US bishops try to calm anxiety over pope

[Ender]

An objectively false appeal to mercy also runs the risk of trivializing the image of God by implying that God cannot do other than forgive. The mystery of God includes not only his mercy but also his holiness and his justice. If one were to suppress these characteristics of God and refuse to take sin seriously, ultimately it would not even be possible to bring God’s mercy to man.” - Cardinal Muller

This is a great citation and an excellent response to the argument that mercy requires us to overlook sin.*God’s mercy does not dispense us from following his commandments or the rules of the church.
Nor is this exactly a new idea.Mercy in turn presumes conversion on the part of all of us, and the notion of conversion forces us to reflect on the truth which we must live. It often happens that when the Church speaks of the requirements of truth in relation to conversion and mercy the world reacts negatively. But the Church cannot proclaim the reality of God’s infinite mercy without pointing out how the acceptance of mercy requires an openness to God’s law. ***(JPII Address to US Bishops, 1988 - emphasis in the original)Ender

 

[McCall1981]

This is a great citation and an excellent response to the argument that mercy requires us to overlook sin.God’s mercy does not dispense us from following his commandments or the rules of the church.
Nor is this exactly a new idea.Mercy in turn presumes conversion on the part of all of us, and the notion of conversion forces us to reflect on the truth which we must live. It often happens that when the Church speaks of the requirements of truth in relation to conversion and mercy the world reacts negatively. But the Church cannot proclaim the reality of God’s infinite mercy without pointing out how the acceptance of mercy requires an openness to God’s law. **(JPII Address to US Bishops, 1988 - emphasis in the original)Ender

Pope Francis addressed this kind of “false compassion” today in the context of abortion and euthanasia:

“The dominant thinking sometimes suggests a “false compassion”, that which retains that it is: helpful to women to promote abortion; an act of dignity to obtain euthanasia; a scientific breakthrough to “produce” a child and to consider it to be a right rather than a gift to welcome; or to use human lives as guinea pigs presumably to save others,” the Pope said in his speech."

vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-vatican/detail/articolo/eutanasiaeuthanasiaeutanasia-medici-doctors-medico-37516/

 

[LongingSoul]

Pope Francis addressed this kind of “false compassion” today in the context of abortion and euthanasia:

I’m here in this thread defending the actions of Pope Francis against you. I notice that Ender does this very thing as well. I think you feel that you have created such an airtight strawman of our position that you are ready now to do a switcharoo movement to cut this ‘fantasy’ position to the ground … using the very person you are condemning.

Pope Francis has made clear that the process of synodality, which is an old and fruitful process in the Church, calls for bold ideas and honesty. He has used strong, forceful words to protect it in expressing the scourge of ‘hostile inflexibility’ (which even those many of us who know exactly what he’s talking about were surprised by the candor). Pope Francis along with Pope Benedict have cited the suffering of a certain type of situation that seems to be begging to be exposed in the light of our times. Pope Francis shows his orthodoxy constantly so we know that what he is attacking by his strong words is not orthodoxy or truth. As Catholics, we are called to obedience to the Church and fidelity to the Pope. (Fidelity to Pope Francis has become the first prayer of the faithful each week in the Parishes in my area since all the haters have come out of the woodwork)

Pope Francis invited Cardinal Kasper, an old and respected theologian, to present a raw idea to be opened up to exploration by the ‘experts’ and ‘mystics’ of our Church. It’s a process used in all scientific disciplines also, so its not a foreign concept.

When people like myself are expressing their ideas about the synods work, you must remember it is an act of defending Pope Francis’ papacy. So to use Pope Francis, whom you continually question and cast doubt on, to condemn his defenders, shows the shiftiness of your motives. I for one see through it clearly.

 

[ProVobis]

Pope Francis along with Pope Benedict have cited the suffering of a certain type of situation that seems to be begging to be exposed in the light of our times.

I’m glad to see some continuity between the Popes. I worry when I sense some “rupture” starting to manifest itself, the kind Pope Benedict warned against.

 

[LongingSoul]

Cardinal Kasper has avoided directly confronting the issue of the validity of the first marriage so I will ask you: is it possible for someone who has remarried after divorcing from a valid marriage to receive communion? Do you believe there is any situation that would this to happen? I’m looking for a yes or no here. A “spirit of ideas” is not sufficient.
This is an argument for why he should know what he’s doing. It says nothing, however, about whether his position is valid.

I am faithful to the Church’s position on marriage in every way. Always have been, always will be.

As Deacon Jeff tried to explain earlier in the thread, the validity of marriage is a presumption. No human person can know whether a marriage is intrinsically valid because it depends on the will and on faith. These are things that no person other than himself, has privy to and even himself through ignorance and lack of faith can be blind to such things as known to God.

One of the aspects strongly cited is the insufficiency of the judicial annulment process in determining the status of a first marriage. The determinations by their human limitations could get it right or wrong.

The other consideration being expressed is the case of 2nd marriages which are obviously faithfilled and blossoming in a way that indicates a possible validity of that second marriage. This fact seems to be indicating that despite what we would normally, through the judicial process, presume was a valid first marriage, could be lacking a particular insight, hard to expose through the official process.

I imagine that they are thinking that no matter how much they tweak the judicial annulment process… this situation can not be fully exposed. It is a situation that is known only by the fruits of faith and the evidence of the life lived. It is a situation that could not be quantified by a general rule since it can only be known retrospectively. How do deal with it? How to reconcile it? These are the questions begging to be examined by the educated and the holy, faithful Church sons and daughters.

You might say “why bother examining such situations because they will weaken the truth of the unity and indissolubility of marriage”. Well I think that the Church is full of clever people who will have those truths well at the forefront of their examinations in stripping away what is dangerous to faith and retaining only what is fruitful to faith. Take the scientific discipline of immunology. It’s very effectiveness as a force for good has been based on exposing the body to an element of the disease it is fighting against. No doubt at the time it was being proposed, their were uncreative, medical ‘traditionalists’ condemning any thought of introducing such an idea for examination. Where would we be now?

 

[LongingSoul]

I’m glad to see some continuity between the Popes. I worry when I sense some “rupture” starting to manifest itself, the kind Pope Benedict warned against.

The only ‘rupture’ I have witnessed on this thread and in this issue is from those calling the actions of Pope Francis into question. The rest of us are here ‘defending’ him to the hilt.

 

[McCall1981]

I’m here in this thread defending the actions of Pope Francis against you. I notice that Ender does this very thing as well. I think you feel that you have created such an airtight strawman of our position that you are ready now to do a switcharoo movement to cut this ‘fantasy’ position to the ground … using the very person you are condemning.

Pope Francis has made clear that the process of synodality, which is an old and fruitful process in the Church, calls for bold ideas and honesty. He has used strong, forceful words to protect it in expressing the scourge of ‘hostile inflexibility’ (which even those many of us who know exactly what he’s talking about were surprised by the candor). Pope Francis along with Pope Benedict have cited the suffering of a certain type of situation that seems to be begging to be exposed in the light of our times. Pope Francis shows his orthodoxy constantly so we know that what he is attacking by his strong words is not orthodoxy or truth. As Catholics, we are called to obedience to the Church and fidelity to the Pope. (Fidelity to Pope Francis has become the first prayer of the faithful each week in the Parishes in my area since all the haters have come out of the woodwork)

Pope Francis invited Cardinal Kasper, an old and respected theologian, to present a raw idea to be opened up to exploration by the ‘experts’ and ‘mystics’ of our Church. It’s a process used in all scientific disciplines also, so its not a foreign concept.

When people like myself are expressing their ideas about the synods work, you must remember it is an act of defending Pope Francis’ papacy. So to use Pope Francis, whom you continually question and cast doubt on, to condemn his defenders, shows the shiftiness of your motives. I for one see through it clearly.

Immediately resorting to unprovoked, personal attacks tends to mean that a person is compensating for not having a solid argument. Sticking to the issues, and refraining from personal insults a bit more might help make these discussions more beneficial for everyone

My “motive” here is to happily point out that Francis has, yet again, condemned the false “compassion” that is such a problem in our Church and society. Good for him. I’m glad he sees through it, and hope others can learn to do the same.

 

[FollowChrist34]

View attachment 21063

 

[LongingSoul]

Immediately resorting to unprovoked, personal attacks tends to mean that a person is compensating for not having a solid argument. Sticking to the issues, and refraining from personal insults a bit more might help make these discussions more beneficial for everyone

My “motive” here is to happily point out that Francis has, yet again, condemned the false “compassion” that is such a problem in our Church and society. Good for him. I’m glad he sees through it, and hope others can learn to do the same.

I’m glad to see that you are coming around to faith in his orthodoxy. Perhaps you won’t need to condemn his synod decisions as a result of those allayed fears!

 

[SWolf]

The only ‘rupture’ I have witnessed on this thread and in this issue is from those calling the actions of Pope Francis into question. The rest of us are here ‘defending’ him to the hilt.

Are all the pope’s actions above criticism by the laity?

 

[SWolf]

I’m here in this thread defending the actions of Pope Francis against you. I notice that Ender does this very thing as well. I think you feel that you have created such an airtight strawman of our position that you are ready now to do a switcharoo movement to cut this ‘fantasy’ position to the ground … using the very person you are condemning.

Pope Francis has made clear that the process of synodality, which is an old and fruitful process in the Church, calls for bold ideas and honesty. He has used strong, forceful words to protect it in expressing the scourge of ‘hostile inflexibility’ (which even those many of us who know exactly what he’s talking about were surprised by the candor). Pope Francis along with Pope Benedict have cited the suffering of a certain type of situation that seems to be begging to be exposed in the light of our times. Pope Francis shows his orthodoxy constantly so we know that what he is attacking by his strong words is not orthodoxy or truth. As Catholics, we are called to obedience to the Church and fidelity to the Pope. (Fidelity to Pope Francis has become the first prayer of the faithful each week in the Parishes in my area since all the haters have come out of the woodwork)

Pope Francis invited Cardinal Kasper, an old and respected theologian, to present a raw idea to be opened up to exploration by the ‘experts’ and ‘mystics’ of our Church. It’s a process used in all scientific disciplines also, so its not a foreign concept.

When people like myself are expressing their ideas about the synods work, you must remember it is an act of defending Pope Francis’ papacy. So to use Pope Francis, whom you continually question and cast doubt on, to condemn his defenders, shows the shiftiness of your motives. I for one see through it clearly.

Let’s stop the idealism. Anyone with two working brain cells could see the that the Synod was an attempted railroading from the beginning to a preconceived conclusion. When a Cardinal has to slam his fist on the table calling for the manipulation to stop, followed by applause, it shows it was not an open discussion, but a trite political maneuver to try and show “consensus” where none existed.

I don’t support many of Francis’ actions, just like you would not have supported many of Honorius’ actions if you were alive back in the day.

 

[LongingSoul]

Are all the pope’s actions above criticism by the laity?

All those actions and words that seek to define matters of faith and morals for us… yes. If I noticed him eating too much creamy pasta during his tenure in Rome, I’d happily advice him of his error.

 

[SWolf]

All those actions and words that seek to define matters of faith and morals for us… yes. If I noticed him eating too much creamy pasta during his tenure in Rome, I’d happily advice him of his error.

Good.

I see in this thread people who have valid issues with how proposed pastoral practice would undermine Church doctrine. Therefore, we do have the right to be critical.

 

[ProVobis]

The only ‘rupture’ I have witnessed on this thread and in this issue is from those calling the actions of Pope Francis into question.

That in itself isn’t a bad thing, is it? Consider this element:

As Vatican II noted, the weight to be given such teaching is “according to the mind and the will manifested; this is shown especially by the nature of the documents, by the frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or by the tenor of the verbal expression.” Thus, **more weight would have to be given to something taught many times by successive popes than to something taught once by one pope.
**

ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=564105

Popes in the past have used precedence set by still previous Popes to make their point or case. It would be IMO helpful if sometime soon this were to be done. Otherwise it will take on the appearance that it is something new in teaching.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Q. Shouldn’t the Pope embrace more modern views concerning certain matters?

A. A Pope may not change doctrine to please the masses no more than a mathematician may change 2+2=4 to 2+2=5 to please his public. As condemned in the Syllabus of Errors: “The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.” Other popes have consistently condemned Modernism, even calling it the “synthesis of all heresies”. Our Lord does not change and, since the pope is Christ’s Vicar on earth, he may not change policies or teachings to suit the vain desires of this world. Remember that the pope does not “own” Church doctrines, but passes on what has been divinely revealed. Really, there would be no point to having a Pope if he could simply change doctrines to suit the tastes of the world. Truth is truth - and it is unchangeable.

Q. If many people disagree with the Pope, will he change?

A. The Church is not a democracy. Instead, it is headed by the Pope who is responsible for passing on and protecting doctrine without alteration. The pope cannot change doctrine to please people since the doctrines are not matters of debate, but revealed truths. Truth is not subject to change, even if it is unpopular.

Q. Is it okay to disagree with the Pope?

A. It would be wrong to disagree with the perennial teaching of the Popes in matters of faith and morals. We are not required, however, to agree with every decision of every Pope (e.g. prudential judgments, those involving disciplinary matters, etc.). It would be wrong, however, to dispute the a Pope’s right to make decisions in the Church or to fail to properly honor his supreme authority. Also, if a Pope were to sin or not to live up to the teachings of the Church, it would be necessary to respectfully disapprove (as did St. Paul concerning St. Peter, cf. Gal. 2:11). Note: Click here for “Obedience / Disobedience / Assent” Reflections.

Q. I have heard that there are two Papal ‘syllabuses’ condemning modern errors. What are they?

A. The ‘syllabuses’ condemning modern errors are the “Syllabus Errorum” (The Syllabus of Errors Condemned By Pope Pius IX) (click here) and Pope St. Pius X’s “Lamentabili Sane” (Syllabus Condemning The Errors Of The Modernists) (click here). When one refers to the “Syllabus”, it probably means the one issued by Bl. Pope Pius IX. The one issued by Pope St. Pius X is usually “Lamentabili Sane”.

 

[McCall1981]

I’m glad to see that you are coming around to faith in his orthodoxy. Perhaps you won’t need to condemn his synod decisions as a result of those allayed fears!

No idea what this means

 

[InSearchofGrace]

A lesson in civil disagreement and a perspective on the matter:

catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=1059

Pope Francis has not announced any intention to change Church teaching; on the contrary he has described himself as a loyal son of the Church. Yet in various ways he has shown his support for Cardinal Walter Kasper, who argues that it is possible to change the Church’s discipline without changing doctrine. I disagree. I am firmly convinced that a change in Church discipline, along the lines suggested by Cardinal Kasper, would contradict the clear Catholic teaching on the indissolubility of marriage. As long as the debate continues, I plan to argue against the Kasper proposal. If the Pope hopes to enact the Kasper proposal, then, I suppose I will be arguing against the Pope. But I will be doing so out of loyalty, hoping to help him avoid making a mistake.

However, while I plan to make my argument as forcefully as I can, I realize two important points: First, I am not infallible. It is possible that the Pope, with the help of the Synod of Bishops, will find a way to do what I consider impossible: to change discipline without tampering with doctrine. Second, it is also possible that I have misunderstood the Pope’s intentions. He has certainly encouraged a full discussion of the Kasper proposal, but he may not intend to carry it out. I don’t know his plans and I don’t know his motives. I am prepared to render judgment on a particular plan: the Kasper proposal. I am not prepared to render judgment on the Pope.

Sad to say, some of my Catholic acquaintances have already judged Pope Francis, found him guilty of heresy or some equivalent fault, and called for the formation of a “loyal” opposition. Those who take that approach are courting some serious spiritual dangers … The tendency to despise those who disagree with one’s own ideas, to impute evil motives to them, makes respectful debate less likely, and thereby makes it less likely that one can persuade others to change their views.

.

 

[LongingSoul]

That in itself isn’t a bad thing, is it? Consider this element:

As Vatican II noted, the weight to be given such teaching is “according to the mind and the will manifested; this is shown especially by the nature of the documents, by the frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or by the tenor of the verbal expression.” Thus, more weight would have to be given to something taught many times by successive popes than to something taught once by one pope.

In this situation, we are not discussing a ‘teaching’ of the Pope. We are discussing the synodal process. That’s what is being atacked. It’s like when St John XXIII established the pontifical commission to discuss birth control back in 1963. The Catholic Church already had a clear long established teaching on contraception, but with the advent of the oral contraceptive, the clarity of the teaching was diminished. A modern problem was causing confusion about doctrine.

As a result of that examination, the Church was able to establish a much clearer understanding of what the theological objections consisted of. We now know what constitutes licit birth control (NFP) and illicit birth control. Unfortunately there are still many of the hostile inflexible traditionalists who say that NFP is contraception. Even to this day on these CAF threads you’ll see people trying to make NFP a contraceptive despite the Church teaching. I suppose they have to harbour a belief of the heresy of the modern Popes and theologians in order to maintain this and that conundrum from what I can see, affects their faith in many other ways.

So at this point, we aren’t discussing any ‘teachings’. We are discussing the place of synodality in treating of doctrine. Like the many educated theologians back in the early 60’s who genuinely thought that the action of the oral contraceptive didn’t contravene the illicit aspect of birth control… we have a conundrum today regarding divorce and remarriage in the light of the modern problem of ‘celebrating sacraments without faith’.

 

[ProVobis]

Like the many educated theologians back in the early 60’s who genuinely thought that the action of the oral contraceptive didn’t contravene the illicit aspect of birth control… we have a conundrum today regarding divorce and remarriage in the light of the modern problem of ‘celebrating sacraments without faith’.

But didn’t the actions of Paul VI in this regard raise false hopes among many, if not most, Catholics?

I suppose one could always use the argument, “Well, at least they had some dialogue” but a whole lot of priests and bishops already had advised their parishioners that it was okay to use one’s conscience on the matter, whatever that meant. People weren’t going to sit and wait for a final decision. They were convinced ABC was going to be approved, at least on some level. “You gotta go with the times,” after all.

 

[LongingSoul]

But didn’t the actions of Paul VI in this regard raise false hopes among many, if not most, Catholics?

I suppose one could always use the argument, “Well, at least they had some dialogue” but a whole lot of priests and bishops already had advised their parishioners that it was okay to use one’s conscience on the matter, whatever that meant. People weren’t going to sit and wait for a final decision. They were convinced ABC was going to be approved, at least on some level. “You gotta go with the times,” after all.

I shake my head when I read logic like that. I think it makes people out to be stupid and pathetic. I can hear the Pharisees saying “this Jesus character talking to prostitutes and tax collectors is giving people false hope that they can consort with ladies of the night and cheat citizens out of their earnings”.

People have free will to reject Church teaching or conform to it.