Cardinal Cupich says "discern truth" - WHAT?

  • Thread starter Thread starter oppositeman13
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes they can, through the annulment process. Remember that a pope can can change a practice, just not doctrine. By “practice,” I mean it the way St. John Paul II used it in Familia Consortia. However, any change must still conform to doctrine. I have said this many times, but there is not consensus that the statement you made, taking into account annulments is doctrine. It is a synthesis of two doctrines.

I know that this will be stated repeatedly that this is doctrine. Just remember that posters here do not define doctrine. Saying something repeatedly does not make it true.
 
Last edited:
Annulment means the marriage never existed, so that is irrelevant to what I said. I am talking about the divorced and remarried, not the annulled.

And this is doctrine. No pope can permit the divorced and remarried to receive Communion unless they are sexually abstinent.
 
“Saxum said:
Cardinal Burke has tried to obtain a definitive interpretion but Pope Francis refuses to answer; he’s allowing people to do his talking for him. We must pray for Pope Francis because his silence could amount to nonfeasance.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I too questioned why Pope Francis did not respond to that dubia. Over time I have come to realize that it was an amazingly wise move on his part. Had he answered, I would bet a dollar to doughnuts that there would have been another response back demanding an answer to questions about answers.
 
The dubia cardinals are doing their job - this is well defined by our church. So, what if they did ask more questions for clarification - that would be a good thing as they work toward a clear understanding.The dubia cardinals want to make sure that pope francis has the best interests of Christ and our church in mind which is exactly what we should also want. Cardinal burke, a canon lawyer, knows this is no small matter. It is not a matter of right and wrong but a matter for clarification so all of us are on the same page.
 
Well you must be living in a different world from most of us.
Pope Francis clearly enough has changed this pastoral directive of JPII.

You do realise that JPII himself invented the abstain exception dont you?

So if you agree with him then you and @Saxon must accept that the matter is disciplinary not perrenial.
Why even divorce alone had always excluded Catholics from Church membership, let alone Communion, until last century.

But of course the dogmatic confidence of young inexpert minds with no knowledge of their Church history dont let such facts get in the way of absurd assertions.
 
Last edited:
You have a lot of nerve talking about a “young inexpert mind” to someone of mature years with a doctorate.

To reiterate: Communion is not permitted for the divorced and remarried unless they abstain from sex. No pope can change that. The end.
 
It would appear your mind is still young re Church history despite your Doctorate.
I respect reasoning, skill and applied knowledge not bits of fancy paper and unproven titles.

So how about applying your Doctorate mind to the challenge I gave you re civil Divorce and remarriage, until the 20th century, being perennially considered far worse than some irregulars being admitted to Communion with Pope Francis today?

So much for the perennial, JPII is the unchanging voice-of-God argument.

Or is your doctorate in some other unrelated field.
 
Last edited:
Never said John Paul II was the voice of God. That is your arrogant take on what I said.

The teaching of the Church on this matter is not rooted in papal documents. It is rooted in the very words of Christ. And yes, it is indeed perennial teaching…not something subject to the whim of a Bergoglio or a Wojtyla.
 
Ah, so you avoid:
(1) identifying the nature of your Doctorate
(2) taking on my challenge to say something in accord with actual Church History.
(3) proving your assertion that Church teachings in this area re Communion and Excommunication are perennial…because they clearly have not been re Divorce/Remarriage from 1983 onwards due to JPII’s innovations.

Pope Francis is doing no different my friend.
The teaching on the indissolubility of a valid, consummated marriage between two practising Catholics is certainly perennial. But the relevance of this to Church membership and admittance to Communion has changed numerous times in Church history.

Pope Francis is doing so again.
If you deny this then you live on a different planet from Pope JPII, Pope Francis and the rest of us.
 
Last edited:
I’m not playing your sophistic games.

The divorced and remarried may NOT receive Communion unless they are sexually abstinent. The end.
 
Your arrogant sophistry does not change the perennial teaching of the Church. Nor does it make the Amoris Laetitia controversy go away.
 
I did not assert mere personal opinion. I asserted the perennial teaching of the Church. Sex outside marriage is a mortal sin, and those in mortal sin cannot receive Communion. Period.

And Pope Bergoglio cannot change that.
 
Unfortunately, the problem is not that you went into insufficient detail, but rather that you gave entirely too much detail regarding your erroneous exegesis. The following affirmations…

…are simply mistaken, as the above citations from Sts. Chrysostom and Aquinas amply demonstrate.
Click to expand...
I have no trouble acknowledging Truth. I do not agree with (name removed by moderator), as is my right. Your suggestion that my orthodox Catholic positions as some how a moral failing because they do not agree with your orthodox Catholic position is uncharitable to say the least. This sort of dogmatic posturing in the absence of actual dogma is divisive. As to what is proper exegesis, my own counsel I will keep. My credentials and experience in Scripture is not exactly passing, so please keep your insults to yourself. One does not have to tear at others to build oneself up.
Perhaps you are comfortable calling Cardinals Murphy-O’Connor and Danneels liars, but do not be surprised if others are not.
Click to expand...
I did not say this or anything like this. Do not speak of erroneous exegesis and then extract something like this from my post. I have to assume this is simply carelessness on your part. I do not want to impute to your the sin of lying and slander.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Vadne mate I think you have personal issues other than AL.
I won’t be responding to you further.
You are simply destroying your own credibility and seriously embarrassing yourself here with your repeated dogmatic assertions that you are unable to justify in any rational or coherent fashion.

I wish you peace.
 
Have you ever heard of Pope Alexander VI?

Check him out. He definitely was not the candidate God would have wanted for the papacy but men went against the will of God for their own schemes and political intentions
 
WHAT?

If anyone has issues here it’s you and your disgusting arrogance rooted in support of heresies from the depths of hell
 
WHAT? If anyone has issues here it’s you and your disgusting arrogance rooted in support of heresies from the depths of hell.
Click to expand...
Publicly proclaiming that those who support Pope Francis are spreading heresies from hell is hardly the utterance of a well balanced Catholic let alone person.

Perhaps you might like to consider editing your somewhat non Christian, extreme post before I or others bring it to the attention of the forum master?
 
Last edited:
Call it patience.
He has done everything within his possibilities to explain.
He is a theologian,he doesn’t play it by ear.
 
“oppositeman13 said:
I thought here we go again with denying God’s absolute truth and replacing it with situation ethics where a person determines right or wrong, sin or not, based on their particular circumstances.
…
For one thing in denying the absolute truth of scripture, it elevates man above God. I believe God paints in black and white and doesn’t mix them to create “gray area” - which is a human concept to rationalize sin.
Click to expand...
[Clearly I haven’t mastered the high art of quotations yet.]

Wow. They don’t number the post anymore, but I bet we’re pushing 100 in 24 hours! No problem of division here!

I’m quoting “oppositeman13”, but my reply is to all those supporting his position.

In the quotation, the word “absolute” is used twice: “absolute truth” and “absolute truth of Scripture.” And of course “God paints in black and white…” Fascinating.

In another context, I’m reminded of letters to the editor where the letter writer says something along the lines of “The Constitution says…” and then goes on to give his/her opinion on gun control, abortion, privacy, or any other “black and white” issue.

It must be refreshing to live in such a world of moral and/or legal clarity! All those books of theology, all those encyclicals, all those Church councils…what a waste of time! Why can’t those dolts just see the “absolute truth of Scripture”? Probably for the same reason we have all those tiresome Supreme Court cases that fill volumes of law books. Why can’t they just ask Billy Bob, who wrote a nice letter to the editor saying “The Constitution says…”

The issue of course is exactly WHAT IS “absolute truth”? And of course one answer is that “absolute truth” could be something that’s really not as black and white as many people seem to think it is.

Jewish law said that a woman taken in adultery should be stoned to death. Black and white. And yet…when Jesus was faced with a woman taken in adultery, he didn’t urge the crowd to stone her to death, he made them slink away and told the woman to “go and sin no more.” Or we could take the Samaritan woman at the well. A pretty black and white case if you ever saw one! Five husbands! Just like we’re discussing! Did Jesus assure her that she would spend eternity in Hell? No?

Because YOU see only black and white does not mean someone else sees only black and white…or if they do, maybe their black is your white, and vice versa. If you and you alone are the possessor of “absolute truth,” then we should all fall down and worship you, for you are God. I would humbly suggest that “truth” is something we all are searching for, you, me, the cardinals, the Pope, and yes, even the saints. And while we’re doing all that searching (“discerning” if you will), I think we all need to go back and read what St. Paul had to say about charity.
 
Last edited:
There are pastoral solutions ,tolerant and benevolent aimed at doing justice to particular, difficult cases. This isn t new…
Again,not everything fits into a chart.
Those who have read AL can see the weight given to every single aspect.
And this was a footnote.
It isn t something under the table,as I do not who said here,nor will I take the trouble to look for.
There are other documents one can read.
Not that we need to,Pope Francis is the Pope . No need to doubt him
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top