tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post5415350324812230959..comments2024-03-28T11:36:20.629-04:00Comments on southern orders: BOMBSHELL COMMENTARY FROM CRUX QUESTIONING THE MAGISTERIAL AUTHORITY OF AMORIS LAETITIA!Fr. Allan J. McDonaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16986575955114152639noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-69609235799049239942017-01-19T17:01:01.142-05:002017-01-19T17:01:01.142-05:00I personally only read my own first paragraphs. :-...I personally only read my own first paragraphs. :-) Jusadbellumnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-87115063442690974952017-01-19T12:31:03.695-05:002017-01-19T12:31:03.695-05:00Henry, you got it! Henry, you got it! TJMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-27893096220092619092017-01-19T11:14:09.483-05:002017-01-19T11:14:09.483-05:00"Don't feed the troll."
Looks like ...<b>"Don't feed the troll."</b><br /><br />Looks like this blog has a really bad case of it. And so, what was once a prime go-to blog for informed discussion is now pretty boring in its comments sections. Am I missing something? Admittedly, I don't bother to read lengthy comments that look vacuous and repetitive at first glance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-68276403342906968832017-01-18T19:38:40.830-05:002017-01-18T19:38:40.830-05:00Mark Thomas just talks in circles and never square...Mark Thomas just talks in circles and never squarely addresses valid points raised by the various commentators probably because he lacks the logic or ability to do so. I think he gets his jollies commenting here, so I plan to ignore his inane and voluminous posts in the future.TJMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-1269676126912062312017-01-18T15:37:29.075-05:002017-01-18T15:37:29.075-05:00Here's an example of a layman arguing against ...Here's an example of a layman arguing against the Kasper position. Note where the good cardinal does NOT define his terms.... indeed much of the arguments of Kung, Curran and Kasper HINGE on them not defining their terms.<br /><br />So they'll cast about phrases like 'failed marriage' as though that's a theological or even anthropological thing. If you are sacramentally married then the MARRIAGE is not failed....the relationship is. The Covenant is perpetual - until death. But the friendship - that can 'fail' and yet can just as well be restored! But to hear them "argue" it, a failed marriage is permanent, irrevocable, and has no hope...<br /><br />http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/3887/A_Layman_Responds_to_Cardinal_Kaspers_Proposal.aspx Jusadbellumnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-19305612801401447582017-01-18T15:06:38.793-05:002017-01-18T15:06:38.793-05:00Mark, how about responding to this.
1. The pope I...Mark, how about responding to this.<br /><br />1. The pope <b>IS</b> infallible under the conditions defined by the Church (a position held by Pope St. John Paul II, a priest who was obviously "in good standing" with the Catholic Church).<br /><br />2. The pope <b>IS NOT </b> infallible under the conditions defined by the Church (a position held by Hans Kung, another priest "in good standing" with the Catholic Church).<br /><br />Both priests above were/are "in good standing" with the Catholic Church; therefore, <b>both views are orthodox.</b><br /><br />Is my last statement correct?DJRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18028761850444888285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-63699229909654559792017-01-18T14:50:56.368-05:002017-01-18T14:50:56.368-05:00Mark Thomas,
I believe the Bishop Papamanolis had...Mark Thomas,<br /><br />I believe the Bishop Papamanolis had a right to say what he said. I do not think he was correct in the substance of what he said, but he was free to say it.<br /><br />I do see where you are coming from, don't misunderstand me. But a person can be heretical without formally being declared so. At most they can be material. (For any charge of formal heresy, would have to be determined by the Church)<br /><br />When it comes to Fr Kung, let's say this, he may be in good standing with the Church, but his ideas are heretical. In his academic writings, he denies various dogmas, he may well not teach these ideas in a parish setting, I have no way of knowing that, but I can state that his ideas are heretical, without convicting him of the crime of formal heresy (which as I've mentioned is the job of the Church). I can say he's a material heretic because the idea that is held is heresy with respect to the Faith, but being a material heretic does not mean one is a formal heretic in any way shape or form. <br /><br />Or put another way, one need not be formally charged with heresy to be in heresy. It's kind of a paradox in a way, we can't judge hearts, but at the same time, we're allowed to judge actions, strange isn't it? <br /><br />In regards to the various instances of the Pope speaking way too much, the same principle applies, you, nor I, nor anyone within this comment thread or anywhere in the world has a right to depose of a Pope. We can state that various ideas are heretical, or that when it comes to subject x, he basically has zero clue what he's speaking about. Denouncing actions is different then denouncing the person, the latter, we can't do, the former we can. I happen to be of the mind that the SSPX are not in heresy or schism....Or put another way, a person has a right to an opinion, even if they're wrong. <br /><br />Again, we need to be able to separate the formal process against the objective measure of an action. If I was to accuse a priest/bishop or pope of formal heresy, I would be in the wrong in that regard. And that'd be true for any of us here. In that regard, you are absolutely correct, and I do not think any of us disagree with you on that point. <br /><br />Maybe this analogy will help (it's not perfect, but bear with me). A person robs a store of some money. This person is able to get away and go about his daily life as usual. What is his status with respect to the law? He has none, as there haven't been a criminal case filed so one could say he's in good standing with respect to the Law. What is his status objectively? He committed a crime, he'd be a thief, even though no charges have been filed to prove that crime. Similarly, when it comes to the status of some deacons/priests/bishops/popes, they can have heretical ideas, and may never be called to trial to face charges of formal heresy, but they'll objectively be so even though no charges have been filed. In both situations, we're not the authority that can file the charges, but we can point things out. <br /><br />Most of us here would rather not be pointing these things out, but no one is doing anything about it, so some kind of attention needs to be brought to it. <br /><br />Православный физикhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11313371333531421128noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-26276717286645414992017-01-18T14:33:46.058-05:002017-01-18T14:33:46.058-05:00St. Athanasius was excommunicated by various local...St. Athanasius was excommunicated by various local councils during the Arian heresy and had to flee into exile repeatedly. <br /><br />All to say, yes, the charge of heretic is a two way street and I gladly accept the challenge! If I'm wrong about X then the proper authority should be equipped to spell out explicitly where I've gone wrong and why. If the proper authority CAN'T explain explicitly why I'm wrong.....then they haven't backed up their claim of heresy.<br /><br />Similarly, with respect to the aforementioned theologians....Curran led the 'dissent' against Humane Vitae. This is in the historical record. He dissented on the basis of a completely novel theory of how inter-personal morality works so as to justify the use of artificial contraception. His "theological" peers among the various religious orders and universities all praised him to the skies as super-smart.<br /><br />But his arguments flounder upon inspection in that given how human nature works, morality is not in a box. If you can use an argument in sexuality then you can use the same one in every OTHER sphere of human interaction. <br /><br />His argument about why the Pill is OK would - if applied in any other field - immediately reveal itself to be unworkable. Take an employer not paying his workers a just wage or polluting the environment..... if we can no longer look at discrete acts and their telos but must stop at the actor's intentions and 'general' attitude an enormous range of human interactions condemned by the Church as sinful suddenly become valid "alternatives". Suddenly the sex abuse of a minor has to be re-interpreted in light of the general attitude, the total sum of all interactions and not reduced to a one-time event. Subjective states and flights of fancy must be taken into account to reduce to null the pedophile's actions insofar as he sincerely means well and seeks a 'higher good'. etc. etc. <br /><br />But suppose I have 20 interactions with Fr. Curran but only one of them involved me punching him in the nose. Might I not argue that the general tenor of my actions are peaceful? <br /><br />Take sex out of the equation and we spot the error in his "thinking" immediately.<br /><br />But none of the 'too clever by half' theologians have thought it through. <br /><br />With respect to Cardinal Kasper's ideas the same flaw exists - if we take his teaching at face value then not only is the sacrament of marriage suddenly no longer a certain thing, neither is the sacrament of orders..... that he hasn't figured this out is saying a lot. <br /><br />Now that we can't possibly be sure whether a couple had explicit intent and thus can err on the side of presuming there was no sacramental union just a secular one, how can we be so sure Cardinal Kasper's ordination itself is a given?<br /><br />They never thought the implications of their arguments through.<br /><br />But see, if I'm wrong about the above thumb prints of their teaching, we can actually have a debate on them and conclude I'm all wet, partially wet, or right as rain. It's not about who they are or who I am but about their doxis.<br /><br /><br /><br />Jusadbellumnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-46708190835156145002017-01-18T13:51:11.738-05:002017-01-18T13:51:11.738-05:00Jan said..."I have never heard him defend any...Jan said..."I have never heard him defend any other pope in the manner he defends Francis."<br /><br />Jan, I don't know what that means. <br /><br />Thank you.<br /><br />Pax.<br /><br />Mark ThomasMark Thomasnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-63468785237567764232017-01-18T13:38:01.170-05:002017-01-18T13:38:01.170-05:00Mister Joe Potillor,
You said: "Everyone is...Mister Joe Potillor,<br /><br />You said: "Everyone is of course entitled to a good name, and no one doubts that at all, that said, if their actions are something else, charity demands that it be called out for what it is."<br /><br />I offer to you the following: Bishop Frankiskos Papamanolis, head of the Greek bishops followed your line of reasoning. That is, he determined that the words/actions of the Four Cardinals constituted heresy/apostasy.<br /><br />Therefore, charity "demanded" that the Four Cardinals "be called out" for what they are...heretics and apostates, according to Bishop Frangiskos Papamanolis.<br /><br />https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/greek-bishop-rips-four-cardinals-its-you-who-receive-communion-sacrilegious<br /><br />Head of Greek bishops rips Four Cardinals: You receive Communion ‘sacrilegiously,’ not the divorced <br /><br />GREECE, November 22, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) -- A Roman Catholic Greek bishop, who, during the Synod on the Family stated “it is not easy to sin,” has accused four Cardinals of “two very serious sins” for presenting Pope Francis with a set of yes-or-no questions that seek to clarify his recent exhortation Amoris Laetitia.<br /><br />Retired Bishop Frangiskos Papamanolis, who serves as President of the Bishops’ Conference of Greece, wrote in a scathing open-letter dated Nov. 20 to the Cardinals that they should have renounced their title as “Cardinal” before presenting the Pope with their “dubia,” and thereby committing the sins of “apostasy” and “scandal.”<br />================================================================<br /><br />Bishop Frankiskos Papamanolis concluded his open letter to the Four Cardinals as follows:<br /><br />"Dearest brothers, may the Lord enlighten you to recognize as soon as possible your sin and to repair the scandal you have given. With the charity of Christ, I greet you fraternally.<br /><br />+ Frankiskos Papamanolis, o.f.m. cap<br /><br />Bishop emeritus of Syros, Santorini, and Crete President of the Episcopal Conference of Greece<br /><br />Mr. Potillor (as well as others who wish to respond), do you accept that Bishop Frankiskos Papamanolis acted properly via his "charitable" desire to recall the Four Cardinals from their supposed grave sins of heresy and apostasy?<br /><br />Thank you.<br /><br />Pax.<br /><br />Mark Thomas<br />Mark Thomasnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-44104407349223432882017-01-18T13:20:28.236-05:002017-01-18T13:20:28.236-05:00Joe Potillor said..."Unfortunately, I think M...Joe Potillor said..."Unfortunately, I think Mark Thomas is confusing the process for the finding of someone to be a formal heretic versus the comparison of the position that a particular clergyman holds with respect to the objective Truth of the Faith. Formal heresy can only be declared by the Church, in that regard, he's right. But he is completely wrong that actions can't be pointed out as heretical, or being a material heretic.<br /><br />"Everyone is of course entitled to a good name, and no one doubts that at all, that said, if their actions are something else, charity demands that it be called out for what it is."<br /><br />Mister Potillor, <br /><br />Hello.<br /><br />We agree that everybody in entitled to his good name. But I am not wrong as to my opposition to folks who label this or that Catholic a "heretic" (unless the competent Church authority has labeled said person a "heretic").<br /><br />Various Catholics each day declare His Holiness Pope Francis heretical...an apostate...satanic. They have the right to do so? I don't think so.<br /><br />But they follow your line of reasoning. They insist that Pope Francis' words and actions condemn him as a satanic heretic/apostate. They "prove" each day that the Vicar of Christ, Pope Francis, is an apostate.<br /><br />To employ your words, in regard to Pope Francis' supposed heresy, "charity demands that it be called out for what it is."<br /><br />Therefore, the daily denunciation of Pope Francis is justified. Really?<br /><br />Michael Voris (he is far from alone in regard to the following) insists that Bishop Fellay and the remaining SSPX bishops and priests are heretics. Michael Voris has insisted time and again that the evidence is undeniable in that regard.<br /><br />Therefore, Michael Voris is justified in his condemnation of the SSPX? Really?<br /><br />Anyway, so be it should everybody here be keen to denounce this or that Catholic as a "heretic." I will refrain from participating in spiritual lynchings.<br /><br />Pax.<br /><br />Mark ThomasMark Thomasnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-76967579068516174302017-01-18T12:43:47.699-05:002017-01-18T12:43:47.699-05:00Jusadbellum,
I don't need to re-read canon 21...Jusadbellum,<br /><br />I don't need to re-read canon 212. I am familiar with said canon. Canon 212 does not grant unto a Catholic the right to trample a person's name and dignity. The canon does not grant unto a Catholic the right to declare Person "X" a "heretic" when Person "X" is recognized by the competent Church authority as a Catholic in communion with the Church.<br /><br />You reference to canon 212 is way off course in regard to the discussion at hand. <br /><br />That applies as well to your reference to priests who, unbeknownst to the Church, may have fallen into apostasy.<br /><br />Your references do not apply to the discussion in question.<br /><br />We don't have the right to insist that Person "X" is heretic when, like it or not, the competent Church authority has declared that Person "X" is in good standing with the Church.<br /><br />Neither canon 212 nor your reference to a priest who may have fallen into apostasy secretly grants us the right to declare that Cardinal Kapser, as well as Fathers Drinan, Curran, and Kung are "heretics."<br /><br />LIke it or not, the Cardinal and priests in question are recognized by the competent Church authority as men in good standing with the Church.<br /><br />Canon 212 does not give us the right to, if you will, lynch a person spiritually.<br /><br />Pax.<br /><br />Mark ThomasMark Thomasnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-72119416030476751402017-01-18T12:09:11.220-05:002017-01-18T12:09:11.220-05:00DJR said..."Quote from Vatican Document promu...DJR said..."Quote from Vatican Document promulgated by Pope St. John Paul II December 18, 1979: "Professor Hans Küng, in his writings, has DEPARTED from the integral truth of Catholic faith."<br /><br />"You asked for a Vatican document in that regard, and I gave it to you. You have consistently ignored it because it destroys your basic premise."<br /><br />I have not ignored the document. I am familiar with the document. I have responded to your references to the document.<br /><br />Once again...<br /><br />We know what Pope Saint John Paul II said about Father Hans Küng. We know that Father Hans Küng is not permitted to teach theology.<br /><br />We know also that...<br /><br />-- The Church has not suspended Father Küng a divinis.<br /><br />-- The Church has not declared that Father Küng is a heretic.<br /><br />-- Father Küng is a priest in good standing with his diocese.<br /><br />-- In turn, Father Küng is recognized by his bishop as a priest in good standing with the Universal Church.<br /><br />Like it or not, those are the undeniable facts in regard to Father Hans Küng.<br /><br />Therefore, nobody has the right to declare that Father Hans Küng is a heretic.<br /><br />Pax.<br /><br />Mark ThomasMark Thomasnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-83413497749831759052017-01-18T09:08:57.538-05:002017-01-18T09:08:57.538-05:00Mark, please re-read canon 212 and get back to us....Mark, please re-read canon 212 and get back to us. Thanks.<br /><br />Oh and while we're all waiting for Mark, consider the cases of St. Catherine of Sienna who questioned and condemned the Pope's prudential decision with respect to his residency in France and not Rome..... and St. Joan of Arc's being burned at the stake by a local tribunal of feckless bishops who declared her a heretic.<br /><br />In one case a 'mere' lay woman challenged a Pope on prudential decisions....and won him over.<br /><br />In the other case a 'mere' lay woman not only told kings and princes what to do, led armies to victory etc. and flummoxed the best "theologians" the English could bring to bear, she was condemned by these "theologians" for heresy. Does their credentials make their conclusions more reliable than her testimony?<br /><br />One needs to consider this point: being called a "Cardinal" or even a bishop does not make every act and utterance of one's mouth infallible. Ergo, everyone can err. And if a brother or sister errs who has standing to correct them? EVERYONE! <br /><br />But on whose authority? NOT THEIR OWN! We must make our case based on Catholic tradition, scripture, and magisterial teaching we know and are responsible for as disciples. <br /><br />So if German cardinals - who pride themselves with their erudition but often are too clever by half - make a mistake, anyone on earth can call them out provided you show your homework and it's not your whim against their whim.<br /><br />ANYONE can challenge a theologian (especially a theologian) to show them homework and then proceed to blow their syllogisms out of the water. All it takes is patience and a notebook and the time to jot down their definitions and distinctions until they invariably make a logical error or use equivocal terms or improperly jump from an analogy to make a claim of equality where only an analogous relationship exists.... that's where most heretics go off the rails and they mostly go off the rails PRETTY QUICKLY. <br /><br />Hans Kung and Charlie Curran and Cardinal Kasper's work are not as densely tough to figure out as the Summa. Take any of their works in hand and within 5 minutes you can spot the mistakes. Then it doesn't matter who you are or where you went to school. The only thing that matters is the argument and evidence you raise to show the error of their ways. Jusadbellumnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-51263554489613722712017-01-18T06:33:19.387-05:002017-01-18T06:33:19.387-05:00TJM, I certainly agree about MT and his papolatry....TJM, I certainly agree about MT and his papolatry. I also think MT simply refuses to admit that he is wrong. I have never heard him defend any other pope in the manner he defends Francis.<br /><br />JanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-4586388485130584132017-01-17T21:45:45.558-05:002017-01-17T21:45:45.558-05:00There is a difference between the objective measur...There is a difference between the objective measure of a situation and the subjective reading of hearts. The latter, of course, we can't do, that's reserved for God alone. The former is more than within our pay grade as laymen. When we're calling person x, y, or z a heretic, it's because the position they are holding is objectively heresy, and writing out material heretic takes way too long. Unfortunately, I think Mark Thomas is confusing the process for the finding of someone to be a formal heretic versus the comparison of the position that a particular clergyman holds with respect to the objective Truth of the Faith. Formal heresy can only be declared by the Church, in that regard, he's right. But he is completely wrong that actions can't be pointed out as heretical, or being a material heretic.<br /><br />Everyone is of course entitled to a good name, and no one doubts that at all, that said, if their actions are something else, charity demands that it be called out for what it is. <br /><br />The thing that being a positivist unfortunately does is make major mental gymnastics to defend the obvious screw ups of various people. Православный физикhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11313371333531421128noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-89492957672319455352017-01-17T19:58:29.751-05:002017-01-17T19:58:29.751-05:00Mark Thomas,
Sounds like you need to inform Pope ...Mark Thomas,<br /><br />Sounds like you need to inform Pope Francis he is in violation of 2479, big-time. I have NEVER heard a Pope engage in the ad hominem that he does.TJMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-88006313294394802442017-01-17T19:42:56.961-05:002017-01-17T19:42:56.961-05:00"A Catholic doesn't have the right to dec..."A Catholic doesn't have the right to declare "heretical" a Cardinal who is recognized by the Church as being in good standing with Her. A Catholic doesn't have the right to denounce as "heretics" priests who are recognized by their bishops, who are in communion with the Pope, as priests in good standing."<br /><br />But you and I certainly have the right (and the grave obligation) of examining our conscience and repenting of material heresy if we depart from the Faith, even if we remain uncondemned by Rome. Explain this, Mark. How are the laity able to conduct this examination, pass personal judgment on themselves through recognizing their sins against Faith, and repent of their sins against Faith, if everyone is to be presumed orthodox until officially recognized as in error by the Church? Adam Michaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-1353942238666957472017-01-17T19:13:02.332-05:002017-01-17T19:13:02.332-05:00Here is Mark's understanding of the Catholic F...Here is Mark's understanding of the Catholic Faith.<br /><br />1. The pope <b> IS </b> infallible under the conditions defined by the Church (a position held by Pope St. John Paul II, a priest who was obviously "in good standing" with the Catholic Church).<br /><br />2. The pope <b>IS NOT </b> infallible under the conditions defined by the Church (a position held by Hans Kung, another priest "in good standing" with the Catholic Church).<br /><br />Mark Thomas says: Because both priests above were/are "in good standing" with the Catholic Church, <b>both views are orthodox.</b><br /><br />That's Mark's understanding of Catholicism in a nutshell.DJRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18028761850444888285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-29558297892751152062017-01-17T18:39:42.226-05:002017-01-17T18:39:42.226-05:00Sometimes "distinctions" don't answe...Sometimes "distinctions" don't answer puzzles.<br /><br />A Catholic doesn't have the right to declare "heretical" a Cardinal who is recognized by the Church as being in good standing with Her. A Catholic doesn't have the right to denounce as "heretics" priests who are recognized by their bishops, who are in communion with the Pope, as priests in good standing.<br /><br />Never did the Church attach heresy to Father Robert Drinan. Never. Therefore, a Catholic does not have the right to label Father Drinan a "heretic." <br /><br />Based upon his having been recognized by the Church as a priest in good standing with Her, we don't have any reason to insist that at some point during his priestly ministry, that Father Drinan had fallen into heresy.<br /><br />The same applies to the Cardinal Kasper, and Fathers Curran and Kung.<br /><br />All of the above priests (Cardinal) are viewed by Holy Mother Church as having remained in good standing with their bishops. Therefore, there isn't any reason to presume that the above men trafficked in heresy. <br />=============================================================================<br /><br />A priest falls into apostasy. However, his sin is unknown to the Church. God is aware of the priest's sin. But as the sin is unknown to the Church, we are called to presume that the priest is in good standing with the Church.<br /><br />Nevertheless, the reality is that the priest is not actually in good standing with the Church. He could not be as he is an apostate. We understand that. That is not the question at hand.<br /><br />God is aware of the priest's sin. God is aware that the priest is not truly in good standing with His Church. Nobody can be an apostate and in good standing with the Church. <br /><br />Again, that is understood. But that isn't the dispute at hand. The dispute is whether a priest who is presumed by the Church to be in good standing with Her can be labeled by us a "heretic."<br /><br />The answer is "no." <br /><br />In regard to Cardinal Kasper, as well as Fathers Drinan, Curran, and Kung, if any of them embraced heresy, then, obviously, they had broken communion with the Church. They were not in good standing with the Church.<br /><br />But as Holy Mother Church has neither suspended a divinis nor convicted Cardinal Kasper and the priests in question of heresy, we are not permitted to claim that they are suspended/heretical.<br /><br />We are called to presume that they are in good standing with the Church. We don't have any business to embrace the notion that in secret, the Cardinal and priests are not in good standing with the Church.<br /><br />Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2478: "To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:"<br /><br />#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."<br /><br />Pax.<br /><br />Mark ThomasMark Thomasnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-58220166355611897792017-01-17T18:16:20.452-05:002017-01-17T18:16:20.452-05:00Mark Thomas stated... "Therefore, you have pl...<i>Mark Thomas stated... "Therefore, you have placed yourself above the Catholic Church as you have overruled Her recognition of the above Cardinal/priests as men in good standing with Her."</i><br /><br />Quote from Vatican Document promulgated by Pope St. John Paul II December 18, 1979: "Professor Hans Küng, in his writings, <b>has DEPARTED from the integral truth of Catholic faith."</b><br /><br />You asked for a Vatican document in that regard, and I gave it to you. You have consistently ignored it because it destroys your basic premise.<br /><br />The pope stated that Hans Kung had DEPARTED from the integral truth of the Catholic Faith.<br /><br />Your view is that someone can DEPART from the integral truth of the Catholic Faith and still be orthodox.<br /><br />Your views are not Catholic.<br /><br />DJRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18028761850444888285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-72675656351768989262017-01-17T18:10:57.674-05:002017-01-17T18:10:57.674-05:00Mark Thomas stated... "1. We are talking abou...<i>Mark Thomas stated... "1. We are talking about specific persons — namely, Cardinal Kasper, and Fathers Kung, Curran and Drinan (requiescat in pace — not 'every single Catholic.'"</i><br /><br />That doesn't change the point. <br /><br />Is every single Catholic (except for those who have been excommunicated) in communion with the pope? <br /><br />If so, then every single Catholic is orthodox. <br /><br />That's what you believe.<br /><br />Pro-aborts, gay married Catholics who are in good standing in their parishes, deniers of the Virgin birth, deniers of papal infallibility you name it. <br /><br />Your views are not Catholic. <br />DJRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18028761850444888285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-56017692471162539132017-01-17T18:03:30.928-05:002017-01-17T18:03:30.928-05:00Mark Thomas said... "Therefore, you have plac...<i>Mark Thomas said... "Therefore, you have placed yourself above the Catholic Church as you have overruled Her recognition of the above Cardinal/priests as men in good standing with Her.</i><br /><br />Being "in good standing" is irrelevant to orthodoxy. That's the point you continually ignore.<br /><br />It is possible to be a priest "in good standing" and be heterodox, just as it's possible to be "in good standing" and be a sodomite priest. <br /><br />If your views were correct, then the denial of papal infallibity is orthodox.<br /><br /><br /><i><b>Anyway, it is untenable that a Catholic priest can be in communion with the Pope, his (the priest's) bishop, in good standing with the Church, but simultaneously, is to be denounced as a heretic.</b></i><br /><br />It may be untenable to you, but it's not untenable to the Catholic Church. Pope John Paul II did that very thing to Hans Kung.<br /><br />DJRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18028761850444888285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-29429023272441683782017-01-17T17:53:08.323-05:002017-01-17T17:53:08.323-05:00Mark Thomas...you are a mess. Just formally become...Mark Thomas...you are a mess. Just formally become the Episcopalian that you are and take Francis, Kasper and the rest of those thugs with you. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-58272476745229209912017-01-17T16:32:43.392-05:002017-01-17T16:32:43.392-05:00Mark Thomas said... "I am puzzled as to how a...Mark Thomas said... "I am puzzled as to how a priest can be unorthodox and in good standing with the Church simultaneously."<br /><br />"Why in the world does that puzzle you? All it means is that someone is not doing his job, that's all.<br /><br />If your ideas were correct, which they are not, every single Catholic would be considered orthodox unless the hierarchy issued some formal statement about a person."<br /><br />1. We are talking about specific persons — namely, Cardinal Kasper, and Fathers Kung, Curran and Drinan (requiescat in pace — not "every single Catholic." <br /><br />2. Therefore, our task is reduced to having to determine simply whether a Cardinal, two current priests, and one deceased priest are in good standing with the Church.<br /><br />3. By all accounts by Holy Mother Church, She recognizes that Cardinal Kasper is in good standing with Her.<br /><br />4. You have acknowledged the following: Father Hans Kung has never been suspended a divinis by the Church. He was never excommunicated by the Church. He is in communion with Pope Francis. <br /><br />Father Hans Kung is a priest in good standing with his diocese.<br /><br />5. You have acknowledged the following: Father Charles Curran has never been suspended a divinis by the Church. He was never excommunicated by the Church. He is in communion with Pope Francis. <br /><br />Father Charles Curran is a priest in good standing with his diocese.<br /><br />6. You have acknowledged the following: Father Robert Drinan (requiescat in pace) never was suspended a divinis by the Church. He was never excommunicated by the Church. From his priestly ordination in 1953 A.D. to his death in 2007 A.D., the Church recognized him as having been in communion with Popes Venerable Pius XII, Saint John XXIII, Blessed Paul VI, John Paul I, Saint John Paul II, and Benedict XVI.<br /><br />Father Robert Drinan was in communion with his bishops.<br /><br />In light of all of the above, which you have acknowledged, I remain puzzled as to how the above Cardinal/priests are/were (in regard to deceased Father Drinan) heretics — heretics, according to you — while remaining in good standing, which you have acknowledged, with the Catholic Church.<br /><br />You offered the following to attempt to support your unsupportable claim: "Why in the world does that puzzle you? All it means is that someone is not doing his job, that's all."<br /><br />Ummm...excuse me, but that "someone" is the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church. <br /><br />The Catholic Church never, never, ever, as you acknowledged, suspend a divinis the above priests...She always recognized them as a Cardinal/priests in communion with their bishops and Popes...She always recognized the Cardinal/priests in question as in good standing with the Church.<br /><br />Therefore, you have placed yourself above the Catholic Church as you have overruled Her recognition of the above Cardinal/priests as men in good standing with Her.<br /><br />What is also puzzling to me is that in light of what you've done, you <br />asked whether I've "considered discussing these things with your confessor in order to ascertain whether you have a proper understanding of these things?"<br /><br />Anyway, it is untenable that a Catholic priest can be in communion with the Pope, his (the priest's) bishop, in good standing with the Church, but simultaneously, is to be denounced as a heretic.<br /><br />Pax.<br /><br />Mark Thomas<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Mark Thomasnoreply@blogger.com