I am sorry. I know the discussion on this thread has moved on. I just feel I need to post this to clarify the record regarding some of my posts on this thread from the last couple of days for anyone who may read this thread in the future. There we some accusations made during the course of one of the discussions here. The posts were regarding a woman who was in a second marriage after having civilly divorced her husband from her first sacramental marriage and later getting civilly remarried. She was abused in her first marriage and had children in the second civil marriage. The accusations were that those advising (I assume including me) on this incident were advocating adultery, divorce and annulment. I just feel the need to state for the record for anyone who may read this thread in the future, I was not and am not encouraging divorce, second secular marriages or recommending annulment for everyone. Divorce is a horrible evil in our society. The annulment procedures are horribly abused. Second civil marriages are always wrong. I was simply trying to lay out the Church teachings for dealing with such situations as that seemed to be what was being sought. I may have been more or less successful at that. I do not want to mislead anyone. The questions asked were regarding what the Church teaches, not my personal opinion. Personally I believe the Church annulment procedure is in many cases abused. That is my personal opinion. If someone would like a greater certainty that there annulment was done properly it can be appealed to the Roman Rota. This body will overturn any lower level ruling it finds was done incorrectly. I have read that the Roman Rota upholds the sacrament of matrimony in about 90% of the appeals it receives. I don't know if this is an exact number. I think it is anecdotal. So if someone is serious about knowing if their annulment was done properly I would send it to the Roman Rota. In the original discussion I was simply trying to present current Church practices as best I know them. The woman in question had been in an abusive situation. The Church does not condemn anyone to stay in a home where they are being abused regardless of if the marriage is valid or not. I hope this clarifies things. I do not want to be on the record as having endorsed divorce, improperly done annulments or second civil “marriages”.
While reading this whole thread and others like it, I can't help but think of Matthew Chapter 7 13 “Enter through the narrow gate;* for the gate is wide and the road broad that leads to destruction, and those who enter through it are many. 14 How narrow the gate and constricted the road that leads to life. And those who find it are few." The beginning of Matthew 7 is the teaching on not judging. First we are to remove the plank from our own eyes "then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother’s eye". Then in this last Year of Mercy, we are encouraged to practice the Spiritual works of Mercy: To instruct the ignorant. To counsel the doubtful. To admonish sinners. To bear patiently those who wrong us. To forgive offenses. To console the afflicted. To pray for the living and the dead I believe Christ would have us pray for ourselves and all sinners, adhere to His teachings as if our eternal lives depended upon it and bring as many souls with us, God willing, through that narrow gate.
David When should we ever be afraid of speaking the truth? If as you say the Cardinals are being disingenous, will not truthful answers immediately dispel it. The Church is looking for clarity, from a document that is itself riddled with innuendo and subsequent commentary on its interpretation,(including by the Pope) exacerbate the situation of obfuscation in AL and certainly makes no attempt to give us any confidence or reverse the path to doctrinal compromise we are apparently being taken. God Bless
"Whatever you bind on earth will be considered bound in heaven. Whatever you loose on earth shall be considered loosed in heaven." Those precious words were direced to the popes until the second coming at the end of the world. They were not ever addressed to cardinals or other bishops. AL is part of the magesterium of Pope Francis like it or not. Cardinal Burke says Francis is not in heresy, so what is the problem? If he is not heretical then this teaching is considered bound in heaven, or dont we believe the divine words of the Son of God?
Why doesn't he answer one simple question-Dubia 1? A Pope is charged with defending the doctrine that has been passed onto him. It is the teaching of the Church that official Revelation ended with the last apostle. Pope Francis can repeat, reinforce, even expand, but not essentially alter the Revelation he has inherited. He doesn't have the power to alter Truth. Truth, by definition, cannot be altered. These truths are part of the continuing Magisterium of the Church, a Magisterium that no pope is empowered to change. Neither Pope Francis nor any other pope going back to St. Peter himself possessed a magisterium that they could call their own. They were all entrusted to care and protect something that eternally belongs to the Mystical Body of Christ.
He wont answer because he knows they know full well the answers already. If I know the answers how come they dont? truth has not been altered. Its the administraion of the Sacrament in question. The passages I quoted earlier from Al prove it. Anyhow, if you read St. vincent of Lorins a great Father of the early Church, he wrote that doctrine can and should be understood more through time as circumstances change. That is a fact shown by John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor: "Certainly there is a need to seek out and to discover the most adequate formulation (his emphasis) for universal and permanent moral norms in the light of different cultural contexts, a formulation most capable of ceaselessly expressing their historical relevance, of making them understood and of authentically interpreting their truth. This truth of the moral law — like that of the "deposit of faith" — unfolds down the centuries: the norms expressing that truth remain valid in their substance, but must be specified and determined "eodem sensu eademque sententia" (Vincent of Lerins Commonitorium primum) in the light of historical circumstances by the Church's Magisterium, whose decision is preceded and accompanied by the work of interpretation and formulation characteristic of the reason of individual believers and of theological reflection." Pope Francis said in 2014 "The theologian who is satisfied with his complete and conclusive thought is mediocre. The good theologian and philosopher has an open, that is, an incomplete, thought, always open to the maius of God and of the truth, always in development, according to the law that St. Vincent of Lerins describes as: “annis consolidetur, dilatetur tempore, sublimetur aetate” (Commonitorium primum, 23: PL 50, 668): it is strengthened over the years, it expands over time, it deepens with age. This is the theologian who has an open mind. And the theologian who does not pray and who does not worship God ends up sunk in the most disgusting narcissism. And this is an ecclesiastical illness. The narcissism of theologians, of thinkers, is disgusting."
Jesus did not always answer the Pharisees, because they were not seeking the truth. This is not the case with Pope Francis. He will not clarify his confusing statements because he is not seeking truth, but confusion. Confusion is not from God. There can be no other reason he will not clarify his ambiguity in the dubia other than he can't without revealing his true intent.
Very simply said, you don't know the answer, because he has never said what he thinks. He simply put out there a theory/proposition to allow each pastor to decide who they want to receive communion based on a conscience not formed in the deposit of faith and constant teachings, but on feelings, emotion and likeability. If Pope Francis vague teaching is truth, why does he not use 2000 of church teaching in the area, as well as scripture, to show he desire for divorced and remarried without annulment to receive Eucharist? Should not be hard to do if he is in union with unchanging church teaching.
"Whatever you bind on earth shall be considered bound in heaven". Pope francis said Cardinal Schonborn has the correct interpretion of AL, but you probably know that anyway.
Confusion is not "bound in heaven". Now if he comes out an clearly states what he believes and not 'guess what I mean' than we will now whether what he say's is bound in heaven or heresy, which other Pope's in the history of the church have done that were not 'bound in heaven'. I have been around liberal's long enough to know they hate clarity, as it is opposed to confusion. Ambiguity is the same as being "lukewarm" and we know what scripture speaks on this.
Yes, the lukewarm spurn scripture as they do unchanging truth; 1 Thessalonians 5:20-21 "do not despise prophecy", but it is convenient to do so when it is unmasking truth, as Pedro Regis recent message seemed to do.
yes, dont despise authenic prophecy; you however seem to believe stuff thats distinctly heretical. Most of that rubbish is millenariansim in sort of disguise but cant quite manage it.
You apparently do not even know what millenarianism is. I don't know of any Catholic who believes that Jesus will physically walk this earth with his remnant after the second coming. Once again, twisting the truth or not knowing it and there is no Catholic prophecy that I have studied that even comes close to saying as much.
