In Petri Sede Vacante

Discussion in 'Announcements' started by padraig, Dec 25, 2016.

  1. davidtlig

    davidtlig Guest

    “Any fraternal correction proposed to the Pope must be presented in camera caritatis”
    Cardinal Brandmüller, one of the signatories of the “dubia” addressed to the Pope in relation to the “Amoris Laetitia”, has stated that Burke “expressed his own opinion in complete independence” and is apparently convinced he is not making a public step

    Cardinal Brandmüller

    Pubblicato il 27/12/2016
    Ultima modifica il 27/12/2016 alle ore 17:05

    The last interview in which Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke suggested a “formal correction” of an alleged error the Pope made in his Apostolic Exhortation “Amoris Laetitia” has sparked a heated discussion. By brandishing “formal correction”, an institute that cannot be found in canon law, Burke seemed to be presenting Francis with some form of an ultimatum in light of the five “dubia” over the interpretation of the “Amoris Laetitia”.

    In an interview with Vatican Insider, another of the three signatories of the “dubia”, German cardinal Walter Brandmüller, was keen to point out that a potential “fraternal correction” of a point made by the Pope must take place “in camera caritatis”, in other words not in public by means of published acts or written documents . Readers will recall that the five “dubia” regarding the “Amoris Laetitia” were made public just a few days before the final consistory, less than two months after they had been presented.

    “The ‘dubia’,” Brandmüller stated, “seek to encourage debate in the Church, as is indeed happening. In his original interview in English (unlike what was reported in Italian media) Cardinal Burke did not specify a deadline but simply responded that we must now focus on Christmas and the issue will be dealt with afterwards.”

    Burke “did not say,” Brandmüller was also keen to point out, “that a potential fraternal correction – such as the one quoted in Galatians 2:11-14 must be made publicly”. The passage that was mentioned by the German cardinal is the one from the Letter to the Galatians in which St. Paul describes his disagreement with Peter because the latter wanted to impose Jewish traditions on pagans.

    “I believe,” Brandmüller adds, “that Cardinal Burke is convinced that a fraternal correction must in the first instance be made in camera caritatis”. In other words not publicly. “I must say,” he explained, “that the cardinals has expressed his own opinion in complete independence and may of course be shared by the other cardinals too”. Brandmüller thus leads us to believe that in the interviews following the publication of the “dubia”, Burke was not speaking as a spokesman for the four cardinals who signed the document.

    The German cardinal concluded by saying: “We cardinals expect a response to the “dubia”, as the lack of a response would be seen by many within the Church as a rejection of the clear and articulate adherence to the clearly defined doctrine.”
    fallen saint likes this.
  2. padraig

    padraig New Member

    I find this very touching and from the heart. It must care you some pain to share this, thank you for your courage and charity and truthfulness in so doing.

    Nothing speaks more loudly than an open heart.
    RoryRory likes this.
  3. padraig

    padraig New Member

    Thanks so much Mary Ann. I think i will bookmark this and read through it. I feel like I need something to shed light.
  4. Are you then introducing an extended challenge here for reasons to qualify P. Francis as the Anti-Pope or for the current Seat of Peter to be ruled as vacant (the topic of this thread), to Papal positional invitees....not knowing of course just what went between or what has since been resolved between a Pope and anyone with any particular history of great error? Because if you are, and your "true" intention is open to include a universal or "objective" or "equal opportunity Pope bashing" there seems to be missing those other "connections" to the past for similar reasonings to "disqualify", and for even closer personal connections of authority over your choice of event "disqualifiers", former Popes. In fact some of the reasoning behind the whys of P. Benedict's sudden resignation, following his obvious lack of control of what personal material was disappearing from his own household and headed for the media and his recognition of this "bigger than he was" loss of control, was that particular factions were threatening a bigger spotlight on his own, as some saw them, lack of action, strong action, to abuse cases within his own bailiwick of authoritative positions of past and present. And he did not want all of that to surface or resurface at a time when the Church was being challenged from all angles. And, as was mentioned earlier, JPII could have at least taken a more in depth look at the wealth of facts presented to him about one of his own trusted clergymen so that the serious ongoing and unresolved matter didn't grow into even more pointed criticism of himself and the Church. Suppose it all just depends on whose ox one is in favor of goring at the given moment.

    Now, some of the following info re: Benedict's various times of authoritative decision making within this same subject and time period that you have invited into the discussion could include as well further extentions beyond the individual circumstances....and yet he himself received a "promotion" afterwards. I love all of these Popes but when the topic arises only for a particular one of choice and for reasons other than that topic itself, well, there could be the "gossip" classification applied for the motivation in such usage.

    P. Francis himself as C. Bergoglio was placed in the position, by the state, of speaking to the either or choice given.....homosexual unions or homosexual marriage....which was offering of course a choice of the lesser of evils and which choice had already been spoken to by the Church as labeling the "activity" portion within such unions.....but the offering of the slippery slope, totally against the natural law, was avoided, for the moment.
  5. js1975

    js1975 New Member

    I usually lurk here and enjoy the commentaries, but am compelled to jump in:

    1. The Pope was validly elected, so he is our Pope, no way around that... pray for him!
    2. 3 fonts of morality: (not a Theologian, so correct me if I am off)
    a. intent
    b. act
    c. outcome

    The challenge here is that not all divorced or re-married are in mortal sin. We cannot prove it because we will never know the 1st font (intent). My mother-in-law divorced her husband due to threat of her life and was in mortal danger. My parents divorced because they felt forced to marry because my mother was pregnant (Me!). In both of these cases they received annulments, but if they did not understand the situation properly and skipped the annulment, they are not in mortal sin (ignorance).

    I enjoyed smudgers comments, and defense of the Pope, however, I did not enjoy the occasional confrontational approach. You clearly understand theology better than most (certainly more than I), and while you made good points I did not see you break down WHY we cannot judge persons in a state of divorce. (intent)

    This is what led Pope Francis to take the angle he as, but, he is only human and can make mistakes. In the case of AL, it seems he is trying to address a gap in our discipline in that many faithful are divorced, perhaps through no fault nor choice of their own, yet now are no longer allowed to receive communion.

    this post could go on and on, but if you look at the history of the Popes, there were many popes far worse and yet they were still validly elected. We always thought the schism would come from the liberal side of the house, faithful leaning that side of orthodoxy. Maybe it is the faithful that lean to the conservative side of orthodoxy?

    fallen saint likes this.
  6. Dolours

    Dolours Guest

    The cardinals who have submitted the dubia won't lead the Church into schism. Any schism will be led by the Germans if the Pope's response to the dubia re-affirms Church Doctrine and Sacred Tradition that a person living in an objectively adulterous union (first marriage valid in the eyes of the Church) cannot be permitted to receive Communion without the firm intention of refraining from marital relations.

    Nobody but God knows the state of anyone's soul. Priests give or retain absolution based on what transpires in the confessional. In the case of the sin of adultery, there is only one penitent but there could be one, two or more people involved. For example, a young couple from a poor country decide that the husband should emigrate, find a job, send money home and eventually return home or send for the wife and children to join him. He does ok at first, sending money home. He's lonely, meets someone else, and not being very religious, starts a new relationship and ceases contact with home. He goes through a few relationships but never looks for a divorce because deep down he still feels a commitment to his wife and children. After a couple of years with no contact, the wife meets a man who is good to her and the children. She gets a divorce, remarries and has a baby. She and her new partner decide that they have a "real" marriage and apply for an annulment of her first marriage. The annulment is refused. She goes to confession and tells the priest that she was young, immature and in love with a man who wasn't very religious and wasn't really committed to lifelong marriage. Fr. Merciful suggests living as brother and sister but she says that it isn't fair on her new husband or their child and with the child starting in Catholic school, they want to be good role models for her. They can't separate and asking them to live together as brother an sister is too much of a burden on the family. Anyway, she believes in good conscience that her first marriage was invalid no matter what any tribunal decided. Fr. Merciful decides that under the conditions of AL, Communion is permitted in this special case.

    Roll on a year or so and the first husband has a conversion. He makes a good Confession and the priest tells him that he needs to try to mend his marriage and be a good father to his children. He returns home, throws himself on his wife's mercy but she wants nothing to do with him and tells him about her new marriage but says he can visit the children. At Mass on Sunday, his wife and children troop up to Communion with her new partner. He knows about the divorce, but when he inquires about the annulment there isn't one. So, he goes to the priest and asks how can his wife and this man be going to Communion with his children. The priest, bound by the seal of Confession, can't reveal to him the reasons his wife is permitted to receive Communion while living in adultery. Is the sin of scandal being committed, if not against him, against his children? And if so, who is responsible for all the souls affected by Fr. Merciful's decision made on the basis of pastoral accompaniment? Also, is Fr. Merciful now obliged to tell the woman that the Church expects her to make a genuine attempt to mend her marriage? Or has Fr. Merciful assumed the role of a Tribunal and determined based on his pastoral accompaniment of the woman that there was no first marriage? It is not uncommon for men to emigrate, lose touch for years and eventually return to their family and not all men who drop off the radar do so because they are unfaithful. They could have hit on hard times and were too ashamed to tell their wives.

    The lack of clarity in AL opens up a whole can of worms.
    josephite, picadillo, Heidi and 3 others like this.
  7. Fatima

    Fatima Powers

    There is a gap and that is for sure. The gap is a 50 year failure to educate properly the engaged then married couple in the teachings of the Church as it pertains to the indissolubility of the sacrament of marriage. The problem in this regard can be corrected by starting today in educating engaged couples of the Churches clear teaching on divorce and remarriage before they get married. At least then, going into marriage, no one can claim they were ignorant of Christ's unchanging teaching and that of His Church. One last point>>> the sacrament of marriage is not a discipline that can change, but a doctrine that cannot change.
    js1975 and Dolours like this.
  8. BrianK

    BrianK Guest

    You have to check twice these days to be sure if it's satire or the real thing:

    Second Year Of Mercy To Allow An Individual’s Conscience To Absolve One’s Own Sins

    The Vatican announced today that they will be opening a second Year of Mercy.

    The initiative is intended to address the crisis in the sacrament of confession and is being called, “The Year of Mercy: A Second Helping.”

    “Over half of the confessions in the Church today are invalid because the faithful actually do not believe any of their actions are sinful,” Cardinal Thomas Olvelli explained. “Without an actual sin confessed, the sacrament is invalid.”

    “Many penitents find the confessional line burdensome and are not able to wait for confession. That is not mercy,” The Cardinal went on to say. “During this new round of mercy, an individual will simply have the ability to have a deep, inward conversation with the Lord. Then with prudent and mature reflection, that individual will determine, in the sanctity of his or her own conscience, that he or she has never actually committed any sins, and thus maintaining the sanctity of the sacrament.”

    In addition, Olvelli announced that 10,000 newly appointed “Agents of the Second Helping” will begin circling the globe this January to close down all remaining confessionals.

    One Agent of Mercy, Monsignor Alejandro Pipetti, explained the initiative, saying, “Let’s face it, the confessional is a medieval torture chamber, designed to instill fear of the Lord into the faithful. How can the faithful begin to grow closer to the Lord if they fear Him? I believe it is better to have fear of one’s own conscience, especially since it can so easily be manipulated and told what is right and what is wrong. After all, there is no fear in that which you control.”
  9. smudger

    smudger Guest

    Dolours, your example is very good and yes it shows the complexity and problems of today's world. Raztinger struggled with the idea that some marriages were probably invalid even though sacramental (see his letter of 1998) because faith was not part of the deal even though both were baptized. Also it should be noted that Pope Benedict XVI at the World Day for Families in 2012, stated that those in irregular unions -their suffering in their state- is a gift to the Church. How can that be if they are all in mortal sin? Pope Francis in AL makes reference to two passages in Evangelii Gaudium where pastoral discernement can show that no grave fault exists-possibly leading to reception or penance and the Eucharist . This previous document which also caused problems for some I noticed was praised by Benedict XVI in his recent book "Last Testamentt. It is not just Francis who has decided on a totally new path; yes he has altered discipline, but a gradual maturing of papal thought has definately occured in recent decades. A calm reflecion of the facts shows this
  10. Dolours

    Dolours Guest

    With respect to you and Pope Francis, pastoral discernment cannot prove that no grave fault exists. Only God knows. The Church has consistently taught that the default position is that the first marriage is valid. Years of slippery slope leniency have led to us the position where Tribunals bend over backwards to find even the slightest loophole in favour of those petitioning for annulment with ever more excuses being added to the list. That slippery slope has brought us to the disgraceful situation we are in today where this attempt to consign Doctrine to the shelf of antiquity in the form of a footnote allows an individual to declare their own marriage invalid by claiming the primacy of conscience. To make matters worse, we are faced with a Pope, Bishops and priests portraying themselves as more merciful than Jesus who didn't hide behind nuance or drivel like "grey areas" when speaking about the consequences of adultery.

    No matter how much (then) Cardinal Ratzinger struggled with the mess people brought upon themselves, whether or not faith was part of the deal in their hindsight opinion has nothing to do with whether or not they are now living in an objectively sinful adulterous union.

    You didn't answer my questions. In the example I gave, is the priest obliged to tell the woman to make a real attempt to repair her marriage? Is he culpable for the scandal given to the children and the wider community in a small town? Has he acted as a one man tribunal, declaring a marriage invalid on the basis of pastoral accompaniment of only part of the two that became one by virtue of the marriage that the Church has already declared was valid? Was the absolution he gave that woman valid? Is he obliged to tell her to refrain from having marital relations in her adulterous union?
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 28, 2016
    Light and djmoforegon like this.
  11. Heidi

    Heidi Archangels

    This is not the issue.......divorced persons are allowed Communion, as long as they are not remarried without an annulment of the first marriage.
    josephite and js1975 like this.
  12. smudger

    smudger Guest

    Rubbish, of course discernment can. What do you think a priest tells young men struggling with masturbation?
    Of course someone in a second relationship should be trying to live as brother and sister. Thats what Francis says. peopel make misakes. Do you honestly think every sacramenal marriage is valid? So many people have a church wedding just for the venue.
  13. picadillo

    picadillo Guest

    Talk about setting the bar as low as possible.
  14. picadillo

    picadillo Guest

    Don't really know what you are talking about. This pope has made so many errors my head is spinning. And for all you who say he hasn't made a mistake on faith and morals, his crap about global warming being a sin is not political, it is a declaration on what constitutes a sin. Utter nonsense!
  15. smudger

    smudger Guest

    scoff what you like, but many many people are in need of salvation and Pope Francis as Jesus representative on earth understands that. Far too many judgmental people around here. Sad. Jesus told Faustina he speaks through the confessor. Jesus' words not Pope Francis
  16. little me

    little me Archangels

    No way this is true! Please tell me this is (gag) satire.
  17. Dolours

    Dolours Guest

    As Jesus' representative on earth, Pope Francis is bound to defend and pass on intact the Deposit of Faith. He has no authority to distort the faith by declaring adultery to be ok for the sake of the children or to make a good impression with the media or whatever other reason he chooses to justify what he is doing. Souls are not saved by telling people that keeping the Commandments is optional.
  18. BrianK

    BrianK Guest

    EOTT is always satire, but that you even have to ask illustrates how far we have fallen.
    little me likes this.
  19. picadillo

    picadillo Guest

    Smudger, sad that people can't see that Our Lady of Fatima told Jacinta to pray, pray much for the Holy Father and that Francis is that pope. Jesus said when the salt loses its taste it is only good to be thrown under and trampled upon. This is what this pope is doing to the faith. How sad indeed.
  20. Dolours

    Dolours Guest

    Yes, the salt has lost its taste. The excuse being used to water down the faith in respect of adultery is that souls will be saved by relaxing practice (or discipline, depending on how far people will go to pretend it isn't a change in Doctrine) . This time the souls that supposedly will be saved are people living in adulterous unions. Next time it will be people living in homosexual unions. The same excuse could be applied to any sinful lifestyle. AL will be the precedent for mitigating all evil, leading eventually to evil being declared good and good evil. We have already had a hint of that in respect of common law and homosexual unions.

    The souls of all future generations of Catholics are being placed in jeopardy for whatever short-term objective Pope Francis and his inner circle have in mind. Saving souls is the excuse but I doubt very much that it is the objective.
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 28, 2016

Share This Page