Pope is accused of heresy (1 Viewer)

Yeah, I guess I'm just trying to figure out your beef Brennan.

Like, you have an issue that you're not exactly saying. You can't be that worked up about what some people consider ambiguity. I don't see it as that ambiguous, or even if so, that it's somewhat by design. The point being that not every situation has a cut and dry answer, and to allow the parish/diocese to make some judgement, rooted in the catechism.

Some things are cut and dry. I honestly don't know how I can be any more clear. I will quote again Josef Siefer in regard to the questionable passages of AL.

The assertion of AL I wish to investigate here, however, does not invoke subjective conscience at all, but claims a totally objective divine will for us to commit, in certain situations, acts that are intrinsically wrong, and have always been considered such by the Church. Since God can certainly not have a lack of ethical knowledge, an “erring conscience,” or a weakness of free will, this text does not “defend the rights of human subjectivity,” as Buttiglione claims, but appears to affirm clearly that these intrinsically disordered and objectively gravely sinful acts, as Buttiglione admits, can be permitted, or can even objectively be commanded, by God. If this is truly what AL affirms, all alarm over AL’s direct affirmations, regarding matters of changes of sacramental discipline (admitting, after due discernment, adulterers, active homosexuals, and other couples in similar situations to the sacraments of confession and eucharist, and, logically, also of baptism, confirmation, and matrimony, without their willingness to change their lives and to live in total sexual abstinence, which Pope John Paul II demanded in Familiaris Consortio from couples in such “irregular situations”), refer only to the peak of an iceberg, to the weak beginning of an avalanche, or to the first few buildings destroyed by a moral theological atomic bomb that threatens to tear down the whole moral edifice of the 10 commandments and of Catholic Moral Teaching.

If AL is allowed to be understood and pastorally enacted in the way that the Argentine bishops, Cardinal Cupich, or Cardinal Farrell would like, it would undermine the foundational principles of Catholic moral teaching by suggesting that there are no intrinsically sinful situations that could not be overridden by conscience or even willed by God according to context. At best, it represents moral relativism and is antithetical to Christianity. Such a break with the tradition of the faith cannot be understated, much less found to be 'rooted in the catechism'. This is why Cupich calls the document 'revolutionary' and it's why the unanswered dubia loom so large.

The function of the magisterium is as the teaching authority of Christ's Church. "He who hears you, hears me; he who rejects you rejects me, he who rejects me, rejects Him who sent me" (Luke 10. 16) The Church is the "pillar and foundation of truth". Ambiguity for the sake of giving intellectual and moral license is a failure of duty for the magisterium and the papacy. "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it would be better for him if, with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he had been cast into the sea. "

Now we haven't even begun to discuss anything outside of Amoris Laetitia, and I suppose that could be for the best. This is a big enough issue as it is. But I can't stress enough that this isn't some personal 'beef' that I have. The concerns are not trivial and they certainly are not on the fringe.
 
Yeah, I guess I'm just trying to figure out your beef Brennan.

Like, you have an issue that you're not exactly saying. You can't be that worked up about what some people consider ambiguity. I don't see it as that ambiguous, or even if so, that it's somewhat by design. The point being that not every situation has a cut and dry answer, and to allow the parish/diocese to make some judgement, rooted in the catechism.

It's been a lot of years since I last took a catechism class, but from what I remember, there was very little room for ambiguity there. That was over 30 years ago, but I can't imagine that's changed much.
 
Seems to me you just have a spiritual issue with this Pope, much like I had with Benedict and, in many ways, with John Paul II (and I met him when visited New Orleans). On that we'll have to agree to disagree.

However, your expectation the Francis be not a politician is a fallacy. As a head of state, the Pope has to be both, just as his predecessors.

I don't really understand what you mean by spiritual. I feel I have clearly defined several concerns that are quite 'material' in nature.

Political power is fleeting. Benedict XVI had a vision of a future Church that was much smaller and less culturally/politically powerful. Yet it would be much more spiritually healthy. We will see.
 
I don't really understand what you mean by spiritual. I feel I have clearly defined several concerns that are quite 'material' in nature.

Political power is fleeting. Benedict XVI had a vision of a future Church that was much smaller and less culturally/politically powerful. Yet it would be much more spiritually healthy. We will see.

As you said in another post, you don't have a personal beef. So your issue most be from a standpoint that Francis' papacy conflicts with spiritual teachings you're used to.

And also as you've mentioned, Benedict is no longer Pope. What he envisions no longer matters.
 
As you said in another post, you don't have a personal beef. So your issue most be from a standpoint that Francis' papacy conflicts with spiritual teachings you're used to.

And also as you've mentioned, Benedict is no longer Pope. What he envisions no longer matters.

I don't think we are using our language in the same way. As it pertains to theological and moral thought, I think that the writings/words of this pope have the possibility of being interpreted as heretical, and in many instances that is exactly how they are being understood and implemented. It really has nothing to do with what I am personally accustomed. It's a matter of what the Church has believed and taught over the centuries.

Perhaps I wasn't clear about Benedict. I did not mean that he desired a smaller Church and sought to bring that about. I meant that he had something of a prophetic vision of what the Church would be.
 
As you said in another post, you don't have a personal beef. So your issue most be from a standpoint that Francis' papacy conflicts with spiritual teachings you're used to.

And also as you've mentioned, Benedict is no longer Pope. What he envisions no longer matters.

Oh I don't know that Benedict's vision no longer matters. I think his opinion carries a lot of weight. Historically, having a living former Pope around making his own comments is very unusual in the Catholic Church. I certainly think it matters greatly to a lot of Catholics.
 
Based on what you guys are saying, Pope Benedict and Pope Francis had opposing viewpoints about the direction the church should head. The former seeking a reformation from within; the latter from without. Is that accurate?

Is Pope Benedict undermining or supporting Pope Francis with his response?
 
Therein lies the exasperation with this pope. He says it should be read always in continuity. But he also a year earlier seemingly contradicted this. In a letter to Argentine bishops (which was also published on the Vatican website), he praised their guidelines for divorced and remarried Catholics. “The document is very good and completely explains the meaning of chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia. There are no other interpretations.” The problem was of course that the Argentine guidelines appeared to very much break with the tradition of the Church, opening the possibility for couples living in an objectively adulterous state to receive Reconciliation and Eucharist without a commitment to continence. Additionally, Francis promoted and features people like Cardinal Farrell and Cardinal Cupich, both with conspicuous connections to Theodore McCarrick, who most certainly interpret Amoris Laetitia in this way.

What are the faithful to believe and understand?

This state of ambiguity is completely unnecessary. If he had answered the dubia a year earlier there would be no question. Yet here we are three years later. People are able to believe whatever they want to believe and I think that's by design. Some suggest that Francis is at heart a Peronist, a politician who has no trouble contradicting himself for the sake of pleasing the person directly in front of him. We need a pastor, not a politician. We need someone who plainly speaks truth and leads to salvation in Christ. I'm just not seeing it right now. I see confusion and weaponized ambiguity. It's disconcerting.

So, you're telling me, that if divorced, and with someone else, the only option is abstaining from sex?

There is no possibility of a later realization that the original marriage wasn't legit, and thus annulled? I mean, the whole point of an annulment is that the original marriage was found null and void. i.e. it wasn't legit.

I mean, sure, technically they should have gotten the marriage annulled, then re-marry. But, if it's done the other way around, and the original marriage was found null, then was there every any sin? The only real thing that happened is that you got what hopefully the one person already knew, confirmed by a tribunal.

However, I think the confusion is more when an annulment isn't an option at all?

Like here?


Seems to be a lot of hypothetical situations.

I dunno, I don't get into the weeds of the faith like this usually.
 
So, you're telling me, that if divorced, and with someone else, the only option is abstaining from sex?

There is no possibility of a later realization that the original marriage wasn't legit, and thus annulled? I mean, the whole point of an annulment is that the original marriage was found null and void. i.e. it wasn't legit.

I mean, sure, technically they should have gotten the marriage annulled, then re-marry. But, if it's done the other way around, and the original marriage was found null, then was there every any sin? The only real thing that happened is that you got what hopefully the one person already knew, confirmed by a tribunal.

However, I think the confusion is more when an annulment isn't an option at all?

Like here?


Seems to be a lot of hypothetical situations.

I dunno, I don't get into the weeds of the faith like this usually.

Same here. It's an interesting discussion for sure though. Even though I'm not a Catcholic, the Church has had a large impact on my life. My brother and his family are still Catholic are part of a church in Lafayette.

We've been far apart for a long time and I wish we had more opportunities to talk about faith. That's one of the main things I regret in living so far away. We may move back to Lafayette at some point, but probably not for another 4 years or so, after all the kids finish high school.
 
So, you're telling me, that if divorced, and with someone else, the only option is abstaining from sex?

There is no possibility of a later realization that the original marriage wasn't legit, and thus annulled? I mean, the whole point of an annulment is that the original marriage was found null and void. i.e. it wasn't legit.

I mean, sure, technically they should have gotten the marriage annulled, then re-marry. But, if it's done the other way around, and the original marriage was found null, then was there every any sin? The only real thing that happened is that you got what hopefully the one person already knew, confirmed by a tribunal.

However, I think the confusion is more when an annulment isn't an option at all?

Like here?


Seems to be a lot of hypothetical situations.

I dunno, I don't get into the weeds of the faith like this usually.

The controversy has nothing to do with cases in which annulment is possible. Remember, annulment is not 'catholic divorce'.

The problem is exactly the interpretation proposed in your link. It violates two fundamental doctrines of faith.

1. that one can continue to live in a state of sin yet be admitted absolution in confession and subsequently Eucharist.

2. That one can be in such a situation as to find it impossible to not sin, thereby justifying the sin itself

The first removes a required condition for reconciliation, which is the sincere intention to sin no more.

The second violates the belief that God's grace is sufficient to enable us to live without sin, thereby removing culpability.

Both are heresy.

John Paul II confirmed what was already assumed in situations such as this. If a person is validly married, they cannot get 'married' again as marriage is indissoluble. Therefore the second union is adulterous. If, due to circumstance such as children, it is impossible or harmful to separate, the individuals must commit themselves to chastity, which means abstinence, before being admitted to the sacraments.

Note: the article conflated the above with the idea that a child would be abandoned by her mother.
 
The controversy has nothing to do with cases in which annulment is possible. Remember, annulment is not 'catholic divorce'.

The problem is exactly the interpretation proposed in your link. It violates two fundamental doctrines of faith.

1. that one can continue to live in a state of sin yet be admitted absolution in confession and subsequently Eucharist.

2. That one can be in such a situation as to find it impossible to not sin, thereby justifying the sin itself

The first removes a required condition for reconciliation, which is the sincere intention to sin no more.

The second violates the belief that God's grace is sufficient to enable us to live without sin, thereby removing culpability.

Both are heresy.

John Paul II confirmed what was already assumed in situations such as this. If a person is validly married, they cannot get 'married' again as marriage is indissoluble. Therefore the second union is adulterous. If, due to circumstance such as children, it is impossible or harmful to separate, the individuals must commit themselves to chastity, which means abstinence, before being admitted to the sacraments.

Note: the article conflated the above with the idea that a child would be abandoned by her mother.

Doesn't that last bit get into the specific issue for some. If, due to circumstance, such as children, it is impossible or harmful to separate, if the individuals commit to chastity, maybe there would be no option to stay together. i.e. the husband would kick the wife out.

So, is it an all or nothing proposition, or is the harm to the child more important than being chaste in that regard?
 
Catholics should focus on answering this question, "What if the bible and Catholic doctrine is wrong about homosexuality?" Instead of trying to label Francis a heretic. Really all Christian faiths need to confront this question.

This is really what all this is about. It's not a question they're even allowed to entertain, but it should be asked. It's maybe the most important question that stands before them, because a lot of their own followers feel that the bible is wrong on homosexuality. But the conversation can't even be had because if you so bring it up, you'll be labeled a heretic. Hell even being nice to homosexuals is cause to be labeled a heretic, as we see here with Francis.

You can't answer a question you're not even willing to ask. That's why all of these conversation get hung up on and focused on teaching against the doctrine. But if the doctrine is wrong to start with, then why does it even matter what you teach? Why do you think most people don't care anymore, it's because they believe that what is being taught is a lie.

But here comes the next line, "It doesn't matter what most people think, they're being faithful to the bible." Uh hu. :cautious:
 
Catholics should focus on answering this question, "What if the bible and Catholic doctrine is wrong about homosexuality?" Instead of trying to label Francis a heretic. Really all Christian faiths need to confront this question.

This is a question I asked earlier that Brennan didn't answer. What if the Church decides that what's been taught has been wrong and has to be looked at differently?

Here's the thing about the Bible and Church doctrine - it's all developed and written by men. Our faith teaches us we have to accept those teachings, even though plenty contradict one another.
 
Here's my overall thought. And I know this is where Brennan and I don't see eye to eye, and it's not because we're in real disagreement. I just choose to focus elsewhere.

I really don't care about the specifics of Church law. That's for the Priests, Bishops, Vatican to sort out.

I'm not a Catholic scholar. I'm not even a good Catholic at this point, to be honest. I try to be a good person though. What I care about, is how should I treat others? What should or shouldn't I do? Maybe I just didn't pay enough attention to my CCD classes.

None of these concerns from the Dubia affect me, at least, not outside of an academic exercise. The overall message I received from the AL was one of charity and welcoming. Essentially being open to people to experience the church, in some level. It was asking questions about how can we better serve. That's all I need to know to be a good member of the church. That we can't let our ideological purity (black and white answers) get in the way of being good people. My job isn't to judge, or prevent someone from getting communion or whatever (now, if you're a Eucharistic minister, it would be good to get guidelines.. but let's be honest, you don't even know who is or isn't Catholic, let alone who's in grave sin.. it's somewhat of an honor system). My job is to do good works, pray, go to mass (where I'm deficient lately), volunteer, give charity, give patience, and basically do the right thing.
 
This is a question I asked earlier that Brennan didn't answer. What if the Church decides that what's been taught has been wrong and has to be looked at differently?

Here's the thing about the Bible and Church doctrine - it's all developed and written by men. Our faith teaches us we have to accept those teachings, even though plenty contradict one another.
The Church has somewhat evolved their take on suicide, as more information about mental health has become available.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom