Cardinal Kasper asks prayers for Synod, says 'a battle is going on' [CC]

[ProVobis]

But do you not also remember the crowd of strong opposition to the whole idea of family planning at all that wanted to dominate in that discussion of family planning? They wanted the Church to ban even periodic abstinence around the natural cycle ie. what we now refer to as NFP.

Through that discussion, it was clarified further what ‘contraception’ really meant. It is not what the ultra trads try to claim. I see these discussions as terribly important for the Church and the lives of the faithful. We want Gods truth to shine through… not to have the ultra libs and ultra trads dictate what is and isn’t teaching.

Of course we’re always clarifying contraception, NFP, and such. Labeling people doesn’t make your argument stronger. We’re dealing with principles and morals, if you will.

 

[McCall1981]

Some questions and answers from Card Burke’s most recent interview that are pertinent to this discussion here:

(Discussing the issues being raised at the Synod) Interviewer: Who is this benefiting? As faithful Catholics, we are surprised and worried about the sudden apparition of these themes.

Burke: Well, it can’t be a benefit to anyone, because it’s not true: it’s not the truth. And so it’s only doing harm to everyone. It may be perceived as a benefit, for instance, to people who for whatever reason are caught up in immoral situations. It may be seen by some as in some way to justify them. But it can’t justify them, because the acts themselves are not able to be justified.

Interviewer: Repeatedly, even the synod fathers who have touted the issues of “remarriage” of divorcee and homosexual or non-marital unions have repeated that the question is not doctrinal, but pastoral. What is your response to that?

Burke: That simply is a false distinction. There cannot be anything that’s truly pastorally sound which is not doctrinally sound. In other words: you cannot divide the truth from love. In other words still: it can’t be loving not to live the truth. And so to say that we’re just making pastoral changes that have nothing to do with doctrine is false. If you admit persons who are in irregular matrimonial unions to Holy Communion, then you’re directly making a statement about the indissolubility of marriage, because Our Lord said: “He who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery.” And the person in an irregular matrimonial union is living in a publicly adulterous state. If you give Holy Communion to that person then somehow you’re saying that this is alright doctrinally. But it can’t be.

Interviewer: So the simple fact of putting that under discussion is already an error.

Burke: Yes. In fact I have asked more than once that these subjects which have nothing to do with the truth about marriage be taken out of the agenda of the synod. [If people want to discuss these questions, fine, but they have nothing to do with the Church’s teaching on marriage.] And the same goes for the question of sexual acts between people of the same sex, and so forth.

 

[Corki]

Here is Cardinal Caffarra as quoted in the National Catholic Register article:

“Those who advance this hypothesis do not have an answer to a very simple question: what about the first marriage, ratified and consummated? The proposed solution leads one to think that the first marriage remains intact, but that there is also a second form of cohabitation that the Church legitimizes. Therefore there is an extramarital exercise of human sexuality that the Church considers legitimate. But with this comes a denial of the cornerstone of the Church’s teaching on sexuality."

yes

And maybe this is why the seeming shift in favor. The Pope has given Cardinal Kasper and those who seem to be encouraged by what he has to say more than ample opportunity to advance a plan that does not rupture doctrine. But the response seems to always be just that we have to be more flexible and merciful without any real “plan”.

In addition to what Cardinal Caffarra mentions, I have been concerned that the dialog never seems to consider what happens to the other spouse from the original marriage who in many cases is the “innnocent” spouse. Without an actual annulment investigation, that spouse is left in limbo even if the other spouse is reconciled with the Sacraments.

 

[JimG]

From what I have read of the suggestions being made about communion for those in invalid second marriages, they are not clear, they are confusing, they seem to weaken marriage, they are not in a continuum with traditional teaching. I don’t see how they can help. Pastoral approaches are needed. Pastoral undermining of doctrine is not pastoral, however. The quote from Cardinal Caffarra in the Nat. Cath. Register article raises the question quite well. Will the Church essentially approve what it views as extramarital cohabitation?

And suppose that communion for those with no annulments but in a second marriage is approved on a pastoral basis. What happens when the second marriage fails? Will communion for those in a third marriage also be approved on a pastoral basis? Where does the permanence of marriage end up in all this–on the cutting room floor?

 

[LongingSoul]

Just maybe those who you say are “hostile and inflexible” don’t actually believe that some of the *“proposals” *being offered are even under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

---

Peace, Mark***

I used the description Pope Francis used to describe the crowd that esteem their own agenda over that of the Holy Spirit.

 

[LongingSoul]

Correct, and the Pope called for open and honest debate, which includes having others point out where they felt that Cardinal Kasper erred. In fact, since the call was for open debate, it would have been an act of disobedience to hold back any reservations that a bishop had over +Kasper’s proposal.

That gives Cardinal Kasper the opportunity to either clarify his premise to address the counter points or to retract it.

That is exactly what honest debate is all about, and if you doubt that, read the Summa, Aquinas was a master at it.

I’m not addressing the actual sides of discussion. That is the right and proper way to go about the issue. Pulvis said *“ideas that border on heresy have no place in the discussion.” * which essentially implies that he knows with godly certainty that Card. Kasper is a heretic and shouldn’t have a forum. Now I’m saying Pope Francis invited Card. Kasper to speak at the synod. Pulvis was pitting himself against the Pope in this situation.

 

[LongingSoul]

Of course we’re always clarifying contraception, NFP, and such. Labeling people doesn’t make your argument stronger. We’re dealing with principles and morals, if you will.

If you like I’ll just copy Pope Francis and call them ‘traditionalists’ and ‘progressives’. Either way they are the extreme outer edges of the right path.

 

[LongingSoul]

Some questions and answers from Card Burke’s most recent interview that are pertinent to this discussion here:

(Discussing the issues being raised at the Synod) Interviewer: Who is this benefiting? As faithful Catholics, we are surprised and worried about the sudden apparition of these themes.

Burke: Well, it can’t be a benefit to anyone, because it’s not true: it’s not the truth. And so it’s only doing harm to everyone. It may be perceived as a benefit, for instance, to people who for whatever reason are caught up in immoral situations. It may be seen by some as in some way to justify them. But it can’t justify them, because the acts themselves are not able to be justified.

Interviewer: Repeatedly, even the synod fathers who have touted the issues of “remarriage” of divorcee and homosexual or non-marital unions have repeated that the question is not doctrinal, but pastoral. What is your response to that?

Burke: That simply is a false distinction. There cannot be anything that’s truly pastorally sound which is not doctrinally sound. In other words: you cannot divide the truth from love. In other words still: it can’t be loving not to live the truth. And so to say that we’re just making pastoral changes that have nothing to do with doctrine is false. If you admit persons who are in irregular matrimonial unions to Holy Communion, then you’re directly making a statement about the indissolubility of marriage, because Our Lord said: “He who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery.” And the person in an irregular matrimonial union is living in a publicly adulterous state. If you give Holy Communion to that person then somehow you’re saying that this is alright doctrinally. But it can’t be.

Interviewer: So the simple fact of putting that under discussion is already an error.

Burke: Yes. In fact I have asked more than once that these subjects which have nothing to do with the truth about marriage be taken out of the agenda of the synod. [If people want to discuss these questions, fine, but they have nothing to do with the Church’s teaching on marriage.] And the same goes for the question of sexual acts between people of the same sex, and so forth.

Where’s your link?

"It may be seen by some as in some way to justify them. But it can’t justify them, because the acts themselves are not able to be justified."

For my part, I’m not trying to justify my life. I’ve never even had sex outside of my marriage let alone have a second marriage. Never used contraception. Always conformed to every Church teaching and I really feel grateful and blessed to have been given such a Catholic upbringing. My motives are to stand firm against the Pharisees who condemned the Lord by legalism and those within the Church who desire to minimise the authority of the Pope to lead the Church.

 

[graciew]

The Pope did invite C. Kasper to speak as you say ,Longing Soul.
( again I.apologize for poor and slow signal ,I could not quote you).
And as all Church authorities he should be respected as you say.
The Synod was supposed to have.been a.protected space to as to speak freely among them.
That was what Pope Francis expressedly asked.

catholicherald.co.uk/news/2014/12/01/pope-francis-work-of-family-synod-is-not-a-parliament/

And I believe that the arguments have.moved beyond protected space , and it would be prudent to keep it among competent authorities to deal with issues privately. The media is.not a.forum to argue.with each other.Again , respectfully suggesting… their discussion is way above our pay grade.and media has turned it into a.volleyball game.
Peace…is possible !

 

[JimG]

Well, I doubt that the discussion can be kept private now. Cardinal Kasper even responded to a book review in First Things. Theological infighting is not a new thing. It is been around since the time of Pelagius, and before. And I do think that when a pastoral solution presents a danger to a fixed doctrine, caution is called for.

 

[LongingSoul]

And I believe that the arguments have.moved beyond protected space , and it would be prudent to keep it among competent authorities to deal with issues privately. The media is.not a.forum to argue.with each other.Again , respectfully suggesting… their discussion is way above our pay grade.and media has turned it into a.volleyball game.
Peace…is possible !

It would be nice if that caution was issued to the initiates of the majority of threads here who are bringing it on. I’ve never started one thread here trying to further controversy and yet I seem to be the bad girl. Oh well.

 

[graciew]

It would be nice if that caution was issued to the initiates of the majority of threads here who are bringing it on. I’ve never started one thread here trying to further controversy and yet I seem to be the bad girl. Oh well.

No you are not .
And your posts have been very challenging . We are not here because we are perfect ,we are travelling and learning.
We all come from different backgrounds and it is still one Church.And it will always be.
There lies the beauty of it.

 

[Robert_Bay]

WARNING

You may not make disparaging remarks about:

• Vatican II
• Clergy (deacons, priests and bishops) of any group
• Religious (brothers, sisters, and nuns) of any order or congregation
• Lawful actions and disciiplines by the Church including the historical excommunication of the SSPX. It happened. Rome explained why it happened. End of story. Rome did not put it out there for debate by the faithful.
• Another poster or his/her ideas. You can disagree. You cannot attack,insult, ridicule or dismiss as unimportant. His opinion is as important to him as your opinion is to you.
• Parishes, pastors, civil leaders.

Avoid arguments that will lead to violations of charity. You don’t have to like what you read and others do not have to like what you post. But you must be civil toward each other and those who are not on the forum.

Be careful when discussing disputes between clergy. Members will be cited for ad hominem or uncharitable posts or links to blogs that violate CAF rules.

 

[ringil]

I pray that God’s will be done.

Unlike some here I am not praying for a conclusion which I desire but for the will of God.

 

[Tigg]

Remember when Arius had a say at Nicea? Was the Church tap-dancing on a doctrinal land mine there as well?

The problem as I see it, some have forgotten what the purpose of church synods and councils are all about. They are called so that true teaching can be affirmed and clarified and heresy condemned just as it was in the 4th century. When we have members of the Magisterium disagreeing among themselves on certain fundamental issues as we do now, a synod or council then becomes necessary. Catholics are supposed to know their faith and be enabled by sensus fidei. (Not the majority opinion, btw.) The division among us comes when our sense of the faith triggers a red flag that something is off kilter, thus the battle of which Card Kasper speaks. We are to pray and conform our understanding to the mind of the Church. As the bishops disagree among themselves so do we, but I will not accept that those who stand firm with current discipline and doctrine are Pharisees and unbending. After the concluding session and Apostolic Exhortation we can all decide to be obedient…or not.

 

[OraLabora]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=952888

 

[Tigg]

It would be nice if that caution was issued to the initiates of the majority of threads here who are bringing it on. I’ve never started one thread here trying to further controversy and yet I seem to be the bad girl. Oh well.

I appreciate these threads as the thoughts of others, especially those which conflict with my own, help me clarify my own understanding. It expands my horizons and often times makes me look up long forgotten paragraphs in my various catechisms. Be blessed, LS, on the remainder of your Lenten journey!

 

[Brendan]

I’m not addressing the actual sides of discussion. That is the right and proper way to go about the issue. Pulvis said *“ideas that border on heresy have no place in the discussion.” * which essentially implies that he knows with godly certainty that Card. Kasper is a heretic and shouldn’t have a forum.

Pulivs specifically said ‘ideas’. Cardinal Kasper is a person, not an idea. I fail to see where ANY person was referenced, let alone a Prince of the Church.

Now I’m saying Pope Francis invited Card. Kasper to speak at the synod. Pulvis was pitting himself against the Pope in this situation.

Factually incorrect. Pulvis said no such thing. I have seen no such call from the Pope for any teachings that go against what the Church has already determined to be true. In fact, Pope Francis has specifically stated otherwise.

My motives are to stand firm against the Pharisees who condemned the Lord by legalism and those within the Church who desire to minimize the authority of the Pope to lead the Church.

You mentioned a belief that Pulvis gave an implication that he\she had a Godly level of certitude into the heart of another. Yet you gave this statement. It seems contradictory.

What knowledge to you have of these supposed Pharisees?

 

[McCall1981]

Where’s your link?

"It may be seen by some as in some way to justify them. But it can’t justify them, because the acts themselves are not able to be justified."

For my part, I’m not trying to justify my life. I’ve never even had sex outside of my marriage let alone have a second marriage. Never used contraception. Always conformed to every Church teaching and I really feel grateful and blessed to have been given such a Catholic upbringing. My motives are to stand firm against the Pharisees who condemned the Lord by legalism and those within the Church who desire to minimise the authority of the Pope to lead the Church.

Full interview is here:

lifesitenews.com/news/exclusive-interview-cardinal-burke-says-confusion-spreading-among-catholics

 

[ProVobis]

If you like I’ll just copy Pope Francis and call them ‘traditionalists’ and ‘progressives’. Either way they are the extreme outer edges of the right path.

You can call them and blame them what and all you want but the law of statistical distribution states you will have them all the time. It really brings nothing new into the discussion. Just sayin…