Kazakhstan Bishops Call Communion for Remarried “Alien to the Entire Tradition of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith”

Submitted by LocutusOP on Mon, 01/08/2018 - 21:41
Author: 

Amos , Tony Chow, Jafin, winslow, Asbury Fox, Patricia Gallagher, Sgt Pops                    

Date: 
Monday, January 8, 2018 - 21:30
Article link: 
Kazakhstan Bishops Call Communion for Remarried “Alien to the Entire Tradition of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith”

 

  • Amos

    I am not sure how quoting anything post-conciliar, especially Paul VI and John Paul the Small, is going to convince people like Francis. Either: 1. They don’t care or 2. They believe that men like JPII and Paul VI help to change doctrine, due to the times and circumstances. Hence, Francis thinks he is doing what his pseudo-holy predecessors have done.

    Considering this, even pre-conciliar references do not matter.

    Have they ever read the New Theologians? Both the more mild ones and then the hardcore ones? If Francis and others think like de Lubac, Balthasar, Congar, Rahner and other vile men, then the Kazakhstan bishops pointing out that the correct teaching has always been apart of Catholicism does not matter. They view Catholicism as changing, doctrine can change, meanings can change, everything can change.

    Consider their statement above:

    “The constant Magisterium of the Church, beginning with the teachings of the Apostles and of all the Supreme Pontiffs, has preserved and faithfully transmitted both in the doctrine (in theory) and in the sacramental discipline (in practice) in an unequivocal way, without any shadow of doubt and always in the same sense and in the same meaning (eodem sensu eademque sententia), the crystalline teaching of Christ concerning the indissolubility of marriage.”

    Francis and the gang laugh at this, because they do not think the above statement is true.
    Then the Kazakhstan bishops turn around and quote JPII and Paul VI, who represent for Francis, agents of change in *doctrine*

    Francis and his ilk ignore things like this because they think these men are 5th rate theologians and do not understand the complexity of modern man and the change of praxis. That is what they are thinking, they don’t care for “it’s always been taught!” because they have learned to hate that and disbelieve it, it makes their skin crawl. They are in control, they have the Papacy and media outlets, they care not to respond.

    • Tony Chow

      I disagree. I believe Pope Francis and his supporters are very sensitive in these matters. I think that the very use, and mention, of the term “authentic Magisterium” speaks to the fact that they themselves know that the teaching is not convincing.
      Now that there is a clear push back, the ball is back in their court.

    • Jafin

      It’s interesting to note that this is not a correction of Francis specifically, but rather the practice being spread. Hence, the target audience isn’t Francis and the academics. It’s the lay faithful, and the faithful clergy and prelates who, as of yet, haven’t known what to do. This gives all of us, laity and clergy alike, some authority to get behind.

    • winslow

      “…they don’t care for “it’s always been taught!” because they have learned to hate that and disbelieve it, it makes their skin crawl. They are in control, they have the Papacy and media outlets, they care not to respond.”

      They don’t care because they don’t believe in God. It’s no more complicated than that.

  • Asbury Fox

    This a great first step, but ultimately it falls short of the courage of using the H word. Yes it is alien to the Catholic faith, but is also a moral heresy. While saying alien is safe and charitable, what is being advocated is outright heresy. Heresy from the top of the Church hierarchy.

    • Patricia Gallagher

      I’m unclear about the mechanism for declaring any Catholic a “formal heretic,” but I don’t think that three bishops’ authority is sufficient. My understanding is that Pope Francis is merely espousing (pun intended) “material heresy,” since he has not declared “specifically and infallibly” that a false teaching is “true.” We faithful must continue to wait and pray.

      • Asbury Fox

        These three bishops don’t have the authority to put a Pope on trial for the crime of heresy, but they have responsibility to warn him that he may be teaching heresy and guilty of the sin of heresy. A public warning done for the sake of charity. How Pope Francis responds to charges of heresy from bishops and cardinals helps establish his pertinacity.

      • winslow

        The Pope can’t have it both ways. He has had AL published in the Acta and insists his word is Magisterial. He qualifies as a manifest heretic going and coming in ways past counting.

    • Jafin

      Strictly speaking, actually, this is NOT heresy. Heresy is a teaching contrary to the deposit of faith. What we have going on, in the strictest sense, is the implementation of a practice in contradiction of the deposit of faith, which is not, technically, a heresy. It is true that this practice has to have its source in some heresy or deficiency of faith, but that is not what these bishops are intending to deal with. They are condemning this particular practice. Since this is specifically what they are doing, I think it is very wise that they don’t use the word heresy.

      Consider this: if they use the word heresy, they will immediately be put into a box by the majority of Catholic media as “traditional reactionaries,” they will be accused of calling the pope a heretic, and all the wannabe theologians like Stephen Walford, and the crackpots like Austen Ivereigh, Michael Sean Winters, et al. will have a hay day. By staying away from that word and dealing strictly with the “concrete situation,” and using statements from both the pre- and postconciliar eras, and the problematic Council itself, to support the true position that the perennial teaching of the church does not allow this, thus calling it alien to the sacramental practice of the church, the papal positivists have a harder time with it. In addition, other prelates who have perhaps been personally on the fence or themselves have been confused can get in behind this.

      Strategically, this move is brilliant.

      • Sgt Pops

        I have no problem with the word alien. Specifically, in this sense it denotes the fact that these teachings referred to are foreign to and contrary to the absolute teachings of Jesus Christ and the Holy Catholic Church. If they had used the word heresy they would have been called on to specify the exact point of departure, provable beyond doubt. This would be a job for Cardinals, not Diocesan Bishops. The whole document is brilliant and inspired.

      • winslow

        I think there’s far too much hair splitting on this subject. As I said above, he and the hair splitters can’t have it both ways. He had AL published in the Acta and declares, from morning to night that his word is magisterial. He has declared the heresy of the Buenos Aires bishops to be the only correct interpretation of AL. If it walks like a duck, etc. Letting him off the hook by the excuse or fear is playing in to his hands.