C
Convert_in_99
Guest
That’s actually a solid teaching of cannon law, not based on an area’s various percentage of granted annulments.
- Status
H
Havard
Guest
I haven’t been very involved in these threads, but I do feel the need to pipe in regarding this.
Respectful sharing of ideas is an important part of CAF. When CAF is what it ought to be, it is a place where people learn and grow. I know this because I have been one of the beneficiaries of it. So it’s my sincere hope that people not seek the closing of threads unless absolutely necessary, but rather try to engage in better understanding of each other.
M
MchaelPatrick
Guest
I think your second statement is a more accurate reflection of Luther’s effect on Christendom. Your first statement refers to destruction. If it was indeed destroyed, the Pope’s statement, as well as this post, would be moot. Fractured is more accurate, therefore the Pope is working in attempts to reunite the other denominations with the Catholic Church. I think in situations like this the Pope is speaking to followers of Christ and not necessarily just Catholics or Protestants.I think the Church needed reformation at the time, but the split resulted from Luther and the Church not coming to terms. I’ve read and heard that Luther had some valid points. Why can’t the Pope reference one to bring everyone closer together?
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Very good points, and thank you. Glad that I was a little clearer that second time around.
Now what I feel (I haste to point out this is what I feel, not what I am claiming others should or do feel) is that I personally was troubled, and have been troubled, with the emphasis on Martin Luther as an exemplar of how to approach the Church when there are troubles. Because no matter how valid some of his points may have been at the start (and neither I nor members of the Church, even from the get-go, have ever denied that there were some issues among individuals that needed a firmer hand to deal with them) --heck if you search some of my posts here I have noted more than once that if Martin Luther had worked patiently within the Church instead of giving up and attempting to impose his will not just on the real difficulties but on his own gradually increasing personal interpretations that he insisted be observed as gospel, that he would have probably become Saint Martin Luther.
So in that sense he is a tragic figure, in that as usual Satan tries to take what is best and brightest, and make that fall. Henry VIII is another one --a man of great gifts, “Defender of the Church” (ironically written by him against Luther!), who likewise became intoxicated by his own admitted gifts to the point of inserting himself and his will again as ‘gospel’.
But the fact remains that we have legitimate martyrs and other saints throughout history who have faced moral issues within the Church caused by individual failings and who weren’t afraid to stand up against it. Start with Athanasius (if you don’t want to go back as far as St. Paul) who stood up against even Popes swayed by the Arian heresy. Check out St. Catherine of Siena, who convinced the Pope to come out of the Babylon captivity of Avignon.
And considering that the Pope was addressing a specific document which is addressed not to non-Catholics but to CATHOLICS, to pick as a reference Martin Luther, knowing that many Catholics were already uncomfortable with the events of last month, was pretty pointed. NOT that I, for example, am criticizing the Pope, criticizing ecumenism, judging him, etc. I am not. I am, as I said, seeking enlightenment and with (I trust) a sincere heart. I am willing to bend over backward, as it were, to see the best possible reasons, but I am NOT Dr Pangloss and I don’t think any Catholic should be, lest we become complacent and judgmental. Again, not finding fault with the Pope in any way, just wondering why things ‘are what they are’, and hoping through prayer and discernment to be able to do what all Catholics should, know, love, and serve the Lord in this world and the next.
J
josh987654321
Guest
What! That is the most stupid thing I have ever heard. I’m certainly not commemorating it. Why not make him a saint too? an inspiration for others to follow in leaving the Church and starting their own, good idea.
“For the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.”Thank you for reading
Josh
K
KSU
Guest
I did nothing wrong. The thread itself was going against forum rules by disrespecting the clergy and our Holy Father
**That’s not true, my friend. There were well over 400 posts, and would have been closed earlier if your accusations against posters had been true. **
the moderator agreed and the thread was locked.
The thread was closed because you and a confederate were getting upset and accusatory, rather than using the PM function.
It turns out this thread is discussing a separate article (which I didn’t realize at first as the thread titles were almost identical.) So long as it doesn’t disrespect clergy or our Pope it shouldn’t get locked.
Of course it’s a separate article, but it is the same abstract issue as in the closed thread: The Holy Father says something that is hardly clear to all Catholics; posters explain why they are confused, and do so in a referential manner as is there absolute right under both Church and forum rules; and you object and bring in the moderator.
C
Convert_in_99
Guest
What! That is the most stupid thing I have ever heard. I’m certainly not commemorating it. Why not make him a saint too? an inspiration for others to follow in leaving the Church and starting their own, good idea.
Thank you for reading
Josh
Woah! You do realize Don Ruggero is a priest, right?
K
kyrie03
Guest
Does anyone know where to find a more thorough article on the “lengthy interview with the Italian Catholic daily ‘Avvenire’”?
A filial appeal was signed by some 800,000 Catholics a year or so ago requesting clarity on the Church’s unchangeable teachings on marriage and sacraments (especially marriage and reconciliation), 45 theologians signed an appeal and sent to all 218 Cardinals and Patriarchs (including Pope Francis) requesting clarification of apparent errors in Amoris Laetitia, and now, –perhaps motivated by the silence- 4 Cardinals have sent the Dubia Intervention in order to to “untie the knots in AL.” The purpose of these requests is simple: to bring unity to the Church polarized and divided by the lack of clarity.
Threads attempting to discuss the confusion have resulted in misunderstandings, mischaracterizations, suspension of members, and threads being locked from further discussion or resolution. How can this Forum claim to aim for charity if past Magisterial and papal teachings are deemed too divisive to discuss?
If Avvenire is indeed a lengthy interview of Pope Francis about Amoris Laetitia (as the linked article claims), it would perhaps help clear up some of the confusion and bad feelings expressed between fellow Catholics.
The quotes in the article attributed to Pope Francis are not at all helpful in de-polarizing these serious concerns causing division and separation of past Magisterial teaching and various interpretations of AL today.
A filial appeal was signed by some 800,000 Catholics a year or so ago requesting clarity on the Church’s unchangeable teachings on marriage and sacraments (especially marriage and reconciliation), 45 theologians signed an appeal and sent to all 218 Cardinals and Patriarchs (including Pope Francis) requesting clarification of apparent errors in Amoris Laetitia, and now, –perhaps motivated by the silence- 4 Cardinals have sent the Dubia Intervention in order to to “untie the knots in AL.” The purpose of these requests is simple: to bring unity to the Church polarized and divided by the lack of clarity.
Threads attempting to discuss the confusion have resulted in misunderstandings, mischaracterizations, suspension of members, and threads being locked from further discussion or resolution. How can this Forum claim to aim for charity if past Magisterial and papal teachings are deemed too divisive to discuss?
If Avvenire is indeed a lengthy interview of Pope Francis about Amoris Laetitia (as the linked article claims), it would perhaps help clear up some of the confusion and bad feelings expressed between fellow Catholics.
The quotes in the article attributed to Pope Francis are not at all helpful in de-polarizing these serious concerns causing division and separation of past Magisterial teaching and various interpretations of AL today.
R
Randolph
Guest
Would St. Thomas More be considered legalistic and fundamentaliistic? He placed God’s laws above the wishes and needs of his earthly king. The martyred saint said: “I die as the king’s good servant, and God’s first.”
J
josh987654321
Guest
Yes.
What! That is the most stupid thing I have ever heard. I’m certainly not commemorating it. Why not make him a saint too? an inspiration for others to follow in leaving the Church and starting their own, good idea.Don Ruggero;14294977 said:
Thank you for reading
Josh
My apologies, I shouldn’t have been sarcastic, just very frustrated. And I certainly will not be commemorating such an event nor having anything to do with a 500th year anniversary commemoration (The reformation is not something the Catholic Church commemorates, it is something she mourns). For the Church or even our Holy Father Pope Francis to ‘commemorate’ such a thing is scandalous in the extreme!
For the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.Thank you for reading
Josh
C
Convert_in_99
Guest
Yes, it may be in everyone’s best interest for this to be banned topic until it is cleared up.
M
Mongo
Guest
The pope should have an assistant that intervenes to prevent him from saying stupid things. He comes off as arrogant in the article.
C
Convert_in_99
Guest
I don’t know. He was counter-reformer so I’m sure he ruffled a few Vatican tail feathers.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
No he was not. St Thomas More was the Lord Chancellor under Henry VIII (appointed prior to Henry’s decision to break with Rome). He was a secular figure, not in orders. But like most people prior to the fracturing of Christendom, he (and Henry too) viewed himself as serving GOD above all. Countries were Christian first, and ‘nationalist’ second. He was a co-martyr with Bishop St. John Fisher who was the ONLY one of the bishops serving England under Henry who did NOT kowtow and accept the King’s decision to declare himself the Head of the Church in England. They were executed in 1533.I don’t know. He was counter-reformer so I’m sure he ruffled a few Vatican tail feathers.
The Counter Reformation took place later in history, roughly 1560 to 1648.
Why would you think a ‘counter reformer’ would 'ruffle a few “Vatican” tail feathers? These men and women were the ones trying to HELP the Pope and their fellow Catholics. Many were great martyrs. Check out St Edmund Campion.
C
Convert_in_99
Guest
My mistake on St Thomas Moore being a counter-reformer, just double checked the list and he wasn’t there.
The Pope and the higher ups didn’t enjoy being told they were wrong. The counter-reformers also told the church what it was doing wrong. Only they didn’t try to start a new “Church” just improved the existing one.
Yes I realize that many of the CR’s became Saints and some were martyrs!
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
I think that if would be very helpful if you would better acquaint yourself with the history of the Reformation and Counter Reformation. Could you give examples to bolster your assertion above?My mistake on St Thomas Moore being a counter-reformer, just double checked the list and he wasn’t there.
The Pope and the higher ups didn’t enjoy being told they were wrong. The counter-reformers also told the church what it was doing wrong. Only they didn’t try to start a new “Church” just improved the existing one.
Yes I realize that many of the CR’s became Saints and some were martyrs!
Just exactly what were the Pope and higher ups ‘wrong’ about, and ‘upset about being told?’
C
Convert_in_99
Guest
Wikipedia.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-Reformation
The Pope was unashamedly allowing the sale of indulgences for one. There were few other things listed.
The Council of Trent (as I’m sure you well know) is where these wrongs were discussed and corrected and our Catholic teachings were reaffirmed.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Ah, Wiki. . .
Unashamedly allowing? Which Pope? How long? Where?
“These wrongs”. . . oh, like priests who didn’t know enough Latin to give their (supposedly illiterate folk) decent teaching. Personal excesses (like they were epidemic and there was never a real sheepy-smelling cleric in that era). . .
Glad you note ‘few other things’.
One criticism I have of Wiki is that while it can be a halfway decent first step, few if any people actually use it appropriately. Reliable articles have these things called footnotes which show what primary sources were used. The idea is that people use the article to get a kind of summary and then go and explore those sources to round out and get the full details.
I’m still waiting for the example of the “Popes and other clerics didn’t like being told they were wrong’. Because I did not read that in the articles. Maybe you could give me an example? I like to have facts. I like to have somebody tell me something like, “Pope X, when he was approached by Reformer A and told that he was not doing something right and would have to change it, reacted by doing C, writing B, excommunicating A, etc. etc.” And not things like “Popes and other bigwigs got really angry when they were told they were wrong” and then just hearing 'indulgences” (I mean, come on. From 1520 to 1650 the Church was doing this consistently enough that everybody was noticing, and commenting, and then it was actually specifically addressed as a real no-no and anathematized at Trent and yet they did it for another 70 years? Really?) and not having any examples of who got angry and what they did. .
R
Randolph
Guest
St. Thomas More, a patron saint of statemen and politicians, was martyred/beheaded for his faith and his steadfast obedience to God’s and Church’s laws. In particular, he was faithful to the Church’s position on the indissolubility of marriage–namely, the marriage between King Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon. Tragically, Catherine was also later beheaded as a result of her insistence of her indissoluble marriage with Henry VIII.My mistake on St Thomas Moore being a counter-reformer, just double checked the list and he wasn’t there.
The Pope and the higher ups didn’t enjoy being told they were wrong. The counter-reformers also told the church what it was doing wrong. Only they didn’t try to start a new “Church” just improved the existing one.
Yes I realize that many of the CR’s became Saints and some were martyrs!
In today’s environment, why couldn’t one argue that St. Thomas More held a legalistic and fundamentalist view about his king’s marriage? And that the governing bishop on his own accord and judgment could decide, after examining Henry’s unique needs and extraordinary circumstance, an annulment would be justified?
J
josh987654321
Guest
I don’t think it would, It may be in the best interest of those who would rather not discuss it or concern themselves with it, but that would be denial, if it were to be banned, it would simply stop anyone from discussing it, and it would be a major elephant in the room, further making it harder to discuss other issues, as there are underlying issues that have been left unresolved.Yes, it may be in everyone’s best interest for this to be banned topic until it is cleared up.
A 500th year anniversary commemorating the reformation, is absolutely scandalous in the extreme for the Catholic Church to be involved in, the reformation is something the Church mourns. To ‘commemorate’ such a thing in the Catholic Church is wrong on so many levels.
For the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.I hope this has helped
God Bless You
Thank you for reading
Josh
- Status