Conservative dissent is brewing inside the Vatican

[Thomas_White]

Of course doctrine cannot be changed.

There was much speculation and anticipation concerning whether there would be change as Catholics awaited the encyclical that would be Humanae Vitae. The encyclical was a reaffirmation of existing doctrine, and there was much controversy and even an uproar at that time because there was no change in the teaching concerning ABC.

Seriously, there really was.

 

[LongingSoul]

Of course doctrine cannot be changed.

It’s become a catch phrase that resembles propaganda. There are teachings of the Church that are ‘immutable’ but that is not to say that doctrines formulated by man do not evolve to continually convey the true essence of those immutable doctrines from age to age.

 

[ProVobis]

It’s become a catch phrase that resembles propaganda. There are teachings of the Church that are ‘immutable’ but that is not to say that doctrines formulated by man do not evolve to continually convey the true essence of those immutable doctrines from age to age.

I think the trick is to state it in terms which can’t change. But isn’t what they’re trying to do? So far we’ve been unsuccessful in stating exactly what the doctrine is. We may say “divorced and remarried can’t receive communion” but is that really doctrine? Stay tuned.

 

[Thomas_White]

The question of divorce and remarriage (if an annullment has not been obtained) and receiving holy communion is two-fold. There is the matter of scandal. But the true issue relative to receiving communion is the sin of adultery and that is what would also cause scandal by receiving communion. However, the Church has provisions where a divorced and remarried person (who has not obtained an annullment) can receive communion if adultery is not occurring. In cases, this might be permission to receive communion only privately if scandal would likely be presumed (as could be the case if the couple were residing together). This is the way I understand it.

 

[Thomas_White]

Part of this really is a major change. Pope Francis, who chose not to live in the papal apartment or wear the traditional gold crucifix of the pontiff (retaining instead the silver crucifix of a Bishop) has definitely presented a non-traditional image of a pope. Pope Francis often refers to himself as the Bishop of Rome, which he is, but the reference is not traditional. The list is long, and it alone has reportedly upset some members of the Curia.

From what I have read, Pope Francis has long preferred a Church from the bottom up rather than from the traditional hierarchical Church from the top down (of which he is now the pontiff). It would be a Church that not only includes the periphery, but is informed by it. This is all very different. And it would seem there is resistance to this change, and that there would be resistance is highly predictable. It is a classic occurrence in organizational change. While one would assume Pope Francis is well aware of it, what is occurring is real.

 

[unstoppable_II]

… Francis, I think, just wants to hear from as many voices as he can, …

As though he’s going to hear something different from the standard liberal line?

 

[DlandFan06]

Isn’t there supposed to be a prophecy where there’s a schism in the church and a pope is supposed to bring it about? This could be it. Some of the stuff Francis is doing is alarming.

 

[abucs]

I would point to the obvious fact that Jesus did not lead a bottom up church.

He did not say, tell me what you want. Let me focus test your proposals.

We shouldn’t be falsely persuaded that a vibrant, participating inclusive church caring for the weak is the same as a bottom up church.

Look at the extreme level of polarisation that has occurred in representative politics over the last few decades in many Western countries.

The church would be incredibly weakened if it were to follow that example.

Look at what is left of the Anglican Communion and it’s bottom-up rhetoric.

It becomes a power grab followed by walk-outs, decline and irrelevancy.

It ends up not only not being able to spread the Kingdom but blatantly rejecting and walking away from that kingdom in a revised mission statement supposedly coming from the people.

 

[unstoppable_II]

I would point to the obvious fact that Jesus did not lead a bottom up church.

He did not say, tell me what you want. Let me focus test your proposals.

…

Heresies have been with us since Jesus rose from the dead. The recent crop seeks to incorporate modern liberal thought into the Church, but Jesus’ last instruction to his apostles was to “go into the world and preach the Gospel, teaching all that I have taught you.” He did not tell them to “go into the world, find out what is going on, and bring it back for incorporation into my Church.” That is what I call “the Gospel in reverse.”

 

[irenaeus1]

It’s not so much Conservative dissent against a liberal pope. Rather, it is more like conservative dissent against liberal (or clearly heterodox) bishops. In other words, why are some of the bishops in Germany (and certain others elsewhere) who are publicly advocating acceptance of adultery, fornication, and homosexual relationships – why are they not formally disciplined? It is one thing for the pope to allow open discussion about certain nuances and points of doctrine. But many of these bishops have clearly gone outside the boundary of orthodoxy, which is causing great confusion among the poorly catechized faithful and the world at large.

 

[irenaeus1]

I am so disheartened - as I mentioned above in the previous post. When is the outright dissent (and dare I say, material heresy) going to be addressed firmly and decisively. Bishops and cardinals publicly advocating positions outside of orthodoxy should be dealt with publicly – a public offense demands a public redress. It is one thing for bishops to investigate ways of addressing the pastoral needs of non-traditional families; it’s quite another to advocate change in doctrinal teaching by pushing for the Church to accept adultery, same-sex unions, contraception, etc. This is material heresy, if not overt formal heresy. These bishops are sowing confusion and causing scandal amid the faithful, among those inquiring about the faith, and among those outside the fold. And too often, good bishops (and even our pope it seems) allow the confusion to go unchecked and unchallenged in the name of collegiality by remaining silent.

 

[Ceil-1]

The following video helped me understand what is going on.

youtube.com/watch?v=pqJcsl7pB7g

 

[irenaeus1]

I am so disheartened. When is the outright dissent (and dare I say, material heresy) going to be addressed firmly and decisively. Bishops and cardinals publicly advocating positions outside of orthodoxy should be dealt with publicly – a public offense demands a public redress. It is one thing for bishops to investigate ways of addressing the pastoral needs of non-traditional families; it’s quite another to advocate change in doctrinal teaching by pushing for the Church to accept adultery, same-sex unions, contraception, etc. This is material heresy, if not overt formal heresy. These bishops are sowing confusion and causing scandal amid the faithful, among those inquiring about the faith, and among those outside the fold. And too often, good bishops (and even our pope) allow the confusion to go unchecked and unchallenged in the name of collegiality by remaining silent.

 

[estesbob]

I quit after the opening paragraph:

On a sunny morning earlier this year, a camera crew entered a well-appointed apartment just outside the 9th-century gates of Vatican City. Pristinely dressed in the black robes and scarlet sash of the princes of the Roman Catholic Church, the Wisconsin-born Cardinal Raymond Burke sat in his elaborately upholstered armchair and appeared to issue a warning to Pope Francis.

Does one really think the author is unbiased after this start?

 

[annem]

irenaeus1 I am so disheartened…It is one thing for bishops to investigate ways of addressing the pastoral needs of non-traditional families; it’s quite another to advocate change in doctrinal teaching by pushing for the Church to accept adultery, same-sex unions, contraception, etc. .

It is so disheartening! But I just keep praying and trying to go to daily Mass and remembering all those centuries when everything was in chaos yet the church always makes it through.

God bless Annem

 

[LongingSoul]

I am so disheartened. When is the outright dissent (and dare I say, material heresy) going to be addressed firmly and decisively. Bishops and cardinals publicly advocating positions outside of orthodoxy should be dealt with publicly – a public offense demands a public redress. It is one thing for bishops to investigate ways of addressing the pastoral needs of non-traditional families; it’s quite another to advocate change in doctrinal teaching by pushing for the Church to accept adultery, same-sex unions, contraception, etc. This is material heresy, if not overt formal heresy. These bishops are sowing confusion and causing scandal amid the faithful, among those inquiring about the faith, and among those outside the fold. And too often, good bishops (and even our pope) allow the confusion to go unchecked and unchallenged in the name of collegiality by remaining silent.

The Church is in a time of reexamination of some issues in light of the conditions of today. That is a normal and essential part of the Churchs mission on earth. The Pope specifically wants to hear what his bishops are thinking and experiencing so that Church teaching can properly serve the people of the world. Pope Francis’ early response to fear and hand wringing at this time was to trust that the Pope was the guarantor of freedom from error in teachings on faith and morals. That’s something that as a Catholic we can have complete trust in. All will be well.

 

[gilliam]

We all need to take a breath.

There have always been debates over this or that in the Vatican and among canonists and theologians. That is how the Church stays healthy and vital. If you look at what is actually decided after all the dust settles, the changes are relatively minor and aimed at pastoral changes. Dogma doesn’t change, we all know that; so relax, let the bishops do their jobs and rejoice in the guidance they give us.

 

[unstoppable_II]

The Church is in a time of reexamination of some issues in light of the conditions of today.

Have they changed the Seven Deadly Sins? Heresies have been with us since Jesus rose from the dead. The recent crop seeks to incorporate modern liberal thought into the Church, but Jesus’ last instruction to his apostles was to “go into the world and preach the Gospel, teaching all that I have taught you.”

The Pope specifically wants to hear what his bishops are thinking and experiencing so that Church teaching can properly serve the people of the world.

Jesus did not tell them to “go into the world, find out what is going on, and bring it back for incorporation into my Church.” That is what is called “The Gospel in Reverse.”

 

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR NOTE

Just a general note not aimed at anyone in particular

When discussing issues of theology avoid attacking individual clerics or groups of clerics or theologians. Personal attacks such as “he is a heretic” or “he is teaching what the world wants to hear, not what Christ taught” are uncharitable attacks and against forum rules.

Instead charitably present your argument, why you feel the teaching is incorrect and how you would teach differently.

All discussions here are to be charitable at all times. Even controversial ones.

Finally, double check your post for charity before clicking submit.

 

[Thomas_White]

I am so disheartened. When is the outright dissent (and dare I say, material heresy) going to be addressed firmly and decisively. Bishops and cardinals publicly advocating positions outside of orthodoxy should be dealt with publicly – a public offense demands a public redress. It is one thing for bishops to investigate ways of addressing the pastoral needs of non-traditional families; it’s quite another to advocate change in doctrinal teaching by pushing for the Church to accept adultery, same-sex unions, contraception, etc. This is material heresy, if not overt formal heresy. These bishops are sowing confusion and causing scandal amid the faithful, among those inquiring about the faith, and among those outside the fold. And too often, good bishops (and even our pope) allow the confusion to go unchecked and unchallenged in the name of collegiality by remaining silent.

In the short address Pope Francis gave to the conclave that would soon elect him the next pope, he said there was a crisis in the European Church that he believes is the result of clericalism. This could be understood as the tension that always exists between academic theology and pastoral needs and concerns, as was recently described by Cardinal Kasper. Cardinal Kasper is probably the most respected dogmatic theologian in the Church today and is highly respected by Pope Francis. But he has been throughly castigated on another thread on this forum by a few who clearly have little understanding of the issues involved and just as clearly have not read his book on Mercy.

These are complex issues. Parts of the Roman Curia are entrenched, and it was highly predictable that there would be resistance to even the perceived possibility of change. This is the nature of conservatism. Rather than becoming disheartened, I trust the very learned spiritual leaders of the Church to sort this out. They are very concerned about the future of the Catholic Church and, as Supreme Pontiff, Pope Francis clearly wants to be informed not only of the views of the conservative members of the Curia, which he already knows, but also the concerns of the Catholics of a Church he sees in major crisis. We should not presume that Pope Francis has remained silent in his interactions with Cardinals and Bishops and ought not demand he do so publicly. There are good reasons why he would not publicly comment on questions before the Synod of Bishops.