Cardinal Cupich says "discern truth" - WHAT?

  • Thread starter Thread starter oppositeman13
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The example you give - and there are others such as (I think I am correct but am to lazy to look it up) believing or not in the big bang theory - aren’t tied to our salvation because of sin. Teachings are like “engineered” scripture - applying scripture to life. The example you give or I give isn’t dealt with in the bible but adultery is in at least 3 gospels that I know of and probably elsewhere. No, this is fundamental - christian church have splintered over lesser issues than this it seems to me.

I posted this above but perhaps you missed it. Dr. Edward Feser is a catholic philosopher and teacher and he says this

“Papal teaching, then, including exercises of the extraordinary Magisterium, cannot contradict Scripture, Tradition, or previous binding papal teaching. Nor can it introduce utter novelties. Popes have authority only to preserve and interpret what they have received. They can draw out the implications of previous teaching or clarify it where it is ambiguous. They can make formally binding what was already informally taught. But they cannot reverse past teaching and they cannot make up new doctrines out of whole cloth.”

He also cites the first and second vatican council and pope Benedict XVI in the article here -
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.ca/2015/11/papal-fallibility.html
 
oppositeman13 said:
You insinuate that being catholic means being in line with the pope. There are serious troubles in our church and they didn’
Click to expand...
Indeed. Thank you opposite man. Which Pope should I believe when they appear to contradict (or if at least one appears to obfuscate his views)? I’ll stick to my old (1954 edition) of Denziger’s “The Sources of Catholic Dogma”. More recently, a good compendium is the Tan press book titled “The Popes Against Modern Errors”. Includes 16 different papal documents on the topic.
 
We all should believe OFFICIAL catholic teaching. Catholic teaching cannot be changed. Dr. Edward Feser a catholic philosopher and teaches says this:

“Papal teaching, then, including exercises of the extraordinary Magisterium, cannot contradict Scripture, Tradition, or previous binding papal teaching. Nor can it introduce utter novelties. Popes have authority only to preserve and interpret what they have received. They can draw out the implications of previous teaching or clarify it where it is ambiguous. They can make formally binding what was already informally taught. But they cannot reverse past teaching and they cannot make up new doctrines out of whole cloth.”
 
??? - what don’t you understand??? I will say it again - there can’t exist one church with two different teachings on the same issue.
Click to expand...

It depends on what the “teaching” is and whether it has been explicitly and/or officially taught by the Church prior. So of course, the Church cannot teach, for example, that Jesus is true God and true man, but also teach that Jesus did not really come in the flesh but only appeared to be a man (Docetism). Neither can the Church teach that it is the will of God to abstain from sexual immorality (e.g., Col 3:5, I Thes 4:3) and also teach that it is morally acceptable and willed by God that a person continue to commit adultery. The example given about whether Mary died is not germane to the discussion as this has never been explicitly and/or officially taught prior, but rather proposed as a theological opinion.
 
The pope cannot introduce anything that conflicts with previous teaching, doctrine or dogma. But you see he has never said anything official about communion for the remarried and hence stayed away from any obvious issues - he just dropped the idea which was picked up by cardinals and bishops who agree with his theology. Why didn’t he make it official - say that communion for the remarried is an obvious extension or clarification of official teaching? Because it is not and the pope knew the only way to get this implemented was with the help of bishops. Cupich in chicago and the bishop of san diego are examples in this country and who knows how many others that keep it quiet. Unless the pope can show that this is consistent with official catholic teaching there is big trouble ahead. The dubia cardinals asked questions that would clarify and address their concerns - but the pope refuses to answer but speaks through a mouthpiece here - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/vatican-archbishop-pope-francis-opened-communion-to-adulterers
please don’t try to deflect the focus by attacking the newspaper.
 
oppositeman13 said:
The example you give - and there are others such as (I think I am correct but am to lazy to look it up) believing or not in the big bang theory - aren’t tied to our salvation because of sin.
Click to expand...
I know that those who disagree will not consider it a valid example of Church teaching and the authority of the Pope. I put it out there for all. My example is there, as is your response. The weight of each can be determined by each reader.

Likewise, your link to various blogs like LSN, can be weighed on their merit. I would recommend to one who reads the LSN article to search the article for the word “adulterers” and see if that was something that was said, or just more rhetoric.

Also, note how the article ends on a gossipy ad hominem. “Reports surfaced this past March that Archbishop Paglia had commissioned a homosexual artist back in 2007” This has nothing to do with the article, nor does it say anything happened except “reports surfaced”.

Come on now. Surely most of here aren’t all that gullible to fall for this sort of trick.
 
Last edited:
Hi pnewton BTW - good to see you’re still on board too.
I did read Amoris Letitia myself. . .took me a while. Then I read comments from others who’d read it, including a canon lawyer’s commentaries. Personally, I didn’t see what any of the fuss was about. . . until I got to the infamous footnote 351 , yet if one takes footnote 329 into consideration, footnote 351 would have a slightly different meaning. So, I don’t find the wording of this letter in certain parts,as clear as I would prefer. If everyone had read Amoris Letitia, and if the MSM did their jobs honestly, I wonder what the prevalent thought on AM would be today - both within the Catholic Church , and in the world in general ?

Also I hope you didn’t think the entire post was directed towards your comments. Where the “FWIW” begins in that post of mine, I had drawn a line to separate the rest from my comment to you, but I see it’s really faint if we’re viewing the forums in default mode as opposed to dark mode.

We have some bishops interpreting the parts about Holy Communion for divorced and remarried couples and those in irregular marriages two different ways. That would seem to substantiate- or at the very least, suggest a need/request for clarification. Perhaps the better question is how or why did/does this confusion/divergence in opinion or interpretation, come about ?

Of course, the MSM have been busy spinning the meaning of Amoris Letitia to suit their designs and the general public absorbs much of that . . .It isn’t much help when the general public goes about claiming something about AM and Pope Francis which isn’t really there.

Thanks for the reply, and, I’ll try to get over the cat ASAP, but it may take a while.
* ( I had to edit the image originally posted here or pay photobucket $400.00 a year - sorry didn’t see it coming: First they let me post the image link and then sent in the nuking party a little later on).
God Bless.
 
Last edited:
Pope Francis didn’t cause the division. It was already there. Even as a non-practicing Catholic I saw it clear as day.

I don’t think there will be a schism. Who would be separating from the Church? In order to retain apostolic succession you’d need at least one Bishop and I have a hard time believing that any would leave to start their own Church. Forget about progressives causing a schism. The more off-the-reservation types in the progressive direction end up excommunicating themselves with female ordination or just leave. There won’t be any schism coming from them.
 
How can you have one church believe 2 different things? The schism has already began and continues as hearts chose to believe for or against communion for the remarried (not to speak of communion for same sex and cohabiting couples). One side will be the true church and the other side will be a false church. The tragedy of all this is some may lose their salvation because they rejected true teaching and chose to embrace false teaching. Since the pope cannot change official teaching we should refrain, me included, from calling it a teaching since it has not formally been done - which it can’t unless the pope can put forth a convincing response to the dubia questions.
 
Since when did the posting of memes attacking the Holy Father become acceptable at this Catholic website? 🙊

And rather than rely on a bumper sticker mentality, if we actually read the Bible one thing is missing from the forgiveness Jesus showed the woman in adultery. She does nothing before or after she is forgiven, neither any sign of sorrow for sin or ask for forgiveness. One should never use Scripture as a weapon against Pope Francis and know less of it than he does.
 
Why is it that disagreeing with Pope Francis is taken as an attack on him? This makes it sound like we are to follow blindly and question nothing he says or does - there are a lot of people who care very much for our church. Our obedience is to Christ, scripture, and official catholic teaching.

There is a way to go about clarifying previous official teaching and expanding upon it - Pope Francis has decided to not go this route. No pope can change official teachings.

Christ does not forgive her - he does not condemn her ie pass judgment on her. He does not say “your sin is forgiven”.
 
oppositeman13 said:
Why is it that disagreeing with Pope Francis is taken as an attack on him?
Click to expand...
One can disagree without being disagreeable. The meme sure seemed disrespectful, but I really have to say how much I appreciate your understanding this, even though I know you may not agree with me on it. That was a great act of respect.

I wish the new format would enable gambling. 😅 I would really like to put money on this idea the Church will split, there will be two Churches, and other such predictions. Historically, I know it can happen, and has happened twice. Practically speaking, considering how little a hiccup the SSPX caused, I would put money that this too shall pass. I have been hearing “crisis” as long as I have been a Catholic and under every Pope.
 
Last edited:
there is nothing in amoris latetitia that contradicts the teachings of the roman catholic church.

that some cardinals are going around leading people to believe that amoris latetitia contains heresy is a real and serious problem.
 
The last thing we need is to harbor bad feeling for each other - we need to respect each others opinions, make our point, and let it go. We all need to make prayer a priority - that our church will resolve this issue so we can be united and happy catholics!!
 
The dubia cardinals simply did their job as cardinals and asked legitimate questions. It is not their fault the pope has time to insult certain Catholics pretty regularly, and to give frequent press interviews, but can’t be bothered to answer some pretty straightforward questions from his top counselors.
 
eddietoo said:
there is nothing in amoris latetitia that contradicts the teachings of the roman catholic church.
Click to expand...
I suppose that depends on what you consider a teaching and how you understand “contradict”.

Ch 8 of AL does say the sacraments may be admissible to some for whom Familiaris Consortio says they are not. Arguably neither statement is teaching, but rather discipline.

More disturbing is the basis that FC gives for that teaching. How does AL dispense with it?

Most unsettling of all is the suggestion in AL that continuing the sexual relationship in the new union could be the right thing to do. I don’t know what theological reasoning underpins that conclusion, and I can see how it could seem in contradiction with what the church teaches about intrinsically evil acts. Do you have more insight in this point?
 
Last edited:
It seems that you are the one with the problem. Most of us will stick with the Pope and are not in favor of schism. Even if I disliked the Pope, I’d still stay. If there are schismatics, they’ll become just another fringe church that will be irrelevant the minute they are founded. I want no part of that.

You guys can’t even switch to the Orthodox Churches because they allow remarriage and communion after divorce.
 
J_Peterson said:
Most of us will stick with the Pope and are not in favor of schism.
Click to expand...
I am not in favor of schism of any sort, but it is hard to stick with a document/pope/teaching where I don’t really understand what he is saying. I want to understand it so that I may stick with it. Practices and doctrine do not exist in isolation. They support each other or interlock in some way.

BTW, I liked and understood chapter 4. It is only a few things I want to know how they fit into the weave.
 
it’s not a matter of sticking with the pope - it’s a matter of which side God views as the true church. Don’t assume that it would be the majority with Pope Francis as it’s head. You may be right or may be wrong. The decision you make needs to be a reflection of your beliefs and not a matter of following a person regardless of who he is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top