Monarchy Forum
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 12 of 14     «   Prev   9   10   11   12   13   14   Next
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,040
Reply with quote  #166 
Your point is obviously fallacious. The alleged fact the Church has sometimes been free with annulments clearly doesn't mean that divorce and remarriage is not forbidden according to Catholic doctrine, and it is doctrine and the proclamation of doctrine in question not whether Catholics or even bishops and Popes have always lived up to it. An annulment is not a divorce and what is in question is not whether annulments are permitted but divorces. You will have a lot of work to do to present your point in a non-fallacious way.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,743
Reply with quote  #167 
An annulment is a divorce in all but name. Oh, there are rare cases where there are genuine grounds for ruling that no valid marriage occurred, but generally speaking annulment is used as a face-saving device to allow people who no longer wish to be married to each other, or who would prefer to be married to someone else, to do exactly that and remain in the Church. There is nothing fallacious in saying this, it is backed up by the facts in the vast majority of examples. And is entirely consonant with Catholic practice in other areas. Doctrine can never change, so when we change it we'll say it unfolded. Only God may be worshipped, so when we worship the many Marys and the saints we'll call it veneration. And so on.

Now it may well be that if all this hypocrisy were to be put aside the entire edifice of the Church's authority would begin to crumble, and that the answer to how to keep divorced and remarried people in the Church is to cease all efforts to tighten up on annulments and return to the days when they were sprinkled around like, er, confetti. Any suggestion though of actually acknowledging the facts and allowing Communion to divorced and remarried Catholics is incompatible with doctrine in name, which matters, as well as in fact, which doesn't. Getting back to easy annulments won't fool anyone, but it will keep up the façade while minimising the problem. Obviously, senior figures in the Church cannot publicly discourse in those terms. They would however be well advised to do so privately, and forbear fulminations about heresy and schism. Or leaking ships, which is where we started.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,040
Reply with quote  #168 
You are running together different issues. If the point is the Church has sometimes given out annulments too freely, then that doesn't affect the doctrine in question, any more than the fact a few Popes had children affect the prohibition on fornication. It is obviously fallacious to argue otherwise. There is actually nothing contradictory in maintaining saints can be venerated but not worshipped, or you haven't shown there is. There is in practise a difference between making explicit what was implicit in a doctrine and just overturning that doctrine. Or, again, you will actually have to show the Roman Church does overturn its settled doctrines. Of course, you are also now just attacking the whole Catholic understanding of the Church and magisterium, which is a whole different discussion - your arguments are irrelevant to those holding the Catholic understanding of their Church, an understanding which was tacit in our discussion. I would think Francis and his allies would not say they had a different understanding of the Church's magisterium to their critics.

If the point is Catholic doctrines on annulment and divorce contradict each other, so divorce is banned but some of the permissible circumstances in which annulments are granted (ie., not those in which the actual teaching on annulments says they shouldn't be given) meet the Church's criteria for divorce, then this must be shown in detail. You would have thought theologians and canon lawyers will have noticed.

If the point is that your understanding of the term divorce fits some instances of permissible annulments, though the Church's understanding of divorce doesn't, then this irrelevant. We are discussing whether the Church can change doctrine.

And in the end that is the main point. The entire Catholic understanding of the magisterium is the Church overturn settled doctrine. There's nothing you have brought up that remotely calls that into question or justifies Francis's actions.

Dr. Feser has a good post on papal infallibility, which touches on important aspects of the Catholic understanding of doctrine.

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com.au/2015/11/papal-fallibility.html?m=1
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,743
Reply with quote  #169 
The answer to the last sentence of your third paragraph is that the Church can change doctrine and has done so on a number of occasions. Nevertheless, the second sentence of your fourth paragraph, 'The entire Catholic understanding of the magisterium is the Church [cannot] overturn settled doctrine', is with my amendment correct, so long as you specify which magisterium you have in mind. The reconciliation of these apparently incompatible statements is that while the Church can add to doctrine, which is after all a change, it cannot go back on doctrine previously announced.

Like most inflexible positions, this can sometimes cause problems. In the specific case, the problem is that divorce and remarriage are now a normal part of society, regrettable as the fact may be, and to maintain an unyielding stance against them not merely risks but guarantees a continual diminution in congregations, to the loss of the Church's power, prestige and, not unimportantly, exchequer. But it has no choice about maintaining that stance. Easy annulments are the answer to the conundrum, ceasing to regard people who divorce and remarry as adulterers and therefore barring them from the sacraments is not. To that extent the Pope's critics are right. They should however descend from their moral high horse before launching their attacks. But anyway my original point was and remains that whatever others do, Pope Benedict in his unique position ought to have remained silent.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,040
Reply with quote  #170 
I was simply speaking loosely when I said doctrine cannot be changed, as should be clear from the context. I meant by change overturning what is now settled, not drawing out what might be implicit in it or making clear what is not yet clear or settled. My basic point is Francis and his allies seem to have created a situation in which heretical interpretations are given succour, ones that threaten the whole edifice of the Church. This seems a serious enough situation that a gentle intervention from Benedict is fine. The Roman Church has its moral teachings, and it doesn't necessarily think these must change to match worldly opinion. Unless one thinks that, it is hard to see either why there must be easy annulments or why conservative Catholics should hold to their moral positions (horses and all). It is surely a basic Christian view that sometimes we should stand against the world for what is right, even if we suffer for it. It isn't even as if liberal churches have fared better than traditionalist ones when it comes to maintaining congregation numbers, quite the reverse.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,040
Reply with quote  #171 
Cardinal Burke believes a formal correction of Pope Francis is now necessary.

http://m.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/cardinal-burke-outlines-formal-correction-of-pope-francis-teaching#.WaD4TDOuYwg
Ethiomonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 5,103
Reply with quote  #172 
Oh never mind about correcting the Pope, or demanding an answer from him etc.  Pope Francis is in for a real treat!  A rapper nun will entertain his Holiness when he visits Colombia in the coming days. [rolleyes]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/straight-outta-colombia-nun-rap-095220498.html

__________________
The Lion of Judah hath prevailed.

Ethiopia stretches her hands unto God (Quote from Psalm 68 which served as the Imperial Motto of the Ethiopian Empire)

"God and history shall remember your judgment." (Quote from Emperor Haile Selassie I's speech to the League of Nations to plead for assistance against the Italian Invasion, 1936.)
jovan66102

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,539
Reply with quote  #173 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
Cardinal Burke believes a formal correction of Pope Francis is now necessary. http://m.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/cardinal-burke-outlines-formal-correction-of-pope-francis-teaching#.WaD4TDOuYwg


His Eminence and another Eminent Lord Cardinal have stated that they will issue a 'correction'. In the meantime,Humble Frank has been called out by 62 theologians and scholars.

Lifesite News.

THe signatories of the Correctio Filialis.

__________________
'Monarchy can easily be ‘debunked;' but watch the faces, mark the accents of the debunkers. These are the men whose tap-root in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach - men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire equality, they cannot reach it. Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.' C.S. Lewis God save Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, etc.! Vive le Très haut, très puissant et très excellent Prince, Louis XX, Par la grâce de Dieu, Roi de France et de Navarre, Roi Très-chrétien!
Ethiomonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 5,103
Reply with quote  #174 
Somehow I don't think this will faze him.  I once gave him the benefit of the doubt, but I think Pope Francis is the least humble man to sit on Peter's Chair since Pius XII.  Pius XIII (of HBO's "The Young Pope") is more humble. Just because he refuses to live in the Apostolic Palace and wears a simpler pectoral cross than previous popes does not make him humble.  He is far more autocratic than a great many of his predecessors.  I just wish he'd own up to it.
__________________
The Lion of Judah hath prevailed.

Ethiopia stretches her hands unto God (Quote from Psalm 68 which served as the Imperial Motto of the Ethiopian Empire)

"God and history shall remember your judgment." (Quote from Emperor Haile Selassie I's speech to the League of Nations to plead for assistance against the Italian Invasion, 1936.)
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,793
Reply with quote  #175 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethiomonarchist
I once gave him the benefit of the doubt, but I think Pope Francis is the least humble man to sit on Peter's Chair since Pius XII.  

 

I can't think of ANY pope as arrogant as this one!

 

Quote:
Pius XIII (of HBO's "The Young Pope") is more humble. Just because he refuses to live in the Apostolic Palace and wears a simpler pectoral cross than previous popes does not make him humble.  He is far more autocratic than a great many of his predecessors.  I just wish he'd own up to it.

 

Hear, hear! I wish more people (outside of traditionalist circles) could see this.

royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,793
Reply with quote  #176 
This article is more than two years old but is more relevant than ever:

http://trcthoughts.com/2015/01/a-verbally-and-mentally-abusive-father/
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,743
Reply with quote  #177 
I suppose it's time I piped up again on this thread, lest I surrender my position through default. I too wish Pope Francis would be more openly autocratic. Starting by severely disciplining the insolent clerics led by Cardinal Burke.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,040
Reply with quote  #178 
But you seem to be talking from a position totally outside Catholic orthodoxy. I too am not a Roman Catholic. I lean to Orthodoxy, and would half like the Roman Church (and the Anglican) to say they were wrong on the doctrinal and ecclesiological issues dividing them from Constantinople. But I don't see the point in bringing such a perspective into discussing intra-Catholic debates.

I don't see how Cardinal Burke has been insolent. He seems to have been very patient whilst Francisco has allowed chaos and confusion to reign in the Church. To quote Pope Benedict XVI:

Quote:
The power of teaching in the Church involves a commitment to the service of obedience to the faith. The Pope is not an absolute monarch whose thoughts and desires are law. On the contrary: the Pope's ministry is a guarantee of obedience to Christ and to his Word. He must not proclaim his own ideas, but rather constantly bind himself and the Church to obedience to God's Word, in the face of every attempt to adapt it or water it down, and every form of opportunism...

...The Pope knows that in his important decisions, he is bound to the great community of faith of all times, to the binding interpretations that have developed throughout the Church's pilgrimage. Thus, his power is not being above, but at the service of, the Word of God. It is incumbent upon him to ensure that this Word continues to be present in its greatness and to resound in its purity, so that it is not torn to pieces by continuous changes in usage.


Now, ignoring his unfortunate equation of absolute and autocratic monarchy, part of his point is that the Pope is not there to overturn settled Church teaching. There is no way for a Catholic understanding of the Pope's role to think Francis capable of making the Church conform to social liberal teaching on matters like divorce or sexuality. The non-Catholic left-liberal might retort, so much the worse for the Church and its teaching, but no orthodox Catholic can say that. Burke's insolence, or lack thereof, should be judged in Catholic terms. Otherwise, what is the point in getting involved intra-Catholic debates?

(Anyone else reading that quotation really miss Benedict as Pope?)
Queenslander

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 609
Reply with quote  #179 
I sort of do as I miss a leader with his level of scholarship and attention to the detail of words, that most seem to lack today.
__________________
Yours Sincerely Queenslander
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,743
Reply with quote  #180 
Last page and this one considered together, 24 posts by non-Catholics, four by a Catholic. There were four of the non-Catholics, of whom three disapprove of Pope Francis. It goes without saying that so does the Catholic. So it's a bit late to be complaining about non-Catholics intervening in an intra-Catholic dispute.

Anyway, it isn't just that. If the Catholic Church were just one of the small and infinitely fissiparous Protestant or (in view of their sometimes considerable heterodoxy compared to the mainstream) Protestant-derived sects that David sometimes writes about, there would be no particular reason for any outsider to take the remotest interest in their internal convulsions. But Catholicism compared to these is a skyscraper compared to a pimple, and its actions and attitudes have considerable effect in the wider world.

To me, Pope Francis is trying to make a difference, and a good difference. I correspondingly support him and oppose his antagonists in their attempt to reassert the old moral certitudes which have caused and are causing such harm. And Cardinal Burke hasn't been patient, he's been mischievous and arrogant.

Do I miss Benedict? Nah. Wouldn't much miss Burke either, not that I wish him personal harm. Perhaps the latter might try the thought sometime, if he lives longer yet, that the Pope is not necessarily right only when he says exactly what has always been said.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.