Cardinal Burke Outlines Formal Correction of Pope Francis’ Teaching

  • Thread starter Thread starter johnnyc176
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Blue_Horizon said:
Because Dempsey’s comment was a bit of a non sequitor re me following the Pope so it wasn’t clear to me which Athanasius he was referring to :confused:.
Click to expand...
Which Athanasius? I assumed the Athanasius who combatted the heresy of Arianism since Dempsey brought up Arius.
 
Blue_Horizon said:
There can be no danger in laity following the Pope in confusing times, right or wrong.
Click to expand...
I am not sure that that’s true, but I guess that depends on what is meant by ‘follow’. There was certainly danger in Antioch of ‘following’ Peter at which point Paul had to publicly withstand Peter to his face. Peter, by his actions, caused others to be led astray - even Barnabas fell for it. Paul may disagree with you that there was no danger in following Peter.
 
Blue_Horizon said:
It appears so, do you think divorce was widespread in very conservative Catholic Poland during JPIIs formative years…let alone at the end of his life. Do you think divorce and remaariage was widespread there even in the 1980s? Do you think he had any direct experience of remarried uncles or aunts or even cousins? I think not.

A bit of quick research on the net immediately demonstrates Poland was way behind the rest of the 1st world re divorce and remarriage stats.

Every age and person no matter how great have its lacunae.
JP2 was a great man but he too had his characteristic failings and shortsihtednesses as did Aquinas, Augustine, Jerome and everybody else.
Click to expand...
Blue - is your thinking here that JP II lacked awareness of the prevalence of divorce and remarriage, [he wrote FC in 1981, at age 61, 3 years into his reign] and thus, had he been more aware, he may well have taken a different position?

Probably JP II was aware, but perhaps the whole matter is best regarded as a prudential judgement. After all, it’s not a comfortable idea that right or wrong is a function of the numbers involved. If the matter is prudentially judged, its understandable that Popes may come to different conclusions, and that others may disagree, but should accept that the man in the chair makes the rules for the Church.

But the matter is made difficult because of the high bar JP II set in FC for the Church’s practice:

“However, 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.”

and later…

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

AL leaves these statements (which seem more than prudential) unaddressed.
 
Blue_Horizon said:
…There can be no danger in laity following the Pope in confusing times, right or wrong.
Click to expand...
Unless one is divorced and remarried, there is no question of “following” in this instance - other than for the clergy themselves. I agree that irregulars whose conscience is clear and who avail themselves of communion under the processes of AL are in no danger.

I presume the Pope “requires” the clergy to act in accordance with AL, just as JP II required conformity with FC. For us laity, there is only the matter of pondering the Pope’s decision and its rationale. Does it matter much whether we think JP II or Francis had the better rationale?
 
irenaeus1 said:
I am not sure that that’s true, but I guess that depends on what is meant by ‘follow’. There was certainly danger in Antioch of ‘following’ Peter at which point Paul had to publicly withstand Peter to his face. Peter, by his actions, caused others to be led astray - even Barnabas fell for it. Paul may disagree with you that there was no danger in following Peter.
Click to expand...
Not sure what you are on about. Paul was somewhat self smugly/congratulatory writing his own version of the event - and in fact had himself previously done pretty much what he was accusing Peter of. And it was not about doctrine 🤷.

Have you read St Jerome’s seminal understanding of the incident?
 
irenaeus1 said:
And you know that JPII was not aware of the issues and challenges by personal direct enlightenment from the HS?
Click to expand...
Do you suffer from compulsively arguing over trivialities just for the sake of arguing 🤷.
 
Rau said:
Blue - is your thinking here that JP II lacked awareness of the prevalence of divorce and remarriage, [he wrote FC in 1981, at age 61, 3 years into his reign] and thus, had he been more aware, he may well have taken a different position?

Probably JP II was aware, but perhaps the whole matter is best regarded as a prudential judgement. After all, it’s not a comfortable idea that right or wrong is a function of the numbers involved. If the matter is prudentially judged, its understandable that Popes may come to different conclusions, and that others may disagree, but should accept that the man in the chair makes the rules for the Church.

But the matter is made difficult because of the high bar JP II set in FC for the Church’s practice:

“However, 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.”

and later…

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

AL leaves these statements (which seem more than prudential) unaddressed.
Click to expand...
Unlike the nay-sayers here I actually believe that the Magisterium is in harmony until proven otherwise.

If one works from that common sense starting point then one, especially uneducated laity I suggest, would not start out by dogmatically saying JPII and FI have inconsistent positions but rather look for other reasonable explanations. …or simply leave it to those whose job, role and education make them the right people to discuss and solve these things if confused.

For the laity to dogmatically opine that FI is wrong and JPII the voice of Christ himself is so lacking in self-knowledge, imagination, humility and intelligence that words seem barely able to convey the foolishness of such from otherwise mature Catholics in my opinion.
You maybe not so much.

Why is it that some here simply go ape when asked to walk in a bit of intellectual darkness.
Where did God say that we would always understand the big questions? He didn’t.

Sometimes we just have to suck it up rather than spit the dummy as is happening all too often on CAF.
 
Blue_Horizon said:
Unlike the nay-sayers here I actually believe that the Magisterium is in harmony until proven otherwise.
Click to expand...
That of course is fine. Are you aware of any analyses wherein that harmony is explained/demonstrated - be it expressed by someone on CAF, or referenced?
 
Rau said:
Unless one is divorced and remarried, there is no question of “following” in this instance - other than for the clergy themselves. I agree that irregulars whose conscience is clear and who avail themselves of communion under the processes of AL are in no danger.

I presume the Pope “requires” the clergy to act in accordance with AL, just as JP II required conformity with FC. For us laity, there is only the matter of pondering the Pope’s decision and its rationale. Does it matter much whether we think JP II or Francis had the better rationale?
Click to expand...
I think I agree with you blast it.
In the end its what we do that counts not what we understand.
As you say its bishops and priests who have to impliment all this.
In the end all we have to do is accept whatever irregulars start coming up for Communion…not that most of us would ever know who got an annulment as opposed to an AL pass.
And if we are the ones on the discernment path no priest is going to force us to come up to Communion if our conscience says we are not publicly worthy by reason of the 2nd marriage, the sex or a combination of both.
 
Rau said:
That of course is fine. Are you aware of any analyses wherein that harmony is explained/demonstrated - be it expressed by someone on CAF, or referenced?
Click to expand...
Yes, there’s this guy called Blue Horizon on CAF… a right nutter…but see what you think :o.

Then there is this Cardinal called W Kasper, a false prophet according to some:
cruxnow.com/global-church/2016/10/29/kasper-says-amoris-permits-communion-divorcedremarried/

There is then the devil incarnate Cardinal Schonborn: americamagazine.org/faith/2016/04/08/amoris-laetitia-represents-organic-development-doctrine-not-rupture

I suppose one has to want to see another point of view to find these Cardinals ;).
 
Blue_Horizon said:
…
Then there is this Cardinal called W Kasper, a false prophet according to some:
cruxnow.com/global-church/2016/10/29/kasper-says-amoris-permits-communion-divorcedremarried/

There is then the devil incarnate Cardinal Schonborn: americamagazine.org/faith/2016/04/08/amoris-laetitia-represents-organic-development-doctrine-not-rupture
Click to expand...
Neither of these say all that much about how AL and FC are in accord with each other. The first (I think) argues that JP opens the door by allowing the couple to remain in the appearance of marriage, and so Francis only extends that concession. Neither offers a real :idea: moment though. Drat.
 
Rau said:
Neither of these say all that much about how AL and FC are in accord with each other. The first (I think) argues that JP opens the door by allowing the couple to remain in the appearance of marriage, and so Francis only extends that concession. Neither offers a real :idea: moment though. Drat.
Click to expand...
Just quick 30 sec searches…they may have more apposite comments elsewhere.
 
Dempsey1919 said:
Jesus said no such thing. I challenge you to find ONE Scripture verse that orders to follow a Pope who ignores the teachings of Jesus Christ and his Apostles. You’re an extreme ultramontanist.
Click to expand...
Matthew 18:17 - “And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.”
 
Dempsey1919 said:
Pope Francis is a cause of confusion. He allowed AL to be released and refuses to answer the dubia. Francis has the moral obligation to hand down what he received and confirm his brethren. He appears to be doing neither of these tasks. Since Pope Francis won’t answer the questions, I’ll go searching for answers from his immediate predecessors. Thankfully, Pope St John Paul II answered the questions decades ago. I’d remind you that John Paul is not a dead pope - he’s a canonised Saint and his teaching is relevant. A couple of rigged synods and a footnote cannot revoke the teachings of John Paul because he confirmed the teachings of Christ.
Click to expand...
How dare you insult the Vicar of Jesus Christ.

Repent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top