing the Eucharist to the divorced and remarried and of refusing absolution to the divorced and remarried who do not express contrition for their state of life and a firm purpose of amendment with regard to it:

1. Haeretica, sacrae Scripturae contraria.
2. Scandalosa, prava, perversa, impia, blasphema.

1 Cor. 11:27:

Whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.”

Familiaris consortio, 84:

Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance, which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they ‘take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples’.”

2nd Lateran Council, canon 20:

Because there is one thing that conspicuously causes great disturbance to holy Church, namely false penance, we warn our brothers in the episcopate, and priests, not to allow the souls of the laity to be deceived or dragged off to hell by false penances. It is certain that a penance is false when many sins are disregarded and a penance is performed for one only, or when it is done for one sin in such a way that the penitent does not renounce another” (DH 717).

See also: Mt. 7:6; Mt. 22: 11-13; 1 Cor. 11:28-30; Heb. 13:8; Council of Trent, session 14, Decree on Penance, cap. 4; Council of Trent, session 13, Decree on the most holy Eucharist (DH 1646­47)); Innocent XI, Condemned propositions of the ‘Laxists’, 60-63 (DH 2160-63); John Paul II, Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1385, 1451, 1490

B) Propositions falling under lesser censures

12) AL 295 : ‘Saint John Paul II proposed the so-called “law of gradualness” in the knowledge that the human being “knows, loves and accomplishes moral good by different stages of growth”. This is not a “gradualness of law” but rather a gradualness in the prudential exercise of free acts on the part of subjects who are not in a position to understand, appreciate, or fully carry out the objective demands of the law.’
If understood as meaning that free acts that do not fully carry out the objective demands of divine law can be morally good:

1. Erronea in fide.
2. Scandalosa, prava.

1 Jn. 3: 4:

Whosoever committeth sin, committeth also iniquity; and sin is iniquity.”

See also: Leo XIII, Libertas praestantissimum, ASS 20 (1887-88): 598 (DH 3248); John Paul II, Veritatis splendor, 40: AAS 85 (1993): 1165 (DH 4953).
13) AL 296 : “There are two ways of thinking which recur throughout the Church’s history: casting off and reinstating. The Church’s way, from the time of the Council of Jerusalem, has always been the way of Jesus, the way of mercy and reinstatement. The way of the Church is not to condemn anyone for ever.”
AL 297: ‘No one can be condemned for ever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel!’
Understood as meaning that in circumstances where an offender does not cease to commit an offence the Church does not have the power or the right to inflict punishments or condemnations without later remitting them or lifting them, or that the Church does not have the power or the right to condemn and anathematise individuals after their death:

1. Erronea in fide.
2. Scandalosa, perniciosa, derogans praxi sive usui et disciplinae Ecclesiae.

1983 Code of Canon Law, can. 1358:

The remission of a censure cannot be granted except to an offender whose contempt has been purged”.

3rd Council of Constantinople, Condemnation of the Monothelites and of Pope Honorius I:

As to these self-same men whose impious teachings we have rejected, we have also judged it necessary to banish their names from the holy Church of God, that is, the name of Sergius, who began to write about this impious doctrine, of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, of Paul and of Peter and of those who have presided on the throne of this God-protected city, and the same for those who have been like-minded. Then also (the name) of Theodore who was bishop of Pharan. All these aforenamed persons were mentioned by Agatho, the most holy and thrice-blessed pope of elder Rome, in his letter to the . . . emperor, and rejected by him as having thought in a way contrary to our orthodox faith; and we determine that they are also subject to anathema. Along with these we have seen fit to banish from the holy Church of God and to anathematize also Honorius, the former pope of the elder Rome” (DH 550).

See also: 2nd Council of Constantinople, canons 11-12; Lateran Synod, canon 18 (DH 518-20); Leo II, Letter Regi regum, DH 563; 4th Council of Constantinople, canon 11; Council of Florence, Decree for the Jacobites, DH 1339-1346; Benedict XV, 1917  canons 855, 2214, 2241:1 and 2257; John Paul II, 1983 Code of Canon Law, canons 915 and 1311; Code of Canon Law for Eastern Churches, canon 1424:1.
14) AL 298 : ‘The divorced who have entered a new union, for example, can find themselves in a variety of situations, which should not be pigeonholed or fit into overly rigid classifications leaving no room for a suitable personal and pastoral discernment. One thing is a second union consolidated over time, with new children, proven fidelity, generous self-giving, Christian commitment, a consciousness of its irregularity and of the great difficulty of going back without feeling in conscience that one would fall into new sins.’
If understood as meaning that persons who are civilly married to someone other than their true spouse can show Christian virtue by being sexually faithful to their civil partner:

1. Erronea in fide.
2. Scandalosa.

1 Cor. 7:10-11:

To them that are married, not I but the Lord commandeth, that the wife depart not from her husband; and if she depart, that she remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband. And let not the husband put away his wife.”

See also: Gen. 2: 21; Mal. 2:15-16; Mt. 5:32, 19:9; Mk. 10:11-12; Lk. 16:18; Heb. 13:4; Letter Quam laudabiliter of Leo I, DH 283; Letter Regressus ad nos of Leo I, DH 311-14; Letter Gaudemus in Domino of Innocent III, DH 777-79; 2nd Council of Lyons, Profession of Faith of Emperor Michael Palaeologus (DH 860); Council of Trent, Session 24 canons 5, 7; Pius Vl, Rescript. ad Episc. Agriens., 11th July 1789; Arcanum, ASS 12 (1879-80): 388-94; Pius XI, Casti connubii, AAS 22 (1930): 546-50 (cf. Dz 3706-10); John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio, 19, 80-81, 84: AAS 74 (1982) 92-149; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1643-49.
15) AL 298 : ‘The Church acknowledges situations “where, for serious reasons, such as the children’s upbringing, a man and woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate”. [footnote 329] In such situations, many people, knowing and accepting the possibility of living “as brothers and sisters” which the Church offers them, point out that if certain expressions of intimacy are lacking, “it often happens that faithfulness is endangered and the good of the children suffers”.’ {N.B. The last clause in double quotation marks misleadingly applies to divorced and civilly married couples a statement of Vatican Council II, Gaudium et Spes, 51, that refers only to validly married couples.}
Understood as endorsing claims that divorced and civilly remarried couples have an obligation of sexual faithfulness to each other rather than to their true spouses, or that their living ‘as brother and sister’ could be either a culpable occasion of sin against that supposed obligation, or a culpable cause of harm to their children:

1. Erronea in fide.
2. Scandalosa, prava, perversa.

Ecclesiasticus 15:21:

He hath commanded no man to do wickedly, and he hath given no man licence to sin.”

See also: Rom. 3:8, 8: 28; 1 Thess. 4:7; Jas. 1:13-14; John Paul II, Veritatis splendor, 79-83: AAS 85 (1993): 1197-99 (cf. DH 4969-70).
16) AL 300 : ‘Since “the degree of responsibility is not equal in all cases”, the consequences or effects of a rule need not necessarily always be the same. [footnote 336] This is also the case with regard to sacramental discipline, since discernment can recognize that in a particular situation no grave fault exists.’
AL 305: ‘Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end. [footnote 351] In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments. Hence, “I want to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy”. I would also point out that the Eucharist “is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak”’.’
Understood as saying that absence of grave fault due to diminished responsibility can permit admission to the Eucharist in the cases of divorced and civilly remarried persons who do not separate, nor undertake to live in perfect continence, but remain in an objective state of adultery and bigamy:

1. Erronea in fide, falsa.
2. Scandalosa.

John Paul II, Familiaris consortio 84:

The Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage. Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance, which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they ‘take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples’.”

1 Jn. 2:20:

You have the unction from the Holy One, and know all things”.

See also Ez. 3:17; Mt. 28:20; 1 Cor. 11:27-29; Eph. 5:30-32; 2nd Lateran Council, DH 717; Paul V, Rituale Romanum, 49; Benedict XIV, Confirmation of the Synod of the Maronites; Encyclical letter Ex omnibus; Benedict XV, 1917 Code of Canon Law, canon 855; John Paul II, 1983 Code of Canon Law, canon 915; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter to bishops of the Catholic Church concerning the reception of Eucharistic communion by those faithful who after a divorce have entered a new marriage, AAS 86 (1994): 974-79; Code of Canon Law for Eastern Churches, canon 712; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1650, 2390; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Concerning Some Objections to the Church’s Teaching on the Reception of Holy Communion by Divorced and Remarried Members of the Faithful, in “Documenti e Studi”, On the Pastoral Care of the Divorced and Remarried, Vatican City 1998, pp. 20-29; Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts (PCLT), “Declaration Concerning the Admission to Holy Communion of Faithful who are Divorced and Remarried”, ; Benedict XVI, Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum caritatis 29: AAS 99 (2007), 128-29.
17) AL 298 : ‘The divorced who have entered a new union, for example, can find themselves in a variety of situations, which should not be pigeonholed or fit into overly rigid classifications leaving no room for a suitable personal and pastoral discernment. One thing is a second union consolidated over time, with new children, proven fidelity, generous self-giving, Christian commitment, a consciousness of its irregularity and of the great difficulty of going back without feeling in conscience that one would fall into new sins.’
If understood as meaning that the divorced and remarried can either sin or culpably expose themselves to the occasion of sin by abstaining from sexual relations in accordance with the perennial teaching and discipline of the Church:

1. Temeraria, falsa.
2. Scandalosa, prava, derogans praxi et disciplinae Ecclesiae.

Ecclesiasticus 15:16:

If thou wilt keep the commandments and perform acceptable fidelity for ever, they shall preserve thee.”

See also: 1 Cor. 7:11, 10:13; John Paul II, Veritatis splendor, 102-03: AAS 85 (1993): 1213-14; Apostolic Exhortation, Familiaris consortio, 84, AAS 74 (1982) 92-149; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1650; Benedict XVI, Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum caritatis 99 (2007), 128-29.
18) AL 298 : ‘There are also the cases of those who made every effort to save their first marriage and were unjustly abandoned, or of “those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children’s upbringing, and are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably broken marriage had never been valid”.’
If understood as meaning that subjective certainty in conscience about the invalidity of a previous marriage is sufficient on its own to excuse from guilt or legal penalty those who contract a new marriage when their previous marriage is recognised as valid by the Church:

1. Temeraria, falsa.
2. Scandalosa.

Council of Trent, Session 24, canon 12:

If anyone says that matrimonial cases do not belong to ecclesiastical judges, let him be anathema” (DH 1812).

See also: Leo XIII, Arcanum, ASS 12 (1879), 393; John Paul II, 1983 Code of Canon Law, canons 1059-60, 1085.
19) AL 311 : ‘The teaching of moral theology should not fail to incorporate these considerations.’
Understood as meaning that the teaching of moral theology in the Catholic Church should present as probable or true any of the propositions censured above:

1. Falsa.
2. Scandalosa, prava, perversa, perniciosa.

Matt. 5:19:

He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven.”

See also: Is. 5:20; Mt. 28:20; 1 Tim. 6:20; Jas. 3:1; Pius IX, Bull Ineffabilis Deus, DH 2802; 1st Vatican Council, Constitution Dei Filius, cap. 4 (DH 3020); Pius X, Motu Proprio Sacrorum antistitum, DH 3541; 1st Vatican Council, Constitution Dei Filius, cap. 4 (DH 3020); Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Iusiurandum fidelitatis in suscipiendo officio nomine ecclesiae exercendo, AAS 81 (1989): 106; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Donum veritatis, On the ecclesial vocation of the theologian, AAS 82 (1990): 1559; John Paul II, Veritatis splendor, 115-16: AAS 85 (1993): 1223-24; Benedict XVI, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Notification on the Works of Father Jon Sobrino SJ, 2 (DH 5107).
The propositions censured above have been condemned in many previous magisterial documents. It is urgently necessary that their condemnation be repeated by the Supreme Pontiff in a definitive and final manner and that it be authoritatively stated that Amoris laetitia does not require any of them to be believed or considered as possibly true.

---

Endnotes
1 Cf. Lucien Choupin, Valeur des décisions doctrinales et disciplinaires du Saint-Siège, 2nd ed. (Paris: Beauchesne, 1913), pp. 52-55; and A.-M. Aubry, Obéir ou assentir ? De la « soumission religieuse » au magistère simplement authentique, Paris, DDB, Collection « Sed Contra », 2015. .
2 See H. Quilliet, ‘Censures doctrinales’, DTC II, 2101-2113, and the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, ‘Doctrinal commentary on the concluding formula of the Professio fidei’, June 29th, 1998.
3 Scriptural references are taken from the Vulgate or from the neo-Vulgate.
4 All references to Denzinger are taken from the 43rd edition.