Four cardinals seek audience with Pope over doctrinal ‘confusion’

[Peebo]

One of the Cardinals…an American…has been smarting ever since being demoted by Pope Francis…
nola.com/religion/index.ssf/2014/11/cardinal_raymond_burke_demoted.html

 

[unafraid]

I believe that Pope Francis, faithful disciple of Jesus Christ, and a churchman who has time and again demonstrated heroic fidelity to the Catholic Church, will come forth with a proper, inspired response to all of this discord. And, I believe it will be the Holy Spirit who guides him, since our pontif is a genuine man of God.

As for Cardinal Burke: intuitively, and instinctively, I am led to question his motivations. Something about his machinations regarding this matter unsettles me. His ways do not appeal to me at all. He has set himself in direct opposition to the Holy Father. I, for one, stand firmly beside Pope Francis. And, I can assure you, I am no “liberal”.

 

[Randolph]

As for Cardinal Burke: intuitively, and instinctively, I am led to question his motivations. Something about his machinations regarding this matter unsettles me. His ways do not appeal to me at all. He has set himself in direct opposition to the Holy Father. I, for one, stand firmly beside Pope Francis. And, I can assure you, I am no “liberal”.

Would you provide specific examples (not innuendos, not hearsay) that Cardinal Burke has done throughout this process that made you feel the way you feel about Him? I don’t intend to pick a fight. Rather, I just want to know the facts.

 

[irenaeus1]

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?

The cardinals are not creating a scandal; they are simply exposing the scandal that already exists.

Pope Francis should respond; after all, it is Pope Francis who advocates dialogue and speaking about the gospel with frankness. Besides, the cardinals are speaking on behalf of numerous other bishops and bishops conferences, hundreds of priests, scholars, and theologians, and many thousands of lay faithful who have petitioned the same.

 

[Seamus_L]

Cardinal Zen of China, one of 15 Bishops who supports the other 4 Cardinals who wrote the Dubia, has referred to the tone of the request as very respectful.

 

[irenaeus1]

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 like your response and will give it some thought. The issue I see though is not the severity of the rule that allows no exceptions, but rather exceptions becoming the rule. One could argue that the Argentine bishops provided guidelines that provided certain boundaries around the accompaniment and certainly mentioned that this did not mean all D&R could now approach Holy Communion. But Malta seemed to go beyond AL stating that in the final analysis, it simply comes down to whether one feels it acceptable with God. And what of the Mass that recently occurred where all D&R were invited to participate in Holy Communion; i.e., no accompaniment or discernment regarding individual situations. Even if one allows for AL to ‘loosen’ discipline, these examples are clearly out of bounds with no correction from the pope.

 

[Richard_White]

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

They are a list of five simple “yes” or “no” questions relating to whether or not divorce and remarriage constitutes continuous habitual sin that cannot be absolved in Confession and whether or not personal conscience outweighs absolute moral Truth.

The answer to these questions is a resounding NO, and for the Pope to dodge these questions is quite inappropriate.

May God bless you all!