Dubia action

[Rau]

This approach is foolish.
Pope Francis is to be assumed in union with past Popes as is I indicated by all advising Cardinals bar 4.

Yes there is confusion in your mind and in that of four Cardinals. So what?
You are not the rocket scientist, why argue maths with one who is?
That is life, lets all learn to humbly live with it.

Only “4 cardinals”? I often wonder whether JP II would count himself among the “confused”. Or would he say: “Aaaah, I missed that point Francis, good pick-up!”

 

[Rau]

…The Pope oversees ongoing debates in the Church that are always present, sometimes he closes them off (as he did re contraception in the 60s), sometimes he allows ongoing divergence (as he does over whether Mary died or not), sometimes he defines a direction (with Dogmas) and sometimes he re-opens matters previously considered closed or never seriously addressed (such as whether some of the remarried may receive Communion given that widespread remarriage now happens in the Church and is no longer the breath taking scandal it once was).

There are all sorts of techniques he can call upon to achieves these purposes.

I wonder what technique will be called upon to eventually clarify the Zika matter. You have argued on other threads that the Pope states that it would not be morally wrong for a married couple to adopt contraception so as to avoid a Zika-affected pregnancy. If this was indeed his meaning (which I doubt, because it directly conflicts established Church teaching), should this be more completely and formally promulgated? Should its application to other medical conditions be addressed?

Though to my mind, the odd thing about the Zika matter is that it seems to have been promptly forgotten. Perhaps that is the applicable technique here?

 

[Tim_D]

I simply am not going to discuss theological issues that are well outside the expertise of theologically uneducated and pastorally inexperienced lay persons.
You need to learn to tolerate confusion and grow through it.

The sooner you recognise the foolishness of what you attempt and the naiivity of doing so to escape your confusion the sooner you will be a happy camper.

Leave it to the big boys - who if they had any love of the Church would be doing so by not speaking to the gallery and tempting lay dissenters like yourself to fly beyond your height.

There’s nothing more to say other than to attach the following picture which tells a timeless truth:

The typical response of one who cannot engage the debate.

By your attack on me you call 4 Cardinals and the many bishops, priests and theologians who they represent, “foolish,” “naive” and labeled them “dissenters.” Have you even read the Dubia? Your hardcore responses make me think that you have not. By the way, you never did give your credentials that makes your opinion so much above that of* “theologically uneducated and pastorally inexperienced lay persons.”*

Its the easiest thing in the world to make yourself look smarter than the subject by avoiding the substance of the argument. I’m calling your bluff; I don’t think you have the wherewithal to intelligently discuss the subject. I don’t think you know the details and I certainly don’t think you comprehend the consequences.

 

[Rau]

 

[Tim_D]

Only “4 cardinals”? I often wonder whether JP II would count himself among the “confused”. Or would he say: “Aaaah, I missed that point Francis, good pick-up!”

And that’s the point, isn’t it? That amoris seems to put itself at complete odds with Pope John Paul II. Pope John Paul confirmed Tradition; Pope Francis’ exhortation can easily be said to be at variance with Tradition. Blue Horizon is the ultimate partisan as he blindly follows without thinking and refuses to engage the debate. For one to call 4 Cardinals of the Church “confused” and “dissenters” without even vocalizing the issue is a less than intellectual way of trying to avoid the subject.

 

[Tim_D]

Salted but no butter, please!

I should have added that Blue Horizon doesn’t know how to scale down a picture, either.

 

[Debbie_Kono]

and sometimes he re-opens matters previously considered closed or never seriously addressed (such as whether some of the remarried may receive Communion given that widespread remarriage now happens in the Church and is no longer the breath taking scandal it once was).

I was going to attempt to clarify myself, but I see now it would be useless. If you are of the mind that a 2000 year constant teaching (divorce and remarriage = adultery, adulterers are not permitted to receive Eucharist), reaffirmed by other popes can now be changed to fit the world’s standards no amount of “dialogue” is going to help you.

And as other’s have pointed out here: you chastise others, saying they are unqualified to stick up for the 4 cardinals…yet you are qualified to determine the cardinals (and many others now, the list is growing) are in error. That my friend, is hypocrisy.

Galatians 2:11 But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

The good Cardinals are well within their rights to oppose PF…in fact it is their duty.

 

[ChurchSoldier]

As stated elsewhere. It’s going to get worse before it gets worse…

 

[graciew]

Though to my mind, the odd thing about the Zika matter is that it seems to have been promptly forgotten. Perhaps that is the applicable technique here?

Forgotten for you…

Would you call to take their places a technique?

 

[ChurchSoldier]

I’m certainly glad this doesn’t effect me. Since I’ve never been married. But I can understand confusion among those that would be effected. But I’ve akso read that if you go through the normal tribunal process you should be ok. I think that is what a Catholic agrees to when they enter the Church. Unless this is about something else.

Ooohhhh no no no no my friend. The mistake people are making is that because this does not speak to their situation it does not affect them.

You see how these things work is those who want to change the church in major ways start small. Synod on the family. Then a chapter which is vague and opens the door to differing interpretations. Then leaders who want things changed implement the changes. Soon, parishioners who want things changed pressure their priest or diocese and more change happens. Then, another synod will meet in 10 years and they will pass a document with the understanding “we’re just clarifying what people are doing already”.

This one situation is then used as a model for other change.

THIS IS A MAJOR ISSUE WHICH WILL NEGATIVE TRANSFORM THE CHURCH IF ALLOWED TO STAND.

Thanks for your comment. I hope you get involved.

 

[Rau]

Forgotten for you…

Would you call to take their places a technique?

I don’t understand what you are saying.

 

[Debbie_Kono]

THIS IS A MAJOR ISSUE WHICH WILL NEGATIVE TRANSFORM THE CHURCH IF ALLOWED TO STAND.

The Church through Her God given authority speaks to the whole world whether they are listening or not, so this would also affirm Protestant errors. And since we know the Reformation was never about doctrine, but about sex (so says Fr. John Hardon, and others I’m sure), this negativity would go far beyond just the Catholic Church.

 

[ChurchSoldier]

Ooohhhh no no no no my friend. The mistake people are making is that because this does not speak to their situation it does not affect them.

You see how these things work is those who want to change the church in major ways start small. Synod on the family. Then a chapter which is vague and opens the door to differing interpretations. Then leaders who want things changed implement the changes. Soon, parishioners who want things changed pressure their priest or diocese and more change happens. Then, another synod will meet in 10 years and they will pass a document with the understanding “we’re just clarifying what people are doing already”.

This one situation is then used as a model for other change.

THIS IS A MAJOR ISSUE WHICH WILL NEGATIVE TRANSFORM THE CHURCH IF ALLOWED TO STAND.

Thanks for your comment. I hope you get involved.

Here’s all that needs to be known. A situation has occurred in which has several diocese or countries have begun allowing Catholics to act in a way which is contrary to millennia of Church teaching and the Holy Father has not commented on it even though he has been asked by his fellow bishops to do so.

 

[ChurchSoldier]

The Church through Her God given authority speaks to the whole world whether they are listening or not, so this would also affirm Protestant errors. And since we know the Reformation was never about doctrine, but about sex (so says Fr. John Hardon, and others I’m sure), this negativity would go far beyond just the Catholic Church.

I’m sorry, I don’t understand what your comment about affirming Protestant errors also means. My comments and examples though are based on the events of the Episcopal Church in the US.

As far as driving forces behind the Reformation, it was about power.

Luther posted a similar copy of his 95 theses a few months earlier and received little push back. It was when he pressured the power structure (meaning Pope) that his troubles began. Henry VIII’s issues were all about power. He needed a male heir and got into a tussle with the Pope about it.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I wonder what technique will be called upon to eventually clarify the Zika matter. You have argued on other threads that the Pope states that it would not be morally wrong for a married couple to adopt contraception so as to avoid a Zika-affected pregnancy. If this was indeed his meaning (which I doubt, because it directly conflicts established Church teaching), should this be more completely and formally promulgated? Should its application to other medical conditions be addressed?

Though to my mind, the odd thing about the Zika matter is that it seems to have been promptly forgotten. Perhaps that is the applicable technique here?

Hello Rau, wondering when you would raise your head again.

I don’t believe I have ever tried to tell anybody what the Pope has stated - other than what he has stated. Yes I have given my take on the principles he may have used to explain his statements which, if true could be applied to other scenarios. I prefer an explanatory approach (which may be wrong) rather than pretend he didn’t say what he did say which if I recall correctly was your approach.

The applicable technique is obviously going to be “time is greater than space” .
That will mean the more black and white amongst us are in for a painful ride as time sorts this out. Just as was the case with circumcision, slavery, usury, the traditores, one time only reconciliation, soldiering, capital punishment and bloodless means, conscience,…Communion for some of the remarried and countless more issues throughout history some would like to pretend were never, or are not still, contentious and under ongoing debate.

But we are off topic…

 

[graciew]

I don’t understand what you are saying.

Zika.
Off topic,but still an issue. For some, constant,for others, an issue when Summer approaches.
And read about San Pedro Nolasco,when you have the time,if you want,that is…
Meet you at some Zika thread.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I was going to attempt to clarify myself, but I see now it would be useless. If you are of the mind that a 2000 year constant teaching (divorce and remarriage = adultery, adulterers are not permitted to receive Eucharist), reaffirmed by other popes can now be changed to fit the world’s standards

My simple point is that theologically uneducated laity are not qualified to make the sort of naiive and foolish statements you have well exemplified and somehow managed to believe applies to Pope Francis.

You are clearly confused and upset.
Confusion is unavoidable amongst untrained mathematicians if they attempt to understand the workings and conclusions of a Newton or an Einstein or any of the big boys. Best to leave them to sort it out themselves.

Being upset is avoidable - we just let our overblown conceptions of our own competence in these matters go, obey our own bishops and respect fellow parishioners who choose to take advantage of new allowances that we in conscience might not allow ourselves.

Learning how to be at peace in with God and our neighbour in confusing times isn’t rocket science to me.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Pope Francis is not obligated to respond to the dubia, but unless or until there is a definitive clarification that has been authorised by Pope Francis that firmly clarifies the situation in regards to the divorced and remarried and Communion, I think it is a very difficult and worrying situation in regards to what seems like differing guidelines etc. that have been given by Bishops. I am confused by this and I don’t think I’m alone.

 

[Rau]

Zika.
Off topic,but still an issue. For some, constant,for others, an issue when Summer approaches.
And read about San Pedro Nolasco,when you have the time,if you want,that is…
Meet you at some Zika thread.

Unless you choose to express yourself plainly, there would be little point.

 

[Rau]

Pope Francis is not obligated to respond to the dubia, but unless or until there is a definitive clarification that has been authorised by Pope Francis that firmly clarifies the situation in regards to the divorced and remarried and Communion, I think it is a very difficult and worrying situation in regards to what seems like differing guidelines etc. that have been given by Bishops. I am confused by this and I don’t think I’m alone.

Understanbly so. Bishops in different jurisdictions taking different positions on this matter does not sit well with me either.