Cardinal Burke: Formal correction of Amoris Laetitia could happen in New Year

[pnewton]

Strong and fundamental disagreements among members of the Church hierarchy were part of Church history. This was how potential errors were corrected. It is nothing new under the sun. Below is an example of Pope John XXII in the 14th century:

I think herein is my issue with history. This is not the 14th Century. Yes, if we go back, we can find all sorts of problems when the Church was too involve in secular affairs for her own good. So, if one has to go back into a time and culture that is alien to today, deriving precedents become dicey, if it is even possible.

 

[Randolph]

I think herein is my issue with history. This is not the 14th Century. Yes, if we go back, we can find all sorts of problems when the Church was too involve in secular affairs for her own good. So, if one has to go back into a time and culture that is alien to today, deriving precedents become dicey, if it is even possible.

Precedents are what they are–precedents. The point was made to counter the argument that cardinals/bishops would be acting out of line and downright disrespectful and disobedient to the pope if they pose questions or even disagree with him. The fact is Popes and cardinals are human. They make mistakes and sin. The duty and responsibility of cardinals are to advise, and if need be confront the pope, if what the pope is advocating is confusing or could potentially contradict the Magisterium of the Church.

The Catholic Church in 14th century is “alien” to today?? Christ Hiimself, the Holy Mother, and all the apostles trotted this earth more than 1,400 years before that. Are they irrelevant in today’s and tomorrow’s world?

The dispute between Pope John XXII and the Cardinals/theologians in the 14th century was a matter of doctrine. It had nothing to do with secular affairs.

 

[pnewton]

The Catholic Church in 14th century is “alien” to today??

I said, “…if one has to go back into a time and culture that is alien to today…”

I think it is also significant that you needed to misquote me to make the connection between the historical event in the 14th Century. So, no, I do not buy that what happened then has any bearing on what is happening today, primarily because nothing heretical is being proposed. If you see it as some sort of parallel, that is your prerogative.

 

[graciew]

Symptoms include gazing at empty planters, daydreaming about the pool, and wishing the infernal (and seemingly eternal) northern slope shadow would go away.

That was a neat description…Sometimes we take time to adapt to the seasons. I ’ m sending you some sunshine…we have 95 F here . And before we get more off topic ,I tried succulents with the long winters to have some more plants around and they propagate very easily. Nice " meeting " you,TCEL.

 

[Randolph]

I said, “…if one has to go back into a time and culture that is alien to today…”

I think it is also significant that you needed to misquote me to make the connection between the historical event in the 14th Century. So, no, I do not buy that what happened then has any bearing on what is happening today, primarily because nothing heretical is being proposed. If you see it as some sort of parallel, that is your prerogative.

If I misquoted you, I apologize. The context of the discussion was about the Catholic Church and precedents in the Church. I don’t recall we were talking about secular affairs or culture outside of the Church in the 14th century.

The theological dispute between Pope XXII and the cardinals/theologians was indeed also a matter of Church history. It was resolved correctly through appropriate channel within the Church. In the current environment, no one with credibility in the Church is talking about heresy. The main issue here is ambiguity and it could lead to confusion and division within the Church. So far, Pope Francis refuses to answer the Dubia which would clarify the ambiguity.

 

[pnewton]

The theological dispute between Pope XXII and the cardinals/theologians was indeed also a matter of Church history. It was resolved correctly through appropriate channel within the Church. In the current environment, no one with credibility in the Church is talking about heresy.

Then the parallel with Pope XXII, who believed that no on saw the beatific vision in Heaven until after the final judgment, is lacking a critical component.

Besides, it doesn’t matter to me. I have total faith that Cardinal Burke knows what he can and can’t do.

 

[Randolph]

Then the parallel with Pope XXII, who believed that no on saw the beatific vision in Heaven until after the final judgment, is lacking a critical component.

Besides, it doesn’t matter to me. I have total faith that Cardinal Burke knows what he can and can’t do.

You are still missing the point. In Church history, there was a precedence of a serious a dispute between a pope and cardinals/theologians, and it was resolved correctly through appropriate channel. It did not mean that the cardinals were against, disrespectful or disobedient to the pope. Indeed, what they did was being faithful to their duty and responsibility as cardinals.

In the current enviroment, seeing an ambiguity in AL that could lead to a false understanding of a doctrine of the Church, Cardinal Burke and other cardinals submitted a Dubia to Pope Francis. After having a private conversation with the pope and seeing an answer to clarify the ambiguity was not forth coming, they went public with it. The goal is to clearly state and proclaim the teaching that came directly from the lips of Christ–which is the responsibility and obligation of all bishops.

 

[graciew]

Why do you think this would solve the problem and confusion?n!

Why not?
Peer discussion/ dialogue helps a lot. And they are knowledgeable bishops and cardinals.
I didn’t get into confusion, I was asking about communication .

 

[graciew]

Why do you think this would solve the problem and confusion?n!

Why not?
Peer discussion/ dialogue helps a lot. And they are knowledgeable bishops and cardinals.
I didn’t get into confusion, I was asking about communication .

 

[Convert_in_99]

How are these Bishops being disobedient? They have a huge responsibility making sure their priests are following the teachings of the Catholic Church. If priests are coming to them with questions about AL the Bishops need to be sure there is no confusion and they answering correctly their priests are presenting. I applaud the Bishops for the action they took and I hope they get the clarification they are requesting.

I made it clear that I was not speaking of the Cardinals or Bishops seeking clarification, but rather those who are using an otherwise sound document to promote cause that are not approved by the Church. (Such as Communion for assisted suicide patients.)

 

[CrossofChrist]

You are still missing the point. In Church history, there was a precedence of a serious a dispute between a pope and cardinals/theologians, and it was resolved correctly through appropriate channel. It did not mean that the cardinals were against, disrespectful or disobedient to the pope. Indeed, what they did was being faithful to their duty and responsibility as cardinals.

In the current enviroment, seeing an ambiguity in AL that could lead to a false understanding of a doctrine of the Church, Cardinal Burke and other cardinals submitted a Dubia to Pope Francis. After having a private conversation with the pope and seeing an answer to clarify the ambiguity was not forth coming, they went public with it. The goal is to clearly state and proclaim the teaching that came directly from the lips of Christ–which is the responsibility and obligation of all bishops.

It is not my place to judge the Cardinal and he certainly means well, but the bolded seems to me to be the issue, which also has upset a number of prominent ecclesiastics.

While it concerns theologians and has a different context, this still seems relevant:

In cases like these, the theologian should avoid turning to the “mass media”, but have recourse to the responsible authority, for it is not by seeking to exert the pressure of public opinion that one contributes to the clarification of doctrinal issues and renders service to the truth.

 

[pnewton]

You are still missing the point.

I really think I understand your point and position. Maybe I am wrong, but I think I know what you believe about this.

 

[pnewton]

While it concerns theologians and has a different context, this still seems relevant:

In cases like these, the theologian should avoid turning to the “mass media”, but have recourse to the responsible authority, for it is not by seeking to exert the pressure of public opinion that one contributes to the clarification of doctrinal issues and renders service to the truth.

I think time will tell (far more than history) how this will play out. I noticed this was written under Joseph Ratzinger, with the authority of St. John Paul. He too (JPII) had issues with dissent. However, I would like to point out in the specific case of the interview which started this thread, some of the responsibility for the publicity has to go to the reporters who ask such questions. It is hard to blame anyone, journalists or bloggers, for enticing readership with sensationalism in the questions they ask.

If however, we are to look to history, I remember how sure and confident that in the conflict between St. John Paul and the SSPX that the latter would be vindicated in regard to doctrinal differences, that they just **knew **were right. I saw that quite a bit here. Next year may well see changes, but I would not place much money on what they are, or which way they will go.

 

[7_Sorrows]

You are still missing the point. In Church history, there was a precedence of a serious a dispute between a pope and cardinals/theologians, and it was resolved correctly through appropriate channel. It did not mean that the cardinals were against, disrespectful or disobedient to the pope. Indeed, what they did was being faithful to their duty and responsibility as cardinals.

In the current enviroment, seeing an ambiguity in AL that could lead to a false understanding of a doctrine of the Church, Cardinal Burke and other cardinals submitted a Dubia to Pope Francis. After having a private conversation with the pope and seeing an answer to clarify the ambiguity was not forth coming, they went public with it. The goal is to clearly state and proclaim the teaching that came directly from the lips of Christ–which is the responsibility and obligation of all bishops.

 

[Randolph]

It is not my place to judge the Cardinal and he certainly means well, but the bolded seems to me to be the issue, which also has upset a number of prominent ecclesiastics.

While it concerns theologians and has a different context, this still seems relevant:

In cases like these, the theologian should avoid turning to the “mass media”, but have recourse to the responsible authority, for it is not by seeking to exert the pressure of public opinion that one contributes to the clarification of doctrinal issues and renders service to the truth.

Amoris Laetitia was issued and has been discussed/debated since March 2016. We don’t know all the details. It is reasonable to assume that Cardinal Burke and the other three cardinals:

1. Met and wrote the Dubia;
2. Submitted the Dubia;
3. Had a private discussion with Pope Francis about the Dubia;
4. Did not see a clarification from Pope Francis for Dubia forthcoming.
5. Went public with the Dubia.

What, specifically, do you want these cardinals to do? Keep in mind of their duty and responsibility as Cardinals (advising the pope and upholding/defending the Magisterium). This is not something these cardinals did to seek the attention of mass media, nor to create scandals.

Meanwhile, we know there are already controversies in interpreting and implementing AL in diocese of San Diego, Diocese of Rome, and Argentina (per Francis’s letter to the bishops). We also have disagreements among bishops/cardinals in the interpretations of AL; namely, Casper, Chaput, Schneider, Cupich, Burke, Brandmuller, etc… There are people now saying: “The Catholic Church now lets re-married people without getting an annulment to receive Communion.” Some say “yes.” Some say “no.” In time, the “no” sayers will be labled as haters, fundamentalists, legalists, loveless, merciless, etc…

This has just started… It is safe to say that it will get much, much worse. In the meantime, the teaching of Christ and salvation of souls are at risk.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

This has just started… It is safe to say that it will get much, much worse. In the meantime, the teaching of Christ and salvation of souls are at risk.

OK, let me cautiously dip a toe back into this pond.

My own feeling - for a long time - is that Pope Francis is an instrument of Divine Providence that is being used in a way he did not expect. The controversy over Amoris Laetitia has radically and definitively changed the situation in the Church, for the better.

The Catholic Faith, or to be specific, principles of Catholic moral theology and their application in at least one concrete field are now up front and centre, and every Catholic is being obliged to choose whether he/she stands by the perennial teaching of the church or not, just as the hierarchy is being obliged to choose, and is choosing. The point is that Communion for remarried divorcees is not an issue susceptible of compromise or interpretation. You cannot wrap your head around it and preserve Catholic moral theology at the same time. You have to choose. This, perhaps contra-intuitively, is an excellent state of affairs.

 

[Randolph]

OK, let me cautiously dip a toe back into this pond.

My own feeling - for a long time - is that Pope Francis is an instrument of Divine Providence that is being used in a way he did not expect. The controversy over Amoris Laetitia has radically and definitively changed the situation in the Church, for the better.

The Catholic Faith, or to be specific, principles of Catholic moral theology and their application in at least one concrete field are now up front and centre, and every Catholic is being obliged to choose whether he/she stands by the perennial teaching of the church or not, just as the hierarchy is being obliged to choose, and is choosing. The point is that Communion for remarried divorcees is not an issue susceptible to compromise or interpretation. You cannot wrap your head around it and preserve Catholic moral theology at the same time. You have to choose. This, perhaps contra-intuitively, is an excellent state of affairs.

I believe we are going off topic. But I just say this.

Then, for the “betterment” of the Church and without being bound “to the perennial teaching of the Church” while the Hierarchy and laymen alike choose what direction to go, in your view, is it fair to say the Catholic Church would/should become a protestant church(es)?

 

[Justin_Swanton]

I believe we are going off topic. But I just say this.

Then, for the “betterment” of the Church and without being bound “to the perennial teaching of the Church” while the Hierarchy and laymen alike choose what direction to go, in your view, is it fair to say the Catholic Church would/should become a protestant church(es)?

Not at all. Let me reproduce my third paragraph with some emphases:

The Catholic Faith, or to be specific, principles of Catholic moral theology and their application in at least one concrete field are now up front and centre, and every Catholic is being obliged to choose whether he/she stands by the perennial teaching of the Church or not, just as the hierarchy is being obliged to choose, and is choosing. The point is that Communion for remarried divorcees is not an issue susceptible of compromise or interpretation. You cannot wrap your head around it and preserve Catholic moral theology at the same time. You have to choose. This, perhaps contra-intuitively, is an excellent state of affairs.

As Catholics we are bound to believe the perennial teaching of the Church, and if we pick and choose what we will accept of it then we become protestant. The point now though is that Catholics are being obliged to reaffirm (or reject) their Catholic identity which is built precisely on that perennial teaching. In a sense Pope Francis is right - it is good to have a messy Church as that is the first step towards sweeping it clean.

 

[Randolph]

Not at all. Let me reproduce my third paragraph with some emphases:

The Catholic Faith, or to be specific, principles of Catholic moral theology and their application in at least one concrete field are now up front and centre, and every Catholic is being obliged to choose whether he/she stands by the perennial teaching of the Church or not, just as the hierarchy is being obliged to choose, and is choosing. The point is that Communion for remarried divorcees is not an issue susceptible of compromise or interpretation. You cannot wrap your head around it and preserve Catholic moral theology at the same time. You have to choose. This, perhaps contra-intuitively, is an excellent state of affairs.

As Catholics we are bound to believe the perennial teaching of the Church, and if we pick and choose what we will accept of it then we become protestant. The point now though is that Catholics are being obliged to reaffirm (or reject) their Catholic identity which is built precisely on that perennial teaching. In a sense Pope Francis is right - it is good to have a messy Church as that is the first step towards sweeping it clean.

Thank you for clarifying your original post. You went into an area of speculation that I don’t want to get into.

 

[pnewton]

I guess it is okay to speculate on what the future holds. I just hope all will remember the admonition of Cardinal Burke to maintain serenity come what may, lest we find ourselves waiting for the rest of our life “until such time that the true light of Tradition dissipates the darkness obscuring the sky of Eternal Rome.” Do not put too much weight to these speculations.