Four Cardinals Formally Ask Pope for Clarity on Amoris Laetitia

[Convert_in_99]

There isn’t any need, because being a priest and retired seminary professor who taught this subject matter is not proof that one is right.

Or do you claim that there aren’t people with equal or better credentials who disagree with Fr. Ruggero?

Wow. This is so unbelievably disrespectful of a priest. Full out in the open. Do you think he can’t read this? Why don’t you just go speak with him in person and say this to his face! UNbelievable.

 

[Convert_in_99]

Of which he hasn’t, or has it occurred? It’s easier to be passive and aggressive and attack the Cardinals using a fake Twitter account, I guess. Very dignified behavior.

What on earth are you talking about?

 

[TCEL]

Wow. This is so unbelievably disrespectful of a priest. Full out in the open. Do you think he can’t read this? Why don’t you just go speak with him in person and say this to his face! UNbelievable.

I think it’s important to point out that one of the rules not often quoted in this news section, as of late, is that posters should not flaunt credentials to the possible detriment of readers, nor should they be dismissive of other’s opinions. Neither of those things are a reference to you.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Wow. This is so unbelievably disrespectful of a priest. Full out in the open. Do you think he can’t read this? Why don’t you just go speak with him in person and say this to his face! UNbelievable.

Thank you for your kindness…but please do not encourage this person to say these things to my face. I have read them and I find that is already more than sufficient enough.

In general, I was held in reputation by my colleagues in my faculty as being exceedingly patient with especially the young students that other professors found difficult or even exasperating. I took it as a compliment.

I did then, and still do, however have a threshold of tolerance…and when a student reached it, they were informed to cease the dialogue and either restrict themselves to a period of directed research and reading on the topic until they had sufficient understanding to actually conduct a conversation or, if the behaviour pattern was severe enough, to reconsider their theological studies all together – as I would elect to shut down further discussion. And that was not open to debate, when it had reached that point.

If a person wants to present a theological argumentation in the context of a classroom exercise, they were welcomed to do so…provided that they had attained the level to actually carry off a disputatio.

A person arguing with me when they do not understand, as was made clear in a post upthread, even the different categories of magisterial documents and what is being communicated to the body of bishops and the theological community by the level of document selected – as but one example of many I could educe from the posts in this thread – then, no, it is a waste of my time to engage in a protracted discussion. What is called for is recourse to the most basic and fundamental of reference texts and not the intervention of a theologian…as I have had other occasions of late to write.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I think it’s important to point out that one of the rules not often quoted in this news section, as of late, is that posters should not flaunt credentials to the possible detriment of readers, nor should they be dismissive of other’s opinions. Neither of those things are a reference to you.

I would welcome a clarification from the moderator on these points, personally.

I am coming to question the value of spending much time in fora that are first populated by the argumentative who demonstrate little to no interest in being formed by members of the clergy or the member, but who give every evidence of simply wishing to flail about in the forum. Second, of people who find one’s presence valueless. There are other things to occupy my time. I came here because of having met Karl Keating…frankly while I have found value in the fora, the way certain people behave in it is absolutely a stain upon it.

If the forum contends that the thoughts of every person is of equal value and of equal merit, that is their right but that is a place I have no interest in occupying. I spent far too many years working my way through all the various studies assigned to me in order to attain the various degrees that I hold in order to embark upon service to my bishop and my diocese, which included a many-years-long career of teaching in those fields in which I lectured, to look about here and think that the inchoate thoughts I find here are equal to mine, when we are talking about topics I have lectured in and published on and that to the satisfaction of my peers in the academy.

That is like saying to a surgeon that what he says in an internet forum about human anatomy, biology and organ repair or transplant has no more meaning and significance than the ramblings of a high school drop out and both should be judged equally. In the prevailing of such a case, the forum should simply be abandoned to the high school dropout.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

This does not explain why one church official would dare to use the public square to communicate something to 4 cardinals that they would already know. If a reminder were needed, it could be done confidentially.
This is music to the ears of those who oppose Christianity. This in itself is scandalous.

i certainly did NOT find it scandalous for the Dean of the Rota, of all Roman officials, to articulate what could hardly be a more fundamental point concerning the Pope’s power regarding the membership of the College of Cardinals. I hardly saw it as the Dean of the Rota communicating TO those who had submitted dubia, as they quite know they are but vassals of the Pope. The point needs to be to remind everyone else that every other office holder including all the Cardinals is, ultimately, a vassal.

It must be said that he is not the one to first use the public forum. That was the choice of someone else. I think it does now, sadly, need to be used as a corrective by Holy See officials to clarify that there is one – and only one – person in the Church with definitive authority…as well as absolute power to take any corrective action he personally deems appropriate.

I saw and understood it as a statement to everyone in the Church that affirmed that anyone under the Pope himself can be deprived of an office or dignity by one person in the Church: the Holy Father.

The dean may have been better served had he simply said that even the highest official in the Church under the Pope…the Cardinal Secretary of State. the Cardinal Dean of the College, and so forth down through all the ranks…anyone can be removed at will by the Pope…and left the comment there.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

There isn’t any need, because being a priest and retired seminary professor who taught this subject matter is not proof that one is right.

Or do you claim that there aren’t people with equal or better credentials who disagree with Fr. Ruggero?

Now, in conclusion, to this series of posts:

Since I am being addressed in the third person – but being neither absent, dead, or not in control of my faculties – I prefer to shift the voice back to the first person.

Indeed you are correct that being a priest and retired seminary professor who taught this subject matter is not proof that one is right. What makes one right is the conformity of what they expound to what the Church articulates, in this case concerning papal authority…it is a subcategory in ecclesiology

We are not in a deep matter of speculative theology in what is being addressed here, as we would find ourselves in aspects of speculative Christology and the specific inter-operability of the two wills and the different knowledge and how this would have been perceived and manifested through the hypostatic union or, in a different area, the actual transmission of sacramental grace viewed through the lens of Mariology…to take but two examples

The fact that one or more people in the forum do not know the answer (or even know how to find the answer) makes manifest only that such people do not know the answer to the question. The answer quite exists…as i would expect the seminarian here to be able to educe it without much thought…even if others know not where to look for them how to find them or are unable to recognise them when they fall upon them

As for your last question, I have many colleagues in the academy – who also happen to be friends – whose careers and work took them to different places than where I have served. I have not encountered them having any different mind on these issues.

As far as “disagree”…that is a word you have to use very carefully in theology Thomas and Bonaventure, for example, came to very different theological conclusions but let me be crystal clear and as a blunt as I can be; I have not yet seen ONE person in this forum who even begins to approach the intellect of or the ability to exhaustively explicate a Thomas or Bonaventure position and the significance of the variances of their respective conclusions in contrast to the other

Theological questions of import are not the province of rank amateurs…they are the province of the theological community. Period

Now, where I was, when we had a doctoral defence, the dean would on occasion, at the end, allow the candidate to be examined by other doctors in the room and then, as a very gracious gesture, allow those who were non-doctors to actually speak in the presence of the assembled theologians so as to, for example, ask a question of a friend or relative in his/her special moment of attaining the grade of doctor.

Are there priests and professors which would disagree with Fr. Ruggero?

Do you know what the Holy Father means?

Also, according to what I’ve read, Canon law allows Cardinals the right to do what Cardinal Burke and others have done.

Unquestionably, there are old friends and colleagues who have gone to have their own very illustrious and successful careers in the academy

I cannot, for all that, think of one who would have a different conclusion than I gave…although they might indeed formulate it very differently. But with no change in the substance. Because the aspects of the power of the Petrine Office is basic in the extreme from the perspective of theology. Pastor aeternus is straightforward.

Having said that, the prudential deployment, in a concrete circumstance, of that supreme and immediate authority may be a different matter all together. But, in the end, one man on the face of the earth has the prudence that alone prevails in the decision to deploy it

Do theologians disagree on quaestiones disputatae? Or see them differently? Or approach them differently? Of course we do

But this fundamental aspect concerning the Petrine Office is not one of those nor does it come near to approaching it…and authentic theologians well know and understand that distinction

On the other hand, had I been dean when a professor signed any sort of objection to Amoris Laetitia and the Pope’s authority on these matters, that faculty member would have been terminated on the spot. Not for the expression of a varying theological vision but in punishment for withholding obsequium and complete submission.

Beyond that, I question the value of asking people who do not apply the document how they understand papal statements of concrete application. One draws from one’s theology, includeing pastoral theology and then there are the promulgated guidelines to help with that – just as the bishop, the periti and the presbyterate will help. It is not a matter for random people to figure out.

And lastly, Cardinals, among many others, certainly have the right to submit a dubium or multiple dubia. They are ill advised in the extreme to do it in a public manner. They are always private. And they respect a formulation which was not here observed

As for threatening the Pope…no. Canon law nor standard practices in submission of a dubium make no provision for a threat implicit or explicit.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

ewtn.co.uk/news/holy-see/dean-of-roman-rota-warns-pope-could-strip-dubia-cardinals-of-their-cardinalate

This is about as shocking as it gets.

The article isn’t quite as shocking after they published this correction:

** Correction made by Religión Confidencial to their interview with Archbishop Pio Vito Pinto

“Religión Confidencial…put words into the mouth of Mons. Pio Vito Pinto regarding the statement that the four cardinals who have written the Pope ‘could lose their cardinalate. The phrase was taken from an interview conducted by RC in which Mons. Vito responds in Italian and it is not correct. After reviewing the recording, it has been proven that what he affirms is that Pope Francis is not a Pope of other times in which those measures were used and that the Pope was not going to withdraw from them the Cardinalate dignity. The news is corrected, but we publish this rectification in case it was not enough.”

 

[patricius79]

Wow. This is so unbelievably disrespectful of a priest. Full out in the open. Do you think he can’t read this? Why don’t you just go speak with him in person and say this to his face! UNbelievable.

I mean no disrespect at all to Fr. Ruggero. If I have disrespected him or any priest, I apologize, because that would offend Our Lady and Our Lord.

I’m simply responding to what seems like an argument from authority which is unconvincing to me, for the reasons I state.

But if what Fr. Ruggero is saying is true according to the Church, then I want to embrace it. But I’m just trying to work through understanding it, which I believe is what this forum is for.

 

[abucs]

There isn’t any need, because being a priest and retired seminary professor who taught this subject matter is not proof that one is right.

I’m sure members of the Sanhedrin chided a certain young, unschooled Galilean about his lack of learning.

I agree with you that claimed superiority is not always the best guide.

 

[patricius79]

Indeed you are correct that being a priest and retired seminary professor who taught this subject matter is not proof that one is right. What makes one right is the conformity of what they expound to what the Church articulates, in this case concerning papal authority…

That makes sense.

On the other hand, had I been dean when a professor signed any sort of objection to Amoris Laetitia and the Pope’s authority on these matters, that faculty member would have been terminated on the spot. Not for the expression of a varying theological vision but in punishment for withholding obsequium and complete submission.
…
And lastly, Cardinals, among many others, certainly have the right to submit a dubium or multiple dubia. They are ill advised in the extreme to do it in a public manner. They are always private. And they respect a formulation which was not here observed

As for threatening the Pope…no. Canon law nor standard practices in submission of a dubium make no provision for a threat implicit or explicit.

Not only am I uneducated, but I have difficulty thinking clearly, so please bear with me.

One of the questions I have is: is it impossible for a Pope to define something which is false. For example, would the Holy Spirit simply prevent the Pope from ever solemnly declaring that Transubstantiation is false, or that committing adultery is not intrinsically evil?

As far as discipline, if the Holy Father instructed the clergy to absolve, and toadmit to Holy Communion, adulterers who have expressed that they have no intention to stop committing adultery, would the clergy be obligated to follow this?

Also in AL, when the Pope says that a person may well understand the rule (the moral law) but be in a situation which makes them unable to follow it without further sin… what does that mean? What does “the rule” mean, and how could following it lead to “further sin”?

Also, here is the Canon Law which I saw brought up at EWTN in Great Britain:
§2. The Christian faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the Church their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires.

§3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.
*
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_PU.HTM

So what does this mean as far as “making their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful”?

Thank you, Father for your time.

 

[patricius79]

I would welcome a clarification from the moderator on these points, personally.

I am coming to question the value of spending much time in fora that are first populated by the argumentative who demonstrate little to no interest in being formed by members of the clergy or the member, but who give every evidence of simply wishing to flail about in the forum.

I think that ignorant, sinful people like me are trying to learn about these issues which we don’t understand, to deepen our assent to what the Church teaches. So we ask questions about Papal authority, etc. But if I, for example, have done something wrong, please let me know so that I can apologize.

 

[Brendan]

Living a conjugal life of, say, 20 years doesn’t mean that they can stop just like that, just because Abyssinia says that because other couples can do it, they can do it…

Granted, God has most likely not given you the Grace needed to win the Tour de France, but is there anyone to whom God has NOT given the Grace needed to live a life in accord with the Church.

Thus, I will disagree with you on that point: such couple CAN live such a life, not because Abyssinia said so, but because God Himself has provided for it.

 

[carn]

What on earth are you talking about?

Some sites not to be linked here claim that Fr. Spandaro had an additional twitter account from which 1 or 2 tweets against the 4 cardinals were posted, which then were retweeted via Fr. Spandaros official twitter account.

These sites also provide some screeenshots that, if they are authentic, substantiate that claim to some extent, namely that the twitter account in qustion also was tied to Fr. Spandaros email adress.

 

[OraLabora]

Granted, God has most likely not given you the Grace needed to win the Tour de France, but is there anyone to whom God has NOT given the Grace needed to live a life in accord with the Church.

Thus, I will disagree with you on that point: such couple CAN live such a life, not because Abyssinia said so, but because God Himself has provided for it.

No argument. The question is whether it is instantaneous, or part of a spiritual growth process. I maintain not everyone is of equal strength. Some need more training than others. Ask any monk if conversatio morum is an instantaneous thing or the fruit of a long life of (sometimes very hard) training.

This brings us full circle back to the question: is sacramental grace medicine and sustenance for the journey, or a prize for arriving at the destination?

 

[carn]

to look about here and think that the inchoate thoughts I find here are equal to mine

A perspective i can in no way understand. There are topics regarding which i probably rank in the one percentile or maybe even the tenth of one percentile; and yet i try to never look down upon what other people say about such topics, mainly because even the most dumb perspective might have some sort of merit, which i should at least notice and incorporate and account for in my knowledge about the subject.

And actually, some months ago about one of such topics the discussion with someone who in my opinion has a horribly one-sided, uneducated and actually slightly magical- or conspiracy-thinking approach to the one of such topics produced between the intellectually quasi painful half-nonsense he was talking one thing regarding which his point was far more sound than mine; and potentially it helped me very much to fulfill my duties; i might end up to be eternally thankful for that gem he provided without knowing.

I have not yet seen ONE person in this forum who even begins to approach the intellect of or the ability to exhaustively explicate a Thomas or Bonaventure position and the significance of the variances of their respective conclusions in contrast to the other

If you had said knowledge, training, experience, education, that would probably be a true claim. But anyone with some intellect knows that estimating intellect meaning general mental capacity or ability, which is distinct from training and education (the intellect of a top scientist and a top theologican can well be in the same league even if one or both of them is/are unable to understand much in the field of the other), upon a few dozens of posts in an internet forum is futile and should be avoided, simply because the estimation might end up horribly wrong.

 

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR NOTICE

Please charitably discuss the issues, not each other.

Please stay on the topic of the original post

Please do not make disparaging remarks about Catholic clergy

 

[_Abyssinia]

And pray tell, who here has taught otherwise? Where does AL suggest otherwise? Who has suggested that we should encourage people to continue in sin?

You are arguing against a straw man!

I am not claiming that anybody is encouraging people to live in sin.

It is not clear to me whether there is now an allowance for people to receive Communion who are divorced and remarried, who cannot get an annulment, and who are not living as brother and sister, and have no intention to change their sexual relationship.

 

[asd72]

No argument. The question is whether it is instantaneous, or part of a spiritual growth process. I maintain not everyone is of equal strength. Some need more training than others. Ask any monk if conversatio morum is an instantaneous thing or the fruit of a long life of (sometimes very hard) training.

This brings us full circle back to the question: is sacramental grace medicine and sustenance for the journey, or a prize for arriving at the destination?

Sacramental grace is medicine and strengthens the spirit. Bit someone in mortal sin is spiritually dead, and medicine at best does nothing, at worse is sacrilegious.

Your example is someone who is sinning with full knowledge and consent. They need to respond to the pushes of actual grace which will lead them to repentance and the resolve to sin no more. Then the sacramental grace of Reconciliation will cleanse them, and the sacramental grace of Holy Communion can strengthen them in their journey.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Sacramental grace is medicine and strengthens the spirit. Bit someone in mortal sin is spiritually dead, and medicine at best does nothing, at worse is sacrilegious.

Your example is someone who is sinning with full knowledge and consent. They need to respond to the pushes of actual grace which will lead them to repentance and the resolve to sin no more. Then the sacramental grace of Reconciliation will cleanse them, and the sacramental grace of Holy Communion can strengthen them in their journey.

Everyone who was married in the Church or who had their civil marriage sanitized, and is now divorced and remarried, without an annulment, is not living in mortal sin. It doesn’t take a trained theologian to figure out how a situation such as that is possible. It would require “bedside manner” from a pastor to bring them around to a point where they would not feel ostracized from their community. Why would a pastor tell someone, who is in that kind of a situation, that they must take all of their “medicine” at once. It takes time to bring people around, as is evident from this forum.

For the life of me I cannot understand why the same folks who don’t understand AL cannot fathom that a divorced and remarried person may not understand the vows of their first marriage and not have an annulment for it at the same time.