1. Welcome to Mother of God Forums - A place dedicated to the Mother of God. Please feel free to join us in prayer and sharing. Please Register to start posting.
    Dismiss Notice

I fear that Cardinal Walter Kasper is in grave error

Discussion in 'The Signs of the Times' started by Richard67, Jul 3, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Joe Crozier

    Joe Crozier Guest

    And I see no evidence to justify your blinkered and retrograde vision. Lets finish at that. I believe that family is sacred according to unchangeable teaching but I do not believe that the way the teaching is applied is not open to revision. This is what is happening in Synod. Not corruption of the truth but a clearer vision of a better way. The errors of Cardinal Kasper will not prevail.
    Jeanne likes this.
  2. padraig

    padraig New Member

    Joe watch your insults when you are posting. Go for ball not the man. I have deleted two of your posts.

    This is not a boxing match.
  3. Aviso

    Aviso Guest

    Hi Joe my Good Friend, I said that I will not attend in any threads if not mine but after reading your last replies, please let me tell you that I do not understand you way to talk or your arguments, please do not add Garabandal and our Lady of Mount Carmel in this "fight", Kasper is an heretic and if it was up to me, I will emmediatly excommunicate him as his followers, in the same time please let me congratulate my good friend Mac as Brian to defend the truth and the teaching of the Church's teachings, Great you are, may Heaven remember your Names at the harvest time, thank you again.

    Mac, padraig and BrianK like this.
  4. Joe Crozier

    Joe Crozier Guest

    So disappointed in you Aviso. You know I do not support the so called Kasper proposal. I thought you were someone who I could trust. So sad that you would suggest I would besmirch the blessed village with such a connection. Shame.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 5, 2015
  5. ApexMark

    ApexMark Angels

    Re: "objective vs subjective sin." Yes, certainly. Sorry, this may have been mentioned somewhere in the thread, I didn't have time to read it all.

    But take a sin such as masturbation. The CCC says, "objectively it is a grave moral disorder. Subjectively, the moral culpability may be greatly reduced, even to a minimum, based on maturity, force of habit, etc."

    That is a paraphrase. The actual paragraph is 2352.

    This is essential moral theology and pastoral sensibility. "A sin for you may not be a sin for me." Due to depth of refinement of conscience, maturity, mental health issues, habits, etc. Someone in the deep throes of drug addiction has far less moral culpability when they put that needle in their vein than I would if I, out of frustration with my day today, decide I'm going to head out and start experimenting with this drug thing, to use it to try to heal me instead of going to Mass. Taking a drug as a flight from reality and God is objectively a grave sin. Subjectively - the culpability depends entirely upon the person. That is why the domain between a person's conscience and God is so sacred, and why priests must respect it as such in the confessional.

    I have Kasper's book - "Mercy" that I've been reading. I think overall it is very good. I think the main reason some take issue with it is because of the decadence which surrounds us. People want to know there is justice. But that's the thing - Christ's cross *is* God's justice, His justice meted out onto His Son, who took our place. Isaac was spared. It's impossible for us to fathom the depth of the demand of the Father's justice. It is terrifying to think of it - His justice is infinite. And the price paid is infinite. So no worries for us in looking for justice, it is right there on the cross for everyone to see. "Mercy and faithfulness have met, justice and peace have embraced."
    Jeanne, Blue Horizon and Joe Crozier like this.
  6. Joe Crozier

    Joe Crozier Guest

    And this coming from a man who wanted an aged well meaning (albeit wrong) and frail Cardinal of the church torn apart by a rotweiler. Thanks for the public humiliation.
  7. padraig

    padraig New Member

    Public insults, Joe, public corrections. Do not start throwing punches at the poor old referee...

    or I will have to red card you. Keep your temper in check.

  8. Joe Crozier

    Joe Crozier Guest

    Referees can get it wrong but you have the whistle.
  9. BrianK

    BrianK Guest

    Priest: I’ll never profane the sacraments by following Kasper’s proposal, no matter who tells me to do it
    [​IMG]Renowned theologian and author, Father Brian Harrison, O.S, of St. Louis, Missouri, in a talk he recently gave in St. Louis on March 22, 2015, at the annual St. Joseph Dinner-Forum hosted by the group Credo of the Catholic Laity, discussed the Kasper proposal and patiently refuted it.

    First, he declares:

    …”the Kasper Proposal” – is, in my estimation, the gravest single moral and pastoral issue that has confronted the Catholic Church in the half-century that has now elapsed since the dispute over contraception erupted with renewed force at the end of Vatican Council II.

    From the outset, he states clearly:

    Like contraception, Communion for the divorced and remarried is not an issue that is, so to speak, self-contained. Rather, it is the kind of issue in which any change to the Church’s existing teaching and/or discipline would not stop right there, but rather, would have a profound and far-reaching ripple effect on other fundamentally important areas of Catholic morality and sacramental practice.

    Father Harrison then calmly examines the proposal as it was put into the finalRelatio of the Synod of Bishops in October 2014, namely to readmit “remarried” divorcees to the reception of Our Lord in Holy Communion, after they have undergone a period of penance, taking into account “the distinction between an objective sinful situation and extenuating circumstances, given that ‘imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological and social factors.’” (Relatio, Paragraph 52).

    Father Harrison shows then step by step that all these listed categories of reasons why a possible “remarriage” could be less sinful than what was described by Our Lord Himself in the Gospels are, indeed, not applicable to the specific case of the sin of adultery. He argues convincingly that someone who enters a second marriage outside the Church will do so deliberately, knowingly, not rashly, and without any overwhelming fear or sense of threat to his or her life. Nor can this new bond be convincingly described as an attachment or habit that cannot be broken.

    He also points out that, by the very fact that Cardinal Kasper himself proposes a period of serious penance for those “remarried” couples, shows that he – and with him then also the penitents themselves – are very much aware of the grave sinfulness or disorder of the act of adultery. Father Harrison points out that exactly this form of penitence should make the seriousness of the sin even more evident, which thus makes a remaining in that perilous state even worse:

    …the idea of granting some Catholics permission to continue committing what they know is objectively gravely sinful, on the presumption that their defective consent will stop it from being imputable as such – would introduce a revolutionary, subjectivist premise into the Church’s moral teaching and discipline.

    Finally, he also warns of the disastrous effects that such a procedure of laxity would have upon those couples who now still hold on to their marriage vow in spite of their having a troubled bond:

    Catholics in valid but troubled marriages would be deprived of an important incentive to persevere and try to restore a loving conjugal relationship. The Church’s actions would speak louder than her words, and everyone would interpret her revised legislation as giving them the following ‘advance notice’: ‘It’s OK. If you’re convinced your first marriage is ‘dead’, you can go ahead and get divorced, find a new partner, and get civilly married. Then, if you can’t get the first marriage declared null and void, no problem! As soon as you have at least one child with your new partner, come to the diocesan family life center and we’ll set up a merciful penitential process for you to go through, after which you’ll go to confession, receive absolution, and be able to receive Communion happily ever after while living intimately with your civil spouse!’

    Father Harrison also shows how such a lax attitude of the Church toward sin would then thereby also affect other sinners such as those living just in cohabitation without any form of marriage. He says:

    Since that civil marriage, after all, is not valid on God’s sight, why not extend this new ecclesiastical ‘mercy’ to some couples who are just ‘living together’? Pope Francis himself, who I am afraid has not kept secret the fact that he personally would like to implement the revisionist proposal, has already been reported, without any subsequent denial issuing from the Vatican, as having recently sent a message to a divorced Argentinian woman who is now living in outright concubinage with another man that she has the Pope’s personal permission to start receiving Communion again. What will come next? Holy Communion for fornicators living in ‘trial marriages’? Why not Communion for at least some homosexual couples?

    Most importantly, at the end of his talk, Father Brian Harrison went on record and publicly declared that he as a priest would refuse to give absolution to “remarried” divorcees:

    The inclusion of sacramental confession in the ‘penitential process’ proposed by revisionists will require from priests what I believe would be a sacrilegious abuse of the Sacrament of Penance. For they will be expected to give absolution, and thus permission for Holy Communion, to some persons who confess being in a sexual relationship with someone other than their true husband or wife, but who have no purpose of amendment; they admit to the priest their intention to continue in that sexual intimacy. And the priest will be expected to grant absolution on the flagrantly false pretext that the penitent is not and will not be in mortal sin because he or she is supposedly not giving a full and free consent to these illicit sex acts. I feel I should conclude this talk by going on record as stating that I myself, with the help of God, will never profane the Sacrament of Penance and violate my own conscience by giving a sacrilegious absolution to someone in that situation, no matter what higher authority in the Church might tell me to do so. May God, through the mighty protection and intercession of Saint Joseph, Head of the Holy Family, preserve his Church from endorsing Cardinal Kasper’s iniquitous revisionist proposal.

    Mac likes this.
  10. davidtlig

    davidtlig Powers

    Sorry, Brian, but I prefer to follow Pope Francis.
    Blue Horizon likes this.
  11. BrianK

    BrianK Guest

    Are you saying that if Churchmen change this unchangeable teaching you'll follow them? Wow.

    Padraig, this is how serious this debate really is. Take note.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 5, 2015
  12. Joe Crozier

    Joe Crozier Guest

    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 5, 2015
  13. Joe Crozier

    Joe Crozier Guest

    Honesty is at stake. You know, Padraig, Aviso amd Brian K that dogma has never and cannot be changed. So what is your gripe with honest debate and the search for a better way to obey dogma? Have you another agenda?
    Jeanne likes this.
  14. bflocatholic

    bflocatholic Powers

    Watching all this back and forth, I feel a bit like Frodo at the Council of Elrond. So much strident bickering on both sides. God help us!
  15. BrianK

    BrianK Guest

    Why is the tendency to ascribe (false) motives and threaten, implicitly or explicitly, the other with teetering on the brink of eternal perdition, so prevalent among certain members on this forum?

    That's a poor substitute for Catholic debate.
  16. padraig

    padraig New Member


    If I had an objection to, 'honest debate', there would be a lot fewer posts on the forum (including your own)

    :D Don't you think so yourself?

    One of the first things on the forum I learnt many years ago was the turth about Aesops Fable about the father the son and the donkey, do you remember it?


    The Man, the Boy, and the Donkey

    A MAN and his son were once going with their Donkey to market. As they were walking along by its side a countryman passed them and said: “You fools, what is a Donkey for but to ride upon?” 1
    So the Man put the Boy on the Donkey and they went on their way. But soon they passed a group of men, one of whom said: “See that lazy youngster, he lets his father walk while he rides.” 2
    So the Man ordered his Boy to get off, and got on himself. But they hadn’t gone far when they passed two women, one of whom said to the other: “Shame on that lazy lout to let his poor little son trudge along.” 3
    Well, the Man didn’t know what to do, but at last he took his Boy up before him on the Donkey. By this time they had come to the town, and the passers-by began to jeer and point at them. The Man stopped and asked what they were scoffing at. The men said: “Aren’t you ashamed of yourself for overloading that poor Donkey of yours—you and your hulking son?” 4
    The Man and Boy got off and tried to think what to do. They thought and they thought, till at last they cut down a pole, tied the Donkey’s feet to it, and raised the pole and the Donkey to their shoulders. They went along amid the laughter of all who met them till they came to Market Bridge, when the Donkey, getting one of his feet loose, kicked out and caused the Boy to drop his end of the pole. In the struggle the Donkey fell over the bridge, and his fore-feet being tied together he was drowned. 5
    “That will teach you,” said an old man who had followed them:


    I am never going to please everyone, someone somewhere is going to think I have an agenda or am partisan or whatever.

    So I plough ahead and do what I think is best.

    I am glad to have you as a member and I enjoy your posts. With respect I think the error you are making is to take people and posts who disagree with you on a personal level. The fact that we are right are wrong on some particular issue does not mean we ourselves are right or wrong as people.

    It is the issues we are discussing rather than the person him or herself.

    It good to maintain a certain descreet distance from our posts. These are our views, these are not our soul itself. If people disagree with us , it is our viewpoints they are giving the thumbs down to. They are not giving the thumbs down to we ourselves.

    The people on the forum are good people , they are not out to get us.
    Mac and BrianK like this.
  17. padraig

    padraig New Member

    Yes they did have a good bicker at the Council of Elrond. But they got there in the end and choose Frodo. I guess a good old bicker is part of our sinful condition.

    But so long as we all get there in the end and let Frodo do what Frodo has to do.:)

    Mac, BrianK and bflocatholic like this.
  18. padraig

    padraig New Member

    I have to go on to work.


  19. Joe Crozier

    Joe Crozier Guest

    I was talking about honest debate in Synod, not here.
  20. Joe Crozier

    Joe Crozier Guest

    I will pray to St Peter for you, Aviso.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page