Exclusive interview: Cardinal Burke says confusion spreading among Catholics ‘in an alarming way’

  • Thread starter Thread starter Seamus_L
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LongingSoul said:
Not everyone who “put(s) away their wife and marry another commit adultery”. The Church over time has recognised different aspects that have prevented first marriages being valid. That growth in understanding of human physical, psychological, emotional and faith maturity… will no doubt increase the scope of our ability to understand what constitutes the true meaning of sacramental marriage. We haven’t as yet reached the ultimate understanding of the person and life in general to definitively declare we now know it all and the Church can finish up her explorations of anything.
Click to expand...
I believe I disagreed with you before on this characterization of annullments as “marriages” that are exceptions to Jesus’ absolute rule against divorce and remarriage. They are NOT. You see, they are not marriages at all! They were only WRONGLY believed to be marriages. So a person who gets an annulment NEVER “puts away his wife”. He simply recognizes that the woman was never his wife. That relationship therefore has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus’ rule against remarriage in reality. Any more than a co-habitation has anything to do with Jesus’ rule against remarriage.

The truth is, there is NO precedent anywhere you look for the Kasper/German suggestion. That is, where: 1) Jesus is unambiguously clear and explicit 2) The apostles are unambiguously clear and explicit. 3) The church in the two magisteriums (a) ordinary magisterium of 2,000 years and an infallible ecumenical council ratified by a pope) is unambiguously clear and explicit; And then the church despite all this goes ahead to set it aside and do the opposite. NO example/precedent will you find. Not in suicides or annulments. In all those, the church simply dealt with what was not explicitly taught before. The church did not TOUCH the established teaching, not with a 20 foot pole.

Here the church is being asked to claim that a second marriage with a subsisting first marriage either is valid, (which denies that a real marriage cannot be dissolved) or is invalid but not sinful (which denies either that Jesus spoke truly when he called it adultery or that God spoke truly when he commanded 'thou shalt not commit adultery). The church is being asked to declare that she is not BOUND to LIVE according to the truths that God has taught her. That she is somehow “free” from obedience: this is the christological heresy condemned by Cardinals Robert Sarah and Muller and others: The idea that we ONLY have to believe Jesus but not OBEY him!:confused: If you look at this very closely, we are being asked to deny our faith in Jesus as God incarnate and King reigning over the church because we are being asked to say that we can release the church and people from his teaching! Why did Jesus teach us if he did not expect us to live the teaching?

It also implies that obedience to Jesus is not merciful or that Jesus taught us an unmerciful way of life. How dare we even think it? That it is hard does not mean it is less merciful. That is what we call a cross. Jesus asked us to carry them after him. We are to carry our own and help others with theirs. Never in the history of the church has our response to crosses been to claim that asking/expecting people to CARRY them is a lack of mercy!!! Who can teach Jesus mercy? No one. If Jesus taught us that remarriage with a spouse still alive is adultery, and that adultery is something we should not do, then that is it.

Mercy is to help people come to a true understanding of whether or not their situation fits that circumstance or not. Once the true situation is appreciated, there can only be one solution for a person submitted to Jesus: obedience! If someone claims they believe that Jesus is Lord, that is the one solution. To choose Jesus and trust oneself and future to his mercy. Cardinal Kasper seems to believe that there is another option for the church and the person in the hard situation besides obedience! This is what Cardinal Burke and others have rejected. We are followers of Jesus who has bought us with his own blood, we have no other master. The church has no other groom to give her obedience to.

End of rant.
 
Seraphignatius said:
Then it should never be used as grounds for admitting the divorced and supposedly remarried to the sacraments.
Click to expand...
Exactly. If it is so undefinable by the church then it should be left to God alone since the church’s infallibility protects only the definitions.
 
LongingSoul said:
I see this same resistance in the pro Capital punishment crowd. The argument is that unless the Church can explain the justice in abolishing capital punishment in clear detail that I understand in my own brain… then no ‘merciful looking’ position can be held.

Many times in the history of the Church, the merciful position cries out for a faith response, and the theological justifications catch up in time. That’s what faith is.
Click to expand...
Well, I certainly have no problem with the application of mercy. But what does mercy have to do with the validity or invalidity of a marriage? Is it merciful to treat a valid marriage as if it were invalid? Or is it merciful to treat an invalid marriage as if it were valid? Mercy is to be granted to persons. Mercy has no bearing on whether a true marriage exists or not.
 
Rubia said:
I believe I disagreed with you before on this characterization of annullments as “marriages” that are exceptions to Jesus’ absolute rule against divorce and remarriage. They are NOT. You see, they are not marriages at all! They were only WRONGLY believed to be marriages. So a person who gets an annulment NEVER “puts away his wife”. He simply recognizes that the woman was never his wife. That relationship therefore has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus’ rule against remarriage in reality. Any more than a co-habitation has anything to do with Jesus’ rule against remarriage.
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting that once a marriage has been declared null by the Church, the union was actually adultery and any children are illegitimate? Isn’t it the case in fact, that prior to the annulment… the marriage is actually deemed valid and the children, legitimate offspring of marriage?
The truth is, there is NO precedent anywhere you look for the Kasper/German suggestion. That is, where: 1) Jesus is unambiguously clear and explicit 2) The apostles are unambiguously clear and explicit. 3) The church in the two magisteriums (a) ordinary magisterium of 2,000 years and an infallible ecumenical council ratified by a pope) is unambiguously clear and explicit; And then the church despite all this goes ahead to set it aside and do the opposite. NO example/precedent will you find. Not in suicides or annulments. In all those, the church simply dealt with what was not explicitly taught before. The church did not TOUCH the established teaching, not with a 20 foot pole.
Click to expand...
Pope Francis invited theological discussion of the situation so as to better address a fairly modern conundrum in regards to sacramental marriages. That’s a role the Church plays in continuing to clarify Gods will for His people.
Here the church is being asked to claim that a second marriage with a subsisting first marriage either is valid, (which denies that a real marriage cannot be dissolved) or is invalid but not sinful (which denies either that Jesus spoke truly when he called it adultery or that God spoke truly when he commanded 'thou shalt not commit adultery). The church is being asked to declare that she is not BOUND to LIVE according to the truths that God has taught her. That she is somehow “free” from obedience: this is the christological heresy condemned by Cardinals Robert Sarah and Muller and others: The idea that we ONLY have to believe Jesus but not OBEY him!:confused: If you look at this very closely, we are being asked to deny our faith in Jesus as God incarnate and King reigning over the church because we are being asked to say that we can release the church and people from his teaching! Why did Jesus teach us if he did not expect us to live the teaching?
Click to expand...
You should be pope you are so theologically advanced.
It also implies that obedience to Jesus is not merciful or that Jesus taught us an unmerciful way of life. How dare we even think it? That it is hard does not mean it is less merciful. That is what we call a cross. Jesus asked us to carry them after him. We are to carry our own and help others with theirs. Never in the history of the church has our response to crosses been to claim that asking/expecting people to CARRY them is a lack of mercy!!! Who can teach Jesus mercy? No one. If Jesus taught us that remarriage with a spouse still alive is adultery, and that adultery is something we should not do, then that is it.
Click to expand...
The real problem you have is not me but the Pope. If you were serious about these allegations have you written to the Vatican with them?
Mercy is to help people come to a true understanding of whether or not their situation fits that circumstance or not. Once the true situation is appreciated, there can only be one solution for a person submitted to Jesus: obedience! If someone claims they believe that Jesus is Lord, that is the one solution. To choose Jesus and trust oneself and future to his mercy. Cardinal Kasper seems to believe that there is another option for the church and the person in the hard situation besides obedience! This is what Cardinal Burke and others have rejected. We are followers of Jesus who has bought us with his own blood, we have no other master. The church has no other groom to give her obedience to.
Click to expand...
End of rant.
Click to expand...
As I say, I’m not your problem. The Pope is and I suggest you address your arguments to him. I’m just a lowly practicing but horrible liberal, progressive, cafeteria (except I believe **all **teachings without any dissenting attitude).
 
JimG said:
Well, I certainly have no problem with the application of mercy. But what does mercy have to do with the validity or invalidity of a marriage? Is it merciful to treat a valid marriage as if it were invalid? Or is it merciful to treat an invalid marriage as if it were valid? Mercy is to be granted to persons. Mercy has no bearing on whether a true marriage exists or not.
Click to expand...
I think I’ll just refer you to the top. Pope Francis invited a theological discussion around this issue because he wants the Church to better respond to it. Don’t you want to wait and see how that pans out?
 
Rubia said:
Exactly. If it is so undefinable by the church then it should be left to God alone since the church’s infallibility protects only the definitions.
Click to expand...
Better write to the Pope. You must set him right with your inspired knowledge.
 
LongingSoul said:
Better write to the Pope. You must set him right with your inspired knowledge.
Click to expand...
I believe someone had already directed him to the documents of Trent, so that means Cardinal Burke’s allegations are, if anything, redundant.
 
LongingSoul said:
Better write to the Pope. You must set him right with your inspired knowledge.
Click to expand...
No need. Cardinals Muller and Robert Sarah are already doing an excellent job, not to mention Polish, Eastern European, American, Australian, African Bishops. They are giving the pope all the (name removed by moderator)ut he asked for.😉
 
LongingSoul said:
Are you suggesting that once a marriage has been declared null by the Church, the union was actually adultery and any children are illegitimate? Isn’t it the case in fact, that prior to the annulment… the marriage is actually deemed valid and the children, legitimate offspring of marriage?
Click to expand...
No, I am not, as I am sure you know since you have read the post I wrote.🙂 I am “suggesting” exactly what the church teaches about annullments: THERE IS NO MARRIAGE. No one commits adultery or any sin without knowledge, so the idea you are introducing is both false and irrelevant.
Pope Francis invited theological discussion of the situation so as to better address a fairly modern conundrum in regards to sacramental marriages. That’s a role the Church plays in continuing to clarify Gods will for His people.
Click to expand...
And no one denies the church that role. Just the un-catholic idea that the pope or synod can reveal a “new truth” to the church, 2000 years after the revelation was closed as taught by the church.
You should be pope you are so theologically advanced.
Click to expand...
No, you should be. Havent you been going round speaking about an agenda of the Holy Spirit? Warning people you think are guilty of going against it? Me? I stick to what the church has explicitly taught me. You on the other hand appear to have a direct line to the Holy Spirit and his “agendas”.
The real problem you have is not me but the Pope. If you were serious about these allegations have you written to the Vatican with them?
Click to expand...
My real problem is the Kasper proposal. I happen to love the pope AND catholic faith. These “allegations” have been raised by Bishops and Cardinals so don’t you worry about the pope not hearing about them. He certainly has and lately has been showing every sign that he indeed IS listening and taking them seriously!🙂
As I say, I’m not your problem. The Pope is and I suggest you address your arguments to him. I’m just a lowly practicing but horrible liberal, progressive, cafeteria (except I believe **all **teachings without any dissenting attitude).
Click to expand...
You are not the pope’s representative or spokesman and your views do not represent the pope’s views. They represent your own views. I honestly dont care what class of catholic you consider yourself to be. But you cant realistically expect to make unsubstantiated claims about church teaching on marriage, annullments, papal infallibility and receive docile agreement in kind when church teaching exists that repudiates those claims? We are catholics after all, bound to the magisterial teaching proclaimed infallibly and not to our preferred rendition of what catholicism means. But you seem to be taking personally disagreements with your claims and the supported (by church teaching) objections to your ideas. Why?🤷
 
Peace on earth…
None of the issues is in our.hands.
I cannot find.Guillam s post ,but he.asked.something interesting at least for.me. How.can.we.embrace.all Catholics without embracing.sin ?
I have.had this question in my mind.since.he asked.
So far I have.only been able.to.come up with only one.answer : one by one (and I am being serious ! 🙂 really !).
A culture.of encounter to begin with. Still praying about it,Guillam. Just wanted.to let you know I appreciated your question and it helps .
 
LongingSoul said:
Something to think about is that this issue has been opened to theological examination by the clergy itself with the support of Pope Francis. Pope Francis has previously said that he is open to the surprises of God and that’s seen over and over through Church history. Lots of things that seem closed to any deeper understanding by one generation… have proved by the natural growth of human understanding… to be illuminated in surprising ways. A great sign genuine conversion as a result of the glorious mercy of God in someones life… is the intense desire to give to others in the same generous way. **Wouldn’t it be just awesome if by the honest and open explorations of the Church synod under Pope Francis… a new truth **were illuminated that both taught the faithful something… and brought the mercy of God to a new level of understanding by the joy of those suffering faithful? Wouldn’t that be fantastic?
Click to expand...
You see, what the Church actually teaches is that there is no new truth - we may be illuminated and shown a greater vision of the same truth that has always been taught but there will be no new public revelation. In the authentic development of doctrine, the Church can never substitute something new for the old, nor ever deny what she has taught for 2,000+ years.
 
LongingSoul said:
Pope Francis invited a theological discussion around this issue because he wants the Church to better respond to it.
Click to expand...
“This issue” is too vague. Cite where the pope explained what he wanted discussed; surely it shouldn’t be that difficult, you’ve referred to it often enough, but if you can’t find what he said then at least explain precisely what you think " this issue" is, because if it doesn’t include the possibility of altering doctrine then there really is nothing to argue about. So I’ll ask again: do you believe the pope asked for the doctrines to be reexamined to see if they could be changed? It seems evident that this is what Kasper wants; the question is, is this what the pope wants?

Ender
 
Rubia said:
No need. Cardinals Muller and Robert Sarah are already doing an excellent job, not to mention Polish, Eastern European, American, Australian, African Bishops. They are giving the pope all the (name removed by moderator)ut he asked for.😉
Click to expand...
👍

From Card Muller’s new interview:

Cardinal Muller says no to second marriage without annulment

That is precisely the theme of the next synod on “the mission of the family in the Church and in the world.” Will a synthesis be possible between the very different views that divided the last assembly?

Card. G.L.M.: As prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, I am responsible for unity in the faith. I cannot take sides. But things are clear: we have the words of Jesus regarding marriage and their authentic interpretation throughout the long history of the Church — the Councils of Florence and Trent, the synthesis made by Gaudium et spes and the whole magisterium that came after. From a theological standpoint, everything is quite clear: we are facing the secularization of marriage, with religious marriage separated from the civil pact.

Thus we have lost the elements that constitute marriage as a sacrament and a natural institution. The Church’s message regarding marriage goes against such secularization. We must recover the natural foundations of marriage and emphasize its sacramental nature for those who are baptized as a means for grace to permeate the spouses and the whole family.

Could the bishops’ conferences have greater latitude on these topics?

Card. G.L.M.: We have to distinguish two levels: the dogmatic level and the level of concrete organization. Jesus instituted the Apostles with Peter as the principle for unifying the faith of the Church and its sacramental communion. It is an institution that exists by divine right. Beyond that, we have canonical structures that change according to the circumstances. The episcopal conferences are an expression of the collegiality of the bishops at the level of a country, a culture or a language, but this is a practical organization. The Catholic Church exists as a universal Church, in the communion of all the bishops united under the pope. It also exists in the local churches. But the local church is not the Church of France or Germany: it is the Church of Paris, of Toulouse, etc. They are the dioceses.** The idea of a national Church would be totally heretical. Autonomy in faith is impossible.** Jesus Christ is the savior of all; He unifies all human beings.

Is it possible to make disciplinary changes without affecting doctrine?

Card. G.L.M.: Discipline and pastoral concerns must act in harmony with doctrine. Doctrine is not an ideal theory that would be corrected in practice, but the expression of the truth revealed in Jesus Christ.

With regard to divorced people who remarry, is it conceivable that, after following a path of penitence, a second union could be recognized that would not have a sacramental character?

Card. G.L.M.:** It is impossible to have two wives. If the first union is valid, it is not possible to enter into a second one at the same time. A path of penitence is possible, but not a second union. The only possibility is to return to the first, legitimate union, or to live in the second union as brother and sister: that is the Church’s position, in agreement with the will of Jesus. I would add that it is always possible to try and obtain an annulment from an ecclesiastical tribunal.**

In your view, does the solution lie in relaxing canonical rules?

Card. G.L.M.: That is what Benedict XVI had requested. Unfortunately, for a some Catholics, the celebration of marriage is no longer anything but a folk custom; for others, it has a sacramental meaning. It is up to the Church tribunal to prove its whether it is a true sacrament or not. Canon law can be adapted to concrete situations.

globalpulsemagazine.com/news/cardinal-muller-says-no-to-second-marriage-without-annulment/1016
 
LongingSoul said:
Are you suggesting that once a marriage has been declared null by the Church, the union was actually adultery and any children are illegitimate? Isn’t it the case in fact, that prior to the annulment… the marriage is actually deemed valid and the children, legitimate offspring of marriage?

Pope Francis invited theological discussion of the situation so as to better address a fairly modern conundrum in regards to sacramental marriages. That’s a role the Church plays in continuing to clarify Gods will for His people.

You should be pope you are so theologically advanced.

The real problem you have is not me but the Pope. If you were serious about these allegations have you written to the Vatican with them?

As I say, I’m not your problem. The Pope is and I suggest you address your arguments to him. I’m just a lowly practicing but horrible liberal, progressive, cafeteria (except I believe **all **teachings without any dissenting attitude).
Click to expand...
Me to Longing Soul…except, my one stumbling block - that I do not believe that LGBTQ individuals are disordered. It’s so frustrating to be referred to as a heretic because of not following Church teachings on one social issue.😊
 
Tigg said:
You see, what the Church actually teaches is that there is no new truth - we may be illuminated and shown a greater vision of the same truth that has always been taught but there will be no new public revelation. In the authentic development of doctrine, the Church can never substitute something new for the old, nor ever deny what she has taught for 2,000+ years.
Click to expand...
By the use of ‘illuminated’ and reference to a ‘deeper level of understanding’ I think it is obvious that I was referring to the natural development and therefore greater understanding of the doctrine in question.
 
Rubia said:
What about the 6th commandment? Thou shalt NOT commit adultery. Is the church free to dispense us from that in the 21st century? This is the kasper suggestion, that the church oks remarriage after divorce which Jesus calls adultery. Something MUST be rewritten to make the church okey adultery, don’t you think?
Click to expand...
No, the logic is faulty here and no one is suggesting we dispense with any Commandment or okay adultery.
 
Ender said:
“This issue” is too vague. Cite where the pope explained what he wanted discussed; surely it shouldn’t be that difficult, you’ve referred to it often enough, but if you can’t find what he said then at least explain precisely what you think " this issue" is, because if it doesn’t include the possibility of altering doctrine then there really is nothing to argue about. So I’ll ask again: do you believe the pope asked for the doctrines to be reexamined to see if they could be changed? It seems evident that this is what Kasper wants; the question is, is this what the pope wants?

Ender
Click to expand...
Ha ha. I think I’m knowing what it’s like to be a hobbled sheep in the paddock when all the crows begin to eat its flesh off the bone before its even dead.

The issue quite clearly is the pastoral response to Communion and the divorced/remarried. The second is the language, perception and attitude dilemma that marginalises gays within the Church. Those two issues were included in the synod discussions at the invitation of Pope Francis. The issues were well documented during and after the first week of synod by the mainstream press and the blogisphere which I’m sure you can easily retrieve doing a google search. Here is one…

johnthavis.com/penitential-path-for-divorced-and-remarried-gets-synod-hearing#.VRr8mfmUfkU
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top