Four cardinals seek audience with Pope over doctrinal ‘confusion’

  • Thread starter Thread starter _Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
_Abyssinia said:
In an interview Cardinal Burke did with Catholic Action, Cardinal Burke talked about the dubia having been made public. The bold text is the question and comment from Catholic Action:

catholicaction.org/interview_with_cardinal_burke_about_the_dubia
Click to expand...
The Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith has already stated that doctrine has not changed. The fact that Pope Francis did not expand on that clearly indicates that he believes that doctrine has not changed. So, to say that the Vatican hasn’t responded is false.

But, I don’t believe it’s an answer the Cardinals are looking for. They are looking for Pope Francis to either declare that he was wrong, thereby weakening his influence on the Church, or to declare that he was right, so the Cardinals can denounce him for error.

This entire situation has been handled in a way that weakens the unity of the faithful by intentionally undermining the Pope. THAT is the goal here. It’s ugly, repugnant politics.

Absolutely. Nothing. More.
 
Brassring said:
I found it repugnant that the article basically asserted that the reason the text of the letter was made public was because the Vatican hadn’t responded to it. “The pope didn’t respond, so we’re taking our case directly to the laity!” That is a blatant political ploy, and it is creating scandal on purpose to achieve a political end. It’s shameful.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, but at what point do we lay the blame for the scandal at the Holy Father’s feet? You say that it’s shameful the Cardinals would put this out into the public, yet it never would have come to this unless the Holy Father simply answered their questions. The Cardinals’ sincere (and reasonable) questions have gone unanswered for over a year. The request for a private audience was handed to the Francis nearly 7 weeks ago. What the Cardinals are asking for isn’t beyond the pale, or unreasonable.

Is it political? Sure, you can call it that. Is it outrageous? Not in the least. It’s merely trying to force the Pope to offer clarity, which is quite frankly something which shouldn’t require such effort.

And don’t give me the righteous indignation for dragging this out in the public. The Apostles themselves were keen on this tactic. St. Paul confronted St. Peter publicly about eating with Jews…
But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood self-condemned; for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But after they came, he drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the circumcision faction. And the other Jews joined him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not acting consistently with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?”
Click to expand...
Gal 2: 11-14
Click to expand...
Perhaps we should respectfully and charitably urge the Holy Father to respond to these concerns and put this whole thing to rest once and for all.
 
Brassring said:
I found it repugnant that the article basically asserted that the reason the text of the letter was made public was because the Vatican hadn’t responded to it. “The pope didn’t respond, so we’re taking our case directly to the laity!” That is a blatant political ploy, and it is creating scandal on purpose to achieve a political end. It’s shameful.
Click to expand...
So who made it public, the cardinals?
 
Brassring said:
The bishops have a duty to guide their individual dioceses to the best of their ability in accordance with and UNDER THE AUTHORITY of their superiors. They have NO duty to attempt to make a world-wide issue out of it. They have NO duty to attempt to foment discontent with a pope with whom they have obvious theological differences.

I’m trying very hard not to assume that these four cardinals are attempting to drive Pope Francis to resign so that they may replace him with someone more to their liking, but every thing I read in regard to this so-called dubia makes that more difficult.
Click to expand...
Public disagreements with popes have happened many times in history. As Vatican II clarified, in the wake of misinterpretations of Vatican I, the bishops are NOT mere deputies of the Pope. They are vicars of Christ in their own right. They are subject to the universal primal authority of the Bishop of Rome, yes, but in this particular case the Pope hasn’t bound the Church to any particular interpretation. The episcopate is divided down the middle.
 
Brassring said:
If a bishop is unclear how to guide his flock then he should seek guidance. Quietly. Through channels. Until he gets such guidance, he should continue following the previous understanding. The laity have no place even hearing of this dubia, let alone engaging in the debate.

THAT’S the problem I have with this dubia business. Not that it exists, but that the laity were made aware of it in a manner that invited controversy.
Click to expand...
Controversy did not arise from any dubia or the public knowledge that the Pope has refused to even have an audience with these 4 Cardinals. The Pope himself began the controversy by publicly supporting interpretations of AL that are clearly contradictory to the constant church teaching of the last 2,017 yrs, while remaining completely silent on those who say it can only be read in congruence with all previous teaching. At every instance in which someone has come out publicly stating what amounts to a change in doctrine, the Pope has said something to the effect of, “yes that is a good reading”. When the Pope’s own Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith comes out and says teaching can never change, we get silence. This is where confusion and controversy arises. The fact that when church officials say something in contradiction to doctrine, the Pope himself says nothing against it. And when another says that cannot be right, he utters not one single word of support. It is highly doubtful that this is because he wishes to stay aloof of the matter; he is very swift to condemn in precise terms those who go against his wishes.

If such a situation does not call for clarity, I don’t know what does. I for one am glad that the dubia was made public, as it shows that someone in the church at least is concerned.

What reason can the Pope have to not answer such basic questions in order to clarify the church’s constant not only on marriage, but on the nature of mortal sin? Surely he cannot wish such confusion?

Unfortunately the mounting evidence seems to be that the Pope himself supports such erroneous interpretations of doctrine, but is not willing to state so openly. It is much easier to alter the “pastoral” methods, and hope that the doctrine will be “reinterpreted” to match, in time. If not, I truly do not know why the Pope does not give a clear, direct answer to eliminate what is an obvious and widespread controversy. I, for one, would like to see him do so.
 
Sy_Noe said:
This is confusing on a Catholic site. I’m unsure if you are suggesting the person who faithful Catholics believe to be the vicar of Christ in the year of our Lord 2017 could be undermining the Catholic faith. :confused:
Click to expand...
He could. To be clear, I’m not saying that Pope Francis has done so…but it isn’t without historical precedent. Popes have misled the faithful. John XXII comes to mind. Honorius too. Papal infallibility is very rarely exercised. The Church’s infallibility is normally exercised by the episcopate as a whole, united to the Bishop of Rome.
 
Brassring said:
The Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith has already stated that doctrine has not changed. The fact that Pope Francis did not expand on that clearly indicates that he believes that doctrine has not changed. So, to say that the Vatican hasn’t responded is false.

But, I don’t believe it’s an answer the Cardinals are looking for. They are looking for Pope Francis to either declare that he was wrong, thereby weakening his influence on the Church, or to declare that he was right, so the Cardinals can denounce him for error.

This entire situation has been handled in a way that weakens the unity of the faithful by intentionally undermining the Pope. THAT is the goal here. It’s ugly, repugnant politics.

Absolutely. Nothing. More.
Click to expand...
If the Pope’s position is that nothing has changed, why does the Vatican remain silent as Argentina, Germany, Malta, Sicily, and** even the Diocese of Rome itself**, issues new guidelines allowing those who are divorced and remarried to receive under certain circumstances? I’m not commenting on whether the Pope is right or wrong to remain silent…I’m simply saying it seems silly to think he doesn’t approve of what’s happening.
 
If you read Amoris Laetitia, Chapter 8, paragraphs 300-305 (The paragraphs cited in the dubia), the meaning is very clear: There may exist certain circumstances under which moral culpability can be mitigated, and a person in a sinful circumstance, and conscious of the probable continuation of that circumstance, can be absolved and granted the sacraments. It simply urges that pastors attempt to be merciful as Christ is merciful, and to view the rules as a roadmap to grace and the love of Christ, and not as fences to keep out the unworthy.

The statement by the Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith simply states that this has always been the doctrine of the Church, even if it hasn’t always been the practice. Amoris Laetitia seems to be an attempt to align practice with existing doctrine.

The resistance seems to come from people who are angry that practices might change, and that others to whom they’ve become accustomed to feeling superior might be just as good of Christians as they are. It’s the monster of holier-than-thou rearing its head.
 
My gut feeling is that many of the people who strongly oppose the dubia, clarity, explanations from the Pope, etc, are of the belief that Church teaching on a number of issues like divorce, homosexuality and contraception is changing, and because they support those changes, they don’t want to see anything coming along that would jeopardize them by bringing it front and center before the entire Catholic world. As one pro-homosexual writer put it, One day Church rejection of Same Sex Marriage will go the way of burning heretics at the stake". I don’t think it’s a coincedence that everyone I see who supports the dubia is traditional and nearly everyone I see who opposes it is liberal.
 
Seamus_L said:
…I don’t think it’s a coincedence that everyone I see who supports the dubia is traditional and nearly everyone I see who opposes it is liberal.
Click to expand...
I guess I’m the exception to that rule.
 
Brassring said:
The bishops have a duty to guide their individual dioceses to the best of their ability in accordance with and UNDER THE AUTHORITY of their superiors. They have NO duty to attempt to make a world-wide issue out of it. They have NO duty to attempt to foment discontent with a pope with whom they have obvious theological differences.

I’m trying very hard not to assume that these four cardinals are attempting to drive Pope Francis to resign so that they may replace him with someone more to their liking, but every thing I read in regard to this so-called dubia makes that more difficult.
Click to expand...
They DO have the duty to follow their formed conscience, just as you and I have that duty.

You seem to be insinuating that these bishops are dishonest in what they are doing and why they are doing it.
 
Brassring said:
If you read Amoris Laetitia, Chapter 8, paragraphs 300-305 (The paragraphs cited in the dubia), the meaning is very clear: There may exist certain circumstances under which moral culpability can be mitigated, and a person in a sinful circumstance, and conscious of the probable continuation of that circumstance, can be absolved and granted the sacraments. **It simply urges that pastors attempt to be merciful as Christ is merciful, and to view the rules as a roadmap to grace and the love of Christ, and not as fences to keep out the unworthy.

The statement by the Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith simply states that this has always been the doctrine of the Church, even if it hasn’t always been the practice. Amoris Laetitia seems to be an attempt to align practice with existing doctrine.**

The resistance seems to come from people who are angry that practices might change, and that others to whom they’ve become accustomed to feeling superior might be just as good of Christians as they are. It’s the monster of holier-than-thou rearing its head.
Click to expand...
Christ was merciful in that he forgave us our sins, and told us to sin no more. The reading of AL that seems to be supported by the Pope is that we should be forgiven with no intention of sinning no more because of “mitigating circumstances”. This needs clarification. Now this can only be read one way, or the other. It can not be read, as you suggest the Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith says, that nothing has changed but we have just found that living in adultery is no longer adultery. This subparagraph is a new invention if it says what the Germans say it says. If it does not, it is unnecessary. It cannot both be what the Germans/Maltese/Argentinians/etc say it is and be in line with Pope Benedict, Pope Saint John Paul II, Pope Paul VI, and all the way down the line, as they expressly condemn such a view.

I would ask, as I believe the Cardinals have asked, in what mitigating circumstance can a person refuse to repent but be forgiven? If there is none, why is this footnote there at all?
 
Seamus_L said:
My gut feeling is that many of the people who strongly oppose the dubia, clarity, explanations from the Pope, etc, are of the belief that Church teaching on a number of issues like divorce, homosexuality and contraception is changing, and because they support those changes, they don’t want to see anything coming along that would jeopardize them by bringing it front and center before the entire Catholic world. As one pro-homosexual writer put it, One day Church rejection of Same Sex Marriage will go the way of burning heretics at the stake". I don’t think it’s a coincedence that everyone I see who supports the dubia is traditional and nearly everyone I see who opposes it is liberal.
Click to expand...
I agree. These are the very same people who believe the Church is outdated and is “out of steps” with the world. In their eyes, the Church must change to accommodate the “changing” will of men–not the will of Christ. Of course, in doing that, the Church would no longer be obedient to Christ, and would cease to belong to Christ.
 
How can his Holiness Pope Francis grant a personal audience with many from all faiths and walks of life (which is definitely acts of Christian love)and disregard and ignore these Cardinals merely requesting clarification on a matter which reflects an obvious departure from that which The Holy Catholic Church has recognized as stressing that the Church does not recognize divorce…this is supposed to be the year of mercy (which the Church has always extended) not extend the same to these well meaning Prelates respectfully requesting a response…instead of making these individuals out to be trouble makers…anyone not believing the Church is not in crisis…well…now I’m respectfully requesting some substantitive response/answer…Pax Tecum
 
Brassring said:
The bishops have a duty to guide their individual dioceses to the best of their ability in accordance with and UNDER THE AUTHORITY of their superiors. They have NO duty to attempt to make a world-wide issue out of it. They have NO duty to attempt to foment discontent with a pope with whom they have obvious theological differences.

I’m trying very hard not to assume that these four cardinals are attempting to drive Pope Francis to resign so that they may replace him with someone more to their liking, but every thing I read in regard to this so-called dubia makes that more difficult.
Click to expand...
Yup. They are trying to force his hand. It won’t end well.
You can’t tell me that they have NO CLUE what he is trying to teach them. :rolleyes:
 
I love Pope Francis, and I know that he has been ambiguous on purpose in order to be as loving and merciful as possible. However, by being so ambiguous and by refusing to answer very simple questions in order to leave it ambiguous is doing no one any good. In fact, it is causing divisions in the Church that we do not need and should not be having. I pray that he realizes this and stops hemming and hawing over this issue.

May God bless you all! 🙂
 
twf said:
If the Pope’s position is that nothing has changed, why does the Vatican remain silent as Argentina, Germany, Malta, Sicily, and** even the Diocese of Rome itself**, issues new guidelines allowing those who are divorced and remarried to receive under certain circumstances? I’m not commenting on whether the Pope is right or wrong to remain silent…I’m simply saying it seems silly to think he doesn’t approve of what’s happening.
Click to expand...
Wise comment.

It will get much worse before getting much worse…
 
omgriley said:
I’m sorry, but at what point do we lay the blame for the scandal at the Holy Father’s feet? You say that it’s shameful the Cardinals would put this out into the public, yet it never would have come to this unless the Holy Father simply answered their questions. The Cardinals’ sincere (and reasonable) questions have gone unanswered for over a year. The request for a private audience was handed to the Francis nearly 7 weeks ago. What the Cardinals are asking for isn’t beyond the pale, or unreasonable.

Is it political? Sure, you can call it that. Is it outrageous? Not in the least. It’s merely trying to force the Pope to offer clarity, which is quite frankly something which shouldn’t require such effort.

And don’t give me the righteous indignation for dragging this out in the public. The Apostles themselves were keen on this tactic. St. Paul confronted St. Peter publicly about eating with Jews…

Perhaps we should respectfully and charitably urge the Holy Father to respond to these concerns and put this whole thing to rest once and for all.
Click to expand...
Well said:thumbsup:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top