Interview with Archbishop Paglia - Gamechanger?

  • Thread starter Thread starter oppositeman13
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Cardinal Kasper is usually invoked as the “theologian” behind the radical attempts of some to undo the traditional teaching of the Church. Mentioning him is perfectly relevant. Would that there were more shock regarding propagation of heresy than daring to question what a cleric…even a cardinal…says.
 
repentant active “adulterers” access to Confession and so Communion.

the key word is “repentant” - did they make a firm resolution to not commit this sin again? If so, then that is very different that allowing communion for the remarried without confession and the firm commitment to stop their sexual relations.
 
Question: Did JPII break completely with tradition and allow Confession and Communion to remarried couples (even if sexually active)?
Answer: Yes he did.
 
Last edited:
oppositeman13 said:
but as the vicar of Christ that is his job - to call all of humanity to Catholicism and not to make Catholicism easier or different so the world is more accepting of it’s teachings.
Click to expand...
19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; 20 and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law,[c] that I might win those who are under the law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God,[d] but under law toward Christ[e]), that I might win those who are without law; 22 to the weak I became as[f] weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. - 1 Corinthians 9
 
ok so we have to assume that these people stopped living in sin. But this is not what is happening now - now they don’t have to confess and still can receive - a big difference I would say. Remember confession is void if you don’t really have in your heart to work at getting rid of the sins you just confessed.
 
Last edited:
Adhering to scripture and it’s implementation in official catholic teaching trumps everything else. It has always been that way and needs to remain that way.
 
Last edited:
The observation remains.
Pope JPII is far more a breaker of Communion tradition than Pope Francis.

JPII for the first time in Church history gave some of those in invalid second marriages access to Communion.

And he went further still, they could also access Confession.
This means they can still receive Communion even when they regularly fail in their commitment to abstain…without limit.

Why do people complain about Pope Francis.

The damn has already cracked.
Active adulterers, of the continuously “repentant” sort, have already breached the ancient teaching since 1983.

Pope Francis and AL is but commentary now.
 
Last edited:
if what you say is true - and please excuse me as I do not have the knowledge you do - then what is all the fuss about? - you make it sound like the traditionalists have not a leg to stand on. Why hasn’t the pope made these changes in the correct manner? - ie convene a council of cardinals and have them vote to “extend” or “clarify” official teaching? It seems to me this would have avoided the mess we are in. The pope must have very good reason to bypass official channels and do what he is doing with the help of some clergy.

You seem to be saying that since the door has been opened previously lets take down the wall that the door was a part of. If what you say applies to them then you can apply it to all sinners - thereby making a joke of confession.
 
Last edited:
oppositeman13 said:
Adhering to scripture and it’s implementation in official catholic teaching trumps everything else
Click to expand...
As long as you are using it in the present tense, I still disagree with you. Implementation can change. How we put teaching into practice is not doctrine. However, the Catholic Church teaches the primacy of conscience. That too is a Catholic doctrine. Nothing can be said to “trump everything else” without this factor.
if what you say is true - and please excuse me as I do not have the knowledge you do - then what is all the fuss about?
Click to expand...
St. John Paul had just as much “fuss” in his day from traditionalists, even to the point some committed schism. He too did not answer every accusation made by everyone. That does not mean this issue does not need more of an answer, only that it is not unprecedented.
 
Last edited:
there has to be a “reasonable” application - that should by a council of cardinals to do this. Teaching cannot conflict with doctrine in any way but I guess its all in the understanding of it.

Any way, I follow a theologian of facebook and just saw this post he made - a piece of it here -

In summary, if Pope Francis were to answer the first question as “yes,” then it follows that Familiaris Consortio, 84—and subsequently reaffirmed by Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 34—and Sacramentum Caritatis, 29, is in error and, therefore AL, would be the real truth. Furthermore, FC would then not have been a definitive and authentic act of the magisterium of the previous Pope, St. John Paul, who taught precisely the opposite. Living in an invalid marriage, one need not make a voluntary commitment, not merely a simple velleity or wish, to live as brother and sister (continence) before one can be absolved of sin, and receive holy communion. If this teaching was erroneous in practice, why? Impossible to practice?

If the answer to questions two through five is “no,” then VS 79, 81, and 56, are either erroneous, or could AL’s teaching in this area be erroneous? Further, Matthew 19:3-9, forbidding divorce and remarriage, is to be treated as an ideal of Jesus to strive for, and not a real precept of the Lord. Is this true? Furthermore, while a Pope may answer “no” by force of his office, he cannot yet appeal to an evolution of doctrine because this teaching, on the surface, contradicts previous, settled and definitive doctrine, and does not deepen the teaching, but undermines it. If previous teachings were based on Sacred Scripture and Tradition, then could this new teaching be in serious error? Since Pope St. John Paul taught these doctrines as definitive, not as opinions, and therefore fell under canon 752, #2, how can the Holy Spirit, as it were, “speak out of both sides of his mouth?” In VS 105, the “attitude of the Pharisee” is “expressed particularly in the attempt to adapt the moral norm to one’s own capacities and personal interests.” Or do the new pastoral relaxations, based on discernment, mean that the old moral norms were pharisaical ones? Did Pope St. John Paul objectively deceive the Church as Al suggests? the article continues
 
Last edited:
oppositeman13 said:
Living in an invalid marriage, one need not make a voluntary commitment, not merely a simple velleity or wish, to live as brother and sister (continence) before one can be absolved of sin, and receive holy communion. If this teaching was erroneous in practice, why? Impossible to practice?
Click to expand...
I have a problem when I come across a basic logic error. One simply cannot have conclusions that are sound on a road of errors, anymore than a math problem can be solved while making mistakes in math.

The error? No one has ever said that what came before was erroneous. That is a straw man. It is possible that two things can both be true, as longs as they are not in direct contradiction. I think all those who have commented in the media about this issue have forgotten the meaning of the word “direct.”

Changing practice does not necessarily mean changing teaching, as I used with the example of baptism, which at anytime could be said to be 100% by immersion, based on doctrine, or not also based on doctrine, or by martyrdom, also based on doctrine.
 
oppositeman13 said:
you make it sound like the traditionalists have not a leg to stand on
Click to expand...
I believe I am looking for consistency of argument from all “sides”…not that I think labelling “sides” or groups (“trads”, “conservatives”, “liberals” etc) is helpful. Putting individuals in boxes is an easy excuse for not listening to their arguments thinking one has heard this line before.

Actually everbody argues from slightly different premises and its interesting that some “trads” can occasionally include a sub-point that others might put in the “liberal” camp.
oppositeman13 said:
Why hasn’t the pope made these changes in the correct manner? - ie convene a council of cardinals and have them vote to “extend” or “clarify” official teaching?
Click to expand...
You may not understand how things really work at Magisterial level in the Catholic Church.
The Pope has supreme authority in everything. Obviously he is only one man and needs an administration - currently at the Vatican and involving various departments/Congregations with head-administrators he appoints. They function semi-autonomously but they only carry out his wishes or policies. The Pope is not subject to them or even the College of Cardinals.
They are all his creatures so far as Church decisions and policy goes.

Of course it would be foolish not to take counsel from one’s peers and appointed administrators. Decisions will likely be inefficient or disruptive or mistaken if one does not seek or heed such advice regularly.

So there is no “correct manner” the Pope must conform to.
He can override any of his administrators or advisors at any time.
There is only a wise or less wise manner.

Given that the Vatican in recent decades has grown very powerful it tends to think it can control Popes and in fact does try to keep them bound and on the straight and narrow and not innovative. Possibly killing them off if they get too radical (JPI) or undermining their authority esp if they impose financial reforms (Pope Benedict). That is the human reality.

So yes, a Pope who wants to reform areas that is inimical to the Vatican apparatchik will get extreme blowback.
oppositeman13 said:
The pope must have very good reason to bypass official channels and do what he is doing with the help of some clergy.
Click to expand...
Indeed.
 
Last edited:
ok - I believe what Dr. Feser writes here at the link - in part he says:

Papal teaching, then, including exercises of the extraordinary Magisterium, cannot contradict Scripture, Tradition, or previous binding papal teaching. Nor can it introduce utter novelties. Popes have authority only to preserve and interpret what they have received. They can draw out the implications of previous teaching or clarify it where it is ambiguous. They can make formally binding what was already informally taught. But they cannot reverse past teaching and they cannot make up new doctrines out of whole cloth.


I also just posted something else - Don’t be fooled by the title. This was posted to facebook by a catholic theologian, one who was a dean of a school of theology. It is for the intelligent and very knowledgeable in this subject. It is too much for me as I do not have this in depth knowledge but I post it for those that do. Written by - REV. BASIL COLE, O.P.

www.hprweb.com

Further Dubia for the Confused - Homiletic & Pastoral Review

The Holy Father is given very special graces to guide the Catholic Church, being the successor of Peter. He is the vicar of Christ to which I adhere. Yet,
www.hprweb.com www.hprweb.com
 
Last edited:
BlackFriar said:
Question: Did JPII break completely with tradition and allow Confession and Communion to remarried couples (even if sexually active)?

Answer: Yes he did.
Click to expand...
Um…
I believe you are mistaken, and you will have to show evidence that a Pope and proclaimed Saint of the Church taught that Communion could be given to remarried people who intended to continue to be sexually active outside of the first valid marriage. In absence of undeniable proof, to say he taught this would be gravely scandalous.
 
Last edited:
Pope St. John Paul II in his 1981 apostolic exhortation Familiaris Consortio (FC):

“Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who … ‘take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.’”

Black Friar would you like to clarify your representation of Saint Pope John Paul II’s teaching?
 
Last edited:
I_trust said:
40.png
BlackFriar:
Question: Did JPII break completely with tradition and allow Confession and Communion to remarried couples (even if sexually active)?

Answer: Yes he did.
Click to expand...
Um…
I believe you are mistaken, and you will have to show evidence that a Pope and proclaimed Saint of the Church taught that Communion could be given to remarried people who intended to continue to be sexually active outside of the first valid marriage. In absence of undeniable proof, to say he taught this would be gravely scandalous.
Click to expand...
Have you closely read the last 2 days of postings?
Do you disagree that JPII broke with history and allowed those in 2nd marriages access to Confession so as to repent of sexual activity?

Question: Was this limited to one time only?
Answer: No.

Conclusion: Since the time of JPII sexually active couples in second marriages have already been admitted to Communion.

AL is not the crack in the damn.
JPIIs new teaching is.
 
Last edited:
I_trust said:
Oh, so you have proof that Pope JP1 was murdered?
Click to expand...
I am not sure why there is need for sarcasm or the demanding tone here.

You did see the word “possibly” didn’t you?
 
Last edited:
BlackFriar said:
AL is not the crack in the damn.

JPIIs new teaching is.
Click to expand...
You will have to provide the evidence.
Since It is your assertion that JPII taught this it is incumbent upon you to prove it.
Drawing your own conclusions without providing evidence is not proof.
I have provided evidence to the contrary…In the words of the document itself.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top