Kasper is a man caught in the act of lying for his own interests. Of course that's not wrong any more and we should accompany him.
Enthusiastic, Kasper, Nichols and Schonburn.* Reserved, Burke, Schneider and Spaemann. Hmmm. (* The Rainbow Coalition?)
St. Paul corrected his authority (St. Peter) publicly in defense of Truth. He corrected his own BOSS publically. Why? Because NO MAN is above Truth (Jesus Christ). That is the crucial point.
Is this the same Kasper who peddles the lie that people are 'born gay'? http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/10/02/cardinal-kasper-gears-vatican-synod-born-gay/ The same Kasper who endorsed Ireland's vote for legalised abominable marriages? https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/g...synod-agenda-after-irish-vote-cardinal-kasper Many Cardinals, many Bishops, and many Priests are on the path of perdition and they take many souls with them.
Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Matthew 7:1-5
This response is worthy of scorn. Jesus would not agree with this upside down interpretation of His words.
Probably the most misapplied verse in Scripture. It must be seen in full context. What Jesus is saying here is not to judge rashly. He is not saying , never to judge at all. He does not expect us to be like the three monkeys, hear no evil, speak of no evil, see no evil. I must say , David I am surprised at your post, I had a much , much higher opinion of you than this. But, I suppose everyone has an off day.Even myself. I am curious though, do you really honestly consider Cardinal Kasper to be a Faithful Catholc?? I am kind of surprised at this. You see no grounds for concern? No grounds for concern whatsoever?
The good cardinal's words are there for everyone to read. I have made nothing up. Souls are at stake. Our Lady's Message of June 18, 1965 Since my message of October 18, 1961 has not been complied with and has not been made much known to the world, I will tell you that this is the last one. Before the chalice was filling now it is overflowing. Many Cardinals, many Bishops, and many Priests are on the path of perdition and they take many souls with them. To the Eucharist, there is given less and less importance. We should avoid the wrath of God on us by our good efforts. If you ask pardon with your sincere soul God will pardon you. It is I, your mother, who through the intercession of St. Michael, wish to say that you amend, that you are already in the last warnings and that I love you much and do not want your condemnation. Ask Us sincerely and we will give to you. You should sacrifice more. Think of the passion of Jesus.
This matter of judging keeps coming round so I will try to summarize the problem as I see it. Garabandal in his post was effectively saying that he believed Cardinal Kasper was "on the path of perdition". I say 'effectively saying' because he merely put the quote of Our Lady at the end of his post so I suppose he could argue that he didn't intend it to refer to Cardinal Kasper. If he didn't mean it to apply to the Cardinal then I apologise. But if he did mean it, then he broke Jesus' command. It is ok to attempt to judge an ACTION of someone. It is NOT ok to judge whether a PERSON is "on the path of perdition". Only God can do that.
Kasper made a possibly racist remark in one of the synods about the African Cardinals. He must have been wary of the remark himself, for, when queried about it by an eminent journalist, he denied having uttered it. Alas for him, he was oblivious of the fact he had been recorded. We are scripturally warned to be as cunning as a snake, while being gentle as a dove. Therefore, we must wish Cardinal Kasper the best, but is he a man to be guided by in matters of faith and morals?
No need to apologise. I did not say Cardinal Kasper was on the road to perdition. Only God can determine that. But I have a right to judge his public words which are a scandal because they contradict both reason and faith. They also contradict Church teaching because the Church does not teach that people are born gay. Therefore, his remarks can lead people astray, for which he will have to account to God, not me. I quoted our Lady from Garabandal in her last public message which I believe to be a warning for these times that we live in. It is a warning for all of us that bishops and cardinals can lead souls astray. It is sad to say that we live in such dangerous spiritual times in the Church.
People have directly told those here who question the orthodoxy of AL that they are demonically influenced and on the path to hell. Why not post that quote at them?
https://bonald.wordpress.com/2016/05/04/the-globalist-error-in-adultery-apologism/: From the link above, an interesting perspective: "What does the Catholic Church have to say about my practice of stealing women’s purses and giving money to the homeless? It is a difficult case, is it not? Clearly not the Christian ideal, but there are certainly elements of sanctification in it. It would be wrong to throw stones of the Law at me like Moses used to do while sitting in his chair (or whatever it was); better to take the way of gradualism and emphasize what I’m doing right. Or you could just note that when I divide the “practice” into its separable acts, each one can be easily morally evaluated, and the situation isn’t complicated at all. Half of Pope Francis’ adultery apologism amounts to a plea not to judge irregular relationships as entirely evil, to note all the good stuff adulterers, fornicators, and sodomites do for each other (love, “proven fidelity”, whatever). But in fact the mean old Catholic Church was never in the business of judging relationships in toto at all. It is particular acts that are sinful. I suppose one might claim that one can’t separate sex acts, that they’re part of a seamless, unitary “lived experience” of a relationship, but I’m not a celibate so I’m not going to fall for that kind of obvious bullshit. The other half of adultery apologism is to point out that adulterers’ motives aren’t all bad, which is again irrelevant to the traditional teaching, which is that sexual sins are wrong even if one’s motives are entirely good, e.g. the improbable “copulating for our kids’ sake” line. About that “for the kids” line, I was intrigued by the Pope’s concern that adulterers sometimes can’t give up their sin without incurring “new guilt”. What’s interesting is that the Catholic Church has effectively abandoned, if not actively renounced, the idea of a marriage debt. You’ll remember how my fellow Catholics howl “rape” at the suggestion that a woman might ever choose to sleep with her husband for a reason other than her own personal inclination. But now we find that a woman can feel morally compelled to sexually accommodate a man, just not her husband. Welcome to the Catholic Church of Pope Francis." So, in a world where it is not cricket to speak of the marriage debt, we have the proposal of an 'adultery debt'!
If AL is crystal clear, why the necessity of this clarification, from the head of the CDF? http://www.onepeterfive.com/cardinal-muller-communion-remains-off-limits-for-remarried/ Cardinal Müller: Communion Remains Off-Limits for “Remarried” News is now spreading about Cardinal Gerhard Müller’s varied remarks on marriage, as well as on the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia itself, during his trip to Spain at the beginning of May. As the Spanish website Infocatolica.com now reports, Cardinal Müller spoke at a presentation of his new book on hope at the Francisco de Vitoria University in Madrid, Spain, where he affirmed and confirmed the traditional view of marriage and the “impossibility” of changing that clear doctrine. “It is not possible to live in God’s grace while living in a sinful situation,” he said, and continued by saying that people living in sin “can not receive Holy Communion unless they have received absolution in the sacrament of penance.” Müller importantly added that the “Church has no power to change the Divine Law” and that “Not even a pope or council can change that.” He also said that it is a “misreading” of the Pope’s exhortation that has caused so much polemic, and also that his own book is dedicated to the Pope. According to the German Catholic newspaper Die Tagespost, Cardinal Müller, who is the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, also made some important statements concerning the question of the “remarried” divorcees at another talk given at a seminary in Oviedo, Spain. The Tagespost is quoting from the manuscript of Müller’s speech, which it will soon publish in its entirety. As this German source now reports, Müller said that there have been different interpretations of Amoris Laetitia, one of them even saying “that the door has been opened for the remarried to be admitted to the Sacraments in individual cases.” The newspaper continues: “The prefect of the Congregation for the Faith is of another opinion.” Müller stressed in his talk, and “with decisiveness,” that there, “where Amoris Laetitia speaks in general about situations, without concentrating on the very concrete circumstances – for example, in the cases of a civil remarriage after a first sacramental marriage – the previous statements of the Church’s Magisterium are still valid with regard to these concrete cases,” according to the Tagespost. The newspaper continues: “And this applies [according to Müller]clearly to the reception of Holy Communion by remarried divorcees. What has been taught by John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio and by Benedict XVI in Sacramentum Caritatis is still valid in an unchanged way.” In this context, the Tagespost – which the only prominent nation-wide Catholic newspaper in Germany – quotes Cardinal Müller verbatim: There have been different claims that Amoris Laetitia has rescinded this (prior) discipline, because it allows, at least in certain cases, the reception of the Eucharist by remarried divorcees without requiring that they change their way of life in accord with Familiaris Consortio 84 – namely, by giving up their new bond or by living as brothers and sisters. Cardinal Müller responds to this line of argumentation with the following words: If Amoris Laetitia intended to rescind such a deeply rooted and such a weighty discipline, it would have expressed itself in a clear manner and it would have given the reasons for it. However, such a statement with such a meaning is not to be found in it [Amoris Laetitia]. Nowhere does the pope put into question the arguments of his predecessors. They [the arguments]are not based upon the subjective guilt of these our brothers and sisters, but, rather, upon the visible, objective way of life which is in opposition to the words of Christ. Moreover, the German cardinal also discusses the question as to whether there is not a certain change to be found in footnote 351 of the papal document, where it says “that the Church could offer the help of the Sacraments to those who are living in an objective situation of sin.” He responds to this question with the following words: “Without entering into this question in a deeper way, it is sufficient to point out that this footnote refers in a general way to objective situations of sin, and not to the specific cases of the civilly remarried divorcees. Because this latter situation has its own distinctive characteristics which differentiate it from other situations.” Here Cardinal Müller repeats the Church’s teaching that the “remarried” divorcees live “in opposition to the Sacrament of Marriage and therefore also in opposition to the Discipline of the Sacraments,” as the Tagespost paraphrases the cardinal’s words. Therefore, in Müller’s own words, the footnote 351 does not “touch upon the earlier discipline. The norms of FC 84 and SC 29 and their application in all cases continue to remain valid.” The Tagespost also presents another extended statement by Müller concerning the “remarried” divorcees: The principle is that no one can really want to receive a Sacrament – the Eucharist – without having at the same time the will to live according to the other Sacraments, among them the Sacrament of Marriage. Whoever lives in a way that contradicts the marital bond opposes the visible sign of the Sacrament of Marriage. With regard to his existence in the flesh, he turns himself into a “counter-sign” of the indissolubility, even if he subjectively is not guilty. Exactly because his life in the flesh is in opposition to the sign, he cannot be part of the higher Eucharistic sign – in which the incarnate Love of Christ is manifest – by receiving Holy Communion. If the Church were to admit such a person to Holy Communion, she would be then committing that act which Thomas Aquinas calls “a falseness in the sacred sacramental signs.”
Is this a typo?? "There have been different claims that Amoris Laetitia has rescinded this (prior) discipline..." Discipline??!!!
So, if you're a remarried divorcee in Germany and don't have an annulment, want to keep on having sexual relations with your non-spouse but want to be given Holy Communion without any culpability on your part, you're in luck if your Bishop is Cardinal Kasper but out of luck if it's Cardinal Muller. Looks like the four marks of the true Church have been reduced to three: Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. Amoras Laetitia just struck out the "One" mark. No doubt synodality will sort it all out and when the more merciful dioceses in Germany and Austria are conferring blessings on Jim and Joe's unsacramental marriage, Cardinal (Pope?) Mary-Ann in Rome will praise them for this outward sign of their personal relationship with Jesus and tell the faithful in the more backward, hypocritcal dioceses that this development of doctrine is fully compliant with the Deposit of Faith. I reckon that Cardinal Muller needs to have a chat with Cardinal Schneider and they both need to have a face to face chat with Pope Francis.
