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.
  1. You have stated that you agree with the cardinal, but the cardinal himself doesn’t cite specifics to prove his accusations of “heresy” and “apostasy.” The burden of proof is on you. Which means, yes, you are the research assistant if you’d like to continue defending the cardinal.
  2. It’s been pointed out time and again that the cardinal’s letter does not speak for itself because he himself doesn’t cite specifics and doesn’t even quote the text, but rather makes broad sweeping generalizations.
The one making the accusation of “heresy” and “apostasy” has the responsibility - in charity - to provide specific proof so that those being accused can repent of their heresy.

As far as this thread goes, I’ve mentioned before that we could all read the IL and come to different conclusions of what “heresy” the cardinal is talking about (if, in fact, there is heresy in the document). So for the sake of discussion can you please provide the explicit quotes or references from the text itself that you think the cardinal might be referring to (since he himself doesn’t point to them, we can only speculate). If you can’t, then it seems to me that this discussion has run its course.
 
twf said:
The relationship between the Bishop of Rome and his brother bishops is much more complex and nuanced than supervisor / employee.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but in the Church obedience has always been a big deal. It’s especially true of the Benedictine charism, it’s one of the three vows of a Benedictine (stability and inner conversion being the other two).

That said there has always been a lot of court intrigue in the Vatican, so it’s nothing really new. What is new and unprecedented is the rapidity at which rumours, innuendo and other machinations can make their way around the world at the speed of light directly into someone’s hand.

In another line of thought, I do wonder why some people, including some here on CAF, remain in a Church that causes them so much anger and anxiety. Surely it isn’t good for the soul.

When I get carried away with some Church shenanigans, I turn to the Divine Office to take my mind off of it. In particular the abuse crisis has rattled my faith. But the Divine Office always manages to bring it back to the right focus: Christ, particularly a Christo-centric reading of the psalms. And of course the Eucharist too but even my belief in that gets rattled by Church politics; the Divine Office helps me re-center onto it.
 
Last edited:
KMG said:
These threads inevitably come down to, any criticism of Francis is considered beyond the pale. Francis is always right.
Click to expand...
I don’t think that is a fair statement at all. Most Catholics disagree with the Pope on some issues. But if you are going to call him a heretic, don’t you think you should say why? The complaints on this thread have been that you refuse to say what you think is heretical in this document (which Francis did not write, BTW).
 
KMG said:
These threads inevitably come down to, any criticism of Francis is considered beyond the pale. Francis is always right.
Click to expand...
Francis is of course not always right on issues outside of infallibility. That applies to every pope.

The issue here is your failure to provide specifics on the accusations of heresy, not whether the pope is beyond reproach. You made the accusation, the onus is on you to point us directly to the proof.
KMG said:
Interestingly, the same blind obedience being demanded by some re: Francis was not remotely considered necessary in the days of Benedict.
Click to expand...
I can’t speak for others, but I have never suggested disobedience to Pope Benedict. On the contrary I had enormous respect for both the man and the Office.

Again, an accusation that fails to point to any specifics.
 
And again, I would argue the cardinal’s letter speaks for itself. He writes quite lucidly and unambiguously.
 
But no one is trying to defend Pope Francis here. We’re just asking that accusations of “heresy” and “apostasy” be substantiated because they are very serious charges.

I can’t speak for others in this discussion, but I certainly don’t think blind obedience to Pope Francis is a good thing… and, if I’m being honest, I was much more a fan of Pope Benedict and Pope John Paul II than I am of Pope Francis.

But again, that’s not what this thread is about.
 
And again, I would point out that the cardinal’s letter does not speak for itself. Not once does he quote the IL to support his position, but simply makes sweeping generalizations. As has been pointed out several times (not just by me), for the sake of charity accusations of “heresy” and “apostasy” need to be founded on something specific, not on generalizations.

If I wrote a document of that length that contained something heterodox, I’d want someone to give me the benefit of the doubt, then point me to the specific problematic passages so that I could articulate my thought in an orthodox manner (or refuse to re-articulate and then prove to the rest of the Church that I’m being obstinate in heresy and should be ignored).
 
Phillip_Rolfes said:
As has been pointed out several times (not just by me), for the sake of charity accusations of “heresy” and “apostasy” need to be founded on something specific, not on generalizations.
Click to expand...
Its more serious than that, in my view. Its like standing up in a crowded room and shouting that there is a great danger to everyone in the room, and then refusing to say what the danger is. If the Church is in such immediate danger, why not detail what it is? I have said what I think is the answer to that question in my previous post.
 
This is a good summary–the married priest thing is pretty much the least problematic thing of the whole document.

The document comes across as an illustration of the “profane babbling and the absurdities of so-called knowledge” that St. Paul tells bishops to avoid. As St. Paul warns, “By professing it, some people have deviated from the faith.” (1 Tim. 6:20-21).
 
Last edited:
From an editorial in the National Catholic Register about the Amazon Synod:

“If the instrumentum laboris is an accurate guide, Catholics can expect synodal recommendations to emerge in October supporting the ordination of married men, some kind of “official ministry” for women, the promotion of indigenous theologies with little consideration given to their underlying pantheistic character, and the advancement of one-sided ecological perspectives — all marketed as limited, regionalized solutions addressing the real-world and dire pastoral needs of “indigenous peoples and cultures.”

But are these innovations really intended to remain limited to Pan-Amazonia and not seized upon by those in other areas with their own agendas? The available evidence indicates otherwise.”

www.ncregister.com

Memo to the Pan-Amazon Synod: The Gospel of Christ Doesn’t Preach Exceptions

EDITORIAL: The evidence to date strongly suggests the October gathering is in danger of heading down the same road of damaging, unnecessary controversy as the preceding family synods — potentially to a much greater degree.
www.ncregister.com www.ncregister.com
 
I don’t need to read another commentary or opinion piece.
This thread was started to praise a Cardinal who has levied some pretty strong charges against the writers and, indirectly, Pope Francis, without any proof.
 
Last edited:
A cardinal writing drivel? Someone should flag your post for disrespect to clergy.
 
Of course it’s OK to say that a pope you don’t like is wrong, but not ok to say that a cardinal is writing something less than edifying because you happen to agree with him :roll_eyes:

This whole thread has become a ridiculous example of less than charitable, and definitely un-Catholic behaviour. It should be locked.
 
But you can claim the Pope is a heretic and an apostate with zero proof?

Hhhmmm…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top