Cardinal Burke Outlines Formal Correction of Pope Francis’ Teaching

[Dempsey1919]

So it should be easy for you to provide clearly infallible statements to support you claim which the Pope and the majority of Cardinals and theologians somehow must have missed

It is easy for me to provide statements; it’s just as easy for you to find them. They’re in the Bible, the Catechism and the magisterial teachings of the Popes. Nothing I have written on this thread contradicts the constant teachings of the Church. Do your own research.

I’ll finish with this: during the reign of John Paul II, nobody on this forum would have ever suggested that people in ‘irregular’ marriage situations could receive communion unless they agreed to live as brother and sister. Your contributions to this thread demonstrate the degree of confusion that has been caused by Amoris Laetitia.

 

[Rau]

But, like the Cardinals, you dont really mean clarity do you?
The situation is clear.

Very clear. Different Bishops in various countries following this clarity in opposite directions.

 

[irenaeus1]

Cardinal Burke’s “insistences” have now taken on the tone of “demands” , and , frankly , they have become shrill and unpleasant. These melodramatics have really become alienating, and almost reach the level of hysterics. It is an embarrassment.

To “lionize” Cardinal Burke for fomenting so much discord in such a public way is wrong. The Roman Catholic Church is poorly served by this sort of open rancor.

As if Cardinal Burke is actually fomenting the discord as opposed to where the blame should be squarely laid. Burke is simply pointing to the confusion and ambiguity that already exists. The pope’s silence is what is frustrating.

 

[Randolph]

You seem to be frothing and fizzing all over the show like a new can of coke left out in the noonday sun. Try sitting in the shade.

Then quote where in AL Pope Francis justified adultery please?

BTW, Christ’s authority has always come from the back seat as you put it because that is exactly where the still quiet voice of conscience is heard…and it is conscience which gives authority to our faith in Christ, not the other way around I would have thought. Even Elijah in the cave knew that. You maybe the storm.

Christ’s authority takes NO back seat to any body. That includes any popes, any bishops or any one’s conscience. Conscience needs to be conformed to the will of Christ–not precedes it. Need I quote the Catechism to you?

Ambiguity that leads to doctrinal confusions in Amoris Laetitia has been robustly discussed here at CAF and elsewhere over the past year or so. You can read them yourself.

I will leave your cheap “storm” remark alone. And given your history of being rude and obnoxious to other posters here at CAF, it would be a waste of my time to respond,

 

[irenaeus1]

But if you are “unclear” about anything significant in particular Pope Francis’s wanted changed in AL do summaise with a clear sentence and we can try and clarify it for you.

Ok, since you asked… The first statement presented in the Dubia reads as follows:

It is asked whether, following the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (300-305), it has now become possible to grant absolution in the sacrament of penance and thus to admit to holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person more uxorio without fulfilling the conditions provided for by Familiaris Consortio, 84, and subsequently reaffirmed by Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 34, and Sacramentum Caritatis, 29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in Note 351 (305) of the exhortation Amoris Laetitia be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live more uxorio?

This is an excellent question that requires clarification, especially the latter part that asks whether “in certain cases” found in Note 351 (305) of AL can be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who do not live in continence. My sister is in an irregular union, but she is not divorced and civilly remarried. Rather, she is a fallen away Catholic who married a non-Catholic outside the Church. Certainly, she could, following discernment and accompaniment, repent and return to the Church, which could include the help of the sacraments. In other words, Note 351 in AL can be viewed in an orthodox manner in the example I provided, but if “in certain cases” refers to those who are divorced and civilly remarried who do not live as brother and sister, then Note 351 appears to be heterodox because now the Church would be admitting to Holy Communion those who are in a state of perpetual adultery; hence, the question being asked.

 

[twf]

But, like the Cardinals, you dont really mean clarity do you?
The situation is clear.
Rather you seem to seek understanding?
God did not promise that on earth anywhere in the Bible did he…in fact the opposite if anything.

But if you are “unclear” about anything significant in particular Pope Francis’s wanted changed in AL do summaise with a clear sentence and we can try and clarify it for you.

The lack of clarity is in regards to implementation. Surely you don’t deny that AL has been (name removed by moderator)lemented very differently from one country / diocese to another? There are numerous bishops around the world who have reiterated that those in illicit marriages may not receive communion period unless they are living as brother and sister. Numerous other bishops have gone another way.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Very clear. Different Bishops in various countries following this clarity in opposite directions.

Which local autonomy in this matter Pope Francis was clear on.
You must have loved school uniforms when you were a kid to want so much uniformity as if Catholicism is on the rocks if bishops arent in lockstep on every significant matter around the world.

Should all masses still be in Latin also?
I had older “loyal” Catholics “confused” to me just like you back in the 1970s saying we has betrayed the old mass which everyone knew was the most perfect manifesyation thereof that could never be surpassed.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The lack of clarity is in regards to implementation. Surely you don’t deny that AL has been (name removed by moderator)lemented very differently from one country / diocese to another? There are numerous bishops around the world who have reiterated that those in illicit marriages may not receive communion period unless they are living as brother and sister. Numerous other bishops have gone another way.

If bishops are allowed by Pope Francis to decide local implimentation as the mature leaders they are why are you upset if they decide not to yet allow the full range of possibilities that other bishops feel their doceses are ready for?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Ok, since you asked… The first statement presented in the Dubia reads as follows:

It is asked whether, following the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (300-305), it has now become possible to grant absolution in the sacrament of penance and thus to admit to holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person more uxorio without fulfilling the conditions provided for by Familiaris Consortio, 84, and subsequently reaffirmed by Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 34, and Sacramentum Caritatis, 29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in Note 351 (305) of the exhortation Amoris Laetitia be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live more uxorio?

This is an excellent question that requires clarification, especially the latter part that asks whether “in certain cases” found in Note 351 (305) of AL can be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who do not live in continence. My sister is in an irregular union, but she is not divorced and civilly remarried. Rather, she is a fallen away Catholic who married a non-Catholic outside the Church. Certainly, she could, following discernment and accompaniment, repent and return to the Church, which could include the help of the sacraments. In other words, Note 351 in AL can be viewed in an orthodox manner in the example I provided, but if “in certain cases” refers to those who are divorced and civilly remarried who do not live as brother and sister, then Note 351 appears to be heterodox because now the Church would be admitting to Holy Communion those who are in a state of perpetual adultery; hence, the question being asked.

1. Your name is not twf.
2. The issue is what did Francis say that is unclear.
   The endorsement of the Malta bishops is fairly clear to me.
3. How can you be sure your sister is committing adultery exactly?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Christ’s authority takes NO back seat to any body. That includes any popes, any bishops or any one’s conscience. Conscience needs to be conformed to the will of Christ–not precedes it. Need I quote the Catechism to you?

Ambiguity that leads to doctrinal confusions in Amoris Laetitia has been robustly discussed here at CAF and elsewhere over the past year or so. You can read them yourself.

I will leave your cheap “storm” remark alone. And given your history of being rude and obnoxious to other posters here at CAF, it would be a waste of my time to respond,

You continue to fizz and foam extreme views on the basis of your own unsubstantiated authority .

Most would call that pontificating. Yet you are not the Pontiff, that charism belongs to Pope Francis who alone can get away with doing so…whom you reject.

I am sorry if you feel the need to call me rude and obnoxious for observing the lack of credibility your approach to “contributing” here suffers from.

Ifs no more than an empty barrell sounding, a venting of steam, a symbol clashing, noise and fury signifying nothing. You need to dig a little deeper if you want to influence listeners here…most of us arent really interested in children just acting out their frustrations without a credible explanation.

 

[poche]

I wonder what you think that means.

It means that things are the other way around. It is His Holiness who may very well put Cardinal Burke in his place.

 

[Rau]

Which local autonomy in this matter Pope Francis was clear on.

Which local autonomy precisely? “Implementation” is far too vague. Do you mean the Pope was modifying the rule prior, and saying that Bishops may nevertheless continue to deny the sacraments to the “irregulars” in their diocese (by applying the previous rule), **or alternatively **adopt the process of accompaniment (which may or may not lead to the sacraments). So this would be an autonomy in much the same way as Bishops determine the holy days of obligation in their diocese or country. Can you advise where this autonomy is expressed?

This entire matter would resolve neatly if the Pope had simply explained how the new rule continues to keep faith with the principal underpinning the old, which JP II expressed as follows:

“By acting in this way, the Church professes her own fidelity to Christ and to His truth.”

Or is this principal in fact misapplied to the divorced and remarried?

 

[Rau]

…There are numerous bishops around the world who have reiterated that those in illicit marriages may not receive communion period unless they are living as brother and sister. Numerous other bishops have gone another way.

And I think differences on that scale are not matters of “implementation” but to the larger question of “acceptance and adoption”. This situation should only have arisen if there is clear autonomy to adopt the process in AL or to remain with the previous rule. But even so - it would seem remarkable to enable autonomy to decide (objectively, for a diocese) which states in life may allow the sacraments and which may not.

 

[Rau]

1. The issue is what did Francis say that is unclear.

Is the question the narrow issue of “clarity” or the broader issue of understandability in context?

For example, if a Pope said using condoms is OK in circumstances where one seeks to avoided a zika-affected child, that would be clear, but lack understandability in the context of Church teaching.

I don’t think lack of clarity is the key concern the Dubia seeks to resolve.

 

[Randolph]

You continue to fizz and foam extreme views on the basis of your own unsubstantiated authority .

Most would call that pontificating. Yet you are not the Pontiff, that charism belongs to Pope Francis who alone can get away with doing so…whom you reject.

I am sorry if you feel the need to call me rude and obnoxious for observing the lack of credibility your approach to “contributing” here suffers from.

Ifs no more than an empty barrell sounding, a venting of steam, a symbol clashing, noise and fury signifying nothing. You need to dig a little deeper if you want to influence listeners here…most of us arent really interested in children just acting out their frustrations without a credible explanation.

It is indeed a waste of time dealing with you. May you find peace and charity!!!

 

[irenaeus1]

1. Your name is not twf.
2. The issue is what did Francis say that is unclear.
   The endorsement of the Malta bishops is fairly clear to me.
3. How can you be sure your sister is committing adultery exactly?

1. So what if my name is not twf.
2. Pope Francis did not endorse the Malta bishops statement.
3. I did not state that my sister was committing adultery.

 

[irenaeus1]

The issue is what did Francis say that is unclear.

I already mentioned one of the things that is unclear… namely, can the expression “in certain cases” found in Note 351 (305) of the exhortation Amoris Laetitia be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live more uxorio? The body of the text nor the footnote is very explicit in this regard. It could be that “in certain cases” refers to those who knowing and accepting the possibility of living “as brothers and sisters” which the Church offers them and who strive to live in continence, thus fulfilling the conditions provided for by Familiaris Consortio, 84 – meaning that Pope Francis is simply reaffirming the Church’s practice and teaching.

 

[Rau]

I already mentioned one of the things that is unclear… namely, can the expression “in certain cases” found in Note 351 (305) of the exhortation Amoris Laetitia be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live more uxorio? The body of the text nor the footnote is very explicit in this regard. It could be that “in certain cases” refers to those who knowing and accepting the possibility of living “as brothers and sisters” which the Church offers them and who strive to live in continence, thus fulfilling the conditions provided for by Familiaris Consortio, 84 – meaning that Pope Francis is simply reaffirming the Church’s practice and teaching.

Can’t be that, as the Pope explicitly endorsed the Argentinian bishops’ restatement of the accompaniment process, and living as brother and sister was not a requirement.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It is indeed a waste of time dealing with you. May you find peace and charity!!!

You come blowing hot and strong on a forum with absolutely no other authority than your own emotional and dogmatic convictions. What is the point of that exactly? Some sort of solipsistic catharsis or therapy that doesn’t allow the real world to challenge your unreferenced personal biases .

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Which local autonomy precisely? “Implementation” is far too vague. Do you mean the Pope was modifying the rule prior, and saying that Bishops may nevertheless continue to deny the sacraments to the “irregulars” in their diocese (by applying the previous rule), **or alternatively **adopt the process of accompaniment (which may or may not lead to the sacraments). So this would be an autonomy in much the same way as Bishops determine the holy days of obligation in their diocese or country. Can you advise where this autonomy is expressed?

This entire matter would resolve neatly if the Pope had simply explained how the new rule continues to keep faith with the principal underpinning the old, which JP II expressed as follows:

“By acting in this way, the Church professes her own fidelity to Christ and to His truth.”

Or is this principal in fact misapplied to the divorced and remarried?

Are you able to ask a single, unconditioned question in one clear sentence?
Or is the shotgun firing off in all directions effect an unusual rhetorical device that doesn’t actually require my response .