Cardinal Burke Had Grave Reservations on the Same Annulment Proposals Pope Francis Just Enshrined

Life Site News ^ | 8/9/15 | John Henry Westen

[marshmallow]

STEUBENVILLE, Ohio, September 9, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- Speaking yesterday at Franciscan University of Steubenville, Cardinal Raymond Burke expressed grave reservations about the very proposals that were released the same day in Pope Francis’ Motu Proprio concerning annulments in the Catholic Church.

Burke was addressing those proposals as outlined in the reports from the 2014 Extraordinary Synod on the Family which took place last October, and not the Motu Proprio, since his prepared remarks predated yesterday’s release of the Motu Proprio. The crowd was directed to refrain from asking questions on the Motu proprio as the cardinal had not had time to review it sufficiently.

The most startling changes in the annulment procedure were to drastically lessen the time for acquiring an annulment to as little as 45 days. Moreover, the Motu Proprio eliminated the need for a second confirming judgment and left to the local bishop rather than canonical judges, the decision on annulments. Speaking of similar proposals as part of the Synod documentation and not as part of the Motu Proprio, Burke noted that the canonical procedures had been developed over centuries to give certainty of arriving at the truth.

He stressed the importance of determining the truth on the matter, noting that it deals with the “salvation of souls.”

Burke noted that similar proposals to alter the process along the lines that were suggested at the Synod (and now implemented in the Motu Proprio) were also proposed before the 1983 reformation of canon law and were rejected by Pope St. John Paul II. Moreover Burke noted that the Vatican already attempted a lessening of the procedures for the United States in the 70s and early 80s, leading to an impression of “Catholic divorce.”

Burke firmly rejected the notion that people could be too weak to conform to God’s......

[5thGenTexan]

In all of these passages, by the way ,apolýō does mean divorce. In the case where Jesus says "unless the marriage is unlawful" technically there cannot be a divorce because there was not a lawful marriage.

But the passage we are discussing says "divorce" not "the marriage is unlawful". The KJV and the Greek translation reference agree. Are you contending the KJV is flawed?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Yes.

The Greek text, in the so-called "exception clause," does not say adultery ("moicheia"),it says unlawful union (”porneia”). Look it up in an interlinear Greek-English format and see for yourself.

[5thGenTexan]

Where else do you believe the KJV Bible is mis-translated?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Can’t think of anything right now.

[Kolokotronis]

The “grave reservations” of a miserable heretic like Burke don’t amount to a tinker’s dam!

The Latin Church rightwing in America might soon find itself as the founding core of the “One, Honest to Goodness, Really, Really. Really True, We Mean It, Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, Roman Catholic Church”. We have our own versions under heretical “bishops” just like the heresiarch Burke.

It bears remembering that the weed of heresy always bears bitter fruit.