You can read the long, illogical, manipulative and hypocritical article from Crux HERE.
As anti-Amoris critics cross into dissent, the Church must move on
- Austen IvereighDecember 11, 2016
Pope Francis greets newly married couples during his general audience in St. Peter's Square at the Vatican in this Sept. 30, 2015, file photo. (CNS photo/L'Osservatore Romano)
76 comments:
Saint John Paul II did not contradict his predecessors.
Father when you are right you are right! You summed up that article from CRUX perfectly.
The courageous Bishop Schneider had this to say and he hits a home run:
An ecclesiastical authority that issues norms or pastoral guidance that provides for such admission, arrogates to itself a right that God has not given it. A pastoral accompaniment and discernment that does not communicate to the adulterous person, the so-called divorced and remarried, the divinely-established obligation to live in continence as a sine qua non condition for admission to the sacraments, exposes itself in reality as an arrogant clericalism, as there does not exist any clericalism so pharisaical as that which arrogates to itself rights reserved to God.
That's what "liberals" do.
The Orthodox Church always has its doors open for you guys :)
-Minas
I have found haven in an Anglican-Catholic parish, since there is no F.S.S.P. S.S.P.X. or Institute of Christ the King near me, only churches with hand holding, kiss of peace, altar girls, liturgical dancers in skin tight leotards, clapping, drums, guitars, folk, Life Teen, clowns, female and male lectors, yet my Anglo-Catholic parish has the TLM, Gregorian chant, altar boys only, high altar, communion rail, organ, incense, bells, proper attire, kneeling at Holy Communion, deacon, sub-deacon, Latin and Elizabethan English, Gothic and Roman vestments, you would think this is a 1950's Roman Catholic church yet it is an Anglican-Catholic parish, it being more Roman and Catholic than all 15 Catholic churches near me. What a world to be living in and here we have a Pope who talks about "sex and fecal matter" how utterly revolting.
As the Amoris Laetitia "controversy" continues — except among the vast majority of Catholics who are not interested in the "controversy" — we have the following:
https://cruxnow.com/church-in-the-usa/2016/12/11/lincoln-bishop-says-no-communion-divorcedremarried/
Lincoln bishop says ‘no’ on communion for divorced/remarried
December 11, 2016
LINCOLN - Clarity and renewal can be the fruit of disputes and disagreements, Bishop James Conley of Lincoln has said to his priests, trying to reassure them in the face of confusion regarding Amoris laetitia.
At the same time, Conley offered his own firm stand on the meaning of Pope Francis’s widely discussed document on marriage, stating clearly that in his diocese, giving Communion to divorced and civilly remarried Catholics who are living as man and wife is not on the table.
“Sexual relationships outside the bonds of marriage constitute circumstances of grave sin,” Conley wrote.
“The Lord calls those who are divorced and civilly remarried, or who are cohabiting, to continence,” Conley said.
“Like every person who is conscious of grave sin, divorced and civilly remarried Catholics who engage in ongoing sexual relationships may not approach Holy Communion.”
The bishop indicated that he had provided the priests with similarly restrictive pastoral guidelines of several dioceses, among them those of the Philadelphia archdiocese, the Phoenix diocese, and the province of Alberta.
“I have provided these particular documents because they reflect the most faithful interpretation of Amoris Laetitia, and convey the intepretation that is to be considered normative in the Diocese of Lincoln,” Conley wrote.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
It's an age old principle that doubt does not excuse. When in doubt we are to err in the side of caution - whether what we're doing is surgery or hunting. So why should we err on the side of throwing caution to the wind when it comes to interpretive frameworks with AL?
Are we really so grasping for straws that we'll jettison 2,000 years of precedence and clear magisterial teaching in Evangelium Vitae, the Catechism, and other clear acts of Magisterium for the sake of an obscure and opaque footnote in chapter 8?
"Sure Our Lord says otherwise in the Gospel, echoed by council and Pope, saint and mystic for 2 millennia, but lookee here, footnote 305 says otherwise!"
Mark Thomas,
The point is, now hold your breath, is that the Pope's document is poorly written, sloppy, and open to misinterpretation. Bishop Conley's statement should be totally and completely unnecessary. It would be like him having to interpret the Catholic Catechism's statements.
To TJM:
Ten scripture scholars read passage "X" from Sacred Scripture, then render ten different interpretations of passage "X." Is not Sacred Scripture plain and simple to comprehend? Why does the Holy Bible require interpretation?
Why, for centuries, have bishops submitted questions to Rome to, in turn, receive correct interpretations of Papal documents?
=====================================================
To you, Amoris Laetitia is "poorly written, sloppy..."contains a plethora of spiritual and pastoral riches with regard to life within marriage and the Christian family in our times."
We are back to the Person "X" says this...Person "Y" says that...about Amoris Laetita.
You insist that AL is garbage. The next person insists that AL is packed with "spiritual and pastoral riches with regard to life within marriage and the Christian family in our times."
The Bishops of Alberta and the Northwest Territories praised Amoris Laetitia as an excellent document that Catholics should read. They also said that Amoris Laetitia "reflects and upholds the Tradition of the Church."
TJM, you believes otherwise. Okay.
I read AL. I believe that AL is very readable. Amoris Laetitia has blessed me.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
"The secular media and even some Catholic media are describing the recently issued post-synodal apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia, “Love in the Family,” as a revolution in the Church, as a radical departure from the teaching and practice of the Church, up to now, regarding marriage and the family.
"Such a view of the document is both a source of wonder and confusion to the faithful and potentially a source of scandal, not only for the faithful but for others of goodwill who look to Christ and his Church to teach and reflect in practice the truth regarding marriage and its fruit, family life, the first cell of the life of the Church and of every society."
— Raymond Cardinal Burke
Another cardinal defends the signers of the dubia.
BREAKING: German cardinal defends four Cardinals over ‘indignant’ attacks.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-german-cardinal-defends-dubia-signers-facing-indignant-attacks
I find it interesting that the article repeatedly mentions the "fruits" of the Synod.
Since they want to push the metaphor, just what ARE these "fruits"? After all, Jesus warned his disciples about false teachers by telling us that "By their fruits ye shall know them."
Has their been an increase of fallen-away Catholics to the Church? From where I stand, it doesn't look like it. These people aren't interested in returning and they are indifferent and uninterested in anything a pope has to say, whether he is liberal or traditional.
If sacrilegious Communion can be considered a "fruit" then that certainly seems to be what is being cultivated.
Amoris Laetitia tastes like one "fruit" that Catholics should spew from their mouths.
Mark Thomas,
Nice to know you believe you are the intellectual equal of the 4 cardinals who wrote the dubia. The fact that Cardinal Burke, who initially, was somewhat supportive of AL, now is one of the cardinals authoring the dubia, should give you pause, that is, if you have intellectual honesty and a measure of humility. But keep drinking that Francis Kool-Aid
Cardinal Burke was only "somewhat supportive" of AL?
1. He insisted that AL upheld Church teaching.
2. He denounced those who said that AL did not uphold Church teaching.
3. He insisted that those who said that AL did not uphold Church teaching were guilty of having spread confusion and potential scandal within and without the Church.
**************************************************************
That is a bit more than Cardinal Burke having been just "somewhat supportive" of AL.
Mark Thomas,
Then why did His Eminence join in the dubia, inquiring minds want to know!
TJM, your question is for Raymond Cardinal Burke.
Anyway, as his very words indicate, Cardinal Burke was far more than just "somewhat supportive" of AL. His support of AL was sufficient that one right-wing blogger after another denounced him as a "Novus Ordo sellout."
On various right-wing blogs, hatred of Cardinal Burke was so fierce and vile that he was accused of being a homosexual.
Various right-wing blogs, such as Rorate Caeli, rejected Cardinal Burke's promotion of Amoris Laetitia as a beautiful and orthodox Apostolic Exhortation.
The Remnant, for example, denounced Cardinal Burke as a "foolish bishop" who had "played" the Faithful as "fools." The Remnant insisted that Cardinal Burke lived in "alternate reality" and belonged to a "new conservative escapist reality."
Amoris Laetitia: Foolish Bishops and Bishops Playing Us For Fools
Written by Chris Jackson | Remnant Columnist
https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/item/2484-amoris-laetitia-foolish-bishops-and-bishops-playing-us-for-fools
================================================================
TJM, again, please direct your question to Cardinal Burke. I noted simply his own words in regard to his expert analysis of Amoris Laetitia.
Cardinal Burke, via his expert analysis, which he offered via a column in the National Catholic Register, declared that Amoris Laetitia was 100 percent orthodox. He insisted that Amoris Laetitia was in line with the orthodox teaching that had flowed from the Synod of Bishops on the Family.
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/amoris-laetitia-and-the-constant-teaching-and-practice-of-the-church
Pax.
Mark Thomas
TJM said..."Mark Thomas, Nice to know you believe you are the intellectual equal of the 4 cardinals who wrote the dubia. The fact that Cardinal Burke, who initially, was somewhat supportive of AL, now is one of the cardinals authoring the dubia, should give you pause, that is, if you have intellectual honesty and a measure of humility. But keep drinking that Francis Kool-Aid."
Thank you. I will remain attached to the Vicar of Christ, Pope Francis. I just hope and pray that Cardinal Burke and the Cardinals attached to the dubia remain attached to the Roman Pontiff.
I am not the "intellectual equal of the 4 cardinals who wrote the dubia." I am the least intellectual person on earth.
Fortunately, God does not require me to be a leading intellectual to hear His voice. To hear God's voice, I need only be in communion with Pope Francis, my bishop (who is in communion with His Holiness), as well as all His Church.
But it all begins with Pope Francis. As long as I remain attached to Pope Francis, God will protect me from falling into schism/heresy.
TJM, you can have the great intellectuals. In turn, I will take opt for the sure and certain truth of the Catholic Church, which I will receive as long as I submit to the Roman Pontiff.
He who hears Pope Francis hears Jesus Christ. That is why I will take the Magisterium over intellectuals every time.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
So, what if the pope is an error?
Mark Thomas,
Your papalotry is sad, very sad. I guess you would have slobbered over Leo X too!
The appropriate way for lay Catholics to raise questions about Amoris Laetitia is exemplified by the very thoughtful and scholarly letter that the two internationally renowned natural law philosophers, John Finnis and Germain Grisez, sent to Pope Francis last month, as reported in the thread “These Respected Scholars Point to a Clear and Present Danger” on December 10.
One does not have to agree with everything these scholars say but their approach seems to me to be the right one, that is, not to attack Amoris Laetitia or Pope Francis directly but to show how the document could be misused contrary to the Faith. Indeed, they specifically state that “[w]e neither assert nor deny that Amoris Laetitia contains teachings needing qualification or delimitation, nor do we make any suggestions about how to do that, supposing it were necessary.”
Mark Thomas said...In turn, I will take opt for the sure and certain truth of the Catholic Church, which I will receive as long as I submit to the Roman Pontiff. He who hears Pope Francis hears Jesus Christ.
That is why the four cardinals and their collaborators must press the issue with the pope and correct his errors if he does not recant, just like what happened with the heresy-promoter His Holiness Pope John XXII in the 14th century.
Catholics who heard the infallible Vicar of Christ Pope Stephen VI declare Pope Formosus to be an antipope and annulled all his acts were "hearing" Pope Stephen as well.
But were they hearing Jesus Christ?
And when Popes Theodore II and John IX contradicted Pope Stephen VI and stated that Pope Formosus was a valid pope, were Catholics hearing Jesus Christ?
And subsequently when His Holiness Pope Sergius III contradicted Theodore II and John IX and stated that Pope Formosus was an antipope, were Catholics at the time hearing Jesus Christ?
One can disagree with a pope, in fact, even be disobedient to him, and still be in communion with him and the Catholic Church.
Pope Francis himself falls into that category.
He was a disobedient prelate during the reigns of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI. It's a demonstrable fact.
DJR, as far as I'm concerned, you and the others can handle issues related to the Four Cardinals, dubia, Pope Stephen VI, Pope Formosus...and all the examples that you've employed to counter me here and on additional blogs.
All that I know is that from the earliest of times to date, the Holy Catholic Church has taught that the Church of Rome has preserved the Catholic Religion immaculate.
The Church teaches that we will not fall into schism/heresy as long as we remain united to the Pope. Jesus Christ teaches that he who hears the Pope hears Jesus Christ. God has granted unto His Holiness Pope Francis the authority to teach, govern, and sanctify the Holy People of God.
From the Roman Missal, prayer for the Pope:
"O God, Shepherd and Ruler of all Thy faithful people, look mercifully upon Thy servant Francis, whom Thou hast chosen as shepherd to preside over Thy Church."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
TJM said..."Your papalotry is sad, very sad. I guess you would have slobbered over Leo X too!"
Okay. Great. Now, back to the conversation.
1. Cardinal Burke, not I, penned an article for the National Catholic Register in which he, via his expert analysis, declared Amoris Laetitia orthodox.
2. In that article, Cardinal Burke, not I, denounced those who declared that Amoris Laetitia had changed Church teaching.
3. Cardinal Burke, not I, declared that those who attacked Amoris Laetitia had spread "confusion" and potential "scandal" within and without the Church.
Therefore, how on earth did Amoris Laetitia, which, in Cardinal Burke's expert analysis was 100 percent orthodox, become suddenly and magically heretical?
Cardinal Burke declared that Amoris Laetitia is the fruit of the Synod of Bishops, which, in turn, he insisted safeguarded and fostered "what the Church has always taught and practiced in accord with her teaching."
TJM, as you place great store by Cardinal Burke's intellectual capacity, then you must place great store by his expert analysis of Amoris Laetitia, which he offered publicly via his article published by the National Catholic Register.
Correct?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
DJR..."One can disagree with a pope, in fact, even be disobedient to him, and still be in communion with him and the Catholic Church."
The Church teaches most certainly the following: "They have the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church."
I don't read, however, in the above teaching where we're to engage in disobedience in regard to the Pope.
In fact, in stark contrast to the issue of disobeying the Roman Pontiff, Holy Mother Church teaches the following (Vatican II):
"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.
"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."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas,
You keep running away and avoiding the key point. Why is Cardinal Burke a party to the dubia?I think Burke was intially trying to give Pope Francis the benefit of the doubt and so his EARLY analysis was to try and reconcile AL with traditional Catholic teaching. BUT, because the looney left in the Church saw in the way AL was drafted that unorthodox intepretations of AL was possible, Cardinal Burke had to jump back in. That is the point you are missing (or denying because of your slobbering love affair with Francis).
Either Pope Francis lacks the intellectual heft to respond or he is just another liberal tyrant who displays neither mercy nor charity to his critics. Not very attractive characteristics in a Pontiff.
You should also be asking yourself is whether in the last 60 years any cardinal or high ranking prelate was put in the position of having to question Pius XII's, St. John XXIII, St. John Paul II or Pope Benedicts writings or encylicals on matters of faith and morals? Answer that, if you can.
Mark Thomas said... All that I know is that from the earliest of times to date, the Holy Catholic Church has taught that the Church of Rome has preserved the Catholic Religion immaculate.
Agreed, but what does that have to do with the subject matter?
The above statement does not mean that a pope cannot promote heresy. We know for a fact that popes have done so. It's part of our Sacred history.
You're conflating two separate things, and you do it constantly.
You also ignore the facts of history: the Catholic Church has had popes that have erred.
Officially? Binding on Catholics? No.
But err?
Yes.
Pope John XXII promoted heresy. It's a fact.
Mark Thomas said... DJR..."One can disagree with a pope, in fact, even be disobedient to him, and still be in communion with him and the Catholic Church."
The Church teaches most certainly the following: "They have the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church." I don't read, however, in the above teaching where we're to engage in disobedience in regard to the Pope.
The present pope was disobedient to the liturgical laws of the Church while ordinary of Buenos Aires. It's a demonstrable fact. So, disobedience to a pope apparently is not a big thing with Pope Francis.
If it were true that Catholics can never be disobedient to a pope (it's not), then you would have been obedient to Pope Stephen VI when he declared Pope Formosus an antipope.
Then you would have changed when Theodore II and John IX contradicted Stephen.
Then you would have changed back when Sergius III contradicted Theodore and John.
Sorry, but your views are not Catholic.
Pope Formosus was a true pope, and Stephen VI and Sergius III were wrong. It was the duty of Catholics to disobey such popes on this issue, and many did.
They were right; the popes were in error.
It's a fact of history. Look it up. It's readily available.
The cardinals need to go forward and insist on an answer to the dubia. If the pope does not answer, they need to formally correct him.
DJR said..."One can disagree with a pope, in fact, even be disobedient to him, and still be in communion with him and the Catholic Church."
Throughout Church history, the dissenters, at least in their minds, have always been right. Martin Luther was "right" in his disobedience to Rome. Protestants can "prove" that they are right in their religious beliefs.
The Eastern Orthodox can "prove" that they are right and the Pope is wrong in regard to this and that.
Sedevacantists can "prove" that Rome, rather than they, are disobedient to the Faith.
The SSPX Resistance can "prove" that they are right and that "modernist" Bishop Fellay and the SSPX are wrong. In turn, the SSPX can "prove" that they are right and the SSPX Resistance and "modernist" Rome are wrong.
In the minds of the disobedient, they are always right and the Pope is always wrong.
Disobedient Catholics are never, ever wrong. Only the Vicar of Christ can err.
DJR, you don't need a Pope as you, rather than the Vicar of Christ, whom God has authorized by God to teach, govern, and sanctify you, trump the Pope's authority.
You have determined that you possess the authority to dissent from and disobey Papal teachings.
You insist that you have the power to determine when the Pope's authority to teach, govern, and sanctify you does not apply to you.
Are you your own Pope?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas said... "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.
"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."
So, should we give "religious submission of mind and will" to Pope John XXII's idea that souls who die in the state of grace will not see God until the end of the world?
How about to Stephen VI's and Sergius III's ruling that Pope Formosus was an antipope?
This behavior is very much like Pope Francis'. A refusal to address the real life issues head and a retreat to repeating truisms.
But when those truisms are applied to historical events, events that actually happened, those truisms sometimes fail.
Which means that the blanket assertions that popes are to be obeyed in all things, at all times, fails as well.
Was Pope Formosus a valid pope?
If you say yes, you would not be giving religious assent of mind and will to the rulings... I repeat, the rulings... of Pope Stephen VI and Sergius III.
Do departed souls experience the beatific vision?
If you were to say yes during the pontificate of John XXII, you would be contradicting him.
TJM said..."You keep running away and avoiding the key point. Why is Cardinal Burke a party to the dubia?I think Burke was intially trying to give Pope Francis the benefit of the doubt and so his EARLY analysis was to try and reconcile AL with traditional Catholic teaching. BUT, because the looney left in the Church saw in the way AL was drafted that unorthodox intepretations of AL was possible, Cardinal Burke had to jump back in."
You ****"think**** that Cardinal Burke tried simply to "give Pope Francis the benefit of the doubt..."
1. You have engaged in spin. You have read into Cardinal Burke's analysis something that he never said. He never gave a hint that he merely attempted to grant to His Holiness Pope Francis the benefit of the doubt.
2. Cardinal Burke declared strongly that Amoris Laetitia din't alter Church teaching. He denounced with vigor those folks who insisted that AL had changed Church teaching.
3. Cardinal Burke declared forcefully that those who denied AL's orthodoxy had sown "confusion" and "potential scandal" within and without the Church.
The spin that you've placed upon Cardinal Burke's analysis of AL via the National Catholic Register doesn't correspond to Cardinal Burke's words.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas said... From the Roman Missal, prayer for the Pope: "O God, Shepherd and Ruler of all Thy faithful people, look mercifully upon Thy servant Francis, whom Thou hast chosen as shepherd to preside over Thy Church."
That prayer does not mean that God directly choose popes. You've been shown this before.
From the same Roman missal, on the ordination to the priesthood:
Bishop: May God who has begun the good work in you bring it to fulfillment.
Invitation to Prayer
17. Then all stand, and the bishop, without his miter, invites the people to pray: My dear people, let us pray that the all-powerful Father may pour out the gifts of heaven on this servant of his, whom he has chosen to be a priest.
If your understanding were true, which it is not, then God chooses active sodomites to be priests.
If is an undeniable fact that active sodomites have been ordained to the Catholic priesthood. No one in his right mind can deny that.
It just happened in Spain, as has recently made the news.
So, according to you, based on your misunderstanding of a Catholic prayer, God chooses practitioners of sodomy to become priests.
It is incredible to me that a Catholic could hold such a view, particularly one who is old enough to know better.
http://courseweb.stthomas.edu/jmjoncas/LiturgicalStudiesInternetLinks/ChristianWorship/Texts/Centuries/Texts_1900_2000CE/RCWorshipTexts1900_2000CE/Rite_of_Ordination_of_a_Priest.htm
TJM said..."You keep running away and avoiding the key point. Why is Cardinal Burke a party to the dubia?I think Burke was intially trying to give Pope Francis the benefit of the doubt and so his EARLY analysis was to try and reconcile AL with traditional Catholic teaching. BUT, because the looney left in the Church saw in the way AL was drafted that unorthodox intepretations of AL was possible, Cardinal Burke had to jump back in. That is the point you are missing (or denying because of your slobbering love affair with Francis)."
Here is the point that you've missed. If your comment is valid, then Cardinal Burke's problem isn't with His Holiness Pope Francis/Amoris Laertitia. Instead, Cardinal Burke's problem is with the "looney left."
If Amoris Laetitia is the problem, then why did Cardinal Burke read AL, then declared without hesitation that AL is 100 percent orthodox?
Rather than confront Pope Francis with a dubia that many Churchmen have described as a "trap," Cardinal Burke should have confronted the "looney left" with his (Cardinal Burke's) expert analysis of Amoris Laetitia to demonstrate AL's orthodoxy.
After all, Cardinal Burke read Amoris Laetitia, then insisted that AL was 100 percent orthodox. If the Apostolic Exhortation is supposedly confusing, written poorly, and filled with ambiguities and heresies, then why did Cardinal Burke declare without hesitation that Amoris Laetitia was orthodox?
Amoris Laetitia did not confuse Cardinal Burke. He declared that the document was 100 percent in line with Church teaching. Cardinal Burke's fight then is with the "looney left," as they have misrepresented Amoris Laetitia, according to Cardinal Burke's expert analysis.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas said... DJR said..."One can disagree with a pope, in fact, even be disobedient to him, and still be in communion with him and the Catholic Church."
Throughout Church history, the dissenters, at least in their minds, have always been right.
Would this include the present pope when he was disobeying as ordinary of Buenos Aires?
You never answered any of the questions in regard to the papacies of John XXII, Stephen VI, and Sergius III.
What are your answers?
Do you agree with those popes?
If not, you are every bit a "dissenter" as anyone else.
What you fail to understand is that the Catholic Church is bound to Her own teaching, and if a pope dissents from that teaching, Catholics are not bound to follow him.
You are ignoring the fact that popes themselves can be dissenters. It's an historical fact that they have in the past.
Do you dissent from the rulings of Pope Stephen VI and Sergius III regarding the validity of Pope Formosus?
Why? Are you your own pope?
You owe religious assent of mind and will to those two popes.
Mark Thomas,
Answer one question one, the one you contumaciously refuse to answer. Why then did Cardinal Burke join in the dubia? If you continue to refuse to anwer that, then you're just parroting talking points.
Mark Thomas,
Check in with the DNC or Soros to see how you should respond?
TJM, why did Cardinal Burke join the dubia? Here are Cardinal Burke's words:
"My fellow cardinals and I are publicizing a plea that we have made to the Holy Father, Pope Francis, regarding his recent Apostolic Exhortation, Amoris Laetitia. Portions of the document contain ambiguities and statements that are like knots that cannot be easily untied and are causing great confusion.
"Sharing the Pope’s devotion to Our Lady, Untier of Knots, we are asking him to clarify these ambiguous statements and, with the help of God, to untie some of the knotty statements of the document for the good of souls."
Is that why Cardinal Burke joined the dubia? If so, then Cardinal Burke contradicted himself in regard to the following:
1. Cardinal Burke declared that Amoris Laetitia is 100 percent in line with Church teaching.
2. Cardinal Burke insisted that the source of "confusion" and "scandal" that surround Amoris Laetitia is not the Exhortation itself as the document is orthodox.
3. Instead, Cardinal Burke insisted that "confusion" and "scandal" associated with Amoris Laetitia flowed from people who insisted that Amoris Laetitia changed Church teaching.
==========================================================================
TJM, there you have it. Cardinal Burke declared that orthodox Amoris Laetitia is not the source of confusion and scandal. Here is the source of confusion and scandal associated with Amoris Laetitia, according to Cardinal Burke:
"The secular media and even some Catholic media are describing the recently issued post-synodal apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia, “Love in the Family,” as a revolution in the Church, as a radical departure from the teaching and practice of the Church, up to now, regarding marriage and the family.
"Such a view of the document is both a source of wonder and *******confusion ******* to the faithful and potentially a source of *******scandal,******* not only for the faithful but for others of goodwill who look to Christ and his Church to teach and reflect in practice the truth regarding marriage and its fruit, family life, the first cell of the life of the Church and of every society."
"It is also a disservice to the nature of the document as the fruit of the Synod of Bishops, a meeting of bishops representing the universal Church “to assist the Roman pontiff with their counsel in the preservation and growth of faith and morals and in the observance and strengthening of ecclesiastical discipline and to consider questions pertaining to the activity of the Church in the world” (Canon 342).
"In other words, it would be a contradiction of the work of the Synod of Bishops to set in motion confusion regarding what the Church teaches, safeguards and fosters by her discipline."
===========================================================
Okay, TJM? Again, Amoris Laetitia is not the source of confusion and scandal, according to Cardinal Burke.
Rather, folks who twist Amoris Laetitia into something that the Exhortation is not are to blame for the confusion and scandal in question, according to Cardinal Burke.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
I said..."Throughout Church history, the dissenters, at least in their minds, have always been right."
DJR said..."Would this include the present pope when he was disobeying as ordinary of Buenos Aires?"
I don't know. His Holiness Pope Francis has to answer for his actions. I have to answer for my actions. Then-Archbishop/Cardinal Bergoglio's actions, whatever they may have been, do not alter the fact that the Church teaches that each of us must submit to the Roman Pontiff.
DJR, should you wish to disobey His Holiness Pope Francis (via your justification that as Ordinary of Buenos Aires, he disobeyed this or that Pope), then so be it.
All that I know is that Holy Mother Church teaches that I am to submit to the Pope's authority.
God has commanded me to submit to the Magisterium. DJR, if you believe that you are not required as a Catholic to submit to the Magisterium, then so be it.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
DJR said..."If your understanding were true, which it is not, then God chooses active sodomites to be priests. If is an undeniable fact that active sodomites have been ordained to the Catholic priesthood. No one in his right mind can deny that. So, according to you, based on your misunderstanding of a Catholic prayer, God chooses practitioners of sodomy to become priests."
Judas betrayed Jesus Christ. Did not Jesus Christ elevate Judas to serve as a bishop?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
DJR said..."The cardinals need to go forward and insist on an answer to the dubia. If the pope does not answer, they need to formally correct him."
I didn't realize that that's the manner in which the Catholic Church operated.
1. A group of Cardinals demands that the Pope respond to certain questions.
2. Should the Pope fail to respond to said questions, the Cardinals would then "correct" (whatever that means) the Pope.
3. Or should the Pope respond to the questions but offer answers that displease the Cardinals, the Cardinals, in turn, would "correct" the Pope.
That is the manner in which the Church operates?
By the way, there are Cardinals who "corrected" the Four Cardinals. Do the Cardinals who "corrected" the Four Cardinals trump the Four Cardinals? Or do the Four Cardinals trump everybody, including Pope Francis, within the Church?
Oh...suppose Fifty Cardinals insist that Pope Francis revoke Vatican II or face "correction." Must Pope Francis bow to the Fifty Cardinals' demands?
Oh...suppose Sixty-seven Cardinals declare that the Society of Saint Pius X spreads heresy and confusion among Catholics. The Sixty-seven Cardinals determine that Pope Francis' favorable treatment of the SSPX is unwarranted.
The Sixty-seven Cardinals demand that Pope Francis declare the SSPX "heretical" or else His Holiness will face "correction." Is Pope Francis required to submit to the Sixty-seven Cardinals?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas,
Epic fail. Do you even read what you posted? Did you fail logic? Cardinal Burke said:
"portions of the document contain ambiguities and statements that are like knots that cannot be easily untied and are causing great confusion."
Papal documents should not contain ambiguities or make statements which cause confusion. You really need to grow up.
Mark Thomas said... DJR said..."The cardinals need to go forward and insist on an answer to the dubia. If the pope does not answer, they need to formally correct him."
I didn't realize that that's the manner in which the Catholic Church operated.
Well, if you didn't realize that fact, it's time you studied your own Faith, because that's exactly how the Church operates.
What do you think happened in the reign of Pope John XXII, when he openly embraced heresy?
Several more examples could be cited.
I follow the Magisterium of the Church. Blindly following a pope is not in keeping with that concept.
Those who followed Stephen VI when he ruled that Pope Formosus was an antipope were in error.
And so was Stephen VI.
Fact.
DJR,
Excellent points. Unlike Mark Thomas, I worship God the Blessed Trinity, not Popes.
DJR said..."Well, if you didn't realize that fact, it's time you studied your own Faith, because that's exactly how the Church operates."
Oh. Thatb is the manner in which the Church operates. Cardinals possess authority over His Holiness Pope Francis. Okay.
The Four Cardinals have the authority to demand that Pope Francis answer questions. Should Pope Francis fail to respond to the Four Cardinals, or should his answers fail to please the Four Cardinals, the Four Cardinals then have the authority to "correct" (whatever that means) the Pope.
The Four Cardinals trump Pope Francis. The Four Cardinals also trump the Five Cardinals or Fifty or One-hundred Cardinals who disagree with the Four Cardinals.
The Four Cardinals rule the roost. That is how the Church operates. Okay. Got it.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
TJM,
What epic fail? I noted that Cardinal Burke said that "portions of the document contain ambiguities and statements that are like knots that cannot be easily untied and are causing great confusion."
He uttered those comments last month during an interview. That is why I noted that Cardinal Burke contradicted himself as prior to that, he had declared that Amoris Leatitia was orthodox. He said that Amoris Laetitia did not spread "confusion" and "scandal."
Cardinal Burke said that people who claimed that Amoris Laetitia had changed Church teaching were responsible for having spread confusion and potential scandal within and without the Church.
Cardinal Burke has contradicted himself dramatically in regard to statements that he has issued about Amoris Laetitia.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
DJR, TJM, and Mark Thomas:
Doesn’t this exchange all have to do with presumption of one kind or another?
Mark Thomas operates under a presumption in favor of the Pope. DJR and TJM seem to be operating under a presumption against the Pope, which carries with it the risk of operating out of another kind of presumption.
Granted that popes can and do err sometimes, even to the point of heresy, how are we lay Catholics to know for sure? By exercising our own judgment? By counting numbers? Perhaps in extreme and very clear cases it is legitimate for a lay Catholic to do so. But otherwise? Isn’t one man’s heresy another man’s organic development or pastoral application or, at worst, ambiguity?
Won’t these issues be resolved through the working of the Holy Spirit in good time? And what is the conscientious lay Catholic to do in the meantime? Which presumption is the more dangerous?
Anonymous 2,
I am not operating under a presumption against the Pope, rather, the Pope appears to be operating under a presumption against the Faith as handed down. He makes comments about faithful Catholics, lay and clerical, which underscore what a nasty, petty piece of work he is. When someone of the eminence of Cardinal Burke, who clearly is Francis' intellectual superior, raises doubts (notwithstanding Mark Thomas' best efforts to the contrary to say it isn't so), then a faithful Catholic needs to take notice and be concerned. Clearly, it would be much easier for Cardinal Burke to "go along to get along" like many apostates running many of our diocese in the US today.
Mark Thomas said...DJR said..."Well, if you didn't realize that fact, it's time you studied your own Faith, because that's exactly how the Church operates." Oh. Thatb is the manner in which the Church operates. Cardinals possess authority over His Holiness Pope Francis. Okay.
The Four Cardinals have the authority to demand that Pope Francis answer questions. Should Pope Francis fail to respond to the Four Cardinals, or should his answers fail to please the Four Cardinals, the Four Cardinals then have the authority to "correct" (whatever that means) the Pope.
The Four Cardinals trump Pope Francis. The Four Cardinals also trump the Five Cardinals or Fifty or One-hundred Cardinals who disagree with the Four Cardinals.
The Four Cardinals rule the roost. That is how the Church operates. Okay. Got it.
The four cardinals can issue a correction of the pope just like popes have been corrected in the past.
Like John XXII.
Have you ever heard of Saints Peter and Paul?
Anonymous 2 said... Doesn’t this exchange all have to do with presumption of one kind or another?
No.
We're opposed to the idea that Catholic truth can be changed by a pope.
It can't.
If a pope attempts to, as this pope is doing, he is to be opposed.
St. Paul opposed St. Peter.
Lay people and clerics opposed Pope John XXII.
Lay people and clerics opposed Stephen VI and Sergius III when they declared Pope Formosus to be an antipope.
If Catholic teaching is on one's side, one need not worry about opposing a pope's personal views.
And Catholic teaching is on our side (or, rather, we are on the side of Catholic teaching).
Divorce and "remarriage" is a mortal sin. Divorced and "remarried" persons cannot... I repeat, cannot... receive Holy Communion under any... any... circumstances unless they live in continence.
The pope has issued guidelines for the Diocese of Rome that allow this, and he is allowing it in other dioceses, most notably in Argentina and elsewhere.
No.
Non possumus.
If that offends people like Mark Thomas, so be it.
The answer is that Mark's views are not Catholic. And if the pope agrees with him, then neither are the pope's.
I post again to add that Mark Thomas keeps talking about the four cardinals as if they are the only people involved in the dubia.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
In fact, six people signed the dubia, one of which is the major archbishop of the Ukrainian Catholic Church.
In addition, individual bishops have spoken up in defense of the cardinals.
And Mark is not privy to what is going on in other places, most notably, the bishops of Poland and the Eastern Rite bishops.
This will come out in time.
People are in for a rude awakening.
Mark Thomas said...DJR said..."If your understanding were true, which it is not, then God chooses active sodomites to be priests. If is an undeniable fact that active sodomites have been ordained to the Catholic priesthood. No one in his right mind can deny that. So, according to you, based on your misunderstanding of a Catholic prayer, God chooses practitioners of sodomy to become priests."
Judas betrayed Jesus Christ. Did not Jesus Christ elevate Judas to serve as a bishop?
So, your answer is YES? Christ chooses practicing sodomites to be priests? Are you joking?
Unbelievable.
That is not Catholic. At all.
TJM (and DJR):
“I am not operating under a presumption against the Pope”
Even assuming you turn out to be correct on the merits, are you sure there is no presumption against Pope Francis at work? What do you think about the Pope’s views on the economy, on the environment, on Cuba and the Castros, etc.? How many of his views do you actually agree with? How many do you disagree with? Also, let’s try a thought experiment: Suppose, for the sake of argument, that Pope Benedict had promulgated Amoris Laetitia. Would you be writing as you do now? Or would you show more deference to time and the working of the Holy Spirit in resolving these contentious issues?
I am just asking.
Amoris Laetitia is vague, humanistic garbage no matter who promulgates it. The fact that this Pope does so just confirms his humanistic, Pelagian, protestant leanings. His views on the economy, the environment, and Cuba and the Castros, although good for laughs, can be safely ignored because he is neither an economist, a scientist, or a politician.
Anonymous 2,
Pope Francis brings about his own trouble with sloppy, uncharitible statements, and trying to be popular with the "world."
Pope Benedict, a great intellectual, would have never produced something as imprecise and sloppy as AL.
I watched Cardinal Burke on The World Over with Raymond Arroyo and all I can say is that Mark Thomas is living in a special kind of la-la land. Burke destroyed AL by using the very precise and accurate language written by St. John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio about the divorced and remarried receiving Holy Communion, absent annulment. Burke also mentioned it was a Magisterial statement which AL is not. Cardinal Burke is a very brave man and will likely be harmed by the Pope or one of his evil henchmen. This damaging Papacy cannot end soon enough
Anonymous 2,
I could care less about Francis' left-wing views on the economy, environment aka the global warming scam, or his love affair with Castro, a mass murderer. They are not doctrine but simply his own high-flown and silly and dangerous opinions.
DJR,
1. Jesus Christ selected Saint Peter as Pope.
2. Saint Peter denied Jesus Christ three times. Horrific.
3. Why did Jesus Christ choose as Pope a man who committed the horrific act in question?
4. Did Saint Peter's horrific behavior erase the fact that Jesus Christ had selected a Pope?
5. Jesus Christ is God The Son. God selected a Pope. When did God remove Himself (you insist that God does choose Popes) from that process?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Anonymous 2 said...TJM (and DJR):
“I am not operating under a presumption against the Pope”
Even assuming you turn out to be correct on the merits, are you sure there is no presumption against Pope Francis at work? What do you think about the Pope’s views on the economy, on the environment, on Cuba and the Castros, etc.? How many of his views do you actually agree with? How many do you disagree with? Also, let’s try a thought experiment: Suppose, for the sake of argument, that Pope Benedict had promulgated Amoris Laetitia. Would you be writing as you do now? Or would you show more deference to time and the working of the Holy Spirit in resolving these contentious issues?
I am just asking.
Speaking for myself, I don't care what the pope's ideas are of Cuba, the Castros, and the environment. Those have nothing to do with the Catholic Faith. He can have all the opinions of them he wants. I don't really know what they are, and I don't care.
I don't know what my bishop thinks about those things either, and neither do I care.
Amoris Laetitia is not in the same category. And it does not matter who promulgates it.
If Pope Francis were still only the Ordinary of Buenos Aires and had promulgated Amoris Laetitia for his diocese during the pontificate of Pope John Paul II, allowing his subordinates to publicly state that divorced and remarried people can, under certain circumstances, receive Holy Communion while maintaining a conjugal relationship with their second "spouses," many of the people who defend that document would be calling him a heretic who is opposed to the pope.
Those who deny that are being disingenuous, with themselves and with others. No one in his/her right mind would believe them.
They most certainly would be calling for his head. We all know it.
The ONLY reason they agree with the document is due to the status of the person promulgating it. If it were promulgated by, say, Cardinal Kasper, they most definitely would not.
Mark Thomas,
You over the top non sequitur was a hoot!
Merry Christmas
I said..."Judas betrayed Jesus Christ. Did not Jesus Christ elevate Judas to serve as a bishop?"
DJR said..."So, your answer is YES? Christ chooses practicing sodomites to be priests? Are you joking? Unbelievable. That is not Catholic. At all."
===========================================================================
DJR, did you answer the question? Judas was a bishop. Judas betrayed Jesus Christ. Judas had committed a most horrific sin. Judas was a most appalling bishop. Now, to repeat my question.
Did not Jesus Christ elevate Judas to serve as a bishop?
In Judas, we have the fact that God (God The Son) selected a bishop who was an appalling sinner. Jesus Christ was sold-out by Bishop Judas.
Jesus Christ ordained Bishop Judas. In fact, Jesus Christ had chosen as His fist Pope Simon Bar-Jona, a sinner who was so horrific that he (Simon Bar-Jona) three times denied that the had even known, let alone had followed, Jesus Christ.
DJR, I thought that it is "not Catholic" to believe that God calls to the priesthood flawed men who are sinners?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
TJM said..."I watched Cardinal Burke on The World Over with Raymond Arroyo and all I can say is that Mark Thomas is living in a special kind of la-la land. Burke destroyed AL by using the very precise and accurate language written by St. John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio about the divorced and remarried receiving Holy Communion, absent annulment."
I am living in the la-la land where Raymond Cardinal Burke declared that Amoris Laetitia is in line with Catholic teaching. I live in la-la land where Cardinal Burke declared that people who insisted that AL had changed Church teaching had spread confusion and potential scandal within in the Church and throughout the world.
I am living in la-la land with the bishops of Poland who declared that Amoris Laetitia is orthodox. The bishops of Alberta and the Northwest territories declared that AL is orthodox.
Cardinals Mueller, Sarah, DiNardo...on and on the lists goes...declared that AL is orthodox.
I live in the Kingdom of God. If that is la-la land...oh, well.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas said...
3. Why did Jesus Christ choose as Pope a man who committed the horrific act in question?
4. Did Saint Peter's horrific behavior erase the fact that Jesus Christ had selected a Pope?
5. Jesus Christ is God The Son. God selected a Pope. When did God remove Himself (you insist that God does choose Popes) from that process?
I will answer your questions even though you refuse to answer mine.
You have never, not even once, answered any of those questions, and the reason is because answering them would destroy your viewpoint, and you know it.
Therefore, you ignore them, much like Pope Francis does. It's the trait of dishonesty.
And now you want answers to your questions?
Okay.
3. You will have to ask Our Lord that. I have no idea.
4. No.
5. You are changing the scenario. I never stated that God "removed Himself from that process."
What I have stated, and what the Catholic Church believes, is that God does not directly choose who becomes pope. He ratifies "the process."
Saint Peter is the only pope directly chosen by God. The others have been chosen by men. Nowhere does the Church teach that God directly chooses popes.
Your question has been addressed by none other than a pope (albeit he was not pope at the time; however, there is no evidence that his opinion on the matter changed).
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!"
http://www.thesacredpage.com/2013/02/no-holy-spirit-doesnt-choose-pope.html
It is simply NOT the teaching of the Catholic Church that God directly picks popes.
You disparage others for disagreeing with Pope Francis. Well, on this matter, you disagree with Pope Benedict.
Now can you answer my questions regarding Popes Formosus, Stephen VI, and Sergius III. I've asked them several times.
Cardinal Burke stays on course.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cardinal-burke-responds-to-dubia-critics-not-a-sign-of-illness-to-care-abou?utm_content=bufferffc5c&utm_medium=social&utm_source=lifesitenews%2Btwitter&utm_campaign=buffer
I continue to be edified by our prelates who are standing up for Truth while being viciously attacked by the "supporters" of Pope Francis.
To those who vilify Cardinal Burke for his stance, you stand with vicious, conniving people.
And the pope sits there allowing it all to happen while he foments it behind the scenes.
That fact, in itself, shows us which side is correct.
DJR said..."And Mark is not privy to what is going on in other places, most notably, the bishops of Poland and the Eastern Rite bishops."
I am privy to the fact that when His Holiness Pope Francis visited Poland earlier this year, he conducted a private meeting with Poland's bishops. In turn, the Polish bishops accepted Amoris Laetitia as orthodox.
From the National Catholic Register: The press conference that followed Pope Francis' meeting with the Polish bishops...
"Asked whether the bishops and the Pope discussed Amoris Laetitia, the president of the Polish bishops’ said that as far as he and his fellow bishops were concerned, the document took into account their “more conservative proposal” during the synod which was to “retain the truth of the Gospel” when relating to admission to the sacraments of remarried divorcees."
Amoris Laetitia is in line with the teaching that the bishops of Poland held and promoted during the Synod.
I am privy to that fact inn regard to the bishops of Poland.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
DJR,
Mark Thomas like his hero lacks the intellectual capacity to directly respond to any statement, he just repeats his looney talking points. It's a huge waste of time to engage him. I think he gets his jollies this way
Mark Thomas said... Amoris Laetitia is in line with the teaching that the bishops of Poland held and promoted during the Synod. I am privy to that fact inn regard to the bishops of Poland. Pax. Mark Thomas
Yes, and Cardinal Burke, you assert, stated much the same thing.
But now?
You are not privy to information of what is happening behind the scenes; others, however, are.
You will see when it goes public.
In turn, the Polish bishops accepted Amoris Laetitia as orthodox.
The bishops of Poland said no such thing, and what you quoted does not say that either.
The Polish bishops do not agree with the interpretation of Amoris Laetitia that the pope has told the Argentinian bishops is "the only" interpretation.
Nor does the head of the Ukrainian Catholic Church, which is the largest of all the Eastern Rites churches.
Cardinal Burke and the holy men who are defending the Church's true teachings against the errors contained in Amoris Laetitia must proceed.
If the pope refuses to correct the errors contained in the document, they have the right to publicly correct the pope, just as the people did in the time of John XXII and just as Saint Paul did to Saint Peter.
It will be for the good of the Church.
Mark Thomas said... DJR, did you answer the question? Judas was a bishop. Judas betrayed Jesus Christ. Judas had committed a most horrific sin. Judas was a most appalling bishop. Now, to repeat my question.
Did not Jesus Christ elevate Judas to serve as a bishop?
You won't answer any of my questions with regards to Pope Formosus, et al., but you insist on answers to yours?
Okay, even though you refuse to answer any questions posed to you, I will answer your question.
The answer is, yes, Christ chose Judas.
Now can you answer mine?
Does Christ choose practicing sodomites to be priests (even though His Church forbids it)?
DJR,
Mark Thomas must be apoplectic because Fr. McDonald has now posted the interview with Cardinal Burke I mentioned earlier today. Not good news for Mark and his slobbering love affair with Pope Francis the "fluffiest Pope evan!"
DJR said..."I post again to add that Mark Thomas keeps talking about the four cardinals as if they are the only people involved in the dubia. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, six people signed the dubia, one of which is the major archbishop of the Ukrainian Catholic Church. In addition, individual bishops have spoken up in defense of the cardinals."
When did I say that the Four Cardinals do not have support for the dubia? You claim that I am dishonest. Hmmm...
Anyway, there are those who support the Four Cardinals. Who doesn't know that? There are those opposed to the dubia. Who doesn't know that?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas said... When did I say that the Four Cardinals do not have support for the dubia? You claim that I am dishonest. Hmmm...
Well, you can demonstrate your honesty by now answering the question I asked.
I answered your question. Can you afford the decency to answer mine?
Here it is:
On the basis of the prayer I cited previously, and your understanding of that prayer, does Christ choose practicing sodomites to be priests (even though His Church forbids it and His Holiness Pope Francis just issued a document reinforcing such a ban)?
DJR, in regard to God calling grave sinners to the priesthood...as would be the case in regard to sodomites:
Has not God throughout history called sinners to the priesthood? The key would be whether the sinner in question persisted in his sin. As the result of God's grace, a sodomite, for example, would have every opportunity to amend his life.
Anyway, God called Saul of Tarsus, a vicious persecutor of Christians, to the priesthood. Saul of Tarsus was also complicit in the murder of Saint Stephen.
DJR, how about the example of Saint Thomas à Becket prior to his radical conversion?
What about Saint Augustine of Hippo's history?
The Apostolic See reiterated recently the following: "If a candidate practices homosexuality or presents deep-seated homosexual tendencies, his spiritual director as well as his confessor have the duty to dissuade him in conscience from proceeding towards ordination."
I accept that. I also accept that God has called wicked men, even those complicit in murder (martyrdom of Saint Stephen), to the priesthood.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas said... I accept that. I also accept that God has called wicked men, even those complicit in murder (martyrdom of Saint Stephen), to the priesthood.
The people you cited were not wicked at the time they became priests. What you stated is irrelevant to the point.
My question was with regard to practicing homosexuals, which you insinuated are called by God to be priests. The reason you insinuated that, is due to your misunderstanding of a simple prayer.
Like the pope, you never did quite say yes or no, which is all the question asked for.
However, because you accept the fact that practicing homosexuals are forbidden to be ordained, then the prayer that is used in the ordination rite cannot be understood in the way you understand it, nor can the other prayer with regards to a pope.
Practicing homosexuals are not called to be priests. They don't have a vocation. The Holy Father, Pope Francis, and the Church with him, forbids it.
Thus, the prayer said during the ordination rite, which you believe is free from error, cannot be understood in the way you previously asserted.
____
Prayer from the Roman missal on the ordination to the priesthood:
Bishop: May God who has begun the good work in you bring it to fulfillment.
Invitation to Prayer
17. Then all stand, and the bishop, without his miter, invites the people to pray: My dear people, let us pray that the all-powerful Father may pour out the gifts of heaven on this servant of his, whom he has chosen to be a priest.
If a practicing homosexual gets ordained in the modern Roman Rite, that prayer is said; however, it cannot be possible that God has chosen such a person to be a priest. The Church forbids it.
Mark Thomas, receiving a direct question, never answers it, but immediately goes into full diarrhea mode: blah, blah, blah, blahblahblah!
DJR said..."The people you cited were not wicked at the time they became priests."
I thought that they were. Was not, for example, Saul of Tarsus a persecutor of Christians and complicit in murder right up to the second that Jesus called Saul into the Church and priesthood?
If God called a persecutor of Christians who also was complicit in murder into the priesthood, then why could not God call a homosexual into the priesthood?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
DJR said..."The people you cited were not wicked at the time they became priests."
What about Judas?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
DJR said..."If a practicing homosexual gets ordained in the modern Roman Rite, that prayer is said; however, it cannot be possible that God has chosen such a person to be a priest. The Church forbids it."
As I noted, the key would be whether the sinner in question persisted in his sin. As the result of God's grace, a sodomite, for example, would have every opportunity to amend his life.
Why couldn't God call a practicing homosexual into the priesthood provided that the man in question would then amend his life?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas said... Why couldn't God call a practicing homosexual into the priesthood provided that the man in question would then amend his life?
So, the popes who promulgated rules that forbid such a thing are going against God?
Pope St. John XXIII, Pope St. John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, and most recently Pope Francis?
DJR said..."So, the popes who promulgated rules that forbid such a thing are going against God?"
DJR, I accept that which the Church of Rome teaches. But I thought that we had talked about whether God could call a practicing homosexual into the priesthood.
My point is that in the history of the Church, Judas was ordained a Catholic priest. Saul of Tarsus, who persecuted Catholics and was involved in murder, was called into the priesthood.
Saints Augustine of Hippo and Saint Thomas à Becket, grave sinners, were called into the priesthood.
In light of such men having become Catholic priests, I don't know why God couldn't call a homosexual, who would have the opportunity via God's many graces to amend his life, into the priesthood.
Again, as God called the vicious Christ-hating, complicit-in-murder Saul of Tarsus into the priesthood, is it unthinkable that he couldn't do the same in regard to a homosexual?
Anyway, God has called grave sinners into the priesthood. That is my point.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas said... Anyway, God has called grave sinners into the priesthood. That is my point.
-----
But your point is irrelevant to the point that I made.
The question revolved around the prayer that is used at ordinations, and your assertion is basically that EVERY man who was ordained has a vocation and is called by God to be a priest because the prayer states that God chose them.
However, I pointed out your erroneous understanding.
The Church forbids practicing sodomites to be priests, so it's not possible that God calls them to the priesthood. Otherwise, you would have His Church contradicting Him. And that would include His Holiness Pope Francis.
But it's an undeniable fact that practicing sodomites have been ordained. Thus, that prayer cannot be understood in the manner you understand it, which is contrary to the sense of the Church.
Just as God does not directly choose popes, despite the prayer you have cited, just as Pope Benedict stated.
Post a Comment