Actually, the problem is probably due to a superficial exposure to ToB on marriage and virginity. JP2 himself made a revision to the traditional theology of the vows by front-loading virginity, making it almost constitutive of the consecrated state.

https://twitter.com/FrTotleben/status/1640672423916732418

But, of course, JP2 did this on account of his personalistic philosophy of self-gift, and not for any Manichean reasons, which is what he is emphasizing in the passage that was partially quoted by AL 159.

As is unfortunately a little too common in Amoris Laetitia, if you go and look up the quotes that it cites, you will find they don't say what AL claims they say. At any rate AL isn't changing the infallible dogma of the Church on the objective superiority of the consecrated state

https://twitter.com/hf_222222/status/1640645176409600000

The point of the paragraph (as well as the texts it misleadingly cites, going back to St. Paul) is that consecrated life shouldn't be put on a pedestal precisely because consecrated people practice continence, as opposed to married people.

Regarding the idea that "The Holy Spirit chooses the Pope," as they say on Wikipedia: "[citation needed]." At the conclave, the cardinals *elect* a Pope. They do not perform an act of divination by casting lots to allow the Holy Spirit to choose.

https://twitter.com/M_P_Hazell/status/1639658599252107265

The election of the Pope is the "will of God" or the "action of the Holy Spirit" in the sense that all actions are under the sway of divine providence, God in some way causes every thing (properly speaking), and everything that happens is according to the will of God.

TIL: Apparently the theological note "of divine Catholic faith" is different than the theological note "of divine and Catholic faith" I saw them used in one source yesterday, and explained in another source today.

Here we have a theologian who is directly dissenting from the explicit teaching of Pope Francis. I wonder if Pope Francis' self-appointed defenders ("Where Karen Is", I'm looking at you) will rise up to defend his Magisterium...

https://twitter.com/WRCatholicGeek/status/1638915573496291330

Also, with respect to the substance of the critique @WRCatholicGeek is exactly right: the document doesn't erase the existence of transgender, non-binary or intersex people, or say that we shouldn't treat them with respect, compassion, and sensitivity and avoid all discrimination

The CCC has several translation problems like this. Another is at CCC 497 where it calls Mary Joseph's "fiancée". Now I don't think this is technically wrong in context (but a biblical scholar might know better), because the passage is referring to the dream Joseph had about Mary when they were betrothed.

A priest friend, whom I would cite if he were on here, points out an important translation error in CCC 1857, on the "full knowledge" condition for mortal sin. The Catechism cites the Rite of Penance 17§12 as saying: "For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: 'Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.'"

So, to build on my infallibility remarks (and the "three levels" of the profession of faith). We say that there is "development of doctrine" -- but there are really three different ways that doctrine develops, based on the way that the Church teaches the proposition. With respect to the "first level" propositions which are formally revealed and infallibly proposed to be of divine and catholic faith and which are to be held with theological faith . . .

The big mistake that people make in discussions on infallibility is to think that infallibility is a *degree* of certitude, when really infallibility is a *mode* of certitude. If you (wrongly) think that infallibility is a degree of certitude, then you will also wrongly thing that calling something "non-infallible" means calling it "non-certain" (or, maybe, less than fully certain).

A curious fact about the parable of the Prodigal Son: at least in the story itself, the son never actually repents. In fact, in all three parables of repentance in Luke 15 (lost sheep, lost coin, prodigal son) there is no repentance. Interesting, no? The first two parables really bring out this point. The lost sheep never repents. The shepherd simply leaves the 99, goes after the one and brings it back. Then he says, "there will be more joy over one sinner who repents." -- even though the sheep didn't repent.

The fundamental abuse in the charismatic movement (which it gets from its uncritical adoption of revivalism) is that spectacle and personal feeling is an ungainsayable sign of the work of the Holy Spirit. And this error doesn't get corrected because any critique of the excesses of the charismatic movement is dismissed as a rejection of the notion of charisms themselves.

To all the people who are liking this. Bishop McCaig actually missed the point of my original post which (apart from being tongue-and-cheek) was about tongues and nit charisms in general. The bishop's point and his Catechism citation are true but nit relevant.

https://twitter.com/bishopscmc/status/1637159978615095302

Also, it is begging the question to assume that this Catechism passage refers to tongues.

So I riled some people up with my tongue-in-cheek post about the gift of tongues. As a penance for my sins, I wrote out what my actual position is. Hopefully you think this is helpful! academia.edu/98755286/The_G…

The real debate about Vatican II (apart from the liturgical reform) centers on three documents: Nostra Aetate, Unitas Redintegratio, and Dignitatis Humanae. This trio of documents has one theme in common: they all attempt to grapple with the irreducible pluralism of modernity. So the real debate centers on whether and how the Church should situate itself with respect to the pluralism of the contemporary world. Or, is pluralism a theological topic that the Magisterium of the Church should address?

Also, another bad argument for why Vatican II was a failure is the existence of so much confusion and decline in the Church that occurred after Vatican II. This is for three reasons: (1) It is the "post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy."

In fact, we can find explanations for the confusion in the Church that have far more explanatory power than Vatican II. Which leads to the other two reasons:

To stir the pot one more time on Vatican II. This is a very bad argument for the proposition "Vatican II was a failure" : (1) Vatican II must either be either unequivocally a success or unequivocally a failure. (2) The aim of Vatican II was to address secularism in the world and demographic decline in the Church. (3) Vatican II failed to completely reverse these trends . . .

I can see why younger Catholics are exhausted with the continuing litigation of Vatican II and don't see the litigation about it that has occurred as something productive in the life of the Church.

But, nevertheless, the contributions of Vatican II are invaluable.

https://twitter.com/mabrumley/status/1632089429291708417

For example, you can read the schema "De ecclesia" that was never ratified by Vatican I. Let's just say that we all benefitted from the resourcement that ensued over the next 100 years to give us the *much* superior "Lumen Gentium".

Holy crap, is it really the case that a *cardinal* said in print that someone could legitimately not know that domestic abuse, racism, abandoning your children, and exploiting your employees is morally wrong? There's your reductio ad absurdum right there!

americamagazine.org/faith/2023/03/… For the record, not only are these acts always evil in their species on account of their object, but *everyone* can know that, for example, that racism and domestic abuse are always wrong.

I think the reason that these people don't understand the difference between doctrines and disciplines is because they think that doctrines are just disciplines, not true statements about reality.

https://twitter.com/ctrlamb/status/1631291067994710017

You're rejecting Vatican II if there is a teaching of faith or morals that Vatican II definitively proposes as true and to be given assent. You are not rejecting Vatican II if you disagree with any of its disciplinary decisions.

Conscience is just a judgment. It's a judgment about whether the action you are proposing to do is compatible with your authentic good: is it compatible with your flourishing. It's just one of a series of judgments that we make when we deliberate about what we are going to do. And since it's just a judgment that we make, it can be wrong, just like any other judgment that we make.

Wait until they find out that St. Ambrose was made a bishop without even being baptized...

https://twitter.com/hf_222222/status/1629628537434161156

I'm old enough to remember when liberal Catholicism was supposedly the more intellectually respectable option...