What began as Four Cardinals became Four Cardinals and three bishops. Over the past two weeks, three more Cardinals have added their voices in support of the dubia, the most recent being Cardinal Renato Raffaele Martino, who has joined Cardinals George Pell and Paul Josef Cordes in publicly backing the effort.
At The Wanderer, 1P5’s Maike Hickson reports:
Yesterday, the Italian website La Fede Quotidiana published a short interview with the Italian Cardinal Renato Raffaele Martino, the former President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. When asked specifically about the dubia recently published by the Four Cardinals, Cardinal Martino responds with the words “I do not see anything bad here.” He adds: “It is legitimate in terms of doctrine to turn to the pope and express an opinion – and it is also just that he would respond.”
Cardinal Martino also reiterates the Catholic Church’s traditional teaching on marriage when he states with regard to the question of Sacramental Communion for the divorced and “remarried”: “No, the doctrine has not been changed and cannot change. The Sacrament of Matrimony is indissoluble.” Martino also adds that “the case-by-case approach mentioned in Amoris Laetitia can lend itself to dubious interpretations.” In the same interview, the Italian cardinal makes it clear that, in the eyes of the abiding teaching of the Catholic Church, both cohabitation and a second civil marriage after a divorce are the same inasmuch as they are both “irregular” relationships and not a Sacrament.
A few days ago, a former member of the Roman Curia, Cardinal Paul Josef Cordes, had made a similar statement. He said in an interview with the Austrian Catholic website Kath.net, as follows: “With an objective tone, the four cardinals have asked for the removal of doubts about the text [Amoris Laetitia]. They were met with a disproportionate protest. I was not able to understand this indignation; I also had doubts that these indignant persons were motivated by a desire to discover the truth.”
It’s hardly a landslide, but every means of additional support matters very much in this battle of David vs. Goliath in defense of God’s truth.
As I understand it there are approx 200 Cardinals and 5000 bishops.
If we attach any significance to numbers in these matters, it would appear that the numbers of those supporting the dubia are very small and, I would venture to suggest, spreading like treacle on cold Winter morning.
It is not a question of the numbers, Hans. The Church is not a democracy. Having a majority of the votes does not make you right. What makes you right is fidelity to the truths of the Faith. For two millennia, the truths referred to by the four Cardinals and their supporters has been the Church's position. The Pope has no authority to change that, and the Cardinals are therefore within their rights to request him to clarify the position, and affirm that the only allowable interpretation of his words is the traditional interpretation.
Cold treacle actually tastes better than warm treacle, and is much better for you.
Incidentally, global warming - caused exclusively by human-origin carbon dioxide, of course, not the naturally-occuring stuff - is warming the planet. Didn't you know that? I think you must be mistaken about the cold.
Stay warm, Hans - get close to the fire of the Holy Spirit.
--Previous Message-- : As I understand it there are approx 200 : Cardinals and 5000 bishops. : : If we attach any significance to numbers in : these matters, it would appear that the : numbers of those supporting the dubia are : very small and, I would venture to suggest, : spreading like treacle on cold Winter : morning. : : Hans from Berlin (on a cold Winter morning) :
I see. So the idea that support for the truth is 'spreading' makes no difference? If it is the truth then it doesn't matter if support for it is growing or not?
But, from what I have seen of the document -- and echoed in your own post -- a key point made is that 'many' of the faithful are confused and this is a key motivation.
If that is the case then it surely is important to provide some evidence of what 'many' means.
Surely it is also relevant to observe that nearly all bishops have not expressed concern about the Popes document? And that is so for the cardinals too.
If the numbers are not important, then why make an issue of them?
Beyond that, you imply that the Pope has, in effect, challenged the 'truths of the faith'. That, I believe, is an assertion.
My countryman Cardinal Müller, I think, has said that nothing in Amoris Laetitia can be interpreted in such a way as to contradict previous teaching.
Is that not an end to the matter? Is that not a clear 'clarification' if one was needed?
As for your observations about 'treacle', we have a similar substance called Zuckerrübensirup but I'm not so familiar.
Thank you for your concern about warmth. Germans are good at keep warm. It is a matter of necessity.
It’s most useful to know that: Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernandez Guttierrez has been presented as Amoris Laetitia’s ghostwriter since the beginning of 2016 at least: Vaticanist Edward Pentin quoted “well informed sources” at the time who named the rector of the Pontifical Catholic University of Argentina in Buenos Aires as the Apostolic Exhortation’s “chief drafter.” The publication of the deeply controversial document has all but formally confirmed this piece of information.
This week, Vaticanist Sandro Magister, who blogs for the Italian newsgroup L’Espresso, published a comparison between Archbishop “Tucho” Fernandez’ former writings and the wording of several of Amoris Laetitia’s most disputed paragraphs — and footnotes. They click.
Magister has unearthed “startling resemblances between key passages of the exhortation by Pope Francis and two texts from ten years ago by his main adviser.” So startling that he doesn’t even pretend to hypothesize about the implications: “A double synod for a solution that had already been written.”
See: Jeanne Smits, Mon May 30, 2016 May 30, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) The pope’s ghostwriter: controversial archbishop penned key passages of Exhortation ten years ago https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/the-popes-ghostwriter-controversial-archbishop-penned-key-passages-of-exhor
>I see. So the idea that support for the truth is 'spreading' makes no difference? If it is the truth then it doesn't matter if support for it is growing or not? That’s true – it remains the truth, even if not one person admits it. My point was that it is encouraging to see that more are speaking out, thus indicating that there are at least pockets of the Church that have not fallen under the influence of the self-styled “progressives”, and cast aside truth in favour of fables. It is encouraging to find that people are using their God-given intelligence, instead of tuning their itching ears into the teachers after their own desires, that Saint Paul warned us of.
>But, from what I have seen of the document -- and echoed in your own post -- a key point made is that 'many' of the faithful are confused and this is a key motivation. Of course confusion among many of the faithful is a key motivation, and the Cardinals – all bishops, and therefore the acknowledged teachers of the Faith – are doing their duty of attempting to remove confusion and restore calm. After all, the Libera nos prayer of the Mass from the 1962 Missal reads:
Deliver us, we beseech Thee, O Lord, from all evils, past, present and to come, and by the intercession of the Blessed and glorious ever Virgin Mary, Mother of God, together with Thy blessed apostles Peter and Paul, and Andrew, and all the Saints, + mercifully grant peace in our days, that through the bounteous help of Thy mercy we may be always free from sin, and safe from all disquiet.
>If that is the case then it surely is important to provide some evidence of what 'many' means. You’re sounding more and more like Faz with each passing comment, but the evidence is all there if you bother to read some truly Catholic publications. Each of the Cardinals has obviously received many requests from parishioners and there has been at least one formal request signed by clergy from all over the world for those particular Cardinals to act.
>Surely it is also relevant to observe that nearly all bishops have not expressed concern about the Popes document? And that is so for the cardinals too. That’s true, and distressing, but as I pointed out earlier, it is not relevant, as the Church is not a democracy; holding the majority of the votes is not what makes one right. Adherence to the truths of the Faith is what assures rectitude.
>If the numbers are not important, then why make an issue of them? You’re back to your first point, and I’m back to my first answer; it is encouraging – note, encouraging, not justifying - to find further pockets of Faith. Those of us who love the Church and the Faith rejoice in finding others of like mind.
>Beyond that, you imply that the Pope has, in effect, challenged the 'truths of the faith'. That, I believe, is an assertion. No, I didn’t imply that at all. What I said was: “The Pope has no authority to change that, and the Cardinals are therefore within their rights to request him to clarify the position, and affirm that the only allowable interpretation of his words is the traditional interpretation. “ This makes the assumption that of all the interpretations that have been placed on the Pope’s words, only one is correct, and that was the one the Pope had in mind, despite the looseness of his wording.
>My countryman Cardinal Müller, I think, has said that nothing in Amoris Laetitia can be interpreted in such a way as to contradict previous teaching. You can believe that if you find it comforting. Just be aware that at the Judgment Seat, your comfort might not of paramount importance.
>Is that not an end to the matter? Is that not a clear 'clarification' if one was needed? I can’t believe you hold that, but perhaps double standards are your stock-in-trade. What you are asserting is that Cardinal Müller must be right, but Cardinal Burke and his associates must be wrong. And you were bleating earlier about evidence! The evidence is in Denzinger.
>As for your observations about 'treacle', we have a similar substance called Zuckerrübensirup but I'm not so familiar. Na und?
>Thank you for your concern about warmth. Germans are good at keep warm. It is a matter of necessity. But it wouldn’t hurt you to breathe out a bit more carbon dioxide if you believe in that sort of thing. Try to convince the fairies at the bottom of your garden to do the same.
Have a nice Christmas, Hans
Re: What is truth?
Posted by John on December 23, 2016, 9:33 am, in reply to "Re: What is truth?"
Methinks the Pope could have chosen his advisors more circumspectly, Peter, not to put too fine a point on it.
And the final sentence in your paragraph about Magister’s findings is quite chilling – was the time and expenses of all those bishops at the two Synods simply wasted in such a cavalier manner? Were the acceptable conclusions of the Synods actually formulated before the Synods were held? I sincerely hope he is not right.
Re: What is truth?
Posted by PDH on December 23, 2016, 11:02 am, in reply to "Re: What is truth?"
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-malicious-resistance-to-my-reforms-that-takes-refuge-in-traditions-is Pope: ‘Malicious resistance’ to my reforms that ‘takes refuge in traditions’ is from the devil Jan Bentz and Patrick B. Craine Excerpt: ROME, December 22, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Today, during his annual Christmas address to the Vatican’s top officials, Pope Francis laid out his vision for his ongoing reform of Vatican structures, while also mounting a brief but pointed critique of unnamed individuals who are “resisting” the reform.
This is consistent with declarations by Fr. Claude Barthe to Corrispondenza Romana earlier this month. [May, 2016]. The French theologian, who has many connections in the Vatican, noted in his interview that Amoris Laetitia clearly intends to introduce a new element in Church teaching, and that “the text of the post-synod exhortation was broadly elaborated in September 2015, that is, before the start of the second Synod on marriage and family.” The inclusion of “gradualism” on the list is a matter of concern, given that it was a term used at the Synod on the Family to allow the gradual process of admitting people in irregular situations to Communion. In his Christmas address, he says that reforms can be approved as an experiment, but does not indicate what type of reform he has in mind. “Gradualism has to do with the necessary discernment entailed by historical processes, the passage of time and stages of development, assessment, correction, experimentation, and approvals ad experimentum. In these cases, it is not a matter of indecision, but of the flexibility needed to be able to achieve a true reform."
From Letters on the Article: Maggie Sullivan Key word being "my" reforms........ I did notice that in "my" reforms Francis never seems to mention Jesus, Mary, the Angels, the Saints, prayer, love for God, truth, goodness, doing good and avoiding evil....he sounds like a progressive university professor trying to purge his department of all tradition and any trace of western civilization while giving his students the usual socialist party line.
Steve Jalsevac The frequency with which he has done such condemning and trashing of the character and motivations of faithful Catholics is astounding and would fill many pages. He has proven to be a very angry pope who does not tolerate anyone interfering with his personal plans to dramatically reform the Church and greatly lessen the authoritative role of the papacy, while contrarily using that authority with greater force than any pope in recent memory.
--Previous Message-- : Methinks the Pope could have chosen his : advisors more circumspectly, Peter, not to : put too fine a point on it. : : And the final sentence in your paragraph : about Magister’s findings is quite chilling : – was the time and expenses of all those : bishops at the two Synods simply wasted in : such a cavalier manner? Were the acceptable : conclusions of the Synods actually : formulated before the Synods were held? I : sincerely hope he is not right. : : : :
Re: What is truth?
Posted by John on December 23, 2016, 12:15 pm, in reply to "Re: What is truth?"
So much for my hopes!
Maggie Sulivan's comments are very telling. Not to mention depressingly apposite and cogent.
--Previous Message-- : : https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-malicious-resistance-to-my-reforms-that-takes-refuge-in-traditions-is : Pope: ‘Malicious resistance’ to my reforms : that ‘takes refuge in traditions’ is from : the devil : Jan Bentz and Patrick B. Craine : Excerpt: : ROME, December 22, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – : Today, during his annual Christmas address : to the Vatican’s top officials, Pope Francis : laid out his vision for his ongoing reform : of Vatican structures, while also mounting a : brief but pointed critique of unnamed : individuals who are “resisting” the reform. : : This is consistent with declarations by Fr. : Claude Barthe to Corrispondenza Romana : earlier this month. [May, 2016]. The French : theologian, who has many connections in the : Vatican, noted in his interview that Amoris : Laetitia clearly intends to introduce a new : element in Church teaching, and that “the : text of the post-synod exhortation was : broadly elaborated in September 2015, that : is, before the start of the second Synod on : marriage and family.” : The inclusion of “gradualism” on the list is : a matter of concern, given that it was a : term used at the Synod on the Family to : allow the gradual process of admitting : people in irregular situations to Communion. : In his Christmas address, he says that : reforms can be approved as an experiment, : but does not indicate what type of reform he : has in mind. “Gradualism has to do with the : necessary discernment entailed by historical : processes, the passage of time and stages of : development, assessment, correction, : experimentation, and approvals ad : experimentum . In these cases, it is not a : matter of indecision, but of the flexibility : needed to be able to achieve a true : reform." : : From Letters on the Article: : Maggie Sullivan : Key word being "my" : reforms........ : I did notice that in "my" reforms : Francis never seems to mention Jesus, Mary, : the Angels, the Saints, prayer, love for : God, truth, goodness, doing good and : avoiding evil....he sounds like a : progressive university professor trying to : purge his department of all tradition and : any trace of western civilization while : giving his students the usual socialist : party line. : : Steve Jalsevac : The frequency with which he has done such : condemning and trashing of the character and : motivations of faithful Catholics is : astounding and would fill many pages. He has : proven to be a very angry pope who does not : tolerate anyone interfering with his : personal plans to dramatically reform the : Church and greatly lessen the authoritative : role of the papacy, while contrarily using : that authority with greater force than any : pope in recent memory. : : : --Previous Message-- : Methinks the Pope could have chosen his : advisors more circumspectly, Peter, not to : put too fine a point on it. : : And the final sentence in your paragraph : about Magister’s findings is quite chilling : – was the time and expenses of all those : bishops at the two Synods simply wasted in : such a cavalier manner? Were the acceptable : conclusions of the Synods actually : formulated before the Synods were held? I : sincerely hope he is not right. : : : : : :
Re: What is truth?
Posted by PDH on December 23, 2016, 2:01 pm, in reply to "Re: What is truth?"
Thus are the prevarications of this Pope revealed for what they are.
--Previous Message-- : So much for my hopes! : : Maggie Sulivan's comments are very telling. : Not to mention depressingly apposite and : cogent. : : : : --Previous Message-- : : : https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-malicious-resistance-to-my-reforms-that-takes-refuge-in-traditions-is : Pope: ‘Malicious resistance’ to my reforms : that ‘takes refuge in traditions’ is from : the devil : Jan Bentz and Patrick B. Craine : Excerpt: : ROME, December 22, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – : Today, during his annual Christmas address : to the Vatican’s top officials, Pope Francis : laid out his vision for his ongoing reform : of Vatican structures, while also mounting a : brief but pointed critique of unnamed : individuals who are “resisting” the reform. : : This is consistent with declarations by Fr. : Claude Barthe to Corrispondenza Romana : earlier this month. [May, 2016]. The French : theologian, who has many connections in the : Vatican, noted in his interview that Amoris : Laetitia clearly intends to introduce a new : element in Church teaching, and that “the : text of the post-synod exhortation was : broadly elaborated in September 2015, that : is, before the start of the second Synod on : marriage and family.” : The inclusion of “gradualism” on the list is : a matter of concern, given that it was a : term used at the Synod on the Family to : allow the gradual process of admitting : people in irregular situations to Communion. : In his Christmas address, he says that : reforms can be approved as an experiment, : but does not indicate what type of reform he : has in mind. “Gradualism has to do with the : necessary discernment entailed by historical : processes, the passage of time and stages of : development, assessment, correction, : experimentation, and approvals ad : experimentum . In these cases, it is not a : matter of indecision, but of the flexibility : needed to be able to achieve a true : reform." : : From Letters on the Article: : Maggie Sullivan : Key word being "my" : reforms........ : I did notice that in "my" reforms : Francis never seems to mention Jesus, Mary, : the Angels, the Saints, prayer, love for : God, truth, goodness, doing good and : avoiding evil....he sounds like a : progressive university professor trying to : purge his department of all tradition and : any trace of western civilization while : giving his students the usual socialist : party line. : : Steve Jalsevac : The frequency with which he has done such : condemning and trashing of the character and : motivations of faithful Catholics is : astounding and would fill many pages. He has : proven to be a very angry pope who does not : tolerate anyone interfering with his : personal plans to dramatically reform the : Church and greatly lessen the authoritative : role of the papacy, while contrarily using : that authority with greater force than any : pope in recent memory. : : : --Previous Message-- : Methinks the Pope could have chosen his : advisors more circumspectly, Peter, not to : put too fine a point on it. : : And the final sentence in your paragraph : about Magister’s findings is quite chilling : – was the time and expenses of all those : bishops at the two Synods simply wasted in : such a cavalier manner? Were the acceptable : conclusions of the Synods actually : formulated before the Synods were held? I : sincerely hope he is not right. : : : : : : : :
Surely it is true in reverse, John? If the numbers are 'encouraging' for the point of view you have sympathies with, is it not more so for those who have a different opinion?
Again, using the same logic, isn't it reasonable to assume that the vast majority of bishops and Cardinals do not share the view that there is 'confusion' or a lack of 'calm'.
I don't think it is bad for the Cardinals to question things. As you say, it is their duty if they feel there is an issue. But it seems that they haven't established their case and, if there were doubts, Cardinal Müller's words reassure the faithful.
Ich wünsche Ihnen ein glückliches und heiliges Weihnachten
It probably is true in reverse, Hans; those of your point of view might well be encouraged that there are others who share that view, but that is not the point you were making. You were assuming that your side must be in the right because of superior numbers. I have twice now pointed out that the truth is the truth no matter how few its followers, and error is error no matter how great a multitude support it. Rectitude in the matter lies not with the numbers, but with the long-standing truths of the Faith. You claimed that my assertion of a spreading of the number of bishops supporting the four Cardinals indicated that I thought the number of votes was coming my way, when all I was saying is that it is a pleasure to see that others are on the right path; I’m pleased for their sake, not because I feel more justified in my position.
In regard to your assertion that it is “reasonable to assume that the vast majority of bishops and Cardinals do not share the view that there is 'confusion' or a lack of 'calm'”, you’re probably right, unfortunately. Either that, or they are too lazy to find out what their parishioners think, or they are too gutless to do their jobs. I find it hard to believe that they do not see that the loose wording of the Pope’s document is a cause of confusion and distress to their people – those who really care about the Faith, that is; they are better educated in the Faith than the people, and should be able to discern more easily the ambiguity in the Pope’s words than the laity, and realise that many of the laity are capable of detecting the discrepancies between the document and their previous understanding of the Faith.
The Cardinals haven’t established their case?????????? Have you actually read their submission to the Pope? You should do so before making such statement, or any assertions about the matter.
As for Cardinal Müller, when he wrote the following passage, he passed out of the solution set into the problem set:
December 1, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – The Church’s highest authority on doctrinal matters besides the pope, Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller, says his Congregation will not answer the four Cardinals who have formulated their doubts (dubia) regarding Amoris Laetitia until further notice.
The Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith explained in an interview with Kathpress on Thursday that his congregation “acts and speaks” with the authority of the Pope and cannot take part “in a difference of opinion.”
The Prefect sees the danger of a “polarization” between camps in the Church. Müller explains that the letter with the five dubia had been written to the Pope directly – before its publication – and Pope Francis could still give the CDF the commission to resolve the tension. The CDF is in charge of all matters regarding the faith in the Catholic Church and is highest authority therein.
“At the moment it is important for each one of us to stay focused and objective and not to be driven into polemics, much less create them,” Müller goes on. Regarding the passages of Amoris Laetitia that created confusion he does not comment. Instead he points out that documents cannot be interpreted in a way that refutes previous teachings of the Popes or of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith.
”cannot be interpreted”? Blind Freddy knows that such interpretations were springing up all over the world.
Many thanks for your Christmas wishes.
--Previous Message-- : Surely it is true in reverse, John? If the : numbers are 'encouraging' for the point of : view you have sympathies with, is it not : more so for those who have a different : opinion? : : Again, using the same logic, isn't it : reasonable to assume that the vast majority : of bishops and Cardinals do not share the : view that there is 'confusion' or a lack of : 'calm'. : : I don't think it is bad for the Cardinals to : question things. As you say, it is their : duty if they feel there is an issue. But it : seems that they haven't established their : case and, if there were doubts, Cardinal : Müller's words reassure the faithful. : : Ich wünsche Ihnen ein glückliches und : heiliges Weihnachten :