Wednesday, December 28, 2016

REMAINING CATHOLIC DURING A PERIOD OF UNPRECEDENTED AND HISTORIC UPHEAVAL IN THE CHURCH


The Gospel Message is neither conservative nor liberal but should be defined as “challenging," says Cardinal Christoph Schönborn. I would agree and have often written that it is best that we not use the political terms of conservative/regressive or liberal/progressive but rather orthodox/orthopraxis and heterodox/heteropraxis.

The Cardinal also  acknowledged "the existence of a fierce and organized opposition to Pope France, carried out in certain. Catholics circles. And he’s warned that it is fomenting considerable polarization within the Church." (I would say that the style/words/actions of Pope Francis are at the root of this and in various circles of the Church. Being the one who has caused it, His Holiness is the one and only one that can end it in a amicable way.)

He goes on to say,  “We are currently witnessing intensive inner-church debates – not so much in Austria, but internationally – as there is quite evidently very strong, significant opposition to Pope Francis.”

I do not know how many rank and file laity are aware of this historic moment in the Catholic Church where there is going to be a "fraternal correction" of the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church by four cardinals and their hidden supporters.

My own anxiety is that this is uncharted and unprecedented in the modern history of the Catholic Church and by modern I mean during and since the Counter-Reformation and the Council of Trent.

Will Cardinal Burke and the other three lose their red hats? Will they be excommunicated, like Archbishop Marcel Lefebrev if they continue on their chosen path while having been reprimanded by the Supreme Pontiff.

Worse yet, is how so many rank and file Catholics, geeks of the blogosphere, are reacting to the Holy Father in very uncharitable ways, which of course is a mortal sin requiring absolution by a priest after having acknowledge the sin, repented and seeking to amend their lives. I wonder how many of these people present themselves for Holy Communion each Sunday but castigate others with different types of mortal sins, to include adultery, who present themselves as well for Holy Communion. Birds of a feather i would speculate.

What rank and file clergy and laity should be doing in the most charitable way possible is praying to almighty God for the Holy Father and the Magisterium of the Church.

Here are three prayers for the Supreme Pontiff that I would recommend:

O God, the Shepherd and Ruler of all Your faithful people, mercifully look upon Your servant [name of Pope], whom You have chosen as the chief Shepherd to preside over Your Church. We beg You to help him edify, both by word and example, those over whom he has charge, that he may reach everlasting life together with the flock entrusted to him. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

or

Almighty and Everlasting God, have mercy on Your servant [name of Pope], our Supreme Pontiff, and direct him, according to Your loving kindness, in the way of eternal salvation, that with Your help he may ever desire that which is pleasing to You and accomplish it with all his strength. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.
Lord Jesus, shelter our Holy Father the Pope under the protection of Your Sacred Heart. Be his light, his strength and his consolation.

Or this one written by Pope Leo XII:

O Lord, we are the millions of believers, humbly kneeling at Thy feet and begging Thee to preserve, defend and save the Sovereign Pontiff for many years. He is the Father of the great fellowship of souls and our Father as well. On this day, as on every other day, he is praying for us also, and is offering unto Thee with holy fervor the sacred Victim of love and peace. 

Wherefore, O Lord, turn Thyself toward us with eyes of pity; for we are now, as it were, forgetful of ourselves, and are praying above all for him. Do Thou unite our prayers with his and receive them into the bosom of Thine infinite mercy, as a sweet savor of active and fruitful charity, whereby the children are united in the Church to their Father. All that he asks of Thee this day, we too ask it of Thee in unison with him. 

Whether he weeps or rejoices, whether he hopes or offers himself as a victim of charity for his people, we desire to be united with him; nay more, we desire that the cry of our hearts should be made one with his. Of Thy great mercy grant, O Lord, that not one of us may be far from his mind and his heart in the hour that he prays and offers unto Thee the Sacrifice of Thy blessed Son. At the moment when our venerable High Priest, holding in His hands the very Body of Jesus Christ, shall say to the people over the Chalice of benediction these words: "The peace of the Lord be with you always," grant, O Lord, that Thy sweet peace may come down upon our hearts and upon all the nations with new and manifest power. Amen.
 



82 comments:

Anonymous said...

Pope Francis keeps saying he wants dialogue. That's fine when things are going your way. Then why doesn't he TALK to Cardinal Burke and the other cardinals. They are fellow bishops and cardinals......talk to them.

Don't just banish them because they ask legitimate questions.......QUESTIONS......about a purposefully vague document.

And why the subterfuge.

If Pope Francis believes their are certain circumstances when people living in adultery can receive communion, if he believes this and believes it is not heresy then why not come out clearly and state it. Say yes when you mean yes and no when you mean no. Be a man. Stop acting like a high school girl.

If he isn't teaching anything contrary to the Faith then he should openly defend it and teach it so that others can understand. But he isn't doing anything like this. He is purposefully vague and lies about the synod (the Kasper proposal was rejected, Francis demanded it be included), he uses every opportunity to say the most vicious, uncharitable and frankly disturbing language I have ever heard from not only a pope but a priest. Francis IS the problem. There is something wrong with him and if people were honest they would admit it.

TJM said...

My guess is that 99% of Catholics are unaware. This Pope has been a disaster. Time to check out.

rcg said...

I think that in the past many people said equally uncharitable things about the Pope and clergy but with out the amplification of the Internet. Those who did put criticism into print did so with somewhat more deliberation and expectation of consequences. What I do not understand about Pope Francis is how he can seemingly eschew the assistance of minds like Burke, Schneider, Pell, and Ranjith. It seems that alone would have cleared up most of this mess. Of course he has limitless access to the Pope Emeritus.

Victor said...

Fr. M, you are quite correct in saying "that the style/words/actions of Pope Francis are at the root of this". I think he is not competent as universal leader yet, being uncultivated as his use of coarse and unrefined language shows, and having a mind that is still living in provincial Argentina.
But what concerns me more is his entourage, a pack of ideologues who are manipulating him as they did Paul VI. Those little ambiguities in Amoris Laetitia are the same tactics that ideologues used in the documents of Vatican II, particualrly Sacrosanctum Concilium: open the door a little to construct a wide open plaza later. The recent Leonardo Boff revelations show how Francis is being encouraged, if not manipulated, to see only one extreme side of issues, and not the other.

Anonymous said...

Unprecedented? (or is that "unpresidented"? Oh well...)

Hardly.

Read a little more about the Avignon papacy, the persecution of early Christians, the investiture controversy, the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, the Protestant Reformation, etc etc etc.

As Thomas McDonald wrote in the NCRegister, "The point here isn’t just to say things were worse once (cold comfort) or to look at the origin of the issue (useful as that may be), but to put things in their proper perspective and to give Catholics a better way to sort reasonable concern from mere hysteria. Those saying that this is the worst crisis the Church has ever faced, or that we are in uniquely dangerous times, are simply wrong. They’re scaring people needlessly. It’s creating anxiety and tension in a world that already has too much of both things."

Mark Thomas said...

Father McDonald said...<<<"I do not know how many rank and file laity are aware of this historic moment in the Catholic Church where there is going to be a "fraternal correction" of the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church by four cardinals and their hidden supporters.">>>

I doubt that the overwhelming amount of Catholics are aware of the dubia. Among Catholics who are aware of the dubia, I doubt that the majority care even a bit about the dubia "controversy.

Perhaps I have projected my feelings about the dubia onto other people and misread the atmosphere that has surrounded the dubia.

But all I can say is that I'm familiar with several parishes in my area. At said parishes, following Mass or any other time familiar to me, I have not encountered any discussion in regard to the dubia. I have not encountered at nearby parishes any concern about the dubia.

Even right-winger Michael Matt (The Remnant) stated that the vast majority of Catholics would urge right-wingers who are fixated upon the dubia to "chill out."

Sorry, but I am not concerned in the least about the dubia-related "controversy." I believe that the vast majority of my brothers and sisters in the Faith are not worried (if they're even aware of the dubia) about the dubia.

Anyway, I will remain relaxed as the Church's right-wing and left-wing factions argue about the dubia.

All that I need to know to remain calm is the following teaching from Holy Mother Church: In the Apostolic See the Catholic Religion has always been preserved immaculate.

I will remain attached to the Roman Pontiff, His Holiness Pope Francis, In turn, that will protect me from falling into schism/heresy.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

Catholic World News

No public ‘correction’ of Pope, Cardinal Brandmüller says

December 27, 2016 A.D.

"Cardinal Walter Brandmüller — one of the four cardinals who submitted dubia to Pope Francis regarding the interpretation of Amoris Laetitia — has said that any “correction” of the Pontiff would be done privately."
=======================================================================

That has just dealt another big-time blow to over-the-top right-wing narrative that the Four Cardinals had...

1. Trapped and exposed His Holiness Pope Francis as a heretic.

2. Painted Pope Francis into a corner.

3. Ended Pope Francis' Pontificate.

4. Launched the Church into a much-needed civil war that would force each Catholic to stand either with "heretical" Pope Francis and "modernist NewChurch,. New Rome," or the Four Cardinals and, of course, according to the right-wing narrative, the SSPX, where the "True Church exists today."

5. Ended the Vatican II Era as the Four Cardinals would lead the True Remnant back to the "pre-Vatican II Church."

Incredibly and frighteningly, there are more than a few right-wing Catholics who actually believe and promote the above ridiculous narrative.

Anyway, the fantasy world Four Cardinals "schism" that right-wing Catholics, incredibly, desire and promote, will not see the light of day.

Pax.

Mark Thoma

TJM said...

Mark Thomas = Left-wing, ergo, not a Catholic

Victor said...

Mr Thomas:
What you fail to realise is that there is already a schism in the Church but has not been declared formally. The role of the Pope is to avoid schism, to keep peace, and bring about reconciliation and harmony. If a Pope were to say even jokingly that he will bring about a schism, that would show a lack of circumspection, and poor leadership skills. That may be humour in Argentina, but certainly not in Rome. Apparently, that is what some claim Francis said.

As for your comments on Cardinal Brandmüller's interview, you neglect to mention that he also said that he felt sure Cardinal Burke, too, would agree that any “fraternal correction” of the Pope should be made “in camera caritatis,” without a public statement; and most importantly, that he still expects an answer from Pope Francis to the dubia. “We cardinals expect a response,” he said, “as a lack of a response would be seen by many within the Church as a rejection of a clear and articulate adherence to the clearly defined doctrine.”

Mark Thomas said...

TJM, left-wing is, of course, Catholic. Right-wing is, of course, Catholic. Moderate is Catholic. The question is whether a Catholic in one of those categories goes beyond Church teaching.

To the notion that left-wing is not Catholic, according to you:

Since the time of big labor unions, our Popes have supported Big Labor. Support for Big Labor earns one the label of "liberal." Does that mean that our Popes are not Catholic as they've favored the liberal cause in question?

Staunch support for the United Nations Organization is a "liberal" policy. Beginning with Pope Venerable Pius XII, our Popes have throw-in with the U.N. Does that negate the orthodoxy of each Pope in question as they've favored the liberal policy in question?

Liberals are staunch supporters of the Ecumenical Movement. Right-wing Catholics despise the Ecumenical Movement. Pope Venerable Pius XII launched the Church into the Ecumenical Movement. Does that classify Pope Venerable Pius XII as a non-Catholic as he insisted that the Holy Ghost had inspired the Protestant Ecumenical Movement?

Sorry, but I believe that it's is very dangerous to declare as did you that..."Left-wing, ergo, not a Catholic."

Left-wing is Catholic. Crossing the line into unorthodox belief is not Catholic. As long as left-wingers/right-wingers don't cross that line, then one enjoys the label of "Catholic."

By the way, I agree with Father McDonald in that "it is best that we not use the political terms of conservative/regressive or liberal/progressive but rather orthodox/orthopraxis and heterodox/heteropraxis."

The problem is that the labels in question are engrained in the manner in which we communicate with each other, within and without the Church. But in theory, I agree with Father McDonald.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

TJM said...

Mark Thomas,

Do you ever read and reflect upon what you write? You say we shouldn't use labels, but you use the term, right-wing, non-stop, ad nauseum.

Anonymous said...

The Gospel Message is neither conservative nor liberal , but I guarantee Liberals and Conservatives do influence the Churches that preach those gospels. Political lobbyists are not going to ignore the congregations. In this liberal region I can help but notice how the parishes mimic the politics. A liberal congressional district produces a liberal diocese, and that is directly because of political lobbying. Certain groups within the State don't want to be separate from Church, the want to absorb Church. That is something to be fearful of.

Mark Thomas said...

Victor, you are correct that Cardinal Brandmüller said the following:

“We cardinals expect a response, as a lack of a response would be seen by many within the Church as a rejection of a clear and articulate adherence to the clearly defined doctrine.”

Victor, from the beginning in regard to their dubia, the Four Cardinals anticipated a response from His Holiness Pope Francis. That isn't newsworthy.

However, what is newsworthy, if Cardinal Brandmüller's comments were presented correctly by the news media, is the declaration that the defanged and declawed "correction" would be issued in private without a public statement from the Four Cardinals.

That is an additional major blow to the right-wing narrative that the Four Cardinals had trampled Pope Francis, exposed him as a "heretic," and would lead the charge to convoke a conclave to elect a Pope.

Cardinal Brandmüller's comments in question in addition to Cardinal Burke's recent declarations to Catholic World Report have smashed the notion that the Four Cardinals had "stuck it" to Pope Francis.

Catholic World Report: Some critics say you are implicitly accusing the Pope of heresy.

Cardinal Burke: "No, that's not what we have implied at all. We’re not accusing him of heresy, but just asking him to answer these questions for us as the Supreme Pastor of the Church.

"I am not the enemy of the Pope.

"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." *********

===================================================================================

In light of the above comments from Cardinals Brandmüller and Burke, I fail to see where the dubia has any teeth.

In regard to Pope Francis/Amoris Laetitia, we are not talking in the slightest about heresy, according to Cardinal Burke.

In regard to Pope Francis/Amoris Laetitia, we are not talking in the slightest about a dramatic, public, historical "correction" from the Four Cardinals that would shake the Church to Her core, according to Cardinal Brandmüller's comments in question.

From the beginning, I rejected the right-wing narrative that the Four Cardinal had destroyed Pope Francis' Pontificate. I rejected the narrative that the Four Cardinals had exposed Pope Francis as a heretic and paved the way to convoke a conclave to elect a Pope.

I don't have the slightest reason to change my mind in that regard.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

I have said many times that the use of "right-wing, left-wing" labels talk is, in many ways, useless. In theory, I agree with Father McDonald's call to move away from said labels. But I noted also a couple of hours ago that the "right-wing", "left-wing" labels are "engrained in the manner in which we communicate with each other, within and without the Church."

In theory, I believe that it would be ideal to discard said labels, at least in regard to Catholicism. Now, if that would work, then please count me in. However, I have found that it's not easy to simply discard the use of said labels.

TJM, I don't understand why my comments about the use of labels requires me to "read and reflect" upon" my comments.

Certain notions are ideal. In theory, the rejection of the use of "right-wing" and "left-wing" is fine with me. However, in actual practice, I have found that it's not always easy to refrain from the use of said lables.

In theory, I would like to ditch the use of such labels as "Extraordinary Form...Ordinary Form, TLM, Novus Ordo"...and refer to the Mass simply as the "Mass," as was the case for century upon century within the Church.

I would like to discuss the Mass at the parish level without having to employ such labels as "Youth Mass," "Spirit Mass," "Polka Mass," "Contemporary Mass," "Creole Mass," "Indigenous Mass,"...etc.

But good luck to anybody who attempts today to discuss Latin Church liturgy without the use of labels.

Good luck today to anybody who discusses Catholicism without employing the use of "right-wing," "left-wing," "moderate," and "traditional" labels.

Ideally, I agree with Father McDonald about the use of labels. But good luck attempting to communicate without the use of the labels in question.

Okay, TJM?

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Gene said...

My prediction for 2017 is that the Pope will join the Methodist church and declare all Catholics to be Methodists.

Mark Thomas said...

Here we go. At least some degree of reality has set in among certain folks who believed, to their joy, that the dubia had destroyed Pope Francis' Pontificate.

Louie Verrecchio is a "Catholic" blogger who has declared that His Holiness Pope Francis is "a formal heretic...therefore, an antipope." Mister Verreccchio was thrilled last month when news of the dubia had become public.

Mister Verrecchio is...ummm...so "Catholic" that although he was thrilled that the dubia had (supposedly) placed Pope Francis "on trial," Mr. Verrecchio declared that the Cardinals associated with the dubia were "modernists"...big, bad "men of the Council" akin to Pope Francis.

Well, after having insisted last month that the Four Cardinal, even though they are big, bad, awful "modernists," had stuck it to Pope Francis (Pope Francis had been exposed supposedly as a "heretic"...yeah, right), Mister Verrecchio offered the following today:

-- Does Cardinal Brandmuller's recent interview indicate trouble in Dubialand?

-- Is there trouble in Dubialand?

https://akacatholic.com/is-there-trouble-in-dubialand/#comments

"In an interview published by Italian journalist Andrea Tornielli of Vatican Insider on 27 December, Cardinal Walter Brandmüller offered comments that show signs of weakness, and perhaps even a degree of disunity, among the authors of the dubia.

"Look, as far as I’m concerned, the dubia has already served to expose Francis as a formal heretic..Even so, what we’re witnessing in these interviews taken as a whole doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in the authors of said dubia moving forward.

"Specifically, we have to wonder if they even have a “game plan” for ridding the Church of Francis should he fail to convert to the Catholic faith.

"Forgive the gloomy forecast, folks, but seriously, does anyone really think it more likely that they will move forward with a declaration of formal heresy and the calling of a new conclave?"

"I don’t, not at this point, anyway."
================================================================

Reality has set in for certain Pope-Francis-is-heretic/antipope "Catholics" who, just last month, jumped for joy when they learned about the dubia. Their dubia-has-smashed-Pope-Francis...a-conclave-will-be-convoked-to-elect-a-new-Pope narrative has shattered.

By the way, Mister Verrecchio said..."Look, as far as I’m concerned, the dubia has already served to expose Francis as a formal heretic.."

Really? Then why did Mister Verrecchio, near the end of his article in question, declare the following?

"Forgive the gloomy forecast, folks, but seriously, does anyone really think it more likely that they will move forward with a declaration of formal heresy and the calling of a new conclave? I don’t, not at this point, anyway."

As (supposedly) the "dubia has already served to expose Francis as a formal heretic..", then why the "Forgive the gloomy forecast, folks..." article by Mister Verrecchio?

Deo gratias, the dubia-related fantasy world populated by certain "Catholics" has given way to reality.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Anonymous said...

"In light of the above comments from Cardinals Brandmüller and Burke, I fail to see where the dubia has any teeth."

Really. No cardinals or bishops except the pope's usual hangers on are coming to the defense of the pope. The vast majority are silent. They are watching and waiting to see how Francis is going to respond and he has to respond. God said you shall not commit adultery and Francis has no power to permit it. And you are also failing to see that Cardinal Brandmuller threw down the gauntlet when he said clearly that anyone who permits adulterers to receive communion is a heretic. HE accused, indirectly, Francis of being a heretic. He went farther than Burke. This Dubai not only has teeth but claws.

The recent slap down of Francis by the Knights of Malta speaks volumes. Francis had his commission formed to further torture Cardinal Burke but in his arrogance Francis failed to remember that the Knights of Malta are a sovereign entity. Francis basically in banishing Cardinal Burke in effect made him the spiritual head of a sovereign body. The Knights are standing behind Burke and they let the pope know it. Like Eva person before him Francis can play to the crowds all he wants but the bishops behind the scenes will not stand much more from him. Has there been one day when Francis hasn't bitched about something. The man needs major meds and to be put away in a monastery far far away.

Jan said...

Cardinal Brandmuller has stated that his comment about the correction of Pope Francis being in private is his own opinion but he thought Cardinal Burke may feel the same. However, I would think that such a correction would have to be public so that the faithful would know that there is a correction of AL. Otherwise, the correction would be pointless. The whole aim of such a correction would be to affirm the Church's constant teaching.

Mark Thomas seems to be saying he would prefer that Catholics continue on in error rather than there be a public correction of Francis.

There is certainly discussion among Catholics in my country about Pope Francis and some of it is highly critical of him and it is across the board. Interestingly members of the SSPX are far less critical of Francis than anyone else I know.

Jan said...

And I think Mark Thomas is wrong about the dubia having no teeth. In reality, Francis has been put on notice. As Cardinal Burke said in a recent interview:

" In a new interview, Cardinal Burke said he is not accusing Pope Francis of "heresy" by submitting the five dubia for him to answer. He also explained that if a pope were to "formally profess heresy he would cease, by that act, to be the Pope" and that there is a process within the Church for dealing with such a situation.

"The faithful and priests and bishops have the right to have these questions answered," he said of the dubia. "It was our duty as cardinals, when the Pope made it clear that he would not respond to them, to make them public so that the priests and the lay faithful who had these same doubts might know that their doubts are legitimate and that they deserve a response."

Therefore, there is a process in the Church for dealing with heresy and as Cardinal Burke says we Catholics are entitled to know plainly whether Francis upholds Church teaching or not. Francis needs to lead by example. After all, that is what is required of the papal office.

TJM said...

Mark Thomas,

Obamacare might cover mental health issues. Check into it because it might cover advanced papalotry.

Anonymous said...

Maybe you should send this post to the 9 million Catholics who left the RCC in only 2 years and this is ONLY in Brazil




As an Orthodox Christian on the outside looking in, the Catholic hierarchy really, really needs to evaluate themselves and the current situation




-Minas

Mark Thomas said...

Jan said..."He also explained that if a pope were to "formally profess heresy he would cease, by that act, to be the Pope" and that there is a process within the Church for dealing with such a situation."

Okay.

The next person could say that a Cardinal who professed "formal heresy" would cease to be a Cardinal.

Okay.

What does that have to do with the dubia? What does that have to do with His Holiness Pope Francis?

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

Jan said that His Holiness Pope Francis was "put on notice."

-- What does that mean?

-- Who placed Pope Francis on notice?
=====================================================

Cardinal Burke believes that Pope Francis must answer the dubia. Okay. Great. That is his opinion.

Many Catholics have said that Pope Francis should refuse to respond to the dubia. Okay. Great. Said folks have expressed their opinions in that regard.

That is what were are dealing with...opinions.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

Jan said..."And I think Mark Thomas is wrong about the dubia having no teeth."

Okay.

I have the right to believe that the dubia is toothless. You have the right to believe otherwise.

1. His Holiness has not answered the questions posed to him by the Four Cardinals.

2. What can the Four Cardinals do about that?

Pax.

Mark Thomas

rcg said...

They are not correcting the Pope, they are 'dubious' of some of the points and teaching in AL. It appears the Pope does not think thier doubts or concerns are contradictions but points of deeper discussion but the Church. He clearly does not like clear or easy answers, that is not a bad thing for a Pope. There are innumerable correct actions but only One Star to guide us, be it over my right shoulder or your left. There is a phenomenon called autokinesis where in the darkest conditions a single point of light, alone in the field of darkness, appears to move. The response on the person attempting to follow that light is to wobble about and stumble or fall even while attempting to stand upright. This is due to our internal systems trying to gain a frame of reference for the light and generating input to our eyes to look for something else as comparison. Pope Francis acknowledges the Light is the True Light but seems to ignore that many distractions that come from within ourselves and that disturb our vision.

rcg said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
DJR said...

Mark Thomas said... I will remain attached to the Roman Pontiff, His Holiness Pope Francis, In turn, that will protect me from falling into schism/heresy.


Being "attached" to the Roman Pontiff does not prevent a person's fall into heresy.

Hans Kung is a priest in good standing with the Catholic Church, his priestly faculties have never been suspended, and he is in communion with the Roman Pontiff, Pope Francis.

Among other things, Kung has publicly rejected the doctrine of papal infallibility. It's right there in his 1971 book.

Father Charles Curran is a Catholic in good standing, which means he is in communion with Pope Francis. He denies some basic Catholic teachings.

The Bishop of San Diego has publicly stated that some people in adulterous unions may be admitted to Holy Communion. He is in communion with the pope.

The examples of people like them could be multiplied by the thousands.

DJR said...

Mark Thomas said... I have the right to believe that the dubia is toothless.

If the dubia are so "toothless," why has there been such vehement public opposition to them by the pope's allies?

People appear to be operating under the mistaken impression that, because the majority of Catholics are ill-informed about, or don't even care about, the dubia issue, that that somehow makes it a non-issue.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

What happened in the era of Pope John XXII became an enormous issue, but not to rank and file Catholics.

It is doubtful that Catholics in India concerned themselves with the error that John XXII was promoting. They were thousands of miles away, with limited access to information coming from Avignon.

Many Catholics at the time probably never even heard of the controversy.

Nevertheless, the issue was a big one that involved major players.

The dubia issue is not as insignificant as you apparently think it is.

The fact that the pope's "friends" keep talking about it tells us that, A, it's no small matter, and, B, it's not going to go away any time soon.

Mark Thomas said...

DJR said..."If the dubia are so "toothless," why has there been such vehement public opposition to them by the pope's allies?

Ask them. The dubia and "correction" aren't of great interest to me in that I'm not worried about the right-wing claims that surround the dubia and "correction"...such as, they spell the end of Pope Francis' Pontificate...the Cardinals "stuck it" to Pope Francis...Pope Francis is a heretic...the Cardinals will convoke a conclave to elect an "orthodox" Pope...the Church's civil war is on...

It is a lot of right-wing, fantasy world nonsense to me.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

TJM said...

Mark Thomas seek help. Pope Francis is a gnat compared to his predecessors. Catholicism is collapsing in Brazil. Grow up

Mark Thomas said...

TJM, at least since the 1960s, the Church has suffered losses in regard to membership in Mexico, Central, and South America.

Time Magazine, in a January 1, 1965 A.D. article about Father Leonard Feeney, noted Father Feeney's comments about the advance of Protestantism in Latin America.

But I guess that the collapse of the Church in Latin America did not begin until the reign of Pope Francis. Is that the latest anti-Pope Francis spin from the right-wing?

Pax.

Mark Thomas

DJR said...

Mark Thomas said... It is a lot of right-wing, fantasy world nonsense to me.

Well, it may seem that way to you now, but whether your view is correct remains to be seen. It may be that you are the one living in the fantasy world.

For instance, there have been reports that Pope Francis is enraged about what is happening. Those reports come from several independent sources.

Yet, when one of the pope's main supporters (no agenda there, of course!) publicly states that the pope is serene, you take that person's word for it.

THAT is living in a fantasy world.

There is every indication, even by the pope's own words and conduct, that he is angry that his agenda is meeting resistance.

As I've pointed out several times, no one during the reign of Pope Formosus would have dreamed that two... not one, but two... of his successors would declare him to be an antipope and annul all his acts, including his ordinations and episcopal consecrations (as well as dig up his corpse, put it on trial, mutilate it, and then throw it in the river).

Yet, that is an historical fact. It happened.

If it has happened in the past, it can happen again (hopefully not the corpse part). We have no idea what the future holds.

Catholics who live in a bubble and do not want their world views tampered with are going to be ill equipped to handle any major turmoil in the Church, should that event happen.

There is every indication that we are headed for turmoil.

No amount of "attaching" oneself to Pope Francis will ensure that a person will not fall into heresy.

Cardinal Kasper is "attached" to Pope Francis. He is a priest/bishop/cardinal in good standing. In fact, he is one of the closest collaborators of the pope.

Do you actually consider Cardinal Kasper to be orthodox?

DJR said...

Mark Thomas... But I guess that the collapse of the Church in Latin America did not begin until the reign of Pope Francis. Is that the latest anti-Pope Francis spin from the right-wing?

Mark, from your wing, we have heard, for the last almost three years, of "the Francis Effect."

We've been told that people have been flocking back to church due solely to the pontificate of Pope Francis.

Is that the latest pro-Pope Francis spin from your wing?



Anonymous said...

Mark Thomas....take your mess and go to bed. Your efforts to defend the indefensible are beginning to take a toll.

Anonymous said...

Cardinal Brandmuller has made several clear statements on the dubia and AL : "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/article/correction-of-amoris-laetitias-errors-will-initially-be-private-says-cdl.-b


“Whoever thinks that persistent adultery and the reception of Holy Communion are compatible is a heretic and promotes schism.”

Cardinal Walter Brandmuller made the remark while speaking with Spiegel reporter Walter Mayr about the dubia – the as yet unanswered questions asked openly and officially by four Cardinals seeking to have the Pope clarify potentially heretical interpretations of his Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia.

In a separate interview released today by Vatican Radio, close papal confidant Cardinal Walter Kasper says the Pope has been clear in Amoris Laetitia and that the Pope confirmed his take in his statements approving the approach of the Argentine bishops. The letter to the Argentine bishops to which Cardinal Kasper refers has Pope Francis saying that it is authentic to interpret Amoris Laetitia in a way which permits Holy Communion in limited cases to divorced and remarried couples with no possibility of annulment."

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/dubia-cardinal-anyone-who-opens-communion-to-adulterers-is-a-heretic-and-pr

Mark Thomas claims that it is right wing Catholics who are opposed to Francis. He is wrong again. It is orthodox Catholics who are upholding the constant teaching of the Church in the face of the attempted watering down and liberalizing of Church doctrine by Francis supported by other liberals such as Kasper and left-wing Catholics such as Mark Thomas himself.

Jan

Mark Thomas said...

DJR said..."Mark, from your wing, we have heard, for the last almost three years, of "the Francis Effect." We've been told that people have been flocking back to church due solely to the pontificate of Pope Francis. Is that the latest pro-Pope Francis spin from your wing?"

You have not heard that from my wing. I did not (and don't) believe in the Pope "Francis Effect." Just as there was not a Pope Benedict XVI Effect, Pope Saint John Paul II Effect...

I have believed for decades that as long as Novus Ordoism — that is, the New Mass, ecumenical/interfaith "dialogue," eat meat on Fridays, construct ugly churches, feminize the liturgy, administer Holy Communion in the hand, etc. — remains in place, then the Vatican II Era collapse of the Faith will continue unabated almost everywhere throughout the (Latin) Church.

I did not anticipate that Catholics would return in waves to the Church as the result of Cardinal Bergoglio's elevation to the Throne of Saint Peter. Catholics will not return in droves to the Church as the result of this or that Cardinal's elevation to the Throne of Saint Peter.

The (Latin) Church must restore the TLM, from which the restoration of Holy Tradition would flow, to Her altars at parish after parish should She wish to reverse the Vatican II Era collapse of Catholicism.

My wing has promoted that message for years.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

DJR said..."Cardinal Kasper is "attached" to Pope Francis. He is a priest/bishop/cardinal in good standing. In fact, he is one of the closest collaborators of the pope. Do you actually consider Cardinal Kasper to be orthodox?"

Is Cardinal Kasper a "priest/bishop/cardinal in good standing" with the Church? If he is, then he is orthodox.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

DJR said...<<<"Being "attached" to the Roman Pontiff does not prevent a person's fall into heresy.">>>

1. Holy Mother Church teaches that in "matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent." (Second Vatican Council.)

2. "This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will." (Second Vatican Council.)

3. "In the Apostolic See the Catholic Religion has always been preserved immaculate." (First Vatican Council.)

DJR, Holy Mother Church proclaims that we are to attach ourselves to the Roman Pontiff (as well as bishops in communion with the Pope).

Holy Mother Church has declared that the Roman Pontiff and bishops in communion with him are authorized by God to teach, govern, and sanctify us...we are to accept their teachings when they proclaim to us the Faith.

Therefore, DJR, please explain as to how a person, who, in obedience to Holy Mother Church, has attached himself to the Roman Pontiff (and bishops in communion with him), could possibly fall into schism/heresy?

Thank you.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...

I pray for the pope daily, but found the first prayer troubling to say the least when it says this:

"O God, the Shepherd and Ruler of all Your faithful people, mercifully look upon Your servant [name of Pope], whom You have chosen as the chief Shepherd to preside over Your Church."

When Cardinal Ratzinger was asked in 1997 whether God chooses the pope he gave a clear no:

Ratzinger on Conclaves

Here I point the reader to a piece Catholic journalist John Allen recently published in which he cites Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger on the topic:
. . . Benedict XVI, who as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was asked on Bavarian television in 1997 if the Holy Spirit is responsible for who gets elected. This was his response:
"I would not say so, in the sense that the Holy Spirit picks out the Pope. ... I would say that the Spirit does not exactly take control of the affair, but rather like a good educator, as it were, leaves us much space, much freedom, without entirely abandoning us. Thus the Spirit's role should be understood in a much more elastic sense, not that he dictates the candidate for whom one must vote. Probably the only assurance he offers is that the thing cannot be totally ruined."

Then the clincher: "There are too many contrary instances of popes the Holy Spirit obviously would not have picked!" (The source for this is http://www.thesacredpage.com/2013/02/no-holy-spirit-doesnt-choose-pope.html)

The other prayers for the pope include praying for our unity with him as our spiritual father, but the understanding, of course, is that we are praying for his intentions as they correspond to the will of Almighty God.

DJR said...

Mark Thomas said… "Is Cardinal Kasper a "priest/bishop/cardinal in good standing" with the Church? If he is, then he is orthodox."
"Therefore, DJR, please explain as to how a person, who, in obedience to Holy Mother Church, has attached himself to the Roman Pontiff (and bishops in communion with him), could possibly fall into schism/heresy?"


The response to your inquiry is easy. All one need do is cite one person: Hans Kung.

Hans Kung is in communion with the Roman Pontiff, His Holiness Pope Francis. He is a priest in good standing. He has never had his priestly faculties suspended by any pope or bishop (although he is not permitted to claim to teach as a Catholic theologian). Father Kung is no less "attached" to Pope Francis than you are.

Among other magisterial teachings, Hans Kung denies the Catholic dogma of papal infallibility.

Therefore, Mark Thomas, please explain as to how a person like Hans Kung, who, in obedience to Holy Mother Church, has attached himself to the Roman Pontiff (and bishops in communion with him), could possibly NOT be a heretic when he denies such Catholic dogmas as papal infallibility.

If your assertion regarding Cardinal Kasper is correct, it is no less correct about Hans Kung.

To paraphrase you: Is Hans Kung a "priest/bishop/cardinal in good standing" with the Church? If he is, then, according to you, he is orthodox… even though he denies Catholic dogma.

I trust that that answers the question.

DJR said...

Mark Thomas said... 2. "This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will." (Second Vatican Council.)

I assume you believe that to also be true during the reigns of Pope Stephen VI and Pope Sergius III, both of whom declared Pope Formosus to be an antipope and annulled all his acts and ordinations.

Would you submit "with reverence" to the rulings of Pope Stephen VI and Sergius III in that regard?

Was Pope Formosus an antipope?

Mark Thomas said...

DJR, I accept the teachings of the True Church. You have referenced Popes Stephen VI, Sergius III, Formosus, or any Pope. But how do your references to said Popes overthrow the Church's teaching that we are to submit to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff?

Do your references in question trump the Church's teaching that in the Apostolic See the Catholic Religion has always been preserved immaculate?

DJR, you will do as you see fit. In turn, I will remain attached to His Holiness Pope Francis as Catholic teaching guarantees that as long as I remained attached to the Roman Pontiff (and bishops in communion with him), I will not fall into schism/heresy.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

John Nolan said...

Formosus is not an antipope, nor is Stephen VI, nor is Sergius III (who murdered his predecessor), nor is John XII who was elected at the age of 18 and who died nine years later of sexual over-exertion with a married woman.

The tenth century was not a glorious one as far as the papacy is concerned, but it saw the start of the Cluniac monastic reform, and the strength of Cluny was that it answered to the papacy rather than to the local magnate.

In the eleventh century the papacy was reinvigorated. The mid-1040s saw no fewer than three popes formally deposed, but none of them is listed as an antipope, not even the debauched layman Benedict IX.

Not all the popes of the 'dark century' were despicable individuals (Formosus himself was an able diplomat and a man of personal piety) and the fact that many of them were does not make them any less successors of Peter.

A cursory reading of history makes it difficult to take seriously the ultramontanists on the one hand and the sedevacantists on the other - in fact both camps are arguing from similar and erroneous assumptions.

Mark Thomas said...

DJR said..."Hans Kung is in communion with the Roman Pontiff, His Holiness Pope Francis. He is a priest in good standing. He has never had his priestly faculties suspended by any pope or bishop (although he is not permitted to claim to teach as a Catholic theologian). Father Kung is no less "attached" to Pope Francis than you are."

If that is Father Küng's status as determined by the Apostolic See, then so be it. I accept Rome's authority in that regard.

My understanding (I'm open to...ummm..."formal" correction) is that Holy Mother Church has not excommunicated Father Hans Küng. Why? For what it's worth, Canon Law Made Easy offered the following explanation:

http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2012/11/08/was-theologian-hans-kung-ever-excommunicated/

They claim that he has expressed his desire to remain attached to the Roman Pontiff.

Anyway, my understanding is that Holy Mother Church has not declared that Father Hans Küng is guilty of the grave sin(s) of schism/heresy. If I'm wrong about that, then I will acknowledge my error in question.

But as far as I know, Father Hans Küng is in communion the True Church.

Again, the Church of Rome, not I, has the authority to determine Father Küng's status within the Church. I accept Rome's authority in that regard.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

DJR said..."The response to your inquiry is easy. All one need do is cite one person: Hans Kung. Hans Kung is in communion with the Roman Pontiff, His Holiness Pope Francis. He is a priest in good standing. He has never had his priestly faculties suspended by any pope or bishop (although he is not permitted to claim to teach as a Catholic theologian). Father Kung is no less "attached" to Pope Francis than you are.

Among other magisterial teachings, Hans Kung denies the Catholic dogma of papal infallibility.

Therefore, Mark Thomas, please explain as to how a person like Hans Kung, who, in obedience to Holy Mother Church, has attached himself to the Roman Pontiff (and bishops in communion with him), could possibly NOT be a heretic when he denies such Catholic dogmas as papal infallibility. If your assertion regarding Cardinal Kasper is correct, it is no less correct about Hans Kung.

To paraphrase you: Is Hans Kung a "priest/bishop/cardinal in good standing" with the Church? If he is, then, according to you, he is orthodox… even though he denies Catholic dogma.

I trust that that answers the question."
====================================================================

DJR, you answered the question.

As you noted, and to my knowledge, you are correct, "Hans Kung is in communion with the Roman Pontiff, His Holiness Pope Francis. He is a priest in good standing. He has never had his priestly faculties suspended by any pope or bishop (although he is not permitted to claim to teach as a Catholic theologian)."

The True Church has determined that Father Hans Küng has not separated himself from the Faith. The Catholic Church has determined that Father Hans Küng has not fallen into schism/heresy.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Joe Potillor said...

Being in communion with the Pope of Rome does not automatically imply the orthodoxy of a particular priest or Bishop.

The elevation of matters of prudential judgement to de facto dogma is also a problem. As it's certainly been already pointed out the Gospel is neither right, nor left on the political spectrum. To disagree with someone's prudential judgement on some issue does not make one not Catholic.

To disagree with a pastoral application of something does not make one not Catholic.

Even if an angel preach a Gospel that is foreign, we should not follow him. Doesn't matter if it happens to be the Pope. Looking at this whole situation, makes me question why Papal Infallibility was ever defined in the first place. I'm sure if the fathers of Vatican II knew what we know now, they would have not defined papal infallibility.

There can be no doubt that the papacy was instituted by Christ, but to the magnification that it is today? I think not.

Uphold the Faith, even if those above us don't necessarily do that.

Mark Thomas said...

DJR said..."If your assertion regarding Cardinal Kasper is correct, it is no less correct about Hans Kung."

Correct. As far as I know, the One True Church considers Cardinal Kasper to be a priest in good standing with the Church. The One True Church considers Father Hans Küng to be a priest in good standing with the Church.

As a Catholic, I accept that the One True Church teaches, governs, and sanctifies me. Therefore, I accept that Cardinal Kasper is in communion with Rome. I accept that Father Küng is in communion with Rome.

DJR, should you wish to declare that Holy Mother Church is wrong about Cardinal Kasper and Father Küng, then that's your decision.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

DJR said...

Mark Thomas said... "But how do your references to said Popes overthrow the Church's teaching that we are to submit to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff?"

They don't, but that's beside the point. The point being made is that you conflate many different things. The fact that the Church has never officially taught error is not in dispute.

We are to submit to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, but that does not mean we have to submit to every single thing a pope does, even sometimes when he is making rulings that he intends to be binding on everyone.

That's the case with the Pope Formosus pontificate and subsequent pontificates.

Several popes were contradicting each other in succession regarding whether Pope Formosus was an antipope.

You cannot possibly submit to all of them and submit to Truth at the same time because some of the popes were wrong on that point.

Stephen's and Sergius' declarations declaring Pope Formosus to be an antipope and annulling all his ordinations were just plain in error, and no one should have obeyed those declarations. Many didn't and were punished, but they turned out to be right.

I've also shown you where Catholic teaching does not state that "being attached to the Roman Pontiff" protects a person from heresy and/or schism.

Hans Kung is a perfect example.

You can keep repeating that mantra all you like, but the known facts belie that statement. If your statement is correct, then Hans Kung is orthodox.

Is he?

According to you, Father Kung is orthodox because, like Cardinal Kasper, he's in communion with the Roman Pontiff, no less than you are.

Yet, he denies papal infallibility and several other de fide teachings. It's a demonstrable fact.

You're not going to be able to convince many of the readers here that you are correct on that point.

They know that Kung embraces heresy. They also know that he is still a priest in good standing and not suspended.

DJR said...

Mark Thomas said... DJR, should you wish to declare that Holy Mother Church is wrong about Cardinal Kasper and Father Küng, then that's your decision.

Is this a serious discussion?

Why did Pope St. John Paul II strip Hans Kung of his ability to teach as a Catholic theologian?

From the online encyclopedia entry under Hans Kung:

"In the late 1960s, he became the first major Roman Catholic theologian since the late 19th century Old Catholic Church schism to publicly reject the doctrine of papal infallibility, in particular in his book 'Infallible? An Inquiry' (1971).

"Consequently, on 18 December 1979, he was stripped of his missio canonica, his licence to teach as a Roman Catholic theologian, but carried on teaching as a tenured professor of ecumenical theology at the University of Tübingen until his retirement (Emeritierung) in 1996."


And you say that the Catholic Church considers him orthodox merely because he is "attached to Pope Francis"?

This is not a serious discussion.

Adam Michael said...

Mark Thomas,

Dereliction of discipline is not equivalent to or sufficient in establishing the orthodoxy of material heretics. Since the Mystical Body of Christ is not solely a juridical institution, the orthodoxy of the individual members of the Church requires more than juridical recognition. The Faith professed at Holy Baptism and continually renewed throughout our lives must also be preserved individually in order to maintain our status as faithful and living members of the Holy Catholic Church. It is for this reason that in examinations of conscience, we contritely examine our lives for deliberate and obstinate doubts of the Faith and not simply review our mail for public condemnations from the Church (which, in any age, is rare and generally reserved for those whose heresy is particularly public, pernicious, and harmful to the Unity of the Church). Certainly, in the spiritual life, the individual member of the Church must weigh his or her orthodoxy individually, and not only on the basis of his or her official standing in the Church.

By extension, the discipline and history of the Church has always operated according to the understanding that one’s words and actions demonstrate one’s fidelity to the Church. In fact, it was this understanding that led those who were originally materially heretical, such as Nestorius, Arius, and Luther to be officially condemned as formal heretics when their error was first recognized and unofficially condemned by the laity of the Church. Certainly, it is only by accepting the Catholic understanding that our fidelity to the Faith is both an individual and collective responsibility that the clear profession of the Apostolic Faith may be maintained among the members of the Church. By reducing the recognition of someone’s orthodoxy to his or her official status with the Church, the inviolate witness of the Unity of the Church is threatened since orthodoxy is practically placed on equal footing with heterodoxy and the faithful are increasingly misled by the accepted proliferation of error throughout the structures of the Church.

Adam Michael said...

Additionally, this misunderstanding of the nature of fidelity to the Church blinds otherwise faithful Catholics to serious attacks on the Unity and Faith of the Catholic Church and furthers the corruption of the faithful. For example, while this discussion was initiated and continues, the third bishop of Lexington, KY, John Stowe (appointed and consecrated in 2015), is on audio record in an interview with Diocese of Lexington Director of Family Life and Evangelization, Mike Allen (who is faithful to Catholic teaching on homosexuality, btw), of stating that the Church’s teaching on the evil of homosexuality is not immune from change (Bishop Stowe compared this to the Church’s historic approach to usury and slavery), that it is technically possible for homosexual relations to one day be approved by the Church (Bishop Stowe stated that he “did not know” if this would happen in our lifetimes), Sacred Scripture does not provide black and white guidance on modern moral issues, and those who believe in the constancy of the Catholic Faith throughout all ages are inconsistent since their Faith does not otherwise correspond to the Faith of other ages, all within the context of defending his upcoming April 2017 speech at New Ways Ministry (a pro-LGBT group condemned by various bishops in the Church). Since, per post-Vatican II practice, Bishop Stowe will most likely not be officially corrected or condemned by the Church and will proudly take his place as one of the most pro-homosexual bishops in the Church, he has initiated a crisis of Faith within his diocese, forcing faithful Catholics to nuance their fidelity to their bishop in order to maintain their fidelity to Jesus Christ and His Church. Under the perspective you outline above, Bishop Stowe provides orthodox teaching and should be followed (until/if) he is corrected or condemned by the Church – guidance, which if logically followed, would corrupt all the faithful of the Diocese of Lexington, KY, and initiate a perversion of Faith that could not easily be reversed by later official ecclesiastical sanctions.

Clearly, while the faithful cannot assume ecclesiastical authority by legally declaring the See of Peter vacant, episcopal sees vacated, or individual Catholics stripped of authority or officially condemned by the Church, they also cannot defend the orthodoxy of those in error (or abdicate the defense of the Faith until official ecclesiastical sanction of those in error) without violating the individual and collective nature of unity of Faith with the Church or hindering the preservation of the Faith among those in difficult ecclesiastical situations (e.g. the faithful of the Diocese of Lexington, KY).

Gene said...

DJR, Any discussion in which Hans Kung is mentioned immediately becomes laughable and not a serious discussion.

Mark Thomas said...

DJR said..."We are to submit to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, but that does not mean we have to submit to every single thing a pope does, even sometimes when he is making rulings that he intends to be binding on everyone."

"We are to submit to the submit to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff..."

Very good...so far.

"...but that does not mean we have to submit to every single thing a pope does, even sometimes when he is making rulings that he intends to be binding on everyone."

What? Even when the Pope "is making rulings that he intends to be binding on everyone." What?

The Catholic Church teaches that we are to submit to the authentic Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff.

However, when we encounter certain binding Magisterial rulings that displease us, we are then free to reject said Magisterial rulings. We are permitted to discard this or that binding Magisterial ruling as we see fit. That is what you have claimed. Correct?

Unbelievable.

I agree with you in that this is not a serious discussion.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

DJR said..."According to you, Father Kung is orthodox because, like Cardinal Kasper, he's in communion with the Roman Pontiff, no less than you are. Yet, he denies papal infallibility and several other de fide teachings. It's a demonstrable fact. You're not going to be able to convince many of the readers here that you are correct on that point.

"They know that Kung embraces heresy. They also know that he is still a priest in good standing and not suspended. And you say that the Catholic Church considers him orthodox merely because he is "attached to Pope Francis"? This is not a serious discussion."

I don't have to convince anybody that Father Küng has not embraced heresy.

It is you who asked me about Cardinal Kasper's orthodoxy. I noted that the Catholic Church considers him to be in communion with the Church. You then pulled the old bait-and-switch routine when you entered Father Hans Küng into the discussion.

You noted that Father Küng is in good standing with the Church. I agreed with you as that is my understanding as well.

From what I've read over the years about Father Küng, the Apostolic See has never declared him guilty of schism/heresy. Like it or not — again, as you noted —, Father Küng is in good standing with the Church.

Therefore, I don't have to try to convince anybody that Father Küng is not a heretic. The Catholic Church has never labeled Father Küng a heretic. If you don't like that, then take that up with Rome as they, not I, have made it clear that Father Küng is in communion with the Church.

1. As you noted, Father Küng is in good standing with the Catholic Church.

2. That is possible only if he's in communion with the Roman Pontiff.

Again, should that bother you, then please address to Rome your concern in question.

Thank you.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

DJR said...

Gene said... "DJR, Any discussion in which Hans Kung is mentioned immediately becomes laughable and not a serious discussion."

D'accord.

The depth of irrationality in the thought process of some people is breathtaking, and I guess I just never realized how bad it is.

The idea that Hans Kung can deny a dogma of the Catholic Faith while at the same time be considered orthodox is so bizarre that there really are just no words to describe it.

John Nolan said...

Adam Michael

I, for one, appreciated your cogent, well-argued and intelligently articulated argument. The person to whom it was addressed has not attempted to gainsay it, so one can only assume he agrees with it.

I have nominated you for the Wipo of Mainz award for the best comment on this thread so far. It's better than Fr Z's gold star, since it comprises a beautifully illuminated Latin manuscript on finest vellum.

Mark Thomas said...

Does anybody have a declaration from Rome in which Father Hans is accused of heresy? I don't know of any such pronouncement from Rome. In fact, Father
Küng, who is a priest in good standing with the Apostolic See, enjoyed favorable contacts with Popes Benedcict XVI and Francis.

In regard to Pope Benedict XVI, the following information comes from Catholic News Service, 2005 A.D.
===================================================================================

September 26, 2005 A.D., Pope Benedict XVI and Father Küng met for four hours, at Castel Gandolfo in what the official Vatican press release described as a "friendly" encounter.

Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls said that Pope Benedict XVI and Father Kung had determined that "it made no sense to enter into an argument about the doctrinal questions remaining between Hans Kung and the magisterium of the church."

Navarro-Valls said the meeting focused on two topics of Fr Kung's recent work: the possibility of developing a "global ethic" drawing from all religious traditions and the dialogue between Christian faith and science.

"The pope appreciated the efforts of Professor Kung to contribute to a renewed recognition of humanity's essential moral values through a dialogue of religions and through an encounter with secular reason," the spokesman added.

"He emphasised that the commitment to a new awareness of the values that sustain human life is also an important objective of his pontificate," Navarro-Valls said.

The spokesman said Pope Benedict also supported Fr Kung's attempts to promote a dialogue between faith and science, including his efforts to convince scientists of the need to address the question of God's existence.

"For his part, Professor Kung expressed his praise for the pope's efforts to promote dialogue among religions" and his attention to the variety of social groups present in the modern world, Navarro-Valls said.

SOURCE: Pope, Fr Hans Kung have 'friendly' meeting, Vatican says (Catholic News Service 26/9/05)

Pax.

Mark Thomas

DJR said...

Mark Thomas said... "Does anybody have a declaration from Rome in which Father Hans is accused of heresy?"

See the CDF document Christi Ecclesia.

"This fact is particularly evident in the matter of the opinion which at least puts in doubt the dogma of infallibility in the Church or reduces it to a certain fundamental indefectibility of the Church in truth, with the possibility of error in doctrinal statements which the Magisterium of the Church teaches must be held definitively. On this point Hans Küng has in no way sought to conform to the doctrine of the Magisterium."

Also:

"The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the aforesaid document of 1975 refrained at the time from further action regarding the above-mentioned opinions of Professor Küng, presuming that he himself would abandon them. But since this presumption no longer exists, this sacred congregation by reason of its duty is constrained to declare that Professor Hans Küng, in his writings, has departed from the integral truth of Catholic faith, and therefore he can no longer be considered a Catholic theologian nor function as such in a teaching role."

Yet, he remains a priest in good standing, with full faculties, in communion with His Holiness Pope Francis.

Therefore, according to you, he is orthodox.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19791215_christi-ecclesia_en.html

Here is another heretic, in communion with His Holiness Pope Francis.

"Bishop Benno Elbs, bishop of Feldkirch (Austria) has granted an interview to Die Presse in which he says that the Pope has admitted the communion of remarried divorcees. He also states that the use of contraceptives is a matter of the conscience of couples and responds affirmatively to the question of whether the definition about the family applies to homosexual unions."

He is a priest/bishop in good standing. His faculties are not revoked. He is the ordinary of a diocese and is in communion with the pope.

According to you, he is orthodox.

DJR said...

Mark Thomas said... "What? Even when the Pope "is making rulings that he intends to be binding on everyone." What?"

You'll notice that that quote does not include the word "magisterial." It says "rulings."

No one said anything about "magisterial." You are comparing apples and oranges.

It is an historical fact that popes have made "rulings" which they intended for everyone that were... wait for it... WRONG!

Two valid popes declared that Pope Formosus was an antipope, and they attempted to impose their views on everyone. They forced priests and bishops to be reordained.

Those who opposed those popes were right.

The popes were wrong.

It's an historical fact.

DJR said...

Mark Thomas:

1. Hans Kung is orthodox.

2. Father Küng is in good standing with the Catholic Church.

3. That is possible only if he's in communion with the Roman Pontiff.


The Catholic Church:

"... this sacred congregation by reason of its duty is constrained to declare that Professor Hans Küng, in his writings, has departed from the integral truth of Catholic faith..."


At an Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, the Supreme Pontiff Pope John Paul II approved this Declaration, decided upon at an Ordinary Meeting of this Sacred Congregation, and ordered its publication.

In Rome, at the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on Dec. 15, 1979.

Franjo Cardinal Šeper
Prefect

Father Jérôme Hamer, O.P.
Titular Archbishop of Lorium
Secretary

Mark Thomas said...

September 26, 2005 A.D.

Source: Cathnews.com

Pope affirms estranged theologian Hans Kung

"Pope Benedict XVI met the so-called dissident German theologian Fr Hans Kung at the weekend, praising Kung's contribution to a "renewed recognition of humanity's essential moral values through a dialogue of religions and through an encounter with secular reason".

"Catholic News Service reports that Benedict and Kung, who have known each other for almost 50 years, met in Castel Gandolfo in what the Vatican described as a "friendly" encounter.

"Kung served as a theological expert at the Second Vatican Council, but in 1979 the Vatican withdrew permission for him to teach as a Catholic theologian, *******although not restricting his ministry as a Catholic priest."*******

=========================================================================

If Father Kung is a heretic, as certain folks claim, then why does the Catholic Church recognize Father Kung's priestly ministry? The Catholic Church has not restricted the ministry of a supposed "heretic" priest.

It is interesting to me that certain folks, despite their inability to cite official documentation from the Apostolic See, are keen to label this or that Cardinal, bishop, or priest a "heretic."

They remind me, for example, of certain folks who, for decades, without ever having cited the Apostolic See, labeled Bishop Fellay and the SSPX "heretical."

Today, certain folks don't hesitate to declare, for example, that Cardinal Kasper is a heretic. Does anybody have the declaration in question from the Apostolic See that declared Cardinal Kasper a heretic?

When Pope Benedict XVI tapped then-Archbishop Müller to lead the CDF, certain Catholics declared that the then-Archbishop was a "heretic" as he had denied supposedly the Dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Where was that declaration from Rome? When did Rome declare Cardinal Müller heretical?

Does anybody have the declaration from Rome that Father Hans Küng is a heretic? I have not located that declaration. But I would like to read that document. I would think that that document exists as certain folks have declared without hesitation that Father Küng is a heretic.

I hope that certain folks don't level the grave charge of "heresy" against their brother in Jesus Christ without first having received confirmation from Rome that person "X" is a heretic.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

DJR said...

Mark Thomas stated.... Does anybody have the declaration from Rome that Father Hans Küng is a heretic? I have not located that declaration. But I would like to read that document. I would think that that document exists as certain folks have declared without hesitation that Father Küng is a heretic.

I hope that certain folks don't level the grave charge of "heresy" against their brother in Jesus Christ without first having received confirmation from Rome that person "X" is a heretic.



See the posts above. Here it is again.


"... this sacred congregation by reason of its duty is constrained to declare that Professor Hans Küng, in his writings,

At an Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, the Supreme Pontiff Pope John Paul II approved this Declaration, decided upon at an Ordinary Meeting of this Sacred Congregation, and ordered its publication.

In Rome, at the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on Dec. 15, 1979.

Franjo Cardinal Šeper
Prefect

Father Jérôme Hamer, O.P.
Titular Archbishop of Lorium
Secretary

To "depart from the integral truth of Catholic faith" = heresy.

Re Cardinal Kasper, there are plenty of good prelates who are using the label "heresy" for Cardinal Kasper's ideas. The fact that "Rome" has not issued a document stating that he is a heretic means nothing.

If you were to deny the Virgin birth, you'd be a heretic. No one would need a letter from the pope calling you one.

Mark Thomas said...

DJR, we know that Father Hans Küng is not permited to teach theology.

We also know the following:

-- Rome has never declared that Father Hans Küng is a heretic.

-- Rome did not suspend/remove Father Küng priestly faculties.

-- Father Küng remained a priest in good standing with the Diocese of Basel, Switzerland.
=====================================================================

Was Hans Küng Excommunicated?

http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2012/11/08/was-theologian-hans-kung-ever-excommunicated/

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

DJR said..."Re Cardinal Kasper, there are plenty of good prelates who are using the label "heresy" for Cardinal Kasper's ideas. The fact that "Rome" has not issued a document stating that he is a heretic means nothing."

Oh. Okay. Yeah. Right.

Then it's official...the Four Cardinals are heretics/apostates. We know that as Bishop Franghískos Papamanólis, O.F.M. Cap., head of the Greek bishops, charged the Four Cardinals with the following grave sins:

From the bishop's open letter to the Four Cardinals:

"Dearest brothers in the episcopate,

Before publishing the document (dubia) and, still more, before you drew it up, you ought to have presented yourself to the Holy Father Francis and requested that he remove you as members of the College of Cardinals.

If you are “deeply concerned about the true good of souls” and moved by “an impassioned concern for the good of the faithful”, I, dearest brothers, am “deeply moved by the true good of your souls”, for your double most grave sin:

◦the sin of heresy (and of apostasy? This, in fact, is the way schisms begin in the Church). From your document, it appears clearly that, in practice you do not believe in the supreme magisterial authority of the Pope, strengthened by two Synods of Bishops coming from the whole world. It seems that the Holy Spirit inspires only you and not the Vicar of Christ and not even the Bishops gathered in Synod.

◦and also the more grave sin of scandal, given publicly to the Christian people throughout the whole world. Concerning this Jesus has said, “Woe to the man by whom scandal comes” (Mt 18:7). “It would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea” (Mt 18:6).

Impelled by the charity of Christ, I pray for you. I ask the Lord to enlighten you to accept with simplicity of heart the magisterial teaching of the Holy Father Francis.

With the charity of Christ, I greet you fraternally.

+ Frankiskos Papamanolis, o.f.m. cap

Bishop emeritus of Syros, Santorini, and Crete President of the Episcopal Conference of Greece."

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

DJR said..."If you were to deny the Virgin birth, you'd be a heretic. No one would need a letter from the pope calling you one."

I thought that Holy Mother Church has a juridical process through which the competent authority determines whether a person is guilty of heresy?

I just read the following from Q&A with a priest:

The Church "has a juridical process that examines accusations about heresy. After a thorough study of a person’s public statements and extended dialogue to discover what the person has really said, means, and believes, the Church will finally
declare that a person has committed heresy – or has not.

"Until the Church has made that judgment, no Catholic should ever accuse another of heresy. When they do so, they are inadvertently doing injury to our Catholic communion by inciting emotions rather than making a reasoned and justified statement."
=========================================================================

I prefer that to DJR's way of assigning to this or that person the sin of heresy. That applies particularly to charges of heresy against Cardinals, bishops, and priests. By the way, does not a person charged with heresy have the right to appeal to Rome?

Pax.

Mark Thomas

DJR said...

From the CDF, affirmed by Pope St. John Paul II:

"The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the aforesaid document of 1975 refrained at the time from further action regarding the above-mentioned opinions of Professor Küng, presuming that he himself would abandon them. But since this presumption no longer exists, this sacred congregation by reason of its duty is constrained to declare that Professor Hans Küng, in his writings, has departed from the integral truth of Catholic faith, and therefore he can no longer be considered a Catholic theologian nor function as such in a teaching role."

It isn't just an opinion that Hans Kung is a heretic; it's the Catholic Church that says so.

As the CDF stated, approved by Pope John Paul II, Kung has "DEPARTED FROM THE INTEGRAL TRUTH OF CATHOLIC FAITH."

There are only two options for a person: orthodoxy or heterodoxy.

To say that someone has DEPARTED from the TRUTH of Catholic Faith is the same as saying that the person is not orthodox. Heterodoxy = heretic.

Yet, Hans Kung is in communion with Pope Francis.

To get back to my original point, being "attached to Pope Francis" does not guarantee that a person will be safeguarded from heresy or schism. Indeed, Hans Kung has a problem with both, as the Catholic Dictionary defines both, and as the Church has stated.

He has DEPARTED from TRUTH.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19791215_christi-ecclesia_en.html

DJR said...

Mark Thomas stated... By the way, does not a person charged with heresy have the right to appeal to Rome?

The CDF gave Hans Kung ample time to clarify his error.

As the CDF stated, "The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the aforesaid document of 1975 refrained at the time from further action regarding the above-mentioned opinions of Professor Küng, presuming that he himself would abandon them. But since this presumption no longer exists..."

Hans Kung has departed from truth, i.e., he is a heretic. The Church says so.

Adam Michael said...

John Nolan,

Thank you for the kind words. God bless you!

Mark Thomas said...

DJR said..."The CDF gave Hans Kung ample time to clarify his error."

My question doesn't apply to Father Hans Küng as Rome has never charged him with heresy. He is a priest in good standing with the Church. Even when notified that he was not permitted to teach theology, Father Küng remained a priest in good standing with the Diocese of Basel, Switzerland.

Father Küng has remained in private correspondence with Rome.

On March 20, 2016 A.D., via the nunciature in Berlin, Germany, Father Küng received a letter from His Holiness Pope Francis that pertained to Father Küng's "request to give room to a free discussion on the dogma of infallibility."

That information was reported by the National Catholic Reporter.

-- Fr. Hans Kung says Francis responded to request for free discussion on infallibility dogma
=============================================================

The Catholic Herald also reported on that story.

Wednesday, 27 Apr 2016

"Fr Küng wrote an open letter to the Pope on March 9, asking for “an open and impartial discussion on infallibility of pope and bishops”. He says that the Pope replied in a letter dated March 20.

"Fr Küng refused to disclose the contents of the reply, except that the Pope had not “set any restrictions”. He did not say the Pope had encouraged a debate on infallibility.

"But in a statement published by the National Catholic Reporter, Fr Küng said he was “overjoyed” to receive a personal reply, and one which began Lieber Mitbruder (“Dear brother”)."
=======================================================================

DJR, please let me should the Church pronounce Father Küng a heretic.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

Fatima Crusader, #57, page 19, in an article written by John Vennari, it was noted that Rome "only declared that Kung could no longer call himself a “Catholic” theologian."

Although he claims that Father Hans Küng is a heretic, John Vennari acknowledged that Father Hans Küng was neither excommunicated nor suspended by Rome.

John Vennari and the Fatima Crusader also acknowledged the following:

"This means that even though Kung cannot officially call himself a Catholic theologian, he may still celebrate Mass, hear confessions, preach and give advice. Kung’s many books remain conspicuously present in the libraries of most Catholic colleges and seminaries to this day."

People may label Father Küng a "heretic," but the fact remains that Rome has not pronounced Father Küng a "heretic." Rome has not suspended Father Küng.

Following Rome's refusal to permit him to function as a theologian, Father Küng remained a priest in good standing with the Diocese of Basel, Switzerland.

I don't care for Father Küng's notions about the Church. However, I refuse to promote false claims about Father Küng (or anybody) as that is a sin.

Like it or not, as difficult it may be for certain folks to imagine, the fact is that Father Hans Küng is a priest in good standing with the Church.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

On December 29, 2016 A.D., 9:06 PM...

DJR said: "Hans Kung is a priest in good standing with the Catholic Church, his priestly faculties have never been suspended, and he is in communion with the Roman Pontiff, Pope Francis."

DJR, according to you...

1. Father Hans Küng "is a priest in good standing with the Catholic Church."

2. Father Küng's "priestly faculties have never been suspended."

3. Father Küng "is in communion with the Roman Pontiff, Pope Francis."

DJR, however, according to you, Father Hans Küng, despite the above, is also a "heretic."
======================================================================

January 3, 2017 at 9:45 AM...DJR said:

"Hans Kung is in communion with the Roman Pontiff, His Holiness Pope Francis. He is a priest in good standing. He has never had his priestly faculties suspended by any pope or bishop (although he is not permitted to claim to teach as a Catholic theologian)."

But Father Küng is a heretic, according to DJR.

In the history of the Church, has any priest other than Father Küng...

1. Remained in communion with Rome.

2. Remained a priest in good standing with the Church.

3. Never had his priestly faculties suspended by any pope or bishop.

Yet, somehow, magically, simultaneously, been labeled a "heretic"?

I have never heard of that. Never. Ever.

Has anybody heard of such a priest?

Unbelievable.

What a discussion this has been. Amazing...beyond comprehension.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

DJR said...

Hans Kung is a heretic, and one can tell that from his own mouth. He himself proves it, and the Church has stated that he has departed from the faith.

The idea that a properly trained Catholic cannot understand, and state, when a cleric is a heretic is absurd.

Our ancestors never shrank from proclaiming such a thing.

If one's parish priest stood up and boldly proclaimed that the Blessed Virgin was a sinner, he/she doesn't need to call the pope to ask whether the priest is a heretic.

Absurd.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"At the end of 428, or at latest in the early part of 429, Nestorius preached the first of his famous sermons against the word 'Theotokos' and detailed his Antiochian doctrine of the Incarnation. The first to raise his voice against it was Eusebius, a layman, afterwards Bishop of Dorylaeum and the accuser of Eutyches."

DJR said...

Mark Thomas said: In the history of the Church, has any priest other than Father Küng... 1. Remained in communion with Rome. 2. Remained a priest in good standing with the Church. 3. Never had his priestly faculties suspended by any pope or bishop. Yet, somehow, magically, simultaneously, been labeled a "heretic"? I have never heard of that. Never. Ever. Has anybody heard of such a priest?
Unbelievable. What a discussion this has been. Amazing...beyond comprehension.


The answer to that is yes. There are hundreds of historical examples. Luther, Nestorius, Arius are but a few examples.

Has anyone ever heard of a priest who openly and publicly DEPART(ed) FROM THE TRUTH OF CATHOLIC FAITH (as His Holiness Pope St. John Paul II ruled in the case of Hans Kung) but was NOT a heretic?

I have never heard of that. Never. Ever. Has anybody heard of such a priest?
Unbelievable. What a discussion this has been. Amazing...beyond comprehension.

Can anyone explain how it is possible for a person to DEPART FROM THE TRUTH OF CATHOLIC FAITH and still be an orthodox Catholic?

Mark Thomas said...

DJR said..."The idea that a properly trained Catholic cannot understand, and state, when a cleric is a heretic is absurd. Our ancestors never shrank from proclaiming such a thing. If one's parish priest stood up and boldly proclaimed that the Blessed Virgin was a sinner, he/she doesn't need to call the pope to ask whether the priest is a heretic. Absurd."

In 2017 A.D., Holy Mother Church has a juridical process that She would employ should She charge Father Hans Küng with heresy. But as you believe that any "properly trained Catholic" is free to declare a cleric "heretical," then we are to accept that the Four Cardinals are heretics. Correct?

After all, none other than Bishop Franghískos Papamanólis, O.F.M. Cap., head of the Greek bishops, charged the Four Cardinals with heresy and apostasy.

Well, that's that. Bishop Franghískos Papamanólis, most definitely a "properly trained Catholic," labeled the Four Cardinals "heretics" and "apostates."

The Four Cardinals need not undergo trails to determine whether they are heretics and apostates as a "properly trained Catholic," Bishop Papamanólis, declared them as such.

Pax.

Mark Thoma

Mark Thomas said...

DJR said..."The answer to that is yes. There are hundreds of historical examples. Luther, Nestorius, Arius are but a few examples."

Really? Martin Luther remained in communion with Rome? Martin Luther remained in communion with his Catholic diocese? Martin Luther remained in good standing with the Catholic Church?

Hmmm...I was unaware of that.

Archbishop Nestorius and Father Arius remained in good standing with the Church? Oh. Okay.

DJR, thank you for having informed me that heretical priests remain in good standing with the Church. They remain in communion with Rome. Very good. One can be heretical and orthodox simultaneously. Oh. Okay. Thank you for that very interesting information.

Now, I understand as to why you hold that...your words..."Hans Kung is a priest in good standing with the Catholic Church, his priestly faculties have never been suspended, and he is in communion with the Roman Pontiff, Pope Francis."...but is also a heretic.

Uh-huh.

I got my mind right, boss. Fortunately, what we don't have here is...failure to communicate. Nope. Now, I understand. Got it.

I got my mind right, boss.

Heretics are in good standing with the Church. Yep.

Wow!

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

DJR said.."At the end of 428, or at latest in the early part of 429, Nestorius preached the first of his famous sermons against the word 'Theotokos' and detailed his Antiochian doctrine of the Incarnation. The first to raise his voice against it was Eusebius, a layman, afterwards Bishop of Dorylaeum and the accuser of Eutyches."

DJR, you failed to have noted the following from the same Catholic Encyclopedia article from which you quoted:

"All this naturally caused great excitement at Constantinople, especially among the clergy, who were clearly not well disposed towards the stranger from Antioch. [Pope] St. Celestine immediately condemned the doctrine.

"Nestorius had arranged with the emperor in the summer of 430 for the assembling of a council. He now hastened it on, and the summons had been issued to patriarchs and metropolitans on 19 Nov., before the pope's sentence, delivered though Cyril of Alexandria, had been served on Nestorius (6 Dec.).

"At the council Nestorius was condemned, and the emperor, after much delay and hesitation, ratified its finding. It was confirmed by Pope Sixtus III."
===========================================================================

Also from Catholic Encyclopedia (article on Pope Saint Celestine I):

"...Celestine commissioned Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, to investigate and make a report. Cyril having found Nestorius openly professing his heresy sent a full account to Celestine, who in a Roman synod (430), having solemnly condemned the errors of Nestorius, now ordered Cyril in his name to proceed against Nestorius, who was to be excommunicated and deposed unless within ten days he should have made in writing a solemn retractation of his errors.

"In letters written the same day to Nestorius, to the clergy and people of Constantinople, and to John of Antioch, Juvenal of Jerusalem, Rufus of Thessalonica, and Flavian of Philippi, Celestine announces the sentence passed upon Nestorius and the commission given to Cyril to execute it.

"At the same time he restored all who had been excommunicated or deprived by Nestorius. Cyril forwarded the papal sentence and his own anathema to Nestorius.

"The emperor now summoned a general council to meet at Ephesus. To this council Celestine sent as legates, Arcadius, and Projectus, bishops, and Philippus, a priest, who were to act in conjunction with Cyril.

"However, they were not to mix in discussion but were to judge the opinions of the others. Celestine in all his letters assumes his own decision as final, Cyril and the council, "compelled by the sacred canons and the letters of Our Most Holy Father, Celestine, Bishop of the Roman Church."
=====================================================

Yep...we best leave it to the competent Church authority to determine whether Fsther Hans Küng is a so-called "heretic."

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

DJR said..."The idea that a properly trained Catholic cannot understand, and state, when a cleric is a heretic is absurd."

Who determines whether a Catholic has been trained properly to labeled a cleric a heretic? Does one take an exam to demonstrate one's ability to trash a cleric's good name...sorry, I mean to state that a cleric is heretical?

How does that work?

Pax.

Mark Thomas

DJR said...

Luther was a heretic BEFORE he was condemned. He wasn't condemned until 1520. He was a heretic by 1517.

Between 1517 and 1520, Luther was a heretic, yet during those years he was a priest in good standing. Historical fact. He didn't become a heretic in 1520; he already was a heretic.

It's a person's beliefs that makes him a heretic. The official ruling of the Church merely recognizes what is already a fact.

The competent authority of the Catholic Church already has ruled that Hans Kung is a heretic.

CDF, approved by John Paul II, stated that Hans Kung has DEPARTED FROM THE TRUTH OF CATHOLIC FAITH.

You keep ignoring my request. That tells me, and anyone else reading this, that you recognize your position to be untenable.

I'll state it again.

Please explain how a person who the Church has ruled has DEPARTED FROM THE TRUTH OF CATHOLIC FAITH can at the same time be an orthodox Catholic.

And if a person is not orthodox, what is he?

Mark Thomas said...

DJR said..."The competent authority of the Catholic Church already has ruled that Hans Kung is a heretic. CDF, approved by John Paul II, stated that Hans Kung has DEPARTED FROM THE TRUTH OF CATHOLIC FAITH. You keep ignoring my request. That tells me, and anyone else reading this, that you recognize your position to be untenable. I'll state it again.You keep ignoring my request. That tells me, and anyone else reading this, that you recognize your position to be untenable. I'll state it again. Please explain how a person who the Church has ruled has DEPARTED FROM THE TRUTH OF CATHOLIC FAITH can at the same time be an orthodox Catholic."

How?

As you noted, that Father Hans Küng "is a priest in good standing with the Catholic Church."

As you noted, Father Küng's "priestly faculties have never been suspended."

As you noted, Father Küng "is in communion with the Roman Pontiff, Pope Francis."

DJR, those are your acknowledgments.

Rome did not excommunicate Father Küng. His priestly faculties remained in place. He remained a priest in good standing with the Diocese of Basel.

Again, DJR, it is you who acknowledged that Father Hans Küng is a priest in communion with Rome and, therefore, in good standing with the Catholic Church.

Therefore, DJR, why do you claim that a priest, who is in good standing with the Church, is also a heretic?

Father Hans Küng cannot possibly be a heretic as he is — as you've acknowledged — in good standing with the True Church.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Adam Michael said...

As with the situation of habitual adulterers, reference to the Sacrament of Penance helps to answer the question of whether faithful Catholics can defend their Faith by recognizing and opposing error and heresy, even without prior juridical recognition of said error/heresy.* If faithful members of the Church are unable to discern error/heresy in the words and actions of others, how are they able to discern personal sins against faith in their own words and actions when they conduct their individual and regular examinations of conscience? If Mark Thomas' premise is correct, not only are the laity unable to discern failures in fidelity in others, but would logically be unable to do so in their individual lives. At most, one could discern that the Church "may not care" for their personal beliefs regarding sexual morality, the nature of the Church, or any other perversion of their Catholic Faith, but may be assured that their standing in the Church (and, by extension, their salvation) is generally secure as long as they are not publicly condemned (which, for ordinary laity, will be very unlikely). Such as perspective fundamentally compromises the Sacrament of Penance since it makes a full discernment and repentance of sins against one or more of the Commandments impossible. Thus, not only is the conception of the laity being unable to discern and unofficially condemn errors against the Faith in others contradicted by the history of the Church, which features examples of the laity recognizing and resisting material heretics (remember, when “the whole world groaned and marveled to find itself Arian,” the laity discerned and condemned this heresy before Arianism was formally condemned by the extraordinary magisterium and Nestorius was first condemned by laity who heard the heresiarch’s heretical Nativity sermon), this conception also violates basic sacramental theology.

*If one can use perceived mitigating circumstances to excuse people of repenting of one of the most grievously sinful lifestyles, lesser sins are more easily excused, thus divorcing the Sacrament of Penance from the Church’s teaching and logically uniting it, in principle, with the subjective morals of the penitent. This, in turn, shows the speciousness of modern wide interpretations of mitigating circumstances in moral theology.

Mark Thomas said...

Adam Michael, my "premise" is that Holy Mother Church has an official process to determine, for example, whether Father Hans Küng is a heretic. The fact that person "X" labeled Father Küng a "heretic" does not mean that Father Küng is a heretic.

Bishop Franghískos Papamanólis, O.F.M. Cap., head of the Greek bishops, charged the Four Cardinals with the grave sins of heresy and apostasy. Therefore, the Four Cardinals are heretics and apostates. Correct? After all, Bishop Franghískos Papamanólis said that the Four Cardinals are heretics and apostates.

That is that. The Four Cardinals are heretics and apostates.
=============================================================================

The SSPX is heretical as Michael Voris has charged the SSPX with heresy. Archbishop Lefebvre was a heretic. The SSPX bishops and priests are heretics.

http://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/sspx-schism-turns-heretical

That is that. The SSPX is heretical as Michael Voris, who knows heresy when he encounters heresy, cannot possibly be wrong about that.
===========================================================================

Each "Pope" from Saint John XXIII to Pope Benedict XVI were heretics, and Francis is a heretic, as certain "Catholics" have charged said Popes with heresy. The "Catholics" in question possess tremendous abilities that allow them to discern heresies.

That is that. The Popes in question are heretics...without question...guilty as charged.
=============================================================================

There are "Catholics" who insist that the Novus Ordo is heretical. They insist that anybody who participates in the Novus Ordo is tainted with heresy.

That is that. From clergy, to religious, to lay, each Catholic who participates in the Novus Ordo is a heretic.
=============================================================================

All of the above must be true as Catholics "can defend their Faith by recognizing and opposing error and heresy, even without prior juridical recognition of said error/heresy."

Said Catholics cannot possibly be mistaken. When they charge person "X" with heresy, then we can be certain that person "X" is a heretic. There isn't any question about that.

Okay. Sure.

Pax.

Mark Thomas


CCC #2479: "Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one's neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity."

Adam Michael said...

Mark Thomas,

Again, if faithful Catholics cannot discern errors in others, how can they completely examine their consciences for sins against Faith? Either one is always spiritually ignorant and completely dependent upon the juridical processes of the Church when faced with issues of fidelity to the unchangeable truths of the Catholic Faith (which, if true, would make members of the Church unable to discern and repent of their own failures of Faith when Church’s sanction is lacking), or they are able to discern heresy from orthodoxy, which enables them to discern failures of Faith in themselves and defend the Church from the same that is taught by others.

You fail to understand that the act of defending the Faith is more than casually tossing around the word “heretic,” but must be substantiated by the accused’s words and actions. It is no different in the spiritual life of the faithful when we are accused of sins against the Faith. In those cases our recourse is not to our mail to confirm our official standing in the Church and the lack of ecclesiastical sanction (which, for ordinary laity, would be virtually non-existent regardless of their material heresy), but to our well-formed conscience enlightened by the teachings of the Church in addition to our official standing in the Church. The same standard by which we judge our fidelity to the truth (viz., the teachings of the Church that are capable of being known, loved, and defended by the faithful at all times alongside our official standing in the Church) is the same standard we use in defending the Catholic Faith from those who attack it in the Church.

Don’t back pedal your premise to being the preservation of the supposed “good name” (an appellation that was lost when such people knowingly misled their first soul) of those who pervert the Catholic Faith or the inability of the laity to formally condemn one as a heretic (which should be well known and accepted). As you have stated repeatedly, your premise is the fundamentally flawed proposition that recognition of error is coexistent with such official recognition by the Catholic Church and that the faithful must accept as orthodox all those who have not been officially condemned by the Church. As noted several times, such a flawed proposition betrays a misunderstanding of the history of the Church, sacramental theology, and furthers the doctrinal perversion of the faithful since it presents error to them as orthodoxy.