Cardinal critiques Amazon synod working doc as ‘heretical…apostasy’, urges

  • Thread starter Thread starter KMG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Blanket accusations of heresy and apostasy without direct and explicit quotes from the document itself (and the names of the people drafting it) are not helpful. Plus, the document is a working document, not the final result of the synod.

Nothing I’ve seen indicates that this synod is even remotely considering abolishing celibacy - something that isn’t essential to the nature of the priesthood anyhow, but is simply a discipline of one single church sui iuris (the 23 Eastern Catholic Churches do not have this as a mandatory discipline).

That being said, I don’t have high hopes or great expectations for this synod. After all, it’s a synod that’s meant to deal with the specific issues of a specific region, and so can hardly have universal importance or significance.

In regards to female deacons… history (and even the Scriptures) show that the Church has had them in the past, but they played a very specific role and had a limited function. Why there’s a push to reinstate them is beyond me, but I think it’s best not to speculate on the intentions of others.
 
Phillip_Rolfes said:
Blanket accusations of heresy and apostasy without direct and explicit quotes from the document itself (and the names of the people drafting it) are not helpful.
Click to expand...
Furthermore, misuse of the word invites the laity to misuse it as well . It has a specific meaning that has gotten sloshed around, much like the terms liberal, socialist, alt-right, etc. In the Church’s definition there are two requirements for something to be heretical, and three for heresy. The first requirement is that there is a clearly defined truth that must be believed, not just any doctrine or common practice. Second, there must be denial of that dogma, not refinement or restatement. For heresy, there must also be obstinate denial.
 
I had to laugh when he went out of his way to bring up Nazis, because, of course, everyone you don’t like is a Nazi. So, reading through the letter, I note that not once did he say which doctrine was contradicted, or what in the document contradicted it. He labeled it as socialism and humanism, labels that are his, not that are in the document, then condemns that which is nothing but his labels. This type of attack is called a straw man.

FYI - if something is ever called heresy and words like “implicit”, “imply,” or “intend” are used to present that which is supposed to be heresy, then it is not heresy.

If those of you who applaud his effort disagree, then please, point out the heresy, that is, what the document says and what dogma is being denied.
 
Last edited:
I am also interested in what the Cardinal has issue with. I see many accusations, but not a lot of actual citations or facts.

And, my bigger question is why do some Cardinals think it is OK to publically call out the Holy Father on things. As a supervisor, I would be none to happy if one of my employees publicly rebuked me without coming to me first for a conversation or trying to understand where I was coming from.
 
They tried to have a conversation about the dubia, but that was completely ignored.

Bishops also do not need to clear statements with the pope in advance. Bishops are not “employees” of the pope.
 
Last edited:
I never said Bishops need to clear things. I said it is just good practice to discuss things privately first.

Are you going to address the other part of my comment? What, exactly, is the Cardinal’s problem? Specific charges and/or accusations please? And citations as to where these particlar elements are in said document.
 
Last edited:
I just scanned the English translation, I see nothing that rises to the level of heresy or apostasy.

If you can’t articulate an argument as to WHY/HOW the document is a travesty, why did you even post it?
 
The cardinal’s letter speaks for itself.

Also, the pope didn’t write this travesty of a document, so your insistence on bringing the pope into this is irrelevant.
 
However, as several folks on here have pointed out, the cardinal’s letter does not speak for itself because he himself does not provide any direct quotes from the document whereby Catholic dogma is explicitly denied. This would be required to constitute heresy.

So again, we’re left wanting for direct quotes from the document itself that are 1. in explicit contradiction to specific Church dogma, and 2. demonstrate that the authors themselves (whoever they are) are persistent in contradicting those specific Church dogmas.

Again, I’m not saying I agree (or disagree) with anything in the document. But when public accusations of heresy and apostasy are thrown out, the accuser better darn well be able to back up his accusation with the relevant information.
 
Last edited:
Are you calling into question my own level of catechesis, that of others on the forums here, or the Catholic public in general? Seems pretty presumptuous to me…

Not to mention the fact that it steers our conversation in a different direction. No one has said we don’t have a problem with the IL. We’ve simply stated that we’d like to see the specific quotes and instances that led the Cardinal to decry “heresy” and “apostasy” as those are extremely serious charges.
 
Last edited:
I love and respect Cardinal Muller. He, Cardinal Sarah, and a small handful of other cardinals seem to be the sole voices of reason in our crazy times.

That being said, this interview with him has nothing to do with the topic at hand - i.e. the accusations of heresy and apostasy thrown out by Cardinal Brandmuller and based off of the IL. Cardinal Muller doesn’t even mention the IL.

Can we please get back on topic…
 
Just the most recent example of manufactured outrage coming from a small but vocal element in the Church. Thankfully, most of the faithful ignore this sort of thing and proceed with their lives under the patient guidance of their pastors and the Pope.
 
I’d say anecdotally, the faithful are pretty evenly split on things.

The faithful are of course the small minority of Catholics. The majority likely don’t follow any of this or what the Pope has to say, nor do they even attend Mass regularly.
 
For most of Church history, most of the faithful didn’t even know who the pope was. And were none of the worse for their ignorance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top