No... from the beginning we said it took a annulment. You guys continue with the what-ifs and the it might happen. Half your arguments are things that haven't happened. If they haven't happened...how can you debate. Again I state, Cardinal Burk is upset he has lost his power...in the Vatican Curia. I think the way he has tried to sway public opinion is evil. This is a matter that should be debated by the cardinals. I will wait patiently for the African Cardinals to offer there opinion.
Lol I love cats and dogs in fact I love most animals! However, I have a hard time loving snakes, spiders, sharks and frogs! maybe its learnt prejudice?
Cardinal Burke and the other Cardinals only went public with their Dubia after Pope Francis refused to respond. That's why we find ourselves in this very sad set of circumstances. I imagine you will still be defending Pope Francis after the formal correction is issued. Pope Francis is clearly not united with the world's bishops on this issue of Communion for the divorced and remarried.
You are defending three unapproved apparitions and a Pope who has been challenged on an issue of doctrine by his brother bishops. I'm defending the unchangeable teaching of the Catholic Church regarding Communion for the divorced and remarried who refuse to live as brother and sister.
Cardinal Walter Brandmüller, one of the signatories of the dubia to Pope Francis, has said in an interview that the formal correction of serious errors contained in Amoris Laetitia "must in the first instance be made in camera caritatis" [in private]. Cardinal Brandmüller was responding to recent remarks made by Cdl. Raymond Burke that a formal correction of Amoris Laetitia would take place sometime after the Solemnity of the Epiphany if the Holy Father did not respond to the dubia. Cardinal Brandmüller gave his comments on the next phase of the dubia process to Andrea Tornielli, who co-wrote Pope Francis' best-selling book The Name of God is Mercy (2016). Tornielli gave the following account of his brief interview with Cdl. Brandmüller: "The 'dubia,'" Brandmüller stated, "seek to encourage debate in the Church, as is indeed happening. In his original interview in English (unlike what was reported in Italian media), Cdl. Burke did not specify a deadline but simply responded that we must now focus on Christmas and the issue will be dealt with afterwards." Burke "did not say," Brandmüller was also keen to point out, "that a potential fraternal correction — such as the one quoted in Galatians 2:11–14, must be made publicly." The passage that was mentioned by the German cardinal is the one from the Letter to the Galatians in which St. Paul describes his disagreement with Peter because the latter wanted to impose Jewish traditions on pagans. "I believe," Brandmüller adds, "that Cdl. Burke is convinced that a fraternal correction must in the first instance be made in camera caritatis." In other words not publicly. "I must say," he explained, "that the cardinals has expressed his own opinion in complete independence and may of course be shared by the other cardinals too." Brandmüller thus leads us to believe that in the interviews following the publication of the "dubia," Burke was not speaking as a spokesman for the four cardinals who signed the document. The German cardinal concluded by saying: "We cardinals expect a response to the 'dubia,' as the lack of a response would be seen by many within the Church as a rejection of the clear and articulate adherence to the clearly defined doctrine." http://www.churchmilitant.com/news/...-errors-will-initially-be-private-says-cdl.-b
Cardinal Burke: "No, I am not saying that Pope Francis is in heresy." December 19, 2016 CWR: In early 2004, when then-Massachusetts Senator John Kerry was running for President and you were just beginning your ministry as Archbishop of St. Louis, Missouri, you said Kerry should be refused Communion because of his pro-abortion stance. You also said you’re always getting into trouble. Are you still getting yourself into trouble? Cardinal Burke: I suppose that's true, but I trust it’s good trouble. CWR: When was last time a Pope was rebuked? Cardinal Burke: As far as I know, and I'm not an expert in this, it was John XXII. He was corrected for a wrong teaching he had on the beatific vision. CWR: And who did that? Cardinal Burke: There was a bishop involved and some Dominican Friars… CWR: Is there a Scriptural basis for rebuking a pope? Cardinal Burke: The classic Scriptural basis is St. Paul's rebuking of Peter [in Galatians 2:11ff] for his accommodation of the Judaizers in the early Christian Church. Saint Paul confronted Peter to his face because he would be requiring things of the Gentile Christians that are not inherent to the Christian faith. And Peter actually agreed with that, but when he was with the Judaizers he would feign the other position and so Paul corrected him, as he said, to his face. CWR: Why do you think Amoris Laetitia chapter 8 is so ambiguous? Cardinal Burke: The reason for its ambiguity, it seems to me, is to give latitude to a practice which has never been admitted in the Church, namely the practice of permitting people who are living publicly in grave sin to receive the Sacraments. CWR: It seems that you have, in some ways, become the champion of Canon 915, thinking back to the controversy over Kerry and even before him to some politicians in La Crosse, Wisconsin, where you were bishop from 1994 to 2003. [Editor's note: Canon 915 of the Code of Canon Lawstates: "Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion." For more background see Dr. Edward Peter's page about the Canon.) Cardinal Burke: And that's certainly a very good thing of which to be the champion. CWR: What was the initial reason for you to submit the dubia to Pope Francis? Cardinal Burke: Some of us had raised these questions to Pope Francis in the correspondence before this because of their gravity. But then there is also the growing confusion in the Church, in many quarters and parts of the Church, and the plea from both priests and laity, that the cardinals, who are the chief advisors to the Pope, needed to fulfill their responsibility by seeking clarification about some matters which are, as long as they remained in doubt, a source of great confusion and eventual spiritual harm in the church. CWR: There's a lot of talk that Amoris Laetitia is deliberately ambiguous and that's because the divorced and remarried already find themselves in rather ambiguous situations. How do you respond to that? Cardinal Burke: For those who are divorced and remarried, or I should say divorced and living in an irregular matrimonial union, if they truly understand the Catholic faith, the solution to that is not some confused approach, but the solution is to know the truth about the marriage to which one is bound, and once one knows that truth to live in accord with it. That is the only approach that can bring the faithful who find themselves in such a situation peace both with God and within the Church. This isn’t new; these situations have existed throughout the Church's history. There are always complex aspects to the situation, but the only way to address them is by acknowledging and living the truth. CWR: Why isn’t the truly pastoral situation just to allow them to receive Communion? Cardinal Burke: Because it doesn't respect the truth, and there can't be any possible truly pastoral situation that doesn't honor the truth taught by Christ Himself in the Gospel. So that if I'm bound to someone in a marriage and I'm living in a marital way with someone else, in adultery, pastoral care should be directed to helping me free myself from the sin of adultery. It's no help to me whatsoever and a positive harm to me to tell me, “That's all right, go ahead, and you can live that way and still receive the Sacraments.” CWR: If a couple—where at least one has had been previously married and there was no declaration of nullity granted for the previous bond—came to you and said, “Look, we've been married for 20 years. We're in a stable relationship, we've got four children together and they're living good lives. We go to church every Sunday and the children are in Catholic schools. Why should we be denied Communion, never mind Confession?” what would you say to them? Cardinal Burke: Because one or the other of them is bound to a prior marriage and therefore they're not free to enter another marriage or live in a marital way with another party. If they, for some reason, for example, raising children or some other valid reason, need to continue to live under the same roof, then they are called obviously to live chastely and that is as brother and sister. CWR: Are there others, besides the four cardinals who submitted the dubia to Pope Francise, who support what you’re saying? Cardinal Burke: Yes. CWR: And they’re not speaking out because…? Cardinal Burke: For various reasons, one of which is the way the media takes these things and distorts them making it seem that anyone who raises a question about Amoris Laetitia is disobedient to the Pope or an enemy of the Pope and so forth. So they... CWR They're keeping their heads down. Cardinal Burke: Yes, I suppose. CWR: One prelate has accused you and your fellow cardinals of being in heresy. How do you respond to that? Cardinal Burke: How can you be in heresy by asking honest questions? It’s just irrational to accuse us of heresy. We're asking fundamental questions based upon the constant tradition of the Church’s moral teaching. So I don't think there's any question that by doing that we've done something heretical. CWR: Some critics say you are implicitly accusing the Pope of heresy. Cardinal Burke: No, that's not what we have implied at all. We have simply asked him, as the Supreme Pastor of the Church, to clarify these five points that are confused; these five, very serious and fundamental points. We’re not accusing him of heresy, but just asking him to answer these questions for us as the Supreme Pastor of the Church. CWR: Bishop Athanasius Schneider, O.R.C., the Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana, Kazakhstan and titular bishop of Celerina, who has written an open letter of support for the four cardinals and their dubia, has also said that the Church is in a de facto schism. Do you agree with that? Cardinal Burke: There is a very serious division in the Church which has to be mended because it has to do with, as I said before, fundamental dogmatic and moral teaching. And if it's not clarified soon, it could develop into a formal schism. CWR: Some people are saying that the pope could separate himself from communion with the Church. Can the pope legitimately be declared in schism or heresy? Cardinal Burke: If a Pope would formally profess heresy he would cease, by that act, to be the Pope. It’s automatic. And so, that could happen. CWR: That could happen. Cardinal Burke: Yes. CWR: That’s a scary thought. Cardinal Burke: It is a scary thought, and I hope we won’t be witnessing that at any time soon. CWR: Back to this question about the Pope committing heresy. What happens then, if the Pope commits heresy and is no longer Pope? Is there a new conclave? Who's in charge of the Church? Or do we just not even want to go there to start figuring that stuff out? Cardinal Burke: There is already in place the discipline to be followed when the Pope ceases from his office, even as happened when Pope Benedict XVI abdicated his office. The Church continued to be governed in the interim between the effective date of his abdication and the inauguration of the papal ministry of Pope Francis. CWR: Who is competent to declare him to be in heresy? Cardinal Burke: It would have to be members of the College of Cardinals. CWR: Just to clarify again, are you saying that Pope Francis is in heresy or is close to it? Cardinal Burke: No, I am not saying that Pope Francis is in heresy. I have never said that. Neither have I stated that he is close to being in heresy. CWR: Doesn't the Holy Spirit protect us from such a danger? Cardinal Burke: The Holy Spirit inhabits the Church. The Holy Spirit is always watching over, inspiring and strengthening the Church. But the members of the Church and, in a pre-eminent way, the hierarchy must cooperate with the promptings of the Holy Spirit. It is one thing for the Holy Spirit to be present with us, but it is another thing for us to be obedient to the Holy Spirit. http://www.catholicworldreport.com/...ot_saying_that_pope_francis_is_in_heresy.aspx
I suggest you all read these 2 articles here. You will find the Church and the great St Alphonsus Ligouri were promoting a pastoral view in the confessional very similar to what Francis is saying. It proves beyond doubt that pre Vatican II teaching knew that subjective guilt stops actual mortal sin. THIS IS NOT A NOVELTY OF POPE FRANCIS. IT IS CATHOLIC TRADITION. GET OVER IT!!!! http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1344650?eng=y http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1344740?eng=y
David, Thank you for this passage. Could you please provide a reference to his Milan speech so I can read this passage in context. Safe in the Barque of Peter!
Here is the link: http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedi...ben-xvi_spe_20120602_festa-testimonianze.html
I am posting part of a post from the other thread. And just to further prove my point, would you like to explain how Joseph Ratzinger could say in Salt of the Earth (p.207) in response to the question: is the non reception of Holy Communion for the remmaried settled once and for all or still open: "The principles have been decided, but factual questions, individual questions, are of course a possibility." He goes on to state that maybe experienced local pastors could determine the invalidity of a previous marriage outside the normal annulment process." So what do you make of that? That is your 0.1% coming from the great Joseph Ratzinger. And to add further weight on p. 203 he is asked about contracepting couples who might have the idea they are "living in some sort of sin" even though they have children and dont want any more. Ratzinger says" I would say that those are questions that ought to be discussed with one's spiritual director, with one's priest, because they cant be projected into the abstract" So he is saying no they may not be in mortal sin. All the facts need to be discerned. If they are contracepting surely in your blinkered view they are in mortal sin, thereofre unable to recieve Holy Communion. Why doesnt Ratzinger say that if its so straigjt forward? This is real life theology inspired by the Holy Spirit and taught by the Church. Your error strew view is what the Papal theologian theologian to JP II and Benedict XVI (card. Cottier) called "brutal" Referring to the first quote Ratzinger says communion for the remarried is "a possibility" even if the principle excludes it (as he also stated). That in a nutshell is what the Pope Francis position is. For those divorced and remarried who are perfectly happy in their new life I would say Holy communion is out of the question. For those who know something is wrong it is a possibility if it leads to conversion and a path leading to God. Only spiritual direction can discern that
Just to lighten the mood I have been called in the past 72 hours or so a modernist, freemason(possibly) and an ultra traditionalist(my father who is not Catholic) That must be a first in the history of the Church. Any explanations for this would be most welcome!
The only explanation there is that your father doesn't know what a traditionalist is! You are about as far from that as Pluto is from the Sun.
No public ‘correction’ of Pope, Cardinal Brandmüller says http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=30303 Closing the proverbial barn door AFTER letting its horse out. How suddenly delicate!
Fallen Saint I agree with you that the annulment has always been the route the Church has used for this problem and that we should let the Cardinals debate this issue out. I was however very disappointed to see your comment about Cardinal Burke. What you said was not true and a slander against his very good reputation. Even if you disagree with his position it is still wrong to say something untrue about someone especially a Prince of the Church.
Spiritualist vs Traditionalist A spiritualist may be a traditionalist But A traditionalist cannot be a spiritualist.
crumbling. In fact whats the point in that? If its such a big deal surely it should be in the public domainso we can all see the true "tradition"
I was however very disappointed to see your comment about Our Holy Father Francis. What you said was not true and a slander against his very good reputation. Even if you disagree with his position it is still wrong to say something untrue about someone especially a Prince of the Church. I guess my real problem is you guys are jumping the gun. It's mob mentality without the logic. Cardinal Burk using public opinion to hurt the the Catholic Church with lay members stating invalid pope, anti-Christ, demon possessed...has brought scandal and division to the Catholic Church. Also, you cannot deny Cardinal Burk was the power in the Vatican and quite possible the reason Pope Benedict had such a hard time reforming Curia. Also in a nut shell...Cardinal Burk wanted to be Pope. Sounds like sour grapes to me.
And what is tradition? It now seems to be a few exceptions, splitting of hairs, obscure comments, disregard of 2000 years of church teaching mixed with the word pastoral and wolaa, new church doctrine/discipline/whatever. The spirit of Vatican 2 is back with a vengeance. More "pastoral" care taken for the "cafeteria" catholics. Pick and choose catholics and even non-catholics must be praised, those who are "traditional" mocked and scorned. The good sheperd redefined, leave the sheep in the pasture and let-in the ravenous wolves to devour them, because it is "pastoral". Smudger, you and the pope have just proven to me how truly flawed and man-made this church really is.
You half-quoted my post here so I will guess this is directed at me. I never commented about the Holy Father. Francis is our Pope. I don't comment on him and try to show him the respect due his office. You are committing the same fault here that you accuse others of. You are guessing at Cardinal Burke's motives and assuming (with no proof at all) that they are evil. I am not saying this to start a fight Fallen Saint. I am saying it because you may not be aware of what you are saying. Just as we should not guess the Pope's motives and assume they are bad, we should not do that either against a Cardinal, Bishop, Priest, or anyone.
