Four cardinals seek audience with Pope over doctrinal ‘confusion’

[Seamus_L]

People who oppose the dubia remind me of teenagers who’s parents are going away for the weekend and who have told the kids several times to behave yourselves while we’re away, but have never specifically mentioned staying out of the liquor cabinet. And since the liquor cabinet was not specifically mentioned, the teens are certainly not going to bring the issue up.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

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.

As an Orthodox Christian with no horse in this particular race, I have to say that your attitude towards bishops not governing Rome is incredible to me. They are successors of the apostles. You make them sound like underlings.

 

[Sy_Noe]

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.

As a non practicing Catholic, I have no dog in this hunt but I don’t know why there are faithful Catholics here who resist. You point out there may be mitigating circumstances in which a person can be absolved in such a way to receive the sacraments in this day and time and it is an attempt to align practice with doctrine. So perhaps it is what Jesus wants the faithful to understand.

 

[twf]

As an Orthodox Christian with no horse in this particular race, I have to say that your attitude towards bishops not governing Rome is incredible to me. They are successors of the apostles. You make them sound like underlings.

I made a similar comment in my response to that same post…from the Catholic perspective. While I fully acknowledge papal primacy, the Second Vatican Council specifically clarified that the bishops are NOT to be considered mere deputies of the Pope. They are vicars of Christ in their own right.

 

[OraLabora]

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.

I suspect you may be right. It reminds me of the Pharisees always trying to spring a trap on Jesus. By not answering personally, Pope Francis answered.

I guess I’m the exception to that rule.

Likewise. I’m just a faithful, orthodox Catholic. Loves Jesus, loves Gregorian chant, hates sin, anti-abortion.

I live in Canada, the French part. We have a saying in French “l’exception confirme la règle” which means “the exception confirms the rule”. Any rule that fails to recognize that there may be exceptions that mercy demands, is not a rule fit for humans. What the footnote in Chapter 8 says basically is that there are some exceptional circumstances where the full application of the rule would be grossly unfair, and any merciful rule will consider those circumstances.

In effect this reinforces the “rule” and gives it credibility, by not demanding the impossible. The rule should serve mankind and not mankind serve the rule.

Just because we don’t hand out speeding tickets to ambulances and fire trucks, does not undermine the value of speed limits. If we did hand out speeding tickets to emergency vehicles and someone died as a result, there would be mass protests and lawlessness against speed limits and the enforcing authorities, and both would lose credibility.

The footnote that drives strict legalists crazy in facts puts tight boundaries around a praxis that many acknowledge was already in place, quietly, in many places. Maybe they fear precedents, coming from a Common Law background where lawmaking is often based on precedent.

I think if one reads ALL of AL, the context becomes clearer, and the thinking and doctrine become clearly orthodox.

 

[Randolph]

I made a similar comment in my response to that same post…from the Catholic perspective. While I fully acknowledge papal primacy, the Second Vatican Council specifically clarified that the bishops are NOT to be considered mere deputies of the Pope. They are vicars of Christ in their own right.

Hence, the phrase: “First among equals”

 

[petra22]

ChurchSoldier:
Wise comment.

It will get much worse before getting much worse…

^ I read that! But it’s late and I had to read it again…!

 

[petra22]

I suspect you may be right. It reminds me of the Pharisees always trying to spring a trap on Jesus. By not answering personally, Pope Francis answered.

Likewise. I’m just a faithful, orthodox Catholic. Loves Jesus, loves Gregorian chant, hates sin, anti-abortion.

I live in Canada, the French part. We have a saying in French “l’exception confirme la règle” which means “the exception confirms the rule”. Any rule that fails to recognize that there may be exceptions that mercy demands, is not a rule fit for humans. What the footnote in Chapter 8 says basically is that there are some exceptional circumstances where the full application of the rule would be grossly unfair, and any merciful rule will consider those circumstances.

In effect this reinforces the “rule” and gives it credibility, by not demanding the impossible. The rule should serve mankind and not mankind serve the rule.

Just because we don’t hand out speeding tickets to ambulances and fire trucks, does not undermine the value of speed limits. If we did hand out speeding tickets to emergency vehicles and someone died as a result, there would be mass protests and lawlessness against speed limits and the enforcing authorities, and both would lose credibility.

The footnote that drives strict legalists crazy in facts puts tight boundaries around a praxis that many acknowledge was already in place, quietly, in many places. Maybe they fear precedents, coming from a Common Law background where lawmaking is often based on precedent.

I think if one reads ALL of AL, the context becomes clearer, and the thinking and doctrine become clearly orthodox.

I maybe see your point… thinking…

 

[unafraid]

I guess I’m the exception to that rule.

You are not an exception to any rule, because no such rule exists. It is a blatantly false statement. It presumes falsely that the vast majority of practicing Roman Catholics, who support, respect and love the Holy Father, are to be categorized as liberals(a term of derision, to be sure).

Pope Francis should never…ever…respond to such heavy-handed, calculated, and as I see it, disingenuous proddings. Regardless of how hard he tries to portray himself as the champion of doctrine, and tradition, Cardinal Burke, more and more, is showing himself to be a very controversial figure, and one which seems to be fighting a private, personal war…in public.

Quite honestly, and objectively, he is creating a scandal. It is reprehensible, and shocking, at this point. No good comes from such public consternations. What has happened to fidelity?

 

[CHCL]

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.

Honestly, I have almost lost all faith from this scandal that is Communion for divorced and remarried. It seems like everyone is trying to cope in order to fit their beliefs. Frankly, it seems like the pope is in favor of communion for the divorced and civically remarried. It is a sin, it is clearly obvious from bible scripture. It has been hashed here a hundred times, so I won’t go into the argument. Why people are saying it is not an issue is beyond me.

Pope Francis, if he desires a strong church, NEEDS to respond, simply so we can know. I have one life and I want to live it in accordance with the truth, whatever it may be. He should show us what the church teaches, so people can make an informed decision.

 

[_Abyssinia]

You are not an exception to any rule, because no such rule exists. It is a blatantly false statement. It presumes falsely that the vast majority of practicing Roman Catholics, who support, respect and love the Holy Father, are to be categorized as liberals(a term of derision, to be sure).

Pope Francis should never…ever…respond to such heavy-handed, calculated, and as I see it, disingenuous proddings. Regardless of how hard he tries to portray himself as the champion of doctrine, and tradition, Cardinal Burke, more and more, is showing himself to be a very controversial figure, and one which seems to be fighting a private, personal war…in public.

Quite honestly, and objectively, he is creating a scandal. It is reprehensible, and shocking, at this point. No good comes from such public consternations. What has happened to fidelity?

I think you are unfairly impugning the motive.

I think Cardinal Burke holds Pope Francis as the Vicar of Christ in high asteem, but he has concerns regarding Amoris Latetia. Pope Francis is not obligated to respond to the dubia and that is his right but I commend Cardinal Burke and the other Cardinals for trying to get further clarity. You can love and respect Pope Francis while still having serious concerns about what is happening in regards to perhaps differing interpretations etc. regarding Amoris Latetia.

 

[Memaw]

I think you are unfairly impugning the motive.

I think Cardinal Burke holds Pope Francis as the Vicar of Christ in high asteem, but he has concerns regarding Amoris Latetia. Pope Francis is not obligated to respond to the dubia and that is his right but I commend Cardinal Burke and the other Cardinals for trying to get further clarity. You can love and respect Pope Francis while still having serious concerns about what is happening in regards to perhaps differing interpretations etc. regarding Amoris Latetia.

I agree and the Church has always taught one cannot receive Holy Communion in the state of Mortal Sin. Not event the Pope can give us permission to do that!! It is very dangerous to leave the faithful in such a confusing state. I am NOT confused as to what the Church teaches but many are and many will certainly take advantage of all this confusion. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Randolph]

I think you are unfairly impugning the motive.

I think Cardinal Burke holds Pope Francis as the Vicar of Christ in high asteem, but he has concerns regarding Amoris Latetia. Pope Francis is not obligated to respond to the dubia and that is his right but I commend Cardinal Burke and the other Cardinals for trying to get further clarity. You can love and respect Pope Francis while still having serious concerns about what is happening in regards to perhaps differing interpretations etc. regarding Amoris Latetia.

Absolutely… Cardinal Burke and the Dubia cardinals are pursuing clarification out of personal duty and for the love of the Church. To suggest otherwise is wrong and misguided.

Time, action and in-action in recent years have revealed the true thinking of Pope Francis and of his supporting cardinals and bishops. The strategy for this thinking started prior to the Synod on the Families. The words and behaviors of Cardinals Marx, Caspers, Cupich, etc… (I spoke with the pope himself, not a branch of Rome, inviolable conscience, charges of rigidity, lack of mercy and fundamentalism, leaking and tampering of Synod documents, etc) showed what was to come.

I hope and pray a change of hearts and true conversion of those involved wanting to change Church doctrine. Other than that, I do not foresee a clarity forthcoming any time soon. The fight against the Dubia cardinals will be nasty.

 

[Memaw]

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.

We NEED to learn what Infallibility really means. It’s not as rare as that and the Pope can speak Infallibly by himself. But he CANNOT TEACH INFALLIBLY ABOUT SOMETHING THAT IS ERRONEOUS! THE HOLY SPIRIT WILL NOT ALLOW IT. Our Lord promised His Church would NEVER error. Trust HIM!! God Bless, Memaw

 

[commenter]

I think if one reads ALL of AL, the context becomes clearer, and the thinking and doctrine become clearly orthodox.

Agreed.
The problem is that documents **today **need to be not only free from unorthodox interpretation on the whole, but also free from unorthodox interpretation in all their parts.

Very, very few people will read ALL of documents like AL. They will be influenced by people outside the Church, and some inside the Church, who will respond to, and implement things, based on **parts **of documents.

Those writers, teachers, and implementers may or may not intend to quote Pope Francis out of context. Some do, some do not, have an agenda they want to push, by citing one part and ignoring many other parts.

Pope Francis’ 2 predecessors were, I think, careful to ensure that documents had no loose ends that could be easily be implemented out of context. It is the implementation, not the whole document, that impacts on people. I suspect it is not so much the difference in popes but the difference in proofreaders. You can’t make a document that is totally foolproof, but some documents are much less vulnerable than others.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Yet this does not deny that failure to demonstrate heroic virtue is rarely personally mortally sinful.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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!

Pray tell what are the “simple” questions?
Perhaps which of many wives a man is married to in the next life?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

the Church has always taught one cannot receive Holy Communion in the state of Mortal Sin… I am NOT confused as to what the Church teaches …

Where does Canon Law state that priests may halt approaching Communicants they believe to be without sanctifying grace? You do seem a little confused on this point.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

We NEED to learn what Infallibility really means. It’s not as rare as that and the Pope can speak Infallibly by himself. But he CANNOT TEACH INFALLIBLY ABOUT SOMETHING THAT IS ERRONEOUS! THE HOLY SPIRIT WILL NOT ALLOW IT. Our Lord promised His Church would NEVER error. Trust HIM!! God Bless, Memaw

Soo…if the Holy Spirit is allowing it…then dissidents perhaps need to put intellectual pride on hold and humility on go and bear their personal confusion in patient silence until the dawn breaks .

 

[JimG]

Monsignor Nicola Bux, former consultor to the CDF, says “we are in a full crisis of faith.”

Theologian and former consulter to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith calls on the Pope to make a declaration of faith, warning that unless the Pope safeguards doctrine, he cannot impose discipline. from the Natl Cath. Register here.