Posted on 12/05/2016 8:21:23 AM PST by Petrosius
Cardinals Brandmüller, Burke, Caffarra and Meiser have performed a signal service to the Church by sending five dubia on the apostolic exhortation Amoris laetitia to the Holy See, requesting an authoritative clarification of the meaning of that document, and then making public the text of the dubia when no response to them was given. Cardinal Burke has performed a further service to the Church by explaining this initiative in an interview with Edward Pentin of the National Catholic Register on Nov. 15th 2016, and stating that if no response was given to the dubia the cardinals would have to make a formal act of correction of a serious error.
As is proper, the dubia were formulated in a manner appropriate to an official request of this kind, and the formal act of correction to which Cardinal Burke refers is an act with a legal character. Catholics may find it helpful to be given a presentation of the canonical, historical and theological background to the dubia and the suggested act of correction, and to the situation that has led to the action of the Cardinals. This background is no doubt well known to the four Cardinals, but it is less accessible to those who lack their specialised knowledge. This article is intended to help with the comprehension and appreciation of their initiative.
(Excerpt) Read more at rorate-caeli.blogspot.com ...
I think I will wait until I see that this formal act of correction takes place.
I wanted to move the article to Word so I could adjust the font to a more legible size. Right clicking did not produce a menu, and control-C failed to copy text to the clipboard.
I hope that’s a malfunction on my end.
Flushing out the heresy! (or at least beginning the process)
Amoris Laetitia Paragraph 303 “...It (conscience) can ... recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s owns limits, while not yet fully the objective ideal...”
“...let us recall that discernment is dynamic; it must remain ever open to new stages of growth...”
Sooo - truth evolves? I don’t think so - wasn’t Teilhard de Chardin’s teaching condemned for this type of thinking?
Objective Truth is not determined by our individual consciences. This Pope thinks that we can now ignore doctrine and scripture when we feel like it due to our “conscience”. Really Francis??? This is relativistic gobbedly gook and it needs to be stopped.
Thank you Cardinals Burke, et al.
JP II proved that Truth is not relative in Verititas Splendor. He reminded us that the Church’s eternal and settled teaching does not allow for conscience to be authorized to create “legitimate” exceptions to absolute moral norms (i.e., the ten commandments, Luke 16-18 etc.). JP II was reiterating the magisterium’s unchanged position stating that truth is not relative. Francis is a typical weasely double speak leftie.
If past popes have upheld Catholic Doctrine on divorce and receiving Holy Communion, how can a current Pope nullify their Declarations at all. The Popes are suppose to be infallible when speaking on Religious Matters? Can Pope Francis declare that all past Popes and their rulings are null and void? I think not, without creating a Schism in the present Catholic Church now?
My belief is that Francis is a public heretic, not Catholic and therefore can not possibly be the visible head of the Catholic Church, a true pope.
“...Can Pope Francis declare that all past Popes and their rulings are null and void?...”
See my final paragraph concerning JPII in my post #4 which is basically bringing up your same point.
Short answer - a Pope can’t! This Pope is teaching heresy and these Cardinals are calling him out on it!! Deo gratias.
The term “conscience” has been misleading people for centuries, and should be banned. It is nothing but another name for the intellect. The intellect can no more create its own truth in morals than it can in chemistry, astronomy, or mathematics. It can only make judgments—correct or erroneous.
“...”conscience”... nothing but another name for the intellect ... can only make judgements - correct or erroneous...”
Yes! Thanks for clarifying this term “conscience”. After all, scientia means knowledge in Latin, and con is with - the roots of the word conscience certainly don’t imply the creation of “its own truth in morals” as you so aptly state.
oops judgments not judgements - typo!
And let’s not forget the two words that belong in front of conscience: “properly formed.”
It is ridiculous even to suggest that Frankie the Commie has a properly formed conscience.
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.