Cardinal Cupich says "discern truth" - WHAT?

  • Thread starter Thread starter oppositeman13
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This issue is very simple.

Let us start with the words of our Lord:

"Every one that putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her that is put away from her husband, commmitteth adultery. "
Luke 16:18

Thus we can see that to marry another person while your spouse is still alive is the sin of adultery. More importantly because in a marriage you consumate it and have intercourse which is properly only allowed in a valid marriage. So to persist in sexual relations with your new partner (who is not your actual wife/husband) is to have sex outside your valid marriage which is thus adultery.

Next St Paul teaches on various deadly sins :

_ "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God._
  • 1 Corinthians 6:9-11
The only impedement to receiving the kingdom of God is the loss of sanctifying grace. This is done through committing mortal sins which cause you to lose the life of God in you which thus makes you spiritually dead.

From this passage we can see the objective nature of various sins which are mortal (barring us from inheriting the kingdom of God). Adultery is listed as one of them.

Further St Paul teaches us concerning the rules for receiving the Body and Blood of the most holy sacrifice of the mass i.e. The Eucharist :

_“Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.” _
  • 1 Corinthians 11:27
Thus to partake in communion while in a state of mortal sin due to committing the sin of adultery is an additional mortal sin (Sacrilege).

Thus with the testimony of scripture, it’s manifest that the divorced and “remarried” ,unless remaining contentinent (thus not committing adultery as you aren’t having sexual relations outside of your valid marriage with your new partner), may not receive communion.

Lastly the Church spoke infallibly on this matter in the council of Trent saying :

" If anyone says that the Church errs in that she taught and teaches that in accordance with evangelical and apostolic doctrine the bond of matrimony cannot be dissolved by reason of adultery on the part of one of the parties, and that both, or even the innocent party who gave no occasion for adultery, cannot contract another marriage during the lifetime of the other, and that he is guilty of adultery who, having put away the adulteress, shall marry another, and she also who, having put away the adulterer, shall marry another, let him be anathema."
  • Canon 7 of the Council of Trent
 
Last edited:
oppositeman13 said:
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.
Click to expand...
As I said before, it must be refreshing to live in such a world of moral and/or legal clarity! And, to repeat myself again, if you were the possessor of “absolute” truth, then we should all fall down and worship you because you would be God.

Sadly, the rest of us mortals have to search for truth.

So if the Bible says “Thou shalt not kill” it’s an absolute, right? No exceptions? I don’t see a list of exceptions after that commandment in the Bible. So it must be black and white. If you really believe that, I think you’re in trouble. If you don’t believe that, you’re inconsistent.
 
I’m going to repeat myself yet again. Yes, the red light analogy! One of my favorites!

situation #1: The state passes a law that says “All drivers have to stop at a red light. Every light will be monitored by automatic cameras. If you go through a red light, you’re guilty. Every violation will incur a $500 fine.”

So there you go: “Absolute truth.” black and white–or red and green in this case.

situation #2: The state passes a law that says “We think all drivers should stop at red lights. We know there might be good individual reasons you might choose not to stop. Please discern your actions carefully.”

Chaos, right? Some drivers would continue to stop at red lights as always. Some rebellious types would almost never stop at red lights. And others in between would not stop if they thought they had a good reason. But in practice, a lot more accidents.

situation #3: The state passes a law that says “All drivers have to stop at a red light. If you are caught and convicted, violators will pay a $500 fine.”

This is exactly the situation we have now, not only with red lights, but with the Church. In the case of the red light, there may be all sorts of legitimate reasons a driver would not stop: his brakes failed; he’s driving a badly injured person to the hospital; the timing device for the light is broken and it doesn’t turn green for 10 minutes; the light is in the middle of the desert and it’s 3 AM, and there are no other cars in sight; and so on.

So a policeman stops you for driving through a red light. No excuse? Then you pay the $500 fine. You tell the policeman your son is in the back seat bleeding profusely and you’re on your way to the emergency room, and the policeman tells you he’ll escort you. No ticket. Or you explain to the policeman that the light appears to be broken. The policeman doesn’t believe you, gives you a ticket and you go to court. The judge has now seen 5 cases in a row that deal with that light on that day. Clearly there was something wrong with the light. The judge finds you not guilty. No fine.

I personally am not a big fan of situation #2, where it’s left to each person to decide if they want to go through the red light. Some percentage of the population would see this as a license to run every red light they came to. It would lead to chaos and accidents. It might work if 100% of the drivers continued to stop at red lights and went through them for excellent reasons (as they do now).

But situation #3 seems the best to me. There is a clear rule. But everyone knows that the policeman (the priest) can excuse you if you have a good excuse. And if the policeman (priest) doesn’t excuse you, then the judge (God) might excuse you. But is it an “absolute truth” that you will be found guilty and pay the $500 fine if you disobey the rule? No.
 
I also said, I think if I remember correctly, that God’s truth is also in catholic teaching. Teaching tells us (and perhaps doctors of the church) that defending yourself is ok. The Deposit of Faith fills in the blanks for us and yes God’s truth is black and white. People need to stop playing “word gymnastics” with absolute truth. There is no such thing as “gray area” with God - you are either with Him or against Him. “Gray area” is a human invention used to rationalize sin.
 
Last edited:
Funny how it was only in the 2010s that the Church finally needed Pope Bergoglio to explain how difficult it is not to have sexual relations outside marriage. I mean, nobody really knew this before Bergoglio! Things were so mean and unmerciful under Popes Ratzinger and Wojtyla. So judgmental. So unsophisticated and rigid. Only now are we enlightened enough to know that there are all these gray areas. Only now do we know that it’s really okay to receive Communion even if you’re having sex outside marriage, so long as your conscience says it’s okay and you are “discerning” what the truth is for you under some spiritual direction.

At least if you live in Malta, or Argentina, or Chicago! If you live somewhere backwards like Poland, just give it a few years until your reactionary bishop resigns or dies and Pope Bergoglio can make sure a more mature thinker replaces him.
 
Last edited:
the problem with your example is a human law is not God’s absolute truth. We also have God’s absolute truth in official catholic teachings that gives us permissible exceptions such as it is ok to kill another to defend yourself. I don’t understand why people lose sight of the fundamentals - such as God does not change and there is nothing new under the sun - we have the complete Deposit of Faith, scripture, and official catholic teaching to guide us. My opinion is that satan indeed has much to do with this along with a worldly clergy, not all but some.
 
It’s actually “Thou shall not murder” and yes it’s black and white.

Even in catholic theology it’s always interpreted as referring to murder. Hence our bibles render the commandment as you shall not murder
 
To quote an article from The Catholic Thing:

“The renowned philosopher Josef Seifert issued a cri de coeur last month expressing grave concern that if Amoris Laetitia n. 303 is taken literally (as some are in fact doing), this could destroy Christian morality by suggesting that God can command immoral acts.”

The author, Fr. Timothy Vaverek, goes on to examine two propositions relating to the proposal to allow communion for the divorced and remarried.

One involves the aspect of subjective culpability based on mitigating factors. He appears to have no problems with that from a moral analysis standpoint.

But the second proposition for justifying communion for the divorced and remarried states that those subjectively not culpable for an immoral act are in fact doing what is right and proper under the circumstances—thereby implying that God blesses what is inherently an objectively immoral act because it is a good thing to do in the present circumstance. That has wider implications for all of Catholic moral theology.

I doubt that the controversy will fade away of its own accord. The implications are too great for there not to be clarity.
 
Rather than argue this, I will quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia, as words have meaning:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15125a.htm
As our present purpose is to state what Ultramontanism is, it is beside our scope to expound the Catholic doctrine on the power of the Church and, in particular, of the pope, whether in spiritual or temporal matters, these subjects being treated elsewhere under their respective titles. It is sufficient here to indicate what our adversaries mean by Ultramontanism. For Catholics it would be superfluous to ask whether Ultramontanism and Catholicism are the same thing: assuredly, those who combat Ultramontanis are in fact combating Catholicism, even when they disclaim the desire to oppose it
Click to expand...
And for background on what this really is:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Montanism

I really think little is gained by rhetoric, labeling or name-calling.
 
Wandile said:
The only impedement to receiving the kingdom of God is the loss of sanctifying grace. This is done through committing mortal sins which cause you to lose the life of God in you which thus makes you spiritually dead.

From this passage we can see the objective nature of various sins which are mortal (barring us from inheriting the kingdom of God). Adultery is listed as one of them.
Click to expand...
I do not wish to argue the point, as I have done this enough. I only wanted to focus on this as the point at which disagreement. While mortal does in fact mean barring us from entry into Heaven, the sentence is constructed to make it look like the objective nature of mortal sin alone which bars us from Heaven.
 
Seifert criticized Amoris Laetitia’s ambiguities. He was fired almost immediately. That is what is happening in the chill…indeed ultramontane…days of Pope Bergoglio.
 
Can you back up that statement?.. sounds like your own interpretation.
 
I guess it depends on what you mean by ‘responsible’ for others, for we certainly are responsible for instructing others rightly in matters of faith and morals (including correcting erroneous beliefs of others). We are responsible for trying to turn the wicked from their ways, lest we be held responsible for not at least attempting to steer them toward the right path.
 
Its probably better to research these issues before asserting more confidently than any Pope, who we know possesses the requisite theological education and pastoral experience, would usually do.

Its somewhat embarrassing listening to fanciful speculation based on private experience of the holy spirit.

John the Evangelist and standard moral theology manuals re the relationsip of ignorance and sin and culpability would be a good place to humbly start I suggest.
 
Last edited:
So LifeSite news is “baiting Catholics over all sorts of issues”? And no doubt the Remnant is doing so as well. Those who are faithful to 2000 years of tradition and truth are speaking up and have had enough?? Horrors!

And yes, Cupich and even Pope Francis (perhaps him even more so) do not like that.

remnantnewspaper.com

Welcome to the Twilight Zone

“Don't look for hate in the Twilight Zone - look for it in a mirror. Look for it before the light goes out altogether.” ~Rod Serling Hissy fits are so unattractive, especially in men. Why haven’t they wised up at the Papal Court of Bergoglio? They surely must know that...
remnantnewspaper.com remnantnewspaper.com
 
I love how people who arrogantly insult others for allegedly “youthful inexperience” (despite knowing nothing about ages, and as if age were a guarantee of wisdom) talk about the humility of their suggestions.
 
As I am contradicting a wholly unsupported assertion by another I feel no need to do so at this stage as I am but doing the same surely…

What aspect of what I stated is not fairly self evident for you?
Do note my emphasis on “when confused”.
If you do not know which way to decide what do you do?

Me, I seek wise counsel from those I trust.
In things Catholic I stick to the leader who alone has Christs personal blessing in this regard.
That would not be Cardinal Burke or any other Cardinal.

For me its a no brainer, I don’t need to overthink the matter and can sleep easy at night regardless of whether Francis is right or wrong.
Sufficient for the day is the evil and the goodness thereof.

Should my confusion eventually resolve to personal clarity I will act accordingly even if I am at odds with Pope Francis. In this context that simply means I would not use the discernment process to access Communion if I am unable to abstain in a 2nd marriage. It would not mean being offended or spiritually jealous of fellow parishioners who do.

Yes I might be objectively wrong despite my certainty. I believe it would not justify murmering against the Pope’s teaching. I am an inexpert layman, despite my certainty I may still be objectively mistaken.

It my job to save my brothers and sisters whatever that really means. That is the job of theologians and priests and bishops in this matter I would think.
 
Last edited:
The pope is the guardian of tradition. He is not the author of whims and novelties to which Catholics must assent without question and with blind obedience.
 
  1. “Vadne said:
    I love how people who arrogantly insult others for allegedly “youthful inexperience” (despite knowing nothing about ages, and as if age were a guarantee of wisdom) talk about the humility of their suggestions.
    Click to expand...
The views I see expressed are, in my experience, typical of the thinking of freshman coming into a tertiary level theology class for the first time. So yes, intellectually youthful. It isn’t a bad thing but it is a stage of learning not a terminal.

Please read my posts a little and more accurately - you will find the word “humbly” was not applied to myself but counselled of others. It would be more useful to address the issue that take things overly personally.
 
Last edited:
Why bother teaching theology? Just tell the students to do whatever the pope says. No need for school or theologians.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top