Posted on 02/10/2014 1:03:41 PM PST by BlatherNaut
American Cardinal Edwin F. O’Brien doesn’t know what will come out of the Synod on the Family set for October, but the former archbishop of Baltimore believes it will be significant.
“Hold onto your seats,” Cardinal O’Brien told a gathering of seminarians and faculty at St. Mary’s Seminary and University in Baltimore. “I think Pope Francis wants to stir things up and allow people to raise questions. I don’t think we’re going to see a change in doctrine, but we will see a change in tone, and we might see some disciplinary modifications.”
-snip-
The principal job of the council of cardinals, Cardinal O’Brien said, is to “completely rewrite the central administration of the Catholic Church.” The cardinal said the curia will somehow have to relate to the new council of cardinals.
“I think a year from now, we’ll hardly know what the structure was, there will be so many different things that will have taken place,” Cardinal O’Brien said. “Maybe the heads of some conferences of bishops will be involved. I don’t know. But we will know by the end of February because the group of eight will meet again and come up with formal recommendations.”
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicherald.co.uk ...
“I don’t think he’ll change doctrine”?
LOL
Correct title: American Cardinal says Pope wants to ‘stir things up,’ ahead of October synod
He wants to further empower some who aren’t exactly known as bastions of orthodoxy.
“...In a paragraph of his exhortation, Pope Francis spoke of the need for a “conversion of the papacy” and the way in which papal primacy is exercised. In particular, he said there was a need to better elaborate “a juridical status of episcopal conferences which would see them as subjects of specific attributions, including genuine doctrinal authority.”
“Excessive centralization, rather than proving helpful, complicates the Church’s life and her missionary outreach,” he added.
However, bishops conferences have often been criticized for harboring dissidents or being used to try to silence strong episcopal voices in the name of ‘collegiality,’ and producing statements that are vague, confusing, or even misleading...”
If he really wants to stir up the pot, raise the question of why mandatory priestly celibacy is something which should remain in force. There is certainly nothing in the Bible which requires mandatory celibacy as a condition for serving in the priesthood. And, further, mandatory priestly celibacy was not implemented until the Middle Ages, largely to combat nepotism and corruptionin the Church. Surely, this a policy which could and should be reviewed.
Gads, we have our very own Obama in the papacy. What’s with this unilateral “the Pope wants to do blah-blah-blah...”? It’s not his church.
The thing that is peculiar about Francis is that for a “humble” person, he’s about the most non-collegial and independent-operator pope we’ve had in many a long year. This isn’t necessarily bad, and I like him in some ways, but for Pete’s sake...O’Malley “doesn’t think he will change doctrine?” It’s not his to change.
Yes, and he seems to favor a diminuation of the expressions of Faith in deference to ecumenism. Have we ever had a Pope before who refrained from giving his Apostolic Blessing lest it offend someone?
"On the first full day of his papacy, the Holy Father raised a very large red flag during his audience with some 6,000 journalists and their families in Paul VI Hall, at the conclusion of which he deliberately chose to refrain from offering his Apostolic Blessing by making the sign of the Cross over the attendees while invoking the Blessed Trinity.
Why?
In the pope's own words, it was "out of respect for the consciences" of non-Catholics."
That phrase jumped out at me too. ???
but like people say..he is a pope...not Jesus....he has no more authority to change doctrine than I do...
he wants the Catholic church to accept anybody and everybody no matter the circumstances...homosexual...drugged...drunk...murderous...adulterous....you see, its much easier when nothing is considered sinful anymore....
this pope reminds me of bammey boy too.....just which way the wind blows....no hard fast rules and no pesky obscure commandments to deal with ...
The ABOLITION of bishops’ conferences would be a reform.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops was born as an effort to support U.S. entry into WWI. It supported the draft, in defiance of Pope Benedict XV. It campaigned for Obamacare—for ninety years. It produced the “Peace Pastoral” and the Economic Pastoral”—fortunately ignored by Ronald Reagan. It promoted Bernardin’s “Seamless Garment,” the most valuable gift any Catholic ever gave the abortionists.
“If he really wants to stir up the pot, raise the question of why mandatory priestly celibacy is something which should remain in force.”
That would certainly have every Catholic who is pro-abortion, pro-priestess and pro-gay marriage jumping up and down with joy. Try to find just one Catholic who thinks all those other things are awesome that also thinks the discipline of celibacy is valuable and should be continued.
Freegards
Don't worry. He still doesn't want to accept "Biblical literalists."
Unlike Christ, Who's Word resides in scripture, not all Catholic doctrine relies on God's Word. As Pope within the 'rules' of the church, he could declare it 'ex cathedra'.
That dawned on me after the Brokeback Mountain flap.
" While the actions taken by Ennis and Jack cannot be endorsed, the universal themes of love and loss ring true," said the original USCCB's review, which also called the movie "a serious contemplation of loneliness and connection." "Looked at from the point of view of the need for love which everyone feels but few people can articulate, the plight of these guys is easy to understand while their way of dealing with it is likely to surprise and shock an audience," the original USCCB review said."
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/usccb_reclassifies_gay_western_brokeback_mountain_after_complaints/
But not ONLY in scripture.
By virtue of being the Word itself, Christ is everywhere. What is written is sufficient unto salvation.
John 20:31
31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
So if you are adding dogma, you are adding to scripture. The reference you provided referred to things Jesus did, not said.
That was my first indication that "Houston, we have a problem".
Yeah, what a clown. Lord help us and save us from such clerics.
So glad you answered because your answer was so much better than the one that came to my mind.
Ouch! Sorry to read that one.
May the Holy Spirit guide the Pope a little more aggressively.
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.