"Filial correction"

[LoyalViews]

I just don’t understand your perspective, my friend. I want to! Cardinal Burke has good reason to sign the Dubia, as the three other cardinals did.

As an academic, the Filial Correction also has precedent. I would sign it if I had a worthy credit, but alas I don’t!

I’m happy you are a Catholic first. I am as well, as is SuperLuigi and 1neophyte, Ghosty1981, Rau, and all of us here.

 

[philipl]

I just finished reading all 25 pages. But 17-25 boiled it down. It is clearly written and with out any doubts as to why this subject is being addressed. No one can read this document and agree that clarity isnt needed from Pope Francis.

 

[graciew]

I appreciate your kindness.
Nothing else to add to what I have written.
I am out.

 

[XndrK]

You mean ?

 

[ChunkMonk]

I wasn’t really trying to single you out, just griping about the total moral shattering of the Church. The annulment process is already on it’s way to becoming de facto Catholic divorce and now we have an “official” papal statement that does away with even that feeble due process hurdle and is now suggesting priests be given carte blanche authority to end marriages with zero legal protections for the other spouse. No testimony, no gathering of evidence, no real oversight.

If this continues, and it will, this situation is going to make the Protestant Revolt look like romper-room hijinks.

 

[Ghosty1981]

I wasn’t really trying to single you out, just griping about the total moral shattering of the Church. The annulment process is already on it’s way to becoming de facto Catholic divorce and now we have an “official” papal statement that does away with even that feeble due process hurdle and is now suggesting priests be given carte blanche authority to end marriages with zero legal protections for the other spouse. No testimony, no gathering of evidence, no real oversight.

If this continues, and it will, this situation is going to make the Protestant Revolt look like romper-room hijinks.

I understand your concern; I’m also concerned about the moral teachings of the Church. One important thing to remember is that this kind of judgement that I’m referring to would not actually annul the previous marriage, so the former spouse is not at risk. The only “benefit” would be the reception of the Sacraments, which doesn’t affect the former spouse at all. The new marriage would not suddenly be Sacramental, it would simply mean that there is enough reason to allow for the Sacraments in order to further the spiritual growth of the penitent.

Could this exception be abused? Of course, but abuse does not abrogate right use, and I see that the could be a correct use of internal forum in certain circumstances that would protect access to the Sacraments for those that are in need and spiritually prepared. I don’t see this as a way around an anullment, but rather an extreme remedy for an unusual circumstance. I’m not even saying this is necessarily a good idea, merely pointing out that such circumstances might exist, and might warrant exceptions to canonical norms for the spiritual health of the penitents.

Peace and God bless!

 

[SuperLuigi]

Exacamundo dude!

 

[pnewton]

What AL has done is remind Pastor’s of souls that not everything is back & white.

Unfortunately, too many are incapable of reasoning, including those who had a hand in writing this correction. Pope Francis said something similar, in simply reminding us people are not categories. The response was an accusation in the form of a question that nothing is black and white.

I wonder how some of these people ever made it through seminary, much less got a teaching position.

 

[pnewton]

FYI - I noticed two threads have been merged, and about that time, someone started a third. We need to check an see if there is already a discussion before we open a parallel on.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Okay, just so there is no mistake, I will report every new thread opening on this exact same topic. Talk about agenda posting! Don’t blame me for getting your hands clawed.

 

[BayCityRickL]

with all that’s going on in the world, it seems inopportune that a controversy should break out in the church. Isn’t there enough confusion in general?

I’VE READ THE 21 PAGE LETTER and it doesn’t strike me that the pope is spreading heresies. I HAVE TO ADMIT THAT THE WRITERS SEEM CONVINCED And have well-researched the topics. The opposition to the pope is growing and there’s a lot of negative impact that will result from this unsettled issue.

 

[Vadne]

The crisis in the Church…and there is a crisis, make no mistake…was caused by the pope’s refusal to present the traditional teaching of the Church clearly and unambiguously. The dubia cardinals didn’t create the crisis; nor did the scholars and others who penned the filial correction. The pope could end this tomorrow. Considering he has the ability to launch rants against traditionally minded Catholics…you would think he would find he time to address this.

 

[BlackFriar]

From the guidelines issued by the Bishops of Malta:

If, as a result of the process of discernment,

undertaken with “humility, discretion and love for the

Church and her teaching, in a sincere search for God’s

will and a desire to make a more perfect response to it”

(AL 300), a separated or divorced person who is living

in a new relationship manages, with an informed and

enlightened conscience, to acknowledge and believe

> that he or she are at peace with God, he or she cannot

> be precluded from participating in the sacraments of

> Reconciliation and the Eucharist (see AL, notes 336 and

> 351).

How do you read this to mean that the priest would not be involved or even the decision maker?

 

[BlackFriar]

Ah, the cat’s back.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

I think you’re misunderstanding the Holy Father. The normal process still takes places if at all possible. But there are times and places where this is simply not possible. In those rare cases the Holy Father is suggesting a bit of common sense.

 

[Francis_W28]

Wow! This discussion has me in way over my head. I appreciate the dialogue though as it is helping me to understand the gravity of the situation. I would still like to take time to read the document myself.

Is it silly to ask what the Society of St. Pius X is? I keep seeing it mentioned again and again especially with regards to Bishop Bernard Falley.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

I think that’s a misreading of their statement.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Regarding the filial correction from Cardinal Muller and Cardinal Burke:

To resolve the impasse between Pope Francis and those who have grave reservations about his teaching, Cardinal Gerhard Müller has proposed that one solution to this “serious situation” could be for the Holy Father to appoint a group of cardinals that would begin a “theological disputation” with his critics.
In comments to the Register Sept. 26, the prefect emeritus of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said such an initiative could be conducted with “some prominent representatives” of the dubia, as well as the filial correction which was made public on Sunday.

Cardinal Müller said a theological disputation, a formalized method of debate designed to uncover and establish truths in theology, would be specifically about “the different and sometimes controversial interpretations of some statements in Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia” — Francis’ apostolic exhortation on marriage and the family.

The Church needs “more dialogue and reciprocal confidence” rather than “polarization and polemics,” he continued, adding that the Successor of St. Peter “deserves full respect for his person and divine mandate, and on the other hand his honest critics deserve a convincing answer.”

“We must avoid a new schism and separations from the one Catholic Church, whose permanent principle and foundation of its unity and communion in Jesus Christ is the current pope, Francis, and all bishops in full communion with him,” he said.

The filial correction “has been undertaken independently from the ongoing communications of Cardinal Brandmüller and myself, and the late Cardinals Caffarra and Meisner, to the Holy Father regarding the dubia,” Cardinal Burke told the Register. “Therefore, the fact that my name does not appear on the filial correction has no meaning.”

http://m.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/vatican-remains-silent-on-filial-correction

Read post in full at above link.

 

[Joe_5859]

Is it silly to ask what the Society of St. Pius X is? I keep seeing it mentioned again and again especially with regards to Bishop Bernard Farley.

The Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) was founded by Archbishop Lefebvre back in 1970. In the 80’s, though, Archbishop Lefebvre illicitly (but validly) ordained four bishops (one of which was Fellay) despite the fact that he was told not do so in advance. In so doing, he and the four bishops were excommunicated.

Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunications, and there have been ongoing talks to regularize their situation. But right now, they have an irregular status.

 

[commenter]

The Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) was founded by Archbishop Lefebvre back in 1970. In the 80’s, though, Archbishop Lefebvre illicitly (but validly) ordained four bishops (one of which was Fellay) despite the fact that he was told not do so in advance. In so doing, he and the four bishops were excommunicated.

Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunications, and there have been ongoing talks to regularize their situation. But right now, they have an irregular status.

In the 1970s the Vatican stated that the Order, and its seminary, were no longer recognized as part of the Church (though individuals still were). The SSPX has continued (validly, but illicitly) ordaining priests in defiance of the Vatican, since the 1970s. Those priests don’t work in the Church itself or as part of a diocese, but offer service within SSPX chapels, schools, retreat centers. They are not working under any bishop-ordinary.

Since the late 1970s, the Church’s position is that the SSPX should not ordain anyone; that individual priests and bishops in SSPX should meet with their local bishop ordinary, regularlize their status, and then serve within the Church itself.

New religious orders have been developed within the Church itself to help accommodate them, and much greater latitude to the Traditional Latin Mass in general. Some priests have chosen and still choose currently now and then to regularlize within a diocese and/or religious order. Others remain in SSPX. Those individuals are still part of the Church.

 

[Ghosty1981]

How do you read this to mean that the priest would not be involved or even the decision maker?

I never said that the priest isn’t involved in the process, but how do you read this to mean that the priest is the decision maker? If the divorced person believes they are at peace with God they can’t be precluded from the Sacraments. That seems pretty straight forward to me. If I’m in error then please explain where this leaves room for the priest’s discretion.