Cardinal Cupich says "discern truth" - WHAT?

  • Thread starter Thread starter oppositeman13
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Pug said:
I empathize with your choice of the word “impossible”. I would be interested in a clarification also, such as an answer to the dubia, especially number four about “defensible as a choice” or five about “authorized to legitimate exceptions”.

I would also appreciate from the Church an explanation of canon law and this AL situation. I keep feeling like maybe they should change the law to match.
CIC 915
Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.
Click to expand...
As I see it, this is a perfect chance for you to talk to your priest, who will have received instruction from the bishop, about what you should do, as the Holy Father has directed.
 
Okay, I disagree. Every time I’ve gone for a clarification of something (and these were years apart, I don’t go often or pester), I have received an off the cuff, brief answer that wasn’t to the point, because the priest doesn’t have time to realize what I know and don’t know, so they make assumptions about what I am asking. That is not a workable solution for me. I understand people routinely tell people to talk with a priest (and even I tell people that for certain things), but I don’t get it. It doesn’t fit my experience. Other people must experience something different.
 
Last edited:
oppositeman13 said:
Lifesite news is a reputable source for orthodox Catholic news - no one disputes that.
Click to expand...
I don’t agree with you. I refuse to read it as a source, having had difficulty in the past verifying facts in the articles. This was long ago, though.
 
pnewton said:
Pope Francis, you know, the guy God chose to lead the Church at this time
Click to expand...
The selection of a Pope is an administrative action; it is political and there is no guarantee that God’s preferred candidate is chosen. Regarding the election of Pope Francis: a group of influential Cardinals known as the the St. Galen Mafia lobbied for Bergoglio before the conclave began. The St. Galen group plotted and schemed for nearly two decades to install a reformer pope on the throne of St. Peter and they plotted to prevent the election of Pope Benedict XVI. It is highly probable that this clandestine group influenced with Benedict XVI’s resignation so that they could replace him with their own man: Pope Francis. All of this is public record and not speculation.
 
Last edited:
I can’t help but feel there are two kinds of Catholics: those who are looking for guidelines to which they can apply their developed consciences/ judgment, and those who are looking for a black and white rule book. I’m not saying either approach is better or worse and I know there are many people who strongly expect and want a religion to give them a black and white rule book.
There are always the hard cases and the shades of gray though. I think that’s what’s meant by “discern”.
 
Of course there is no guarantee, because of the free will of those who choose the Pope. However, I cannot accept that the majority of holy men praying to follow God’s will in the matter were so deceived, or that they would not actually pray to God for guidance, or that God is either powerless to help, or unwilling to answer such a prayer.

And no, your conspiracy theory is not public record.
 
Last edited:
“Tis_Bearself said:
I can’t help but feel there are two kinds of Catholics: those who are looking for guidelines to which they can apply their developed consciences/ judgment, and those who are looking for a black and white rule book. I’m not saying either approach is better or worse and I know there are many people who strongly expect and want a religion to give them a black and white rule book.
There are always the hard cases and the shades of gray though. I think that’s what’s meant by “discern”.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
You have given the two Catholics that are seeking to live as God intends. There is a third. The Catholic that is looking for a loophole and an easy salvation. I think it is this type that people fear will take advantage of Amoris Laetitia. I don’t, or at least I don’t think they will take advantage and cheat any more under one discipline more than the other. I see some hope for them in Amoris Laetitia in that I would hope their desire to discern a loop hole might bring them a chance for spiritual conversion if they explore their situation with a holy priest. And I think most priest are both holy and capable.
 
pnewton said:
And no, your conspiracy theory is not public record.
Click to expand...
Cardinal Danneels has publicly discussed it so it is public record. It is not a conspiracy theory. Danneels himself actually referred to the group as a ‘mafia.’
 
Yes I agree very much with your expressed thoughts. We all discern all the time. The problem with discerning it is ok to go outside Catholic teaching is the exclusive claims that one’s discernment is of the Holy Spirit and the others discernment is being rigid. It sets the platform for irrational dialogue (or refusing to dialogue) in the church which is always a bad outcome.
 
Last edited:
Believe what you want. If want to be a Catholic cynic, it is your life. I think this stuff is useless for anything except fertilizer. Supposedly the theory is they are influencing who is Pope, committing actions for which they would incur excommunicaiton.

FYI - The writers which started this hoopla retracted their statements.

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/st.-gallen-group-not-a-lobby-group-say-authors

www.catholicculture.org

A conspiracy to elect Pope Francis? Don't believe it.

Did a powerful group of cardinals conspire to unseat Pope Benedict XVI and elect Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio—Pope Francis—in his place? That sensational claim has been circulating in conservative Catholic internet sites. But the available facts don’t support the sensational headlines. Edward...
www.catholicculture.org www.catholicculture.org
 
They were asked on their facebook page if they were catholic and they responded the staff are all catholics. Most everyone has an agenda - theirs is orthodox - mainstream catholic media tends towards the other end. What you are doing is typical - attacking the source when you don’t like the story - happens in prophecy - attack the messenger when you don’t like the message.

You insinuate that being catholic means being in line with the pope. There are serious troubles in our church and they didn’t start until francis’ papacy. What is happening is not the work of the Holy Spirit. There are cardinals and bishops allowing actions that go against official catholic teaching - and a pope who remains silent. Our allegiance should be to Christ and the welfare of our church. Situation ethics has been struck down by our church several times. Playing “word gymnastics” is nothing but an flawed intellectual exercise to condone tearing apart official catholic teaching and replacing it with a man-made “religion” that is plainly against scripture.
 
I am not playing at all. I am being a faithful traditional Catholic by standing with the Holy Father. It is what Catholics do.

As to “francis’ papacy” being the start of serious trouble, I am not so forgetful. I have been this same type of dissent against the Holy Father since the papacy of St. John Paul. There is nothing new. The same accusations now were also made against that holy man, as they were against Pope Benedict.
 
Last edited:
The issue is personal sin, not objective truth.
Just as Pope Francis keeps reminding us.
 
Last edited:
oppositeman13 said:
There are serious troubles in our church and they didn’t start until francis’ papacy. What is happening is not the work of the Holy Spirit. There are cardinals and bishops allowing actions that go against official catholic teaching - and a pope who remains silent. Our allegiance should be to Christ and the welfare of our church
Click to expand...
Well said! This perfectly describes my view.

This situation isn’t remotely similar to what happened before. Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI were orthodox to the core; they spoke out against anybody or anything that threatened the integrity of the Faith - and their teachings were clear.
 
Last edited:
The issue is, a person who is divorced and remarried may not receive Communion if they are engaging in sexual relations with their new “spouse.” No priest can change that; no bishop; no pope.

The issue of personal culpability is irrelevant to that point. The issue of public scandal is among the relevant issues.
 
pnewton said:
FYI - The writers which started this hoopla retracted their statements.
Click to expand...
I got my information elsewhere; and Cardinals Murphy-O’Connor and Danneels have spoken about their role in the conclave that elected Francis.

Bottom line: there is no smoke without fire.
 
You stated:
“discernment” does not decide what is right and what is wrong.
Click to expand...
That is correct, the Discernment process determines the likely presence of grace rather than just objective grave matter. Just like Jesus did while associating with the sick, prostitutes, thieves, drunkards and gluttons.

This is the mistake of both yourself and Card Burke methinks.
 
Last edited:
No mistake from Cardinal Burke. Just fidelity to the perennial teaching of the church, not obfuscation and ambiguity.
 
Obviously it isn’t perennial as Pope Francis just changed it.

As I say, the error is thinking that the primary issue is objective grave matter.
Pope Francis is clearly saying the primary issue is actually whether persons are judged to be living graced lives.

That does not mean the objective gravity is inconsequential … but it is clearly a secondary consideration after the primary one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top