How about just accepting that he had the support of two former pontiff plus the current one. There is no doubt he expresses much of what Pope Francis believes which, of course, for some on this forum is absolutely damning... but they are mistaken.
Archbishop Forte has in fact revealed a “behind the scenes” [moment] from the Synod: “If we speak explicitly about communion for the divorced and remarried,” said Archbishop Forte, reporting a joke of Pope Francis, “you do not know what a terrible mess we will make. So we won’t speak plainly, do it in a way that the premises are there, then I will draw out the conclusions.” “Typical of a Jesuit,” Abp Forte joked, attributing to that suggestion a wisdom that has allowed the maturation necessary to conclude that Amoris Laetitia, as Abp. Bruno Forte explained, does not represent a new doctrine, but the “merciful application” of that [the doctrine]of all time. http://www.onepeterfive.com/pope-speaking-plainly-communion-divorced-messy/
The Church has taught this for 2000 years, but we are supposed to take the word of Forte and the current pope over 2000 years of Church teaching? Not to mention the unequivocal words of Jesus in Scripture? No.
Jesus was schizophrenic then? He taught one thing in scripture, His Church taught the same for 2000 years, but we should believe this agenda because Forte, Kasper, Marx and the current pope say so? No.
Actually Joe, recent events demonstrate that poor old Henry was hard done by and it was the Pope and St. John Fisher who lacked mercy. All the English bishops except St. John Fisher agreed with Henry. Looking back at it, we could have been spared the Anglican split if Pope Clement had been as attentive to the English as Pope Francis is to the Germans...... Henry firmly believed that his marriage to Catherine of Aragon was invalid. She was, after all, his brother's widow, and he also could have claimed that there was undue pressure on him to marry her for the sake of the country but he just wasn't able to prove it. There were plenty of Bishops at that time willing to help him in an internal forum. He wouldn't have needed the internal forum for his marriage to Anne of Cleeves because Catherine of Aragon, Anne Boleyn and Jane Seymour were dead. By the time he married Catherine Howard and later Catherine Parr, the only impediment would have been his separation from Anne of Cleeves and even if that separation didn't pass the annulment smell test, it would have been a doddle for the internal forum to permit full inclusion in the Church for him and Catherine Howard and subsequently Catherine Parr. If only Pope Clement and Bishop Fisher had been a little more merciful, there might be no Anglican Church. Since one of Cardinal Kasper's selling points of this recognition of non-sacramental unions is that it brings us more in line with the Orthodox, Henry's marriages while previous spouses were still living wouldn't have been so bad. Don't the Orthodox allow for three marriages altogether - one sacramental and two subsequent non-sacramental? You might argue that Henry lacked mercy when he had his wives executed, but execution was the punishment for treason.
Like ... Kasper? http://www.onepeterfive.com/as-kasper-continues-to-counsel-the-pope-what-is-the-cost/ As Kasper Continues to Counsel the Pope, What is the Cost? Yesterday, May 6, Pope Francis received the international Charlemagne Prize in Rome. The whole ceremony can be watched here. After the Rome Correspondent of the National Catholic Reporter, Joshua McElwee, tweeted out two pictures of that event – one showing Pope Francis with Cardinal Gerhard Müller, and the other showing him with Cardinal Walter Kasper, I wanted to look into it a little more for myself. It does indeed seem (at the time window around 1hr and 50 minutes of the filmed event) – as McElwee insinuates in his own comments – that Pope Francis expresses a more open cordiality with Cardinal Kasper than with Cardinal Müller. Both of these cardinals sat in the first row close to the pope during the event. Yet, we know that they both stand for very different positions in this current struggle for marriage and the family within the Catholic Church. As a sign of his own closeness to the pope, Cardinal Kasper recently admitted that it was he himself who convinced the pope to accept this international Charlemagne Prize from Germany. Therefore, since it seems to be Cardinal Kasper who finds more favor with the current pope, it might be worth reviewing some of his recent inconsistent statements, in order to test his sufficient worthiness for being an important counselor of a pope. Such a man certainly should instill a sense of trust among the Catholic faithful. As was just recently pointed out by Father Claude Barthe in his interview with the Italian Church historian, Professor Roberto de Mattei, it was Cardinal Kasper who – together with Cardinal Karl Lehmann – has been advocating since at least as early as 1993 for the admittance of public adulterers to Holy Communion. Some twenty years later, Kasper was chosen by Pope Francis to discuss this very topic at the Consistory of Cardinals (in February of 2014), a fact which alarmed many faithful Catholics at the time. In the following months, Cardinal Kasper assured the world that “the pope supports me.” Pope Francis, for his part, did nothing to correct this impression. As Matthew McCusker put it, in May 2015: For example on September 26, 2014, just before the synod opened, Kasper gave an interview to Il Mattino in which he said, “I agreed upon everything with him [Pope Francis]. He was in agreement. What can a cardinal do, except be with the Pope?” Later in the interview he confirmed again: “I agreed with the Pope; I spoke twice with him. He showed himself content.” However, after the first Synod of Bishops on the Family in 2014 showed that there was yet strong resistance against Cardinal Kasper’s proposal to admit “remarried” divorcees to Holy Communion, Kasper proceeded to distance himself from his previous claims of papal support and concurrence. In an interview with Raymond Arroyo of EWTN, Kasper contradicted his earlier statements, denying that he had the support of the pope. Here is the transcript of his words, according to the National Catholic Register‘s Rome Correspondent, Edward Pentin: ARROYO: But you do understand, when a Churchman like yourself, a theologian, an esteemed international figure, a Curial official says: “Here is my proposal, and the Pope agrees with me” that does cause some … CARDINAL KASPER: Well, this I did not say. ARROYO: Well you did say, and the quote is: “Clearly this is what he wants,” and “the Pope has approved of my proposal.” Those were the quotes from the time … CARDINAL KASPER: No … he did not approve my proposal. The Pope wanted that I put the question [forward], and, afterwards, in a general way, before all the cardinals, he expressed his satisfaction with my talk. But not the end, not in the … I wouldn’t say he approved the proposal, no, no, no. At the time, it was the Vatican expert Marco Tosatti who revealed that it might have been the pope himself who told Kasper to deny that he had papal support. As I reported in June of 2015: Very importantly – also in the context of a growing resistance in Germany among bishops against the overall Kasper proposal – Tosatti reports that, a month and a half ago, Cardinal Kasper himself visited the Pope, in order to report to him about the situation and the atmosphere in Germany concerning the upcoming October 2015 Synod. Kasper “had to admit [to the Pope]that not all bishops are in accord with him and with the [German] Bishops’ Conference.” The Pope was somewhat indignant about this report, according to Tosatti, and he counseled Kasper to be cautious. “And it can be that one of the fruits of this counsel is: not to put the person of the Pope himself in direct connection with a proposal which will certainly find a strong and decisive opposition at the Synod next October. And it is not certain at all that it [Kasper’s proposal] will pass.” This would indeed be a good explanation for this “volte face” of Cardinal Kasper in the matter of the pope’s support. And this form of strategic approach would also be in accordance with regard to what Archbishop Bruno Forte just recently related during a conference on the post-synodal apostolic exhortation, namely, that Pope Francis told him during the synod debates on the family not to mention explicitly Communion for the “remarried” divorcees in order to avoid resistance. “Do it in a way that the premises are there, then I will draw out the conclusions.” These were the words of the pope, according to Forte — the man Francis hand-picked as Special Secretary to the synods. During the synod debates it was clear that the majority of the bishops was not in favor of the “Kasper-proposal.” Kasper’s reputation took further damage when his dishonesty was revealed over demeaning remarks he made about the African bishops during the first synod. When asked in the interview with some journalists – among them Edward Pentin – about the role of the African bishops who resisted some of the more liberal moral ideas, Kasper had said, for example: “But they [the African bishops]should not tell us too much what we have to do.” After Pentin published these remarks, Kasper first denied them. Pentin, forced to publish the audio recording of the exchange to verify the story, thereby forced Kasper to concede the truth. Moreover, after the conclusion of the second synod in 2015 and the release of the apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia, Cardinal Kasper reversed himself again, reiterating his original position: that he indeed did — and does –have papal support. That this is, in fact, the actual truth of the matter has become increasingly difficult to deny. Only recently, we reported the following about Cardinal Kasper: In other parts of the interview, Kasper also shows how much the pope has supported him. For example, he recounts how Pope Francis – after he praised Kasper publicly on the first Sunday after his election to the throne of Peter – told him [Kasper]: “I made propaganda for you!” Kasper also recounts that it was he himself who was able to convince the pope to accept the honor of receiving the Charlemagne Prize (one of the most prestigious European prizes). Kasper says: “He [Francis] shortly thereafter then further responded with these words to the question from a journalist as to why he had accepted this prize: ‘That is because of the stubbornness of Cardinal Kasper.’” It is, therefore, not a surprise that Cardinal Kasper sat prominently in the first row at Sala Regia yesterday, when Pope Francis received that very same prize. But, at what cost has his influence over the Vicar of Christ been gained?
The Eucharistic Jesus wants to enter into the body of someone in a persistent irregular relationship? Incredible. Your story sounds more like a fairy tale. This is not what Jesus wants, nor what he deserves.
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/05/guest-op-ed-amoris-laetitia-and.html?m=1 Guest Op-Ed: Amoris Laetitia and Cardinal Kasper’s Ordinary Christian Model By Veronica A. Arntz With the culminating document of the two recent Synods on marriage and family, Amoris Laetitia, we are perhaps facing an even greater battle than we anticipated. Much has already been written and said about this document, but in this essay, I would like to return to Cardinal Walter Kasper’s basic premises and show how these have filtered into the post-synodal apostolic exhortation. In an interview with Commonweal, which I discussed in an article published by the Truth and Charity Forum, Kasper talks about the average, or ordinary, Christian and his or her ability to live chastely after remarrying when a valid marriage still exists. He discusses what I shall call the Ordinary Christian Model: “To live together as brother and sister? Of course I have high respect for those who are doing this. But it’s a heroic act, and heroism is not for the average Christian.” First of all, that’s a lot of “if’s.” Second, this proposal assumes that the “ordinary” Christian cannot live up to the “idealization” proposed by the teachings of the Catholic Church. This Ordinary Christian Model asserts that we cannot expect fulfillment of the highest calling—that of living in conformity with the Gospel—of ordinary Christians, who just do not understand doctrine or do not have the self-control to live as brother and sister. The development proposed by Kasper contradicts the teaching of the Church, particularly seen in Familiaris Consortio 84 and Sacramentum Caritatis 29, for both of these documents admonish couples to live as brother and sister when a remarriage has occurred. Most of us hoped that we would be rid of Kasper’s ideas, first proposed at the beginning of the Synod process. If we read Amoris Laetitia carefully, however, we find several references to Kasper’s Ordinary Christian Model. While there are many instances throughout the text, I shall focus on three. The first is in the second chapter, which is entitled, “The Experiences and Challenges of Families.” Francis spends most of this chapter discussing the difficulties that families face, and in the paragraph discussing dire poverty, he proposes a situation of a single, working mother needing to leave her child alone in order to work. He writes, In such difficult situations of need, the Church must be particularly concerned to offer understanding, comfort and acceptance, rather than imposing straightaway a set of rules that only lead people to feel judged and abandoned by the very Mother called to show them God’s mercy. Rather than offering the healing power of grace and the light of the Gospel message, some would “indoctrinate” that message, turning it into “dead stones to be hurled at others” (AL 49). While Francis is not specifically referring to the divorced and remarried here, he is applying the Ordinary Christian Model. It is difficult to know what “set of rules” the Church would impose on a single, working mother. Rules against cohabitation? Rules against contraception? Rules against remarrying while a valid marriage still exists? At any rate, Francis implies that any “rules” enforced by the Church on this single mother would be too difficult and too demanding for her; they would not be merciful toward her situation. Whether she is Christian or not is unclear, but what is apparent is that any of the Church’s rules (presumably rules regarding morality) would not be merciful or accepting of her situation. She is just an “ordinary” Christian—she cannot fulfill the life of heroism demanded by the Church (even if this life is always chosen by the individual, and he or she is incapable of fulfilling that life without the grace of God). The second example we shall look at is in the fourth chapter, entitled “Love in Marriage.” While this section begins with a beautiful exegesis of 1 Corinthians 13 and a calling of couples to live sacramentally (cf. AL 121), Francis seems to disregard all of that when he writes, We should not however confuse different levels: there is no need to lay upon two limited persons the tremendous burden of having to reproduce perfectly the union existing between Christ and his Church, for marriage as a sign entails “a dynamic process…, one which advances gradually with the progressive integration of the gifts of God” (AL 122). The Church has always recognized that living the love of Christ and His Church is difficult and requires a great amount of grace from God. In this paragraph, Francis quotes Familiaris Consortio. In the sentence prior to the one quoted by Francis, John Paul II defines what he means by “dynamic process.” “What is needed is a continuous, permanent conversion which, while requiring an interior detachment from every evil and an adherence to good in its fullness, is brought about concretely in steps which lead us ever forward” (FC 9). As such, John Paul II does not deny this difficulty of mirroring the love of Christ and His Church in marital life. Rather, he points out that conversion is necessary for everyone, even those who are not married, in order to fulfill the message of the Gospel. Yet, when we read Amoris Laetitia 122, we have the sense that the burden of the Gospel, and in particular, the message of Ephesians 5:21-33, is too difficult for individuals to fulfill. Rather than reminding couples of the necessity for conversion and the difficulty that it entails (albeit a difficulty accompanied by grace), Francis merely says that fulfilling Christ’s call is too difficult and would be a burden for the ordinary Catholic, following in the footsteps of Kasper’s thought. The third and final example comes from the eighth and most controversial chapter, entitled, “Accompanying, Discerning and Integrating Weakness.” While there are many things to be addressed from this chapter, I will focus on just one. Francis is writing here about the difficult situation of those who have entered a second union. He writes that these situations “should not be pigeonholed or fit into overly rigid classifications leaving no room for a suitable personal and pastoral discernment” (AL 298). In other words, every situation is different, and no general principle laid down by the Church can apply to every situation (i.e., Christ’s command against adultery may or may not apply to everyone). Francis continues: One thing is a second union consolidated over time, with new children, proven fidelity, generous self-giving, Christian commitment, a consciousness of its irregularity and of the great difficulty of going back without feeling in conscience that one would fall into new sins (AL 298). Francis then proceeds to misquote Gaudium et spes 51 in footnote 329, but this is beyond our discussion here. It is sufficient to say that, in an attempt to bring doctrine to the level of the ordinary Christian, rather than raising the ordinary Christian to the demands of the doctrine, Francis has made room for the divorced and remarried to remain together, and he has not given recognition to the mortal sin of their life. If, however, a couple is living in an irregular situation contrary to Church teaching, then their “proven fidelity, generous self-giving,” and “Christian commitment” could not be the fullness to which the Church calls them. Even though Amoris Laetitia affirms much of Church teaching on marriage and family, the fact that the Ordinary Christian Model pervades the exhortation contradicts the very teachings that Francis claims to uphold. Francis’ document is oriented toward the supposed “ordinary” Christian, who is unable to live out the demands of the Gospel. How different this message is from what John Paul II upholds in Familiaris Consortio: Willed by God in the very act of creation, marriage and the family are interiorly ordained to fulfillment in Christ and have need of His graces in order to be healed from the wounds of sin and restored to their ‘beginning,’ that is, to full understanding and the full realization of God’s plan (3). Rather than acknowledging the role of God’s grace in fulfilling the difficulties of married life, Francis assumes that the ordinary Christian, who is indeed still called to the heroism of the saints, is unable to fulfill Christian doctrine, and thus, adopts Cardinal Kasper’s Ordinary Christian Model as the model for all Christian living. [1] Cardinal Walter Kasper, Gospel of the Family, (Mahwah, New Jersey: Paulist Press, 2014), p. 26.
Sadly, David, it's looking more and more like the Synod was convened as cover for something that had been decided before Francis was elected Pope. I'm finding it hard to disagree with a comment I read elsewhere: "Pope Francis is trying to out-Jesus Jesus". I know it is a very harsh comment, but sometimes the truth is cold and hard.
AAAAHH the benefits of a scholarly mind. There have been many cruel regimes that call treason and kill. I hope Henry's intellect benefited him at the particular judgement, but I doubt it.
I agree David. There is overwhelming evidence that Pope Francis has put on the mind of Christ, spoken the words of Christ and acted in His Name and in accordance with His Spirit. But there are none so blind etc.
Nonsense, Pope Francis has contradicted neither of these and certainly not the Gospel - only by your interpretation.
In fairness, Joe, I'm not so sure that his regime was all that cruel by the standards of that time. He wasn't excommunicated for cruelty, and where his marriages were concerned he could argue that the Church had placed too heavy a burden on the faithful. After all, Catholic marriage is just an ideal, nobody is condemned forever, the Church is a hospital for the sick, and the Eucharist is not a prize for the perfect. I'll stop at that because I'm trying very hard to refrain from criticising the Holy Father. Better to pray for him and pray that he shows Cardinal Muller a little more mercy than he did Cardinal Burke.
You disagree with David here on your interpretation. But David agrees with me. Why not say David is cruel, demonic and on the path to perdition too? I suspect you too agree with this change. Quietly, but you agree.
Why on earth would I say that and who else have I said that about? Or is it just how you see things again? Let's stop this exchange. There is no meeting of the heart or mind. It is fruitless.
Archbishop: Pope told me we must avoid speaking ‘plainly’ on Communion for remarried May 9, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Archbishop Bruno Forte, the Archbishop of Chieti-Vasto, Italy, said during a presentation on the pope’s recent exhortation Amoris Laetitia that Pope Francis told him at the Synod on the Family that he didn’t want to speak “plainly” about the question of admitting remarried divorcees to Holy Communion because doing so would make a “terrible mess.” Forte claimed that the pope told him: “If we speak explicitly about communion for the divorced and remarried, you do not know what a terrible mess we will make. So we won’t speak plainly, do it in a way that the premises are there, then I will draw out the conclusions.” “Typical of a Jesuit,” Abp Forte reportedly joked. Forte’s comment was published on the Italian news site Zonalocale.it and translated by OnePeterFive. In Pope Francis’ exhortation from the Synod, Amoris Laetitia, the only reference to the question of Communion for the divorced and remarried comes in footnote 351. Though it lacks the force and clarity of previous magisterial pronouncements against granting Communion to the remarried – most notably in Pope John Paul II’s Familiaris Consortio – liberals have nevertheless seized on it to justify the practice. Footnote 351 comes at paragraph 305, where the pope says that despite an “objective situation of sin” it is possible that a person “can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end.” There he includes the footnote, which states, “In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments,” followed by references to both Confession and the Eucharist. Pope Francis later said he doesn’t remember the controversial footnote. Numerous commentators have argued that the paragraph and footnote contradict the previous teaching of Familiaris Consortio, where Pope John Paul II explained that unless a couple in an invalid marriage abstains from marital intimacy, they would be ineligible to receive the Sacraments. Familiaris Consortio states: …the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church's teaching about the indissolubility of marriage. Forte said that Amoris Laetitia doesn’t change doctrine, but applies it mercifully. The message of the exhortation, he says, is, “Don’t judge, but reach out to all with the gaze of mercy, but without renouncing the Truth of God. It is easy to say, ‘that family has failed’; more difficult to help it not to fail. No one ought to feel themselves excluded from the Church.” Pope Francis personally chose Forte to be the special secretary to the synods. Forte is credited with writing the 2014 synod’s controversial mid-term Relatio, which suggested the Church emphasize the “positive” aspects of actions it considers to be mortally sinful, such as cohabitation and homosexuality. Forte has also said that same-sex unions have “rights that should be protected.”
