Cardinal Cupich says "discern truth" - WHAT?

  • Thread starter Thread starter oppositeman13
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Why are you searching for truth? - it’s in the bible, the commandments, in official catholic teaching. We used to be comfortable and confident in our beliefs - now some are asking questions they used to have the answer for - so what does that mean - has catholic teaching been wrong? Some would say it needs some adjustments. I do see in black and white just as God does. He doesn’t mix black and white to create “gray area” - a human concept that allows him to rationalize sin. I am also not a fan of “word gymnastics” - flipping, turning, and twisting words. There is much disagreement which cannot come, I believe, from the Holy Spirit. Our church is in a mess.
 
Last edited:
I made the comment about “under the table”. Since official teaching can’t be changed but yet changes are being implemented by some bishops what would you call it? Perhaps I am being crude with that remark but it gets my point across. Our church is reaching beyond what I believe God will allow in what they believe to be an honest effort to help those in certain types of situations. Scripture is very clear about remarriage and no amount of “word gymnastics” can change that. That is what I believe but of course I could be wrong. The tragedy here is that we can’t have one church that believe differently, so some, perhaps hundreds of millions of people are in error. And for those who take the step and receive communion after “discerning truth” in their particular situation, we can only hope that they aren’t making a mistake that cost them their salvation.
 
Vadne said:
There we go again, the false dichotomy that makes out the law to be something mean and rigid and in opposition to “a deeper relationship with God.” Nauseating indeed.
Click to expand...
It makes me wonder: Was that your reaction when you read or learned of the conclusion in Familiaris Consortio? Were you nauseated? Is it really rational to hold to such extreme views?
 
I honestly did not remeber who it was who said under the table but yes,it stroke badly. It means dishonesty at least to me.
We use it for people who do not pay formally,and pay what we call " in black" that is to say without paying due taxes.
Among other uses of bribe,etc.
But OK. Let us start from scratch.
Opppsiteman, these situations have been on the table. Nobody rejected nor hid them. Bishops have this documented.
It isn t the norm if you wish ,and I apologize if my words aren t as precise as they should be,but neither have the last three Popes hidden this under the table.

Vatican site has documents available to anyone.
We read our Popes ,our Saints, our Bishops, in good faith.
 
Last edited:
Like I said, I can see why the Holy Father chose not to respond. I will not engage in an attempt to yell down anyone by out posting them. All our posts are here to be weighed and read, both for content and by the standards of Galatians 5:22.
 
Last edited:
Vadne said:
…we have the ludicrous situation that the divorced and remarried think they can receive Communion (they can’t actually) in Malta, Argentina, etc…but not in Poland or Canada. In Chicago probably, but not in Philadelphia.

It’s a mess…
Click to expand...
Certainly this is the part I find most odd. The bishops who adopt the options opened by the Pope have a ready basis for why they do so. The Pope declares it is acceptable.

But what is the basis upon which other bishops decide not to pursue those options? Will they say: “I don’t think it’s right for the people of Philadelphia”? Does not seem credible. Will they say: “I’m not comfortable that the Pope has made a good call (to put it mildly)?”. It seems some of them are landing in such a place. That does not sit so well.
 
Last edited:
Rau said:
But what is the basis upon which other bishops decide not to pursue those options? Will they say: “I don’t think it’s right for the people of Philadelphia”? Does not seem credible.
Click to expand...
Why does it not seem credible?
Will they say: “I’m not comfortable that the Pope has made a good call (to put it mildly)?”. It seems some of them are landing in such a place. That does not sit so well.
Click to expand...
Why doesn’t it sit well, that seems to be what is happening?

The Pope isn’t into forcing consciences, not even of bishops.
Surely it is clear that many sincere, ordained and theologically educated (esp Canon Lawyers) members of the Church will take time to adjust…or they will pastorally act as if they need to adjust for the sake of their Diocese. Likely their thinking represents that of their constituents in any case.

So no, AL may well not sit well.
Nor does concupiscence - yet God allows it for our learning/salvation.
But then nor do my expensive new shoes - but I know they will and then they are reaaaally comfortable.

Good things take time.
Go New Zealand.

Rau I think I recognised you as the 2nd guy to get up in the video.

 
Last edited:
Yes, but Jesus clarified to the Pharisees that it was not a sin to heal (or do good) on the Sabbath. This same Jesus also clarified to the Pharisees that remarriage after divorce constitutes adultery.
 
I have to say I have never seen on post beg the question as many times as this one does, not to mention the insults and the judgment of the Holy Father.

Matthew 7:15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles?

Galatians 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law. 24 And those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.
 
Last edited:
ok - I have a problem with the way our Pope went about this. Dr. Edward Feser, a catholic philosopher and teacher, 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.”

Now, if what is being done is consistent with official teaching, and one can reasonably argue that what is being presented for consideration, is a clarifying extension and not something new, then I wonder why Pope Francis didn’t take this route. There could be several reasons but if one agrees with Cardinal Burke (that they must live as brother and sister), then this would present problems.

The dubia cardinals, who, by the way,whose duty is to Christ and His church, need to figure out if what is proposed is consistent and an extension of previous teaching or is outside of that and therefore not allowed.

I can’t get past this - possibly many souls are at stake, mine included if I choose to believe wrongly. If I choose to believe that this is ok, then I have to decide if communion for same sex and cohabiting couples are ok and if I believe wrongly about all three then I am even further removed from my salvation.

We have a lot of discussion about particulars and in the meantime people are forgetting that nothing has been settled fundamentally -ie is this a new teaching or not? If so it can’t be allowed and Pope Francis must call all clergy back to teaching and implementing official teaching. If it is not a new teaching then we need to make sure that it is a consistent clarification/extension of previous teaching before it is implemented - which unfortunately seems to already happened.
 
Wandile said:
I’m well balanced …
  • I’m not blinded by an uncatholic extreme ultramontanism that many Catholics here are seduced by.
  • Scripture tells us heresies are the doctrines of demons.
  • your disgusting arrogance [is] rooted in support of heresies from the depths of hell.
  • following the pope does not mean following him into error.
Click to expand...
Hmmmn, some fairly stark contradictions here.
 
Last edited:
well so far the fruits are division and uncertainty - which may be only a transitional result but it doesn’t speak well for where this may be going - some fear schism.
 
I can’t get past this - possibly many souls are at stake, mine included if I choose to believe wrongly. If I choose to believe that this is ok, then I have to decide if communion for same sex and cohabiting couples are ok and if I believe wrongly about all three then I am even further removed from my salvation.
Click to expand...
You really can be at ease about this personally. Simply do not receive if you are remarried, and don’t enter a same-sex marriage. We are not responsible for our belief about the conscience of others, or the way that God is dealing with others. Remember that at the end of John, we see Jesus rebuking Peter for even question the direction that Jesus was going to lead John.
 
I don’t have this problem - I fear for my sisters and brothers. But my salvation could be at stake - Christ said you are with Me or against Me - if I choose to reject Christ’s truth then I could be in trouble - never knowing for sure which is correct because the issue was never resolved by our church - which could happen ie a schism
 
If you note, both verses refer to people, not situations. A situation cannot be kind, gentle, long-suffering, etc. But we can be, or not. The bishops can be, or not.

Could there be a schism? Well, there always has been that since John 6, yet would you hold that Jesus was in the wrong because those that left, or the Council of Trent is a failure because of that whole Protestantism thing?
 
No confused layperson will ever be lost to God for loyally following Peter’s successor right or wrong.
In such confused times the same cannot be said of those who prefer their own interpretation and so reject Peter’s in doing so.

Note the word “confused”.
 
Last edited:
God doesn’t judge you on who you believe - you can’t say “I followed the Pope” It is our responsibility to educate ourselves so we make an informed decision - ignorance is a person’s own fault. God judges you on what you do and say - these things come from your heart and your heart is formed by your beliefs. That is how error gets spread by word and deed. So, if you are responsible for another’s salvation because you spread error you very well could be condemned to hell, I believe.
 
Lord have mercy. Please

Some are so deceived that they laugh at your words of truth and principles from the gospel.

Please lord have mercy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top