(NOT the head of the body of Christ)
...ya think?
Posted on 12/24/2016 4:54:46 AM PST by Petrosius
One of the top bishops in the Catholic Church, American Cardinal Raymond Burke, said there is "a very serious division in the Church which has to be mended" or it "could develop into a formal schism."
Cardinal Burke, the former head of the highest court at the Vatican, made his remarks in reference to the ongoing public debate over Pope Francis' letter on the family, Amoris Laetitia (The Joy of Love). In the letter, it is unclear whether the Pope is saying it is okay for divorced and civilly remarried Catholics -- who are objectively living in adultery, a serious sin -- may receive Holy Communion at Mass.
Cardinal Burke, four other cardinals, and 23 Catholic scholars and priests have publicly called upon the Pope to answer this question clearly -- yes or no -- and four related questions. So far, the Pope has not responded.
In a Dec. 19 interview with the Catholic World Report (CWR), Cardinal Burke was asked, "Bishop Athanasius Schneider, O.R.C., the Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana, Kazakhstan and titular bishop of Celerina, who has written an open letter of support for the four cardinals and their dubia, has also said that the Church is in a de facto schism. Do you agree with that?"
Cardinal Burke replied, "There is a very serious division in the Church which has to be mended because it has to do with, as I said before, fundamental dogmatic and moral teaching. And if it's not clarified soon, it could develop into a formal schism."
Later in the interview, Cardinal Burke made it abundantly clear that he is not an enemy of Pope Francis and he does not believe that Pope Francis is teaching heresy with the disputed section in Amoris Laetitia. "I am not saying that Pope Francis is in heresy," said Burke. "I have never said that. Neither have I stated that he is close to being in heresy."
"I am a Cardinal of the Church, and one of the Pope’s principal co-workers," said Burke. "I have absolute respect for the Petrine office. If I didn’t care about him and his exercise of the Petrine office, I would just remain silent and let everything go as it is."
"But because in conscience I believe he has an obligation to clarify these matters for the Church, I made it known to him, not just on this occasion, but on other occasions," said Burke. "The publication of the dubia [questions about Amoris Laetitia] was done with complete respect for his office. I am not the enemy of the Pope."
It is within Church teaching and tradition, when there is confusion over a moral or ecclesial matter, for bishops and the laity to ask the Pope for clarification. It is also normal and expected that the Pope respond, to end all confusion or scandal and unify the Church, the mystical body of Christ.
"We have simply asked him, as the Supreme Pastor of the Church, to clarify these five points that are confused" in Amoris Laetitia, said Burke. "[T]he faithful and priests and bishops have the right to have these questions answered."
CWR also asked if a Pope could be "declared in schism or heresy"? Cardinal Burke said, "If a Pope would formally profess heresy he would cease, by that act, to be the Pope. It’s automatic. And so, that could happen."
If that were to happen, members of the College of Cardinals in the Church would have to declare that the Pope is in heresy, explained Burke. At that point, the papacy would be vacant and the cardinals would elect a new Pope.
On another thread as well. I am curious why folks are fighting so hard when the Pope is trying to extend forgiveness, restoration for remarried couples and return them to the sacrament of Holy communion. Isn't this what God had intended? Did He or did He not give the “first pope...Peter” the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven to bind or loose people from the bondage of sin? If Francis, the Pope chose to allow remarried folks to return to the sacrament of the Eucharist...wouldn't this be a good thing? Isn't this what the cross was all about? Releasing people from their sins and providing a new start to serve the Lord?
...ya think?
You’re joking, right?
There has been serious division since Vatican II. This latest heresy is just the further fracturing that began at Vatican II whereby the First Commandment was thrown out the window when John XXIII threw open the windows of the Church to the modern world.
Nope...not even one lil bit.
the anything goes Catholic Church.
The Church must be honest with itself.
It cannot condemn remarried Catholics when it is giving a pass (annulments) to the rich and powerful, like the Kennedys.
Annulments are given out like candy....so in effect, giving communion to the divorced and remarried has been going on for much longer than Francis-days. In 1968 in the US, 338 annulments were granted. Now we have 50,000 + per year.
I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.
The true life of a Christian is to present ourselves in Living Sacrifice. Living in persistent failure of this is an abomination; closing our hearts to the Holy Spirit within, my opinion, a form of Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit
“That Which God has Bound Together, left no man tear asunder” are not just pretty words. They are permanent.
well said.
at the heart of this is an important and fascinating dispute on wether there are moral absolutes, or wether its all relative.
in other words, my translation, you can have a bad thing done by a person, but its ok as long as their intention was good. kind of like "behavior contracts" for adults.
i saw that corrosive concept at work in the public schools here, right before we took our kids out and sent them to the local catholic school....
Then you need to increase your knowledge in a way that cannot be done by reading a few posts here.
I suggest the Bible, King James Version, as it it the standard. Newer ‘translations’ are watered down to the point where the message is ambiguous in many cases.
Get yourself a Catechism of the Catholic Church. Read it.
Examine what the pre-Vatican II Church was and how it operated.
Do that and you will have no question as to what is going on in today’s Catholic Church.
Merry Christmas.
“...dispute .. whether there are moral absolutes ... or whether it’s all relative...”
This is the root of the problem. You nailed the genesis of the issue. JP II settled this in Veritatas Splendor and reiterated the eternal teaching of the Church that objective revealed Truth is NOT relative. (caps for emphasis - not directed towards poster)
Scripture tells us CLEARLY that “remarriage” is adultery (Luke 16:18) and then St. Paul informs us that we cannot take communion in the resulting state of sin (1 Corinthians 11:29)
The teaching is perfectly clear and Holy Mother Church in her wisdom has taught this from the beginning. Francis does not have the authority to teach against scripture or the consistent handed on teaching of the Church.
Therefore, this Pope is wrong!! the authority of scripture is absolute and not relative. The Church has always taught its doctrine based upon scripture and the oral (roughly a Talmud type pedagogical equivalent) tradition that correctly interprets scripture - the oral handed on teaching NEVER contradicts scripture. This man is trying to do the opposite. (caps now directed at Francis)
St. Thomas Aquinas ora pro nobis
Actually that is NOT what Jesus intended. He stated that those who divorce and remarry are guilty of adultery.
Flying Monkeys alert....
The prostitute could be a girlfriend from 30 years back, doesn't necessarily have to be a prostitute. This scripture explains that persons having sex outside of marriage are essentially married, having become one flesh with another during sex. Most folks in the church brush this off as fornication, not adultery. Take a look at the scripture verse once again. Joined as one flesh.
Question. How many guyz/gals in their youth slept with a boy/girlfriend in high school? Perhaps at some point in their young life. In another country during military service. Whatever the case, there are thousands of scenarios.
Scripture indicates that when two people sleep with one another regardless of an “official” marriage, they then become one flesh in God's eyes. At the moment of sexual relations, they're essentially married. Would you not agree?
Wonder how many fellers/gals sitting in the pews had engaged in premarital sex and brushed it off as youthful indiscretions? How many would stand in judgment of another for being a remarried person and not place themselves in that same scenario?
Bet’cha the pews are FULL of folks just as I described. Some not even realizing they are joined together with another as one flesh and one spirit. Perhaps this would in part explain the reason divorce rates are so high. They are actually married to someone else from years past, then being remarried in an official church wedding to the love of their lives...a few years later, it falls apart.
I submit to you and those reading this post, there are many who stand in judgment of others, when they too have offended in like manner.
All glory and praise
to the Lamb that was slain,
Who hath borne all our sins,
And hath cleansed every stain
Merry Christmas y'all.
Amen!
Re: I Cor. 6
“Scripture indicates that when two people sleep with one another regardless of an “official” marriage, they then become one flesh in God’s eyes. At the moment of sexual relations, they’re essentially married. Would you not agree?”
Too often, people take one Scriptural line out of context and get the teaching completely wrong. Take a look at what you’re referencing:
15. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a harlot? By no means! 16. Or do you not know that he that cleaves to a harlot, becomes one body with her? ...
No. In marriage, the two become one flesh IN SPIRIT (that’s souls, if you understand the concept). You may do whatever you please; convert harlot-prostitute into “old girlfriend” and call it marriage. Let that be your social doctrine; but don’t call it Scripture.
The problem is that these couples continue to commit adultery; they're in a continuing state of adultery, and therefore in mortal sin. Sin cannot be forgiven if the couple purposely continues to sin, only if they stop (i.e., separate or live as brother and sister). And by going to Communion in that continuing state of mortal sin, they are committing sacrilege, which is another mortal sin on top of the mortal sins they are already committing.
If one truly believes that Jesus is present in the Blessed Sacrament body, blood, soul, and divinity, they would never want a couple like that to receive Communion (see 1 Corinthians 11:27-29).
Money had nothing to do with the Kennedy annulments. There was no question that the Kennedy men never had any intention of remaining faithful to their wives, so the marriages weren't valid Sacraments from the beginning.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.