Friday, November 18, 2016

THE POPE SPEAKS IN YET ANOTHER INTERVIEW: IT IS ABOUT HIS HOLINESS' RIGID CRITICS AND NOT AT ALL ABOUT AMBIGUITY, SOWING CONFUSION AND GENERALLY MAKING A MESS WHICH HIS HOLINESS SEEMS TO THINK IS BENEFICIAL FOR THE CHRUCH

“…I do understand, from sources within Santa Marta, that the Pope is not happy at all, that he’s quite at his…boiling with rage, so he’s really not happy at all with this, but he had been given two months to respond to it, and he chose not to respond to it, so the Cardinals went public.”--Edward Pentin on EWTN's "The World Over"


"The Jubilee? I made no plan, said the Pope, I simply let myself be led by the Spirit. The Church is the Gospel; it is not a path of ideas. Francis continued, in his conversation with Stefania Falasca, ”I like to think that the Almighty has a bad memory. Once he forgives, he forgets. Because it is blessed to forgive. For me, that’s enough. The experience of forgiveness teaches one to shift the Christian conception from legalism to the Person of God, who became mercy.” “Some, as with certain responses to Amoris Laetitia,” the Pope said, “persist in seeing only white or black, when rather one ought to discern in the flow of life . But these critiques – if they’re not from an evil spirit – do help. Some types of rigorism spring from the desire to hide one’s own dissatisfaction under armour,” the Pope said. No one is selling doctrine."--Pope Francis


Pope fires back at his critics over ‘Amoris’ and ecumenism

ROME - Pope Francis has fired back at his critics over the document Amoris Laetita, who now include a group of four cardinals who’ve accused the pontiff of causing grave confusion and disorientation and even floated the prospect of a public correction, suggesting they suffer from “a certain legalism, which can be ideological.”
“Some- think about the responses to Amoris Laetitia- continue to not understand,” Francis said. They think it’s “black and white, even if in the flux of life you must discern.”
The pope’s comments came in a wide-ranging interview with the Italian Catholic newspaper Avvenire published on Friday, in response to a question about his Jubilee Year of Mercy and its relation with the 1960s-era Second Vatican Council.
“The Church exists only as an instrument to communicate to men God’s merciful design,” he said, adding that during the council, the Church felt the “need to be in the world as a living sign of the Father’s love.”
The Council, particularly the document Lumen Gentium, according to Francis, moved the axis of the Christian conception “from a certain legalism, which can be ideological,” to God himself, who through the Son became human.
It’s in this context in which he talked about the responses to Amoris Laetitia by those who continue to “not to understand” this point.
Although he gives no names, it’s not a stretch to imagine the pope was thinking about the dubia or “doubts” about the apostolic exhortation presented to him by four cardinals, including American Raymond Burke.
The pope told the prelates he wasn’t going to respond, which is the reason why the cardinals went public with their questions earlier in the week.
In a follow-up interview with the National Catholic Register, Burke said they had done it out of charity towards the pope, and in an attempt to end the “tremendous division” caused particularly by chapter eight. In it, Francis seemingly opens the doors, in case-by-case situations, for divorced and civilly remarried Catholics to receive the sacraments.
Burke, an expert in canon law, said that if the pope doesn’t provide the “clarification of the Church’s teaching” they are asking for, then they’d consider making a formal act of correction of the Roman Pontiff.
But the “legalists” responses to Amoris are far from being the only matter addressed by Pope Francis in his interview with Stefania Falasca, a journalist from Avvenire, the official newspaper of the Italian bishops’ conference.
The two central issues throughout the three-page long interview are the Holy Year of Mercy, which will conclude on Sunday, and ecumenism, meaning the press for greater Christian unity.
Falasca asked the pope about his inter-Christian meetings, saying that there too, he finds critics in the form of those who believe he’s “selling out” Catholic doctrine. “Some have said you want to ‘Protestantize’ the Church,” she asks.
But Francis is not too worried about this criticism either: “I’m not losing sleep over it. I’ll continue on the path of those who proceeded me, and I follow the Council.”
Opinions, he said, have to be distinguished according to the spirit with which they’re voiced. “Where there’s not a nasty spirit, they can help you on the path,” he said. “Other times, you see quickly that criticisms taken here and there to justify pre-existing positions aren’t honest, they’re formed with a nasty spirit in order to sow division.”
These rigorisms, Francis argued, “are born from something missing, from trying to hide one’s own sad dissatisfaction behind a kind of armor.”
To illustrate his point and this “rigid behavior,” the pope recommended the 1987 movie “Babette’s Feast.”
Proselytism among Christians is sinful
Talking about Christian unity, the pope said it’s “a path” that leads to a walking together with Jesus, and that despite the theological differences, a “practical ecumenism” is possible and it can take different forms, such as Christians working together to help the poor.
Unity, he insisted, is built in this walking together, and it’s a “grace” that has to be asked for. It’s for this reason that he repeats: “every form of proselytism among Christians is sinful. The Church never grows from proselytism but ‘by attraction,’ as Benedict XVI wrote.”
“Proselytism among Christians, therefore, in itself, is a grave sin,” he said.
The journalist then asked, “Why?”
“Because it contradicts the very dynamic of how to become and to remain Christian,” he said. “The Church is not a soccer team that goes around seeking fans.”
Francis also spoke about his friendship with Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, sharing that during the trip the two took to the Greek island of Lesbos to bring attention to the refugee and immigrant crisis, the Orthodox leader had his pockets full of candies, making him a favorite among the children.
This, the pope said, is Bartholomew, a man capable of leading the Great Orthodox Council, talking about high-level theology and being with children.
“When he came to Rome he would stay in the room where I am now,” Francis said, referring to room 201 of the Santa Marta, a hotel within Vatican ground where he’s lived since the beginning of his pontificate. “The only thing [Bartholomew] reproached me for is that he had to change rooms.”
The cancer of the Church is giving glory to each other
Never one to go easy with his own people, the pope once again spoke about the “spiritual disease” some Catholics have, in believing that the Church is a “self-sufficient human reality, where everything moves according to the logic of ambition and power.”
“I continue to think that the cancer of the Church is giving glory to each other,” the pope told Falasca.
“If one doesn’t know who Jesus is, or has never met him, you always can meet him; but if one is in the Church, if one moves in it because it’s precisely in the ambit of the Church that one cultivates and feeds one’s hunger for power and self-affirmation, you have a spiritual disease.”
Martin Luther, a key figure in the Protestant reformation which 500th anniversary the pope marked by travelling to Sweden, Francis argued, realized this: “the refusal of an image of the Church as an organization that can go ahead ignoring the grace of the Lord, or considering it as a possession to be taken for granted, guaranteed a priori.”
“This temptation to build a self-referential Church, which leads to opposition and therefore to division, always comes back,” the pontiff said.

39 comments:

Anonymous said...

The pope refuses to answer the cardinals. Why? Could it be, could it possibly be that Francis would have to uphold the Catholic Faith and he knows if he doesn't he is back on the bus in Argentina.

I thought Francis said to "make a mess".

It's time for the pope emeritus to move away from the piano, pick up his cross which he put aside, and petition Pope Francis himself.

Or all of the members of the Curia during the Christmas address need to stand up in the presence of Francis and demand and answer then and there. Block the door if need be.

Francis should act like a man and do what the Gospel says....say yes when you mean yes and no when you mean no! Anything else is from the Devil.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

I do not know of a time in the Church, except for the 60's & 70's when the Church as been so polarized especially among bishops and cardinals. Many thought Pope Benedict would be a divisive, polarizing pope, but he wasn't. He proposed, modeled and suggested reforms in continuity but did not mandate. If his papacy had lasted longer and without Vatican intugue perhaps he would have cofified his proposals. Pope Francis is authoritarian but masks it with his populism which has led Catholics to like him while feeling angst over his ambiguous leadership and name calling. In many was Pope Francis is an unfortunate combination of both Obama and TRUMP, both populist and liked but flawed in their agendas that were and are divisive!

Dialogue said...

I don't understand him either, not because I'm rigid, but because his magisterium seems to contradict the magisterium of his predecessors. If he thinks it's a sin to defend the permanence of sacramental marriage, or to promote unity of doctrine among Christians, or to cultivate reverent liturgical rites, or even just to expect to understand what a pope is trying to say, then I begin to wonder if he is even Catholic anymore. If he really is trying to lead us all astray from the Apostolic Tradition and into a formless Christianity, then he is on the verge of formal heresy. May God have mercy on his soul, or at least help us understand what's going on.

Anonymous said...

Pope Francis is "boiling with rage". I hope somebody doesn't have a stroke. I mean we just had the chief destroyer of the liturgy in our time struck down with a stroke. Could you imagine a Francis struck dumb, unable to speak.

Dialogue said...

"The cancer of the Church is giving glory to each other." Agreed.
"This temptation to build a self-referential Church, which leads to opposition and therefore to division, always comes back." Agreed.
"The Church is the Gospel; it is not a path of ideas." What does he mean by this?
"...It is blessed to forgive. For me, that’s enough." What does he mean by this?
"One ought to discern in the flow of life." What does he mean by this?
"No one is selling doctrine." What does he mean by this?

Agnes said...

"I like to think that the Almighty has a bad memory. Once he forgives, he forgets."

Maybe the pope is a lot younger than he looks and was actually raised in the 70's and 80's when this silliness was prevalent?

For Christmas I'm thinking of sending the pope a note to let him know I'm praying for him, and a gift box containing duct tape (with a secondary note that it should be placed over his mouth). Oh, and perhaps a copy of the Catechism. He seems to need all of these.

Anonymous said...

"I do not know of a time in the Church, except for the 60's & 70's when the Church as been so polarized especially among bishops and cardinals."

Um, you might try reading JUST A BIT of history.

You might try 1054 and the series of events that led up to the separation from Orthodoxy.

You might try 1309-1377 - the Avignon Papacy.

You might try 1378-1417 - the Western Schism.

You might just try reading history in general... You'd be less inclined to see current events as catastrophic.

James said...

Divisions within the Church need not be a problem: they've always been there. What makes this reach boiling point is intemperate, confrontational language, and both Cardinal Burke and Pope Francis's courtiers have been guilty of this over the last couple of days.

Cardinal Burke should not have given the two media interviews, as they've had the effect of making the four cardinals' letter seem like a solo initiative. It was pure self-indulgence for him to compare himself with St. Thomas More, and it was poor judgement to refer to formal censures and anathemas; all this seems very out of character, and normally he is quite guarded in dealing with the media.

Pope Francis should rein in his attack dogs, as some of Fr. Spadaro's tweets over the last few days have been way out of line. Pope Francis was right, though, to criticize Burke for his rigorism, as he is prone to thinking and talking more like a lawyer than a priest (this was my impression, at any rate, when I met him back in 2011). But, ultimately, it's the pope's fault that this immensely intelligent man can't employ his energy and rigor in a post where it could really make a difference, e.g. head of the pontifical academy for life.

Gene said...

Christian is rigid. Live with it.

TJM said...

A tragedy is beginning to play out in Holy Church. Pope Francis combines the weaknesses of Paul VI without the intellectual heft. That is why he refuses to engage his critics, because he can't do so on an intellectual plane. Like a typical liberal, do as I say, not as I do. He almost sounds unbalanced. I pray this ends well.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

In terms of more difficult periods of Church history, I am wondering if you are classifying the current crisis of the papacy to these more serious events? Because I am not. The only thing that is more threatening to Church unity today, compared to 1045, 1309, 1378 is that we have instant communication today through the new media and more people, clergy and laity alike are aware of what is going on, have their own opinions and usually are fiercely individualistic and convinced of their position even if it goes against Church teaching. That is the new twist on the current divisiveness which Pope Francis has created and evidently enjoys and is the the manner of acting of progressives in the Church who can be very doctrinaire in their liberality. That is what we have experienced with the "spirit of Vatican II" which Pope Francis evidently bought into lock, stock and barrell and hasn't moved on since the 1970's.

TJM said...

Father McDonald,

All of what you state is true. The hurtle facing Pope Francis and his crowds is that they are dying out and not replacing themselves. Liberalism (progressivism) or whatever you want to call it, is a spent force in Catholicism. The fervor and growth is on the traditionalist side. Just like Obama, Francis will wreak as much destruction as possible in the waning days of his papacy. I question their mental health.

Jusadbellum said...

What I don't understand about the Pope's defense of AL in this way is that divorce and an adulterous second relationship is not something that is a 1 time, PAST indiscretion about which we can forgive and forget because the abandoned spouse is still alive and the new spouse is still alive and the husband (or wife) who ruptured the marriage God has joined is still alive.... thus justice and mercy have not been fulfilled by having some priest give forgiveness of past sins when the current situation is an ongoing sin against the Lord and the abandoned spouse!

If it was a one-and-done past event, then sure, forgive and forget.

But suppose I kidnapped some woman and kept her in a dungeon and abused her daily. Could I go to confession for the kidnapping and past abuse without any intention of liberating her and halting future abuse?

Would the Pope be hunky dory with a man in this situation going to daily confession to "keep God focused on only today's batch of sins"? That smacks me of much more legalism than the 'bad old' way of insisting a man return to the wife of his youth or, should that be impossible, to remain celibate. What is more important? Our relationship with Jesus or our sex?

John Nolan said...

In the past, the definition of a 'reforming pope' was someone like Leo IX, Gregory VII, or Innocent III, who used his authority and his personality to root out malpractice and heresy.

Nowadays, a 'reforming pope' is someone who can be relied on to dismantle tradition where it does conform to modern mores. I was initially dismayed by Bergoglio's election, but was quick to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Three-and-a-half years on, I can honestly say I have no confidence in him whatsoever. The most charitable thing one can say about him is that he is not up to the job, lacking the intellectual capacity and being as confused himself as he tries to confuse others.

But if it transpires that he has a deeper agenda (as some of his cronies aver) to change the Church in a way that will be irreversible, then I shall repudiate him utterly and pray not for him but for a speedy end to his papacy - whether by resignation, deposition or death.

I never thought I could write this about a reigning pontiff, but we live in desperate times.

Anonymous said...

Historically, the Arian heresy was probably the most extreme because it was a direct attack on the Divinity Of Jesus. Modernism which Pope Francis seemingly embraced with a vengence is like medical AIDS. Medical AIDS weakens the immune system so that any opportunistic infection becomes a life threatening event. Similarly, ambiguity in modernist theology weakens the understanding of the meaning of the gospel. "It is blessed to forgive" Francis tells us and he is right.

However, without a change in behavior the statement becomes an invitation to live an unrepentant life. The Holy Father making careless statements regarding the Faith is playing with fire; you know, with the kind that will never be extinguished.

Anon-1

Gene said...

Anon 1...yes, and Arianism has never gone away and keeps raising its head in new forms. BTW, my earlier post should have said, "Christian doctrine is rigid, live with it." Funny, many of the heresies of the first three centuries remain with us. Pelagianism and Gnosticism are, perhaps, the most popular, and many congregationalists are happy as clams as Manichees.

Anonymous said...

This sentence makes no sense: "In terms of more difficult periods of Church history, I am wondering if you are classifying the current crisis of the papacy to these more serious events?"

Classifying the current crisis... to these more serious events? What does that mean?

Do you mean "comparing"? If so, then, no.

The speed with which people are able to share their opinions is not, I repeat, not the cause of the problem. That speed may CAUSE problems, but it is not the source of division in the Church.

Everyone has an opinion. Few, very few, are informed opinions. I do not look to blog comments from amateurs to find out what is factual about pharmacological studies, about advances in environmental sciences, or about developments in structural engineering.

Now, that comment will have some screaming "Elitist!", but I am perfectly comfortable with what I have said. I want to learn about pharmacology from trained, professional researchers, not Mrs. Appleby who owns a knitting supply store in Bemidji, MN, who thinks that the pill she took gave her a rash in her "female parts." I also cannot take seriously the opinions of those who, overwhelmed by their own victimhood delusions, believe that they are being singled out and made to suffer because they are "traditional" Catholics.

We have, as a Church, faced FAR greater struggles than those of the current moment. Even a cursory reading of history will make this evident.

Dialogue said...

In urge those comparing the present crisis to earlier times to consider the fundamental nature of this crisis. If neither Jesus nor the Catholic Church are any longer necessary for salvation, and if all that matters now is that one accept God's forgiveness, then the Christological and Ecclesiological controversies of the past are now irrelevant. The theological errors and personal immoralities of a pope matter only if Christ and the Catholic Church matter.

Anonymous said...

The Holy Father has suggested that "neither Jesus nor the Catholic Church" are not necessary for salvation.

The Second Vatican Council never said nor did it suggest that Jesus and the Church are unnecessary.

This is the kind of useless hyperbole and intentional misrepresentation that underlies the mistaken notion that we are in some unprecedented crisis.

We are not.

Dialogue said...

Anonymous,

Are Christians obliged to tell non-Christians that Jesus wants them to follow Him?

Are Catholics obliged to tell Protestants that Jesus wants them to come into full communion with the Catholic Church?

Mark Thomas said...

Father Spadaro has rejected Edward Pentin's report that His Holiness Pope Francis is "boiling with rage" in regard to the Cardinals associated with the dubia.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Anonymous said...

Dialogue - How many of your non-Christian and Protestant friends have you telephoned today to share this message?

Mark Thomas said...

Cardinal Burke said the following:

"The Holy Father has decided not to respond. We have interpreted his sovereign decision as an invitation to continue the reflection, and the discussion, calmly and with respect. And so we are informing the entire people of God about our initiative, offering all of the documentation.

"We hope that no one will choose to interpret the matter according to a “progressive/conservative" paradigm. That would be completely off the mark."

Really? Did Cardinal Burke not realize that...of course...the situation in regard to the dubia would turn instantly into a progressive vs. liberal war? Really?

The left-wing responded immediately to the issue at hand with the narrative that Cardinal Burke (as he's the lead Cardinal in this fray) is an unmerciful, Pope Francis-hating, stuck-in-the-past, 1950s TLM throwback.

The right-wing responded with...good for Cardinal Burke as he has thrown down the gauntlet, stuck it to, trapped, and backed into a corner the heretical, nasty, Church-hating, "Evil Clown" Antipope Francis.

On top of that, did Cardinal Burke not realize the trouble that he was about to unleash within the Church via his remark about correcting Pope Francis?
---------------------------------------------------------

Cardinal Burke declared that the "Holy Father has decided not to respond. We have interpreted his sovereign decision as an invitation to continue the reflection, and the discussion, calmly and with respect."

If that interpretation is valid, then did Pope Francis not understand the chaos and Church in-fighting that would result from having publicized the dubia?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

What on earth is going on with these men?

To return to Cardinal Burke...

He issued the provocative statement about "correcting" Pope Francis. At the very least, did he really believe that as soon as his unfortunate comment was reported publicly, that "the reflection, and the discussion" in regard to the dubia would proceed "calmly and with respect"?

Really? He believed that that would be the case? Really? What a sorry situation for God's Holy Church!

Cardinal Burke declared months ago that Amoris Laetitia was orthodox. He insisted that people who challenged Amoris Laetitia's orthodoxy had inflicted confusion and scandal upon Catholics and non-Catholics of good will.

Perhaps Cardinal Burke should recall those comments in question about Amoris Laetitia.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

CharlesG said...

What a hate-filled, unmerciful, uncompassionate person this Pope is! Setting aside questions of doctrine, just on a personal level I find this pope of fake mercy so offensive. Rather than substantively address the reasonably and calmly expressed concerns of critics, he resorts to the low, Marxist, ad hominem trick of questioning the psychological condition of his opponents. I know we are supposed to love the Holy Father, but this one makes it very difficult.

Gregory Orcutt said...

"The Church exists only as an instrument to communicate to men God’s merciful design"
I hope this is a mistranslation, because it's quite patently false.
The Church exists to communicate, to be the vehicle of, God's saving grace through Jesus Christ. The Church exists to save human souls. To say it only exists to communicate God's design, as if it were some kind of transcendental telegraph line, denies the reality of the Incarnation, wherein God no longer speaks to us through prophets, but breaks into human history to save us from death and hell. And the author of that salvation is Jesus Christ. And the presence of Jesus Christ in history since the ascension is the Catholic Church.

Dialogue said...

Anonymous,

I've never telephoned anyone to discuss that.

Dialogue said...

What's funny is how he accuses faithful young Catholics of rigidity for adopting a way of life that is entirely new for them! Radical conversion=rigidity.

Anonymous said...

They say silence speaks louder than words. Francis cannot speak because he does not uphold Catholic moral teaching on the divorced and civilly remarried receiving communion. If he doesn't uphold Catholic teaching and makes a public statement as such he would be declared a heretic and then his papal office would be forfeit. It's as simple as that. No heretic can hold the office of Pope. Apparently Cardinal Burke and the three other cardinals are just the spearhead. There are a number of other cardinals and bishops who hold office and so cannot go public as yet.

Contrary to what Mark Thomas says, Cardinal Burke and other cardinals do have the responsibility to speak out when the faithful are confused and misguided by one bishop saying one thing and another holding a different view about Catholic moral teaching. Francis has certainly done nothing to dispel the confusion.

Mark Thomas has shown that he has no clothes. He is as naked as the emperor ...

Jan

Anonymous said...

Dialogue, did you go and knock on the doors of you non-Christian and Protestant friends to share this information?

It might have sounded something like, "Hello, Dr. Patel. How are you? I've dropped by to tell you that Jesus wants you to follow him."

Or, "How do you do Mrs. Schuyler? Your Protestant denominations - you're a Lutheran, right? - is the wrong faith. Jesus wants you to become a Catholic."

Henry said...

"In terms of more difficult periods of Church history, I am wondering if you are classifying the current crisis of the papacy to these more serious events? Because I am not. The only thing that is more threatening to Church unity today, compared to 1045, 1309, 1378 is that we have instant communication today through the new media and more people"

What seems more threatening today is the appearance of rampant heterodoxy in the very top ranks of the Roman Catholic Church. So far as I can ascertain, this situation is unprecedented in Church history. Not having obtained either in the heresies of patristic times, or in the Byzantine schism, or the time of the anti-popes, or in the Protestant reformation. These previous events may well have been less serious as threats to the preservation of orthodox faith within Holy Mother Church Herself.

Dialogue said...

Anonymous,

No, I do not, nor would I advise others to do so. Indeed, I know no reasonable Catholic who would suggest doing such a thing.

Anonymous said...

It is also being reported that Francis did not hold the traditional meeting of cardinals before the consistory because more cardinals were going to come forward with dubia, and so he is obviously not prepared to face up to the situation. If Francis is declared a heretic no doubt a lot of the cardinals appointed at this consistory and prior will be null and void.

I have always thought that Francis would be the means by which the liberals would finally be led out of the Church and the Church purified. I cannot see any other way. The liberals have doggedly continued on in their determination to overturn the Church's moral teaching and remake the Church to their own liking. Of course, we have the promise that the gates of hell will never prevail against Her. Therefore, at some point in time the liberals will have to leave the Church. Francis has given them a taste of what they want and so they will not give up now. Francis, like the Pied Piper and they will follow him wherever he goes and Cardinal Burke and the other cardinals in the year of mercy have opened the gate ...

Jan

Mark Thomas said...

Jan, I am not confused in regard to the issue at hand. Pope Francis declared publicly that (unrepentant) divorced and "remarried" Catholics are not permitted to receive Holy Communion.

I turn to my bishop who declared that Amoris Laetitia is orthodox and has not changed Church teaching.

I have heard one bishop and Cardinal after another declare the same as my bishop.

I turn also to the CCC, which Pope Francis has endorsed as a sure guide to Church teaching.

Please alert me when Pope Francis declares publicly that the above sources, including his public teaching that the (unrepentant) divorced and "remarried" are not permitted to receive Holy Communion, is valid.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Anonymous said...

Dialogue, well, there you have it.

Dialogue said...

Anonymous,

What is it that I have?

Anonymous said...

No argument

Mark Thomas said...

Jan, Cardinal Burke may speak if he pleases.

I recall when he had spoken about Amoris Laetitia. Cardinal Burke said that Amoris Laetitia was orthodox. He said that people who insisted that Amoris Laetitia had changed Church teaching had spread confusion and scandal within and without the Church.

Perhaps Cardinal Burke has spread confusion and given scandal as he has presented Amoris Laetitia as orthodox one day and the source of grave errors the following day.

Now, he opposes the bishops of Poland, Africa, Costa Rica, Alberta...Archbishop Chaput, Cardinal DiNardo, Archbishop Cordileone, Cardinal Müller...and hundreds upon hundreds of Cardinals and bishops who have said that AL is orthodox and hasn't changed Church teaching.

Cardinal Burke read Amoris Laetitia. Cardinal Burke informed us about Amoris Laetitia. Cardinal Burke declared that Amoris Laetitia was orthodox.

Between then — when Cardinal Burke declared Amoris Laetitia orthodox — and now, — when Cardinal Burke attacked Amoris Laetitia — did Amoris Laetitia turn magically into an unorthodox document?

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Dialogue said...

Anonymous,

I admit that I do not understand your point, but I'll accept that you have made it.

DH said...

I'm new here and just happened upon your blog. I woke up today and as I often do, hit the on button for our TV to help me wake up in a positive tone (with the station preset on EWTN and the Popes message).

Did I hear wrong or did the Pope say "you have the power, YOU have the power.....) since I was half asleep, I probably ? missed something in his message or perhaps translation, yet am I wrong to flag in my mind that 'WE' don't have the power, it is the power we have through Christ our Lord!?

Please forgive me if a. I heard wrong or b. I am wrong entirely. I am a Catholic convert, came into The Church because of its 2000 year tradition and with that am still learning via reading and listening.

Thank you, anyone being kind enough to have the goodwill and patience to advise me regarding my confusion.

God bless,

DH