Pope reacts to 'rigid' critics [CWN]

[tweedlealice]

Salutations,
Whether sanctioned by our Beloved Pope or not. I wanted a prolife candidate. Hillary said, yes to question, EVEN IF IT IS THE DAY BEFORE THE BABY WOULD BE BORN? Trump has changed posture. If he were lying, that will be between God and him. I want a wall to stop all illegals. Some are mid-Eastern now! Don’t forget the heroin.!! There is a list of people waiting for legal entrance. We should send an illegal back for everyone that is waiting to be legal. Getting rid of criminals will help. I don’t want San tuary cities. No money there. That will help pay debt or build up military to stop all terrotists. I have a kind plan for illegals, I sent to Trump BUT Sen. Sessions has a hard stance on illegals. We ll have to see.
By the way, I go to Spanish mass sometimes. Their cars are newer and better than mine. Nice clothes. No rags. I’m glad but I hope their pay is better.
The church is to take care of refugees-Mexican.
No Arab refugees till vetted. Vetting is a joke now. No Christians.???
There is work to be done. Europe can send Arabs back. They weren’t getting killed. Saudi has air condition tents up for Arabs and no one went there.!!
You figure.
May God give wisdom to the Pope and Trump. Safety before Charity.
If not able to afford it, can’t do it.
in Christ’s love
Tweedlealice
The enemy comes to steal, kill and destroy.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

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.

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?

Point of information in an otherwise worthy post (and it’s confusing because Henry had six wives), Catherine was not beheaded. She was imprisoned, much of the time in Kimbolton Castle, denied her right to be called Queen, forbidden to see her only child for several years, and died of what was probably cancer. In fact, because of her death her successor, Anne Boleyn, was beheaded. . .after all, Anne had not given the king a son either, and with Catharine dead, the King would wind up married to yet ANOTHER ‘barren woman". So Anne was accused of incest and adultery (treason since she was married to the King), tried, and executed. And with her out of the way, Henry did marry again, Jane Seymour, who died shortly after SHE bore the son Henry wanted. Henry went on to marry a protestant princess, Anne of Cleves, because he liked her picture, but found the ‘real woman’ too unattractive to consummate the marriage. Anne, who was pragmatic, accepted a divorce and the title of "The King’s Good Sister’ and lived a happy life. Henry then married Anne Boleyn’s cousin Katherine Howard, who had, though very young, lived a dissolute life BEFORE marriage, though not after, and was beheaded, though not without protest by Henry, for adultery as well, a political pawn since the courtiers did not want another of the "Norfolk.Boleyn; group gaining political power. Finally Henry married a woman who had been widowed twice, Katherine Parr, who was a good friend and contemporary of Henry’s oldest daughter Mary Tudor, while a nominal protestant a good friend to Catholics as well, and who survived him, married one of young Prince Edward’s uncles, the Lord Admiral Thomas Seymour, and died in childbed. Thomas, a very charismatic though greedy and stupid man, made overtures to the very young Elizabeth Tudor, who lived with them in her youth, and was later executed by his brother, the Lord Protector, for trying to abduct the young King Edward.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Sorry to go slightly off topic (but only slightly, as the whole dynasty situation in England is germane to the topic of the Reformation itself).

 

[KSU]

They saw it coming? catholicherald.co.uk/news/2014/06/23/dont-confuse-sensus-fidelium-with-majority-opinion-of-the-faithful-say-vatican-theologians/

Also, catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=29977

 

[Randolph]

Point of information in an otherwise worthy post (and it’s confusing because Henry had six wives), Catherine was not beheaded. She was imprisoned, much of the time in Kimbolton Castle, denied her right to be called Queen, forbidden to see her only child for several years, and died of what was probably cancer. In fact, because of her death her successor, Anne Boleyn, was beheaded. . .after all, Anne had not given the king a son either, and with Catharine dead, the King would wind up married to yet ANOTHER ‘barren woman". So Anne was accused of incest and adultery (treason since she was married to the King), tried, and executed. And with her out of the way, Henry did marry again, Jane Seymour, who died shortly after SHE bore the son Henry wanted. Henry went on to marry a protestant princess, Anne of Cleves, because he liked her picture, but found the ‘real woman’ too unattractive to consummate the marriage. Anne, who was pragmatic, accepted a divorce and the title of "The King’s Good Sister’ and lived a happy life. Henry then married Anne Boleyn’s cousin Katherine Howard, who had, though very young, lived a dissolute life BEFORE marriage, though not after, and was beheaded, though not without protest by Henry, for adultery as well, a political pawn since the courtiers did not want another of the "Norfolk.Boleyn; group gaining political power. Finally Henry married a woman who had been widowed twice, Katherine Parr, who was a good friend and contemporary of Henry’s oldest daughter Mary Tudor, while a nominal protestant a good friend to Catholics as well, and who survived him, married one of young Prince Edward’s uncles, the Lord Admiral Thomas Seymour, and died in childbed. Thomas, a very charismatic though greedy and stupid man, made overtures to the very young Elizabeth Tudor, who lived with them in her youth, and was later executed by his brother, the Lord Protector, for trying to abduct the young King Edward.

Thank you for your correction. My recollection of Catherine of Aragon was intertwined with Anne Boleyn. My apologies…

 

[Tantum_ergo]

They saw it coming? catholicherald.co.uk/news/2014/06/23/dont-confuse-sensus-fidelium-with-majority-opinion-of-the-faithful-say-vatican-theologians/

Hmm, I can see this applying to both ‘groups’ as it were. . .

While “the faithful have an instinct for the truth of the Gospel”, the document said, there are situations in which Catholics claim to be relying on that instinct when, in fact, they are promoting deviations from the Christian faith, particularly on moral issues.

The document explains what sensus fidei means, gives biblical evidence for its importance, looks at the history of its development in the Church, provides some criteria for discerning when it is authentic and discusses how it is “different from the majority opinion of the faithful in a given time or place”.

Particularly drawing on the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, members of the theological commission rejected the idea that Catholic laity are to blindly obey everything the pope and bishops tell them. But the document emphasised the importance of assuming Church leaders are correct, trying to understand the basis for their teaching and, in particular, for praying, regularly receiving the sacraments, studying and being an active member of the Catholic community before claiming to be able to discern that a Church teaching needs adjustment.

So yes, a ‘majority’ who for example believed in artificial birth control (though it contradicts Catholic teaching) is not 'sensus fidei. And they should pay more attention to the Pope (for example, Pope Paul VI’s teaching in Humanae Vitae, and assume that he was right before discerning that the teaching 'needs adjustment."

Likewise a majority who might be saying, “yes, communion for the divorced and remarried as communion is not a prize for the perfect”, and many clergy who support that, though it contradicts Catholic teaching, are also not ‘sensus fidei’ and they too should pay attention to the Pope (for example, St JP2 and Benedict and their words on the subject as well) before discerning that a teaching needs 'adjustment".

I think that sounds reasonable. And that means, in discerning, that sincere questioning in order to know exactly what is or is not being adjusted should be encouraged.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Thank you for your correction. My recollection of Catherine of Aragon was intertwined with Anne Boleyn. My apologies…

De nada. Aside from that I found your assessment of St. Thomas spot on.

 

[KSU]

"Cardinal-designate Joseph Tobin defended Pope Francis against the four cardinals who have asked for clarification…“Amoris Laetitia cannot simply be reduced to a question of ‘yes’ or ‘no’ in a specific pastoral situation.”’

"The cardinal-designate… [then] said that the Catholic Church must be an ‘agent of healing’ in the US in the wake of the election of Donald Trump. He said that the election ‘enhanced the sense of polarization—pitting groups against each other.’”

“Archbishop Tobin expressed particular concern about President-elect Trump’s stand against immigration, saying that the Church has always worked in favor of immigrants…”

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=29985

First, Archbishop Tobin, soon will be made a Cardinal by Pope Francis. What is it he thinks his bishops and pastors will be dealing with if not individual specific pastoral situations about which they will be tasked with saying ‘yes’ or ‘no’?

Second, ‘agent of healing’? By gratuitously engaging in partisan politics? A few years ago, he singled-out Fox News because it was not progressive. Now, his new flock will wonder if he would have preferred Clinton’s anti-Catholic, anti-boarders, anti-Constitutional policies? The latter policies would destroy our religious freedoms under the Constitution.

In all seriousness, things quickly are spinning out of control because of confusion all around. Many Catholics prayed their hearts out by offering novenas, rosaries, etc. for the results God gave us. Of course the Church should be an agent of healing, but his above political sentiments seem far out of place.

 

[graciew]

First, What is it he thinks his bishops and pastors will be dealing with if not individual specific pastoral situations about which they will be tasked with saying ‘yes’ or no.

Sorry,but as a " sheep" I am most puzzled by this question- statement.

So much so that I do not know even know how to ask you and be clear.

Do you understand/have experienced sheperding as " yes" " no" answers.?

 Is that it for you in your experience? Asking for  " yes/no" answers as a " sheep" ?

I am asking you sincerely and aside from this Cardinal or the Pope.

 

[KSU]

Sorry,but as a " sheep" I am most puzzled by this question- statement.

So much so that I do not know even know how to ask you and be clear.

Do you understand/have experienced shepherding as " yes" " no" answers.?

**Absolutely, positively,“Yes”, I do understand that in the matter about which we are concerned here, no sheep after a long, agonizing period of accompaniment with his/her pastor wants a “Maybe”.

Sheep: “So, Father, it’s been a few months now and I’ve prayed a lot and answered all your questions; may I or may I not now receive Communion and still enjoy sex with my new, civilly married spouse?”

Pastor: “Maybe”; it beats me.**

Is that it for you in your experience?

** In my long life as a layman I’v been shepherded and have shepherded more than a few sheep among my family and friends; some out of duty and some out of friendship. Not one of them wanted a “Maybe”. I’m not trying to be sarcastic, old pen pal.**

 

[graciew]

KSU:
Ok Thank you,Ksu. Now I understand the setting for your question statement.
Now,how can anyone answer yes or no before the process you explain,in which the pastor also does not know the answer beforehand ( or you accompanying ,for example)
A " maybe" as silence are kind of hard to bear ,especially for a long time…

 

[graciew]

Anyway,as I keep thinking,I am not familiar with this theme of divorce and remarriage and Communion. I mean it is not the kind of situation I have experienced so,thanks for your answers and I sincerely do not want to mess the thread up.
Just that preist accompanying me has been a blessing and I am grateful .And it has always been in Jesus hands,being held by the hand.
Thank you ,Ksu!

 

[KSU]

Ok Thank you,Ksu. Now I understand the setting for your question statement.
Now,how can anyone answer yes or no before the process you explain,in which the pastor also does not know the answer beforehand ( or you accompanying ,for example)

You may have misunderstood me. Sorry, it’s probably my fault.

I’m not in anyway against a pastor helping someone who asks for help. I’m saying only that neither I nor thousands of laymen and clergy have a clue about what Pope Francis means in Chapter Eight of AL. The Pope has turned down many requests by media, bishops and Cardinals for clarity. Some prelates say this and some say that. There is as a result unthinkable division in the Church.

So, without clarity, what is a poor bishop or pastor to tell the sheep who come to him for help in avoiding sacrilegious reception of Communion? I would not like to be in the shoes of such pastor.

This is not bean bags we are playing: “Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor. 11:27, 29).

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Yes, at your urging, the thread was closed. Don’t start that here. If some posts upset you, follow the rules and address it by a PM.

This post is reported not only to the forum moderator; I am also sending it to the forum administrator for review and adjudication.

This is nothing short of a situation of abuse and I find it absolutely intolerable.

 

[graciew]

You may have misunderstood me. Sorry, it’s probably my fault.

I’m not in anyway against a pastor helping someone who asks for help. I’m saying only that neither I nor thousands of laymen and clergy have a clue about what Pope Francis means in Chapter Eight of AL. The Pope has turned down many requests by media, bishops and Cardinals for clarity. Some prelates say this and some say that. There is as a result unthinkable division in the Church.

So, without clarity, what is a poor bishop or pastor to tell the sheep who come to him for help in avoiding sacrilegious reception of Communion? I would not like to be in the shoes of such pastor.

This is not bean bags we are playing: “Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor. 11:27, 29).

Priests,bishops have been Lear jets compared to me.From my heart,I do not know.
I know the Silence of God is unbearable.
And I know that what Cor. says I heard from their very mouths at Mass
And that nothing can separate us from God’s love.
This moves me
It is all right,I understood you and appreciate our " talk" a lot.
Take care and thank you again!!

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I did nothing wrong. The thread itself was going against forum rules by disrespecting the clergy and our Holy Father, the moderator agreed and the thread was locked. I will continue to flag disrespectful posts/threads in the future.

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.

Not only did you not do anything wrong but you did precisely what forum rules demand…to report those who violate forum rules by speaking disrespectfully of the Vicar of Christ upon earth.

The forum says
*Negative and rude comments toward CAF members, clergy (deacons, priests and bishops) or toward religious and religious orders are banned.

Everyone, online and offline, deserves to be spoken to and about respectfully. However, some posters seem to feel that clergy and religious are fair game.*
I not only petition but I implore the forum moderator and the forum administrator to address forthwith the issue as it is manifesting itself.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

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

You would do well to inform yourself of the decisions taken by the Holy See with regard to Luther and Lutherans since 1983 and to conform yourself to what the Holy See has declared.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

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

Let us be perfectly clear:

1. The decision of a joint commemoration of the Reformation is that of both Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis.
2. This decision is implemented by the Holy See. It is to be shown complete and absolute deference.
3. The bishops, dispersed throughout the world, and the conferences of bishops in their various geographical divisions have decreed what is to be done.

For laity to speak of the decisions of the hierarchy at its highest levels as scandalous is nothing short of intolerable and invites censure from ecclesiastical authority.

The commemoration has been implemented by the Pope and by the bishops of the world. Full stop.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

They were executed in 1533.

No.

John Fisher was executed in June 1535. Thomas More was executed in July 1535.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

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?

Just exactly what were the Pope and higher ups ‘wrong’ about, and ‘upset about being told?’

The points are well addressed in Memory and Reconciliation, at the request of Pope Saint John Paul II.