Critics of the Holy Father seek to undermine

[irenaeus1]

Not when we have the Catechism. It was actually approved by a pope and compiled by more than one person.

Agreed.

Actually, it may have been better if Cardinal Mueller had also referenced CCC 2384; there it states that “Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery: If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery, and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another’s husband to herself.”

From this it then makes sense to cite CCC 1457. Cardinal Mueller is not stating anything against the pope. The question becomes how does a couple objectively determine whether their previous union was a valid marriage. Regardless of this point, the pope and Cardinal Mueller would have to agree that if the previous union is indeed valid (and sacramental if between baptized Christians, which is the context here), then they are not properly disposed to receive Holy Communion fruitfully. This is a doctrinally true statement.

 

[Genesis315]

We should stick with the Pope and in reference to his non-infallible teachings, a “religious submission of mind and will” is appropriate. However, there have been a few rare occasions where the Vicar of Christ has erred on non-infallible statements:

1. St. Peter denying Christ
2. St. Peter being wrong on circumcision
3. Pope Honorius being wrong on Christ having 2 natures but only 1 will (monothelitism)
4. Pope John XXII being wrong on when the departed had the Beatific Vision

My point: In regards to the Dubia…a clarification is needed, and it should not be considered “undermining the Pope” to ask / push for clarification because the Church suffers in times of ambiguity.

Aside from that, nobody should be questioning the authority of the Pope…He has it because Christ said so.

Just to elaborate on your point, this “submission” is not the unconditional obedience of faith. It is based on the hierarchical structure of the Church and the divinely instituted (why it’s “religious”) role of bishop as teacher, especially the bishop of Rome.

I like to think of it this way: in a classroom, a student should generally take to heart and mind what the teacher teaches. That is the rule–the teacher is authorized to teach and the student is there to learn. Students should not be disruptive, nor should they let the lesson go in one ear and out the other.

But sometimes the teacher might teach something that just doesn’t seem right to the student based on his prior learning from other trusted teachers. The student may need to seek further explanation or clarification. There’s nothing wrong with this.

The teacher may mistakenly get something clearly wrong, that the student might want to address with the teacher after class in a respectful way. There might even be rare, extreme situations where a student might be obliged in conscience to stand up right then and there and defend the truth or good morals for the good of all.

 

[KMC]

KMC:

We should stick with the Pope and in reference to his non-infallible teachings, a “religious submission of mind and will” is appropriate. However, there have been a few rare occasions where the Vicar of Christ has erred on non-infallible statements:

1. St. Peter denying Christ
2. St. Peter being wrong on circumcision
3. Pope Honorius being wrong on Christ having 2 natures but only 1 will (monothelitism)
4. Pope John XXII being wrong on when the departed had the Beatific Vision

My point: In regards to the Dubia…a clarification is needed, and it should not be considered “undermining the Pope” to ask / push for clarification because the Church suffers in times of ambiguity.

Aside from that, nobody should be questioning the authority of the Pope…He has it because Christ said so.

Just to elaborate on your point, this “submission” is not the unconditional obedience of faith. It is based on the hierarchical structure of the Church and the divinely instituted (why it’s “religious”) role of bishop as teacher, especially the bishop of Rome.

I like to think of it this way: in a classroom, a student should generally take to heart and mind what the teacher teaches. That is the rule–the teacher is authorized to teach and the student is there to learn. Students should not be disruptive, nor should they let the lesson go in one ear and out the other.

But sometimes the teacher might teach something that just doesn’t seem right to the student based on his prior learning from other trusted teachers. The student may need to seek further explanation or clarification. There’s nothing wrong with this.

The teacher may mistakenly get something clearly wrong, that the student might want to address with the teacher after class in a respectful way. There might even be rare, extreme situations where a student might be obliged in conscience to stand up right then and there and defend the truth or good morals for the good of all.

Agreed. My professor who taught me what I posted also wrote this article about correcting those in charge:

On the Moral Liceity of Publicly Correcting the Pope

There is a good bit of confusion currently among faithful Catholics about whether it was morally licit for the pastors and theologians to make public their filial correction of the Holy Father…

onepeterfive.com

I think it aligns well with what you said.

blessings!

 

[CradleRC58]

Not when we have the Catechism

I still say the manifesto would make a better sermon than the catechism.

The CCC will take hours to read if not days.

 

[godisgood77]

It seems that some prelates are trying to undermine the Pope through well-timed articles or manifestos in order to inflict maximum harm on the Pope’s authority as the supreme teacher in the Church…in fact, Christ’s Vicar…

How unfortunate.

Let us pray that God continues to bless Pope Francis with the strength and fortitude to withstand these heinous attacks.

 

[Dr_Meinheimer]

Or they seek to protect the faith and the laity and do not seek to undermine the Pope or do him harm.

Why is it the Pope’s agenda must be pure and noble in your eyes, but certain prelates are devious, ill-intended men seeking to undermine him? Perhaps they are both well-intended? I don’t see this as nefarious on the part of prelates at all.

 

[MikeInVA]

It seems that some prelates are trying to undermine the Pope through well-timed articles or manifestos in order to inflict maximum harm on the Pope’s authority as the supreme teacher in the Church…in fact, Christ’s Vicar…

It is only undermining him if the pope is not adhering to the Church’s teachings…

 

[godisgood77]

Or they seek to protect the faith and the laity and do not seek to undermine the Pope or do him harm.

I ask … protect the faith and laity from what?

Those who have coordinated their offensive against the Pope are against something…

 

[Dr_Meinheimer]

I suspect utter confusion, as that is a lot of what we have seen over the last couple of years.

 

[Genesis315]

Bishops teaching the faith in season and out is a service the whole Church and part of their duties to it. From Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium:

But each [bishop], as a member of the episcopal college and legitimate successor of the apostles, is obliged by Christ’s institution and command to be solicitous for the whole Church,(33*) and this solicitude, though it is not exercised by an act of jurisdiction, contributes greatly to the advantage of the universal Church. For it is the duty of all bishops to promote and to safeguard the unity of faith and the discipline common to the whole Church, to instruct the faithful to love for the whole mystical body of Christ, especially for its poor and sorrowing members and for those who are suffering persecution for justice’s sake,(160) and finally to promote every activity that is of interest to the whole Church, especially that the faith may take increase and the light of full truth appear to all men.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...s/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

 

[godisgood77]

Bishops teaching the faith in season and out

Agreed… that is what the Holy Father is doing.

 

[DMorgan56]

The question becomes which Faith?
The “God Wills the diversity of Religions” Faith?
Or the “I am the way, the truth and the Life” Faith?

 

[KMC]

Dr_Meinheimer:

Or they seek to protect the faith and the laity and do not seek to undermine the Pope or do him harm.

I ask … protect the faith and laity from what?

Those who have coordinated their offensive against the Pope are against something…

Ambiguity that could lead to grave sin. See the questions of the Dubia in the link regarding ambiguity in Amoris Laetitia:

Full Text and Explanatory Notes of Cardinals’ Questions on ‘Amoris Laetitia’

The full documentation relating to the cardinals’ initiative, entitled ‘Seeking Clarity: A Plea to Untie the Knots in Amoris Laetitia.’

www.ncregister.com

 

[godisgood77]

Ambiguity that could lead to grave sin. See the questions of the Dubia in the link regarding ambiguity in Amoris Laetitia:

I find the magisterial teaching in AL to be exceedingly clear. I think that those that disagree with it are hiding behind the accusation of so-called ‘ambiguity’ in order to reject the Pope’s teaching.

I don’t find it easy to adhere to Humanae Vitae… nor do I agree with it, but I submit to it anyway. I find several other teaching hard and disagree with many as well, but submit anyway…

I think this is a simple case of ‘I disagree’ so it must be ambiguous

 

[godisgood77]

The question becomes which Faith?
The “God Wills the diversity of Religions” Faith?
Or the “I am the way, the truth and the Life” Faith?

Complete straw man argument…

 

[Bataar]

DMorgan56:

The question becomes which Faith?
The “God Wills the diversity of Religions” Faith?
Or the “I am the way, the truth and the Life” Faith?

Complete straw man argument…

Not really. Some of his statement teachings definitely border on heresy. I’m not declaring it one way or the other, but if he actually meant that God wills multiple religions to exist, he is making a heretical statement as it is completely contrary to church doctrine. If that is true, than he would indeed be a heretic which would, according to church doctrine, remove him from the church as a heretic cannot be a member of the church. A person who is not a member of the church cannot, according to church doctrine hold an office in the church.

 

[graciew]

I often ask myself where people learnt to use the word “ heretic “, heresy “ , “ heretical” as if it was normal …and all of them at once! Gotta have a knack for it…
It sounds so outdated. And weird.
Unless of course , within history lessons.
Do you really speak like that out of here?
Seriously? In Catholic circles?

 

[KMC]

KMC:

Ambiguity that could lead to grave sin. See the questions of the Dubia in the link regarding ambiguity in Amoris Laetitia:

I find the magisterial teaching in AL to be exceedingly clear. I think that those that disagree with it are hiding behind the accusation of so-called ‘ambiguity’ in order to reject the Pope’s teaching.

I don’t find it easy to adhere to Humanae Vitae… nor do I agree with it, but I submit to it anyway. I find several other teaching hard and disagree with many as well, but submit anyway…

I think this is a simple case of ‘I disagree’ so it must be ambiguous

Hmmm…numerous theologians and members of the magisterium apparently don’t have your insight. They fear those that don’t have your gifted insight might believe it’s ok to be Divorced and remarried and receive the Eucharist. What’s wrong with More clarity? If the faithful have a question about the faith, what’s wrong with answering the question?

 

[DMorgan56]

I did not create a "straw man " argument. I merely asked a legitimate question about what the Holy Father wrote in direct opposition to Sacred Scripture and the perennial teachings of Holy Mother Church. Calling the question a straw man argument is a great dodge.
So if you don’t like that question then try this one:
Which is binding, the perinnial teachings of the Church and Sacred Scripture regarding capital punishment, or Pope Francis’s latest teachings and changes to the Catechism?

 

[godisgood77]

Which is binding, the perinnial teachings of the Church and Sacred Scripture regarding capital punishment, or Pope Francis’s latest teachings and changes to the Catechism?

That answer is very easy… Pope Francis’ teaching is part of the perennial teachings of the Church. So you the question presents a false dichotomy.

The same is true with you question about the Pope’s recent statements about the free will of humans and God’s will…

I like both of those topics, but distilling those questions down to the lowest common denominator - one or the other question - is not
something I will be baited in to.