Catholic bombshell?

[Skull]

The Pope was asked to clarify some of his recent teachings, yet he refused. So some Cardinals published their formal request for all to see.

Pope Francis declines to answer four cardinals’ Amoris appeal – CatholicHerald.co.uk

My question to any wise Catholic is, can the ex-Pope Benedict respond and give his answers without being asked?

 

[Eloy]

That the four cardinals are asking such questions publicly is a surprise and only goes to show how out-of-touch they are with ordinary people who have ignored Catholic moral teaching for decades. No one cares about what answers they get and if they are so ignorant of doctrine in the first place they ought to retire from active ministry. Once retired, a former pope should keep his trap shut.

 

[Skull]

I hoped for a response from a 'wise' Catholic.

 

[Eloy]

I hoped for a response from a 'wise' Catholic.

Like the four cardinals, you can keep waiting.

 

[Meriweather]

The Pope was asked to clarify some of his recent teachings, yet he refused. So some Cardinals published their formal request for all to see.

Pope Francis declines to answer four cardinals’ Amoris appeal – CatholicHerald.co.uk

My question to any wise Catholic is, can the ex-Pope Benedict respond and give his answers without being asked?

This can be compared to the US Supreme Court declining to hear a case--which means the original verdict stands.

In the same way, Pope Francis is telling the Cardinals that nothing has changed in Catholic teaching/doctrine.

 

[Penelope]

Yes can't imagine what they'd want him to say. We are all on the honor system. Also they are talking about annulment, without that they are considered committing an adultery. I doubt Pope Francis will waste his time.

 

[aris2chat]

The Pope was asked to clarify some of his recent teachings, yet he refused. So some Cardinals published their formal request for all to see.

Pope Francis declines to answer four cardinals’ Amoris appeal – CatholicHerald.co.uk

My question to any wise Catholic is, can the ex-Pope Benedict respond and give his answers without being asked?

only as a person opinion, not as papal dictate, but he is not likely to

 

[Skull]

The Pope was asked to clarify some of his recent teachings, yet he refused. So some Cardinals published their formal request for all to see.

Pope Francis declines to answer four cardinals’ Amoris appeal – CatholicHerald.co.uk

My question to any wise Catholic is, can the ex-Pope Benedict respond and give his answers without being asked?

This can be compared to the US Supreme Court declining to hear a case--which means the original verdict stands.

In the same way, Pope Francis is telling the Cardinals that nothing has changed in Catholic teaching/doctrine.

Then why did the Pope tell the Argentine folk that their understanding that ignoring Church doctrine regarding adultery (and maybe more) was fine? That is why the Cardinals wanted clarification.

 

[Meriweather]

Then why did the Pope tell the Argentine folk that their understanding that ignoring Church doctrine regarding adultery (and maybe more) was fine? That is why the Cardinals wanted clarification.

It is my understanding this was one very specific convoluted case that had a lot of unusual components. The Pope said something about this one case that suddenly had some people saying, "Well, if that holds true for one case, can't it hold true for everyone?"

No. That case seems to have involved one innocent person, unaware of all the ramifications and cannot get out from under them without hurting other innocent people. Some people want to use this bizarre situation to behave like the proverbial camel (Let a camel put its nose under a tent and soon the entire camel will be in the tent.) One out of the ordinary event is not going to change Church doctrine.

Let me give another example. I once was a member of a parish who had a priest with five children. This situation did not open the door for all priests to have children because his situation was that he was a widower with children who decided to become a priest after the death of his wife.

 

[Skull]

Thanks Meriweather; then I wonder why the Pope did not just respond to the Cardinals by saying "my advice to the Argentines only applied to this single person and case; therefore the doctrine remains unsullied."

So what will (or might) happen if the Pope does not respond again? If the Cardinals' public letter is out there, then might not anyone comment or respond? Evidently what they did is extremely rare, but they did it formally and properly, so I wonder what will follow.

 

[Meriweather]

Thanks Meriweather; then I wonder why the Pope did not just respond to the Cardinals by saying "my advice to the Argentines only applied to this single person and case; therefore the doctrine remains unsullied."

So what will (or might) happen if the Pope does not respond again? If the Cardinals' public letter is out there, then might not anyone comment or respond? Evidently what they did is extremely rare, but they did it formally and properly, so I wonder what will follow.

I think what will follow has already followed. The Cardinals were trying to push the idea that perhaps, maybe, something new might be hatching, and the Pope's non-response was the answer. No, nothing new is in the works overall just because something very odd popped up in a singular case. It appears some Cardinals are willing to argue the matter and the Pope is not. Nothing changes.

 

[ding]

Thanks Meriweather; then I wonder why the Pope did not just respond to the Cardinals by saying "my advice to the Argentines only applied to this single person and case; therefore the doctrine remains unsullied."

So what will (or might) happen if the Pope does not respond again? If the Cardinals' public letter is out there, then might not anyone comment or respond? Evidently what they did is extremely rare, but they did it formally and properly, so I wonder what will follow.

I think what will follow has already followed. The Cardinals were trying to push the idea that perhaps, maybe, something new might be hatching, and the Pope's non-response was the answer. No, nothing new is in the works overall just because something very odd popped up in a singular case. It appears some Cardinals are willing to argue the matter and the Pope is not. Nothing changes.

Agreed.

 

[ding]

Thanks Meriweather; then I wonder why the Pope did not just respond to the Cardinals by saying "my advice to the Argentines only applied to this single person and case; therefore the doctrine remains unsullied."

So what will (or might) happen if the Pope does not respond again? If the Cardinals' public letter is out there, then might not anyone comment or respond? Evidently what they did is extremely rare, but they did it formally and properly, so I wonder what will follow.

Maybe its our version of don't ask don't tell.

 

[Mudda]

Thanks Meriweather; then I wonder why the Pope did not just respond to the Cardinals by saying "my advice to the Argentines only applied to this single person and case; therefore the doctrine remains unsullied."

So what will (or might) happen if the Pope does not respond again? If the Cardinals' public letter is out there, then might not anyone comment or respond? Evidently what they did is extremely rare, but they did it formally and properly, so I wonder what will follow.

I think what will follow has already followed. The Cardinals were trying to push the idea that perhaps, maybe, something new might be hatching, and the Pope's non-response was the answer. No, nothing new is in the works overall just because something very odd popped up in a singular case. It appears some Cardinals are willing to argue the matter and the Pope is not. Nothing changes.

The Cardinals obviously stumped the Pope. His non-answer means he doesn't know and needs time to come up with something. And those Cardinals are toast. God is a vengeful sort.

 

[Mudda]

Thanks Meriweather; then I wonder why the Pope did not just respond to the Cardinals by saying "my advice to the Argentines only applied to this single person and case; therefore the doctrine remains unsullied."

So what will (or might) happen if the Pope does not respond again? If the Cardinals' public letter is out there, then might not anyone comment or respond? Evidently what they did is extremely rare, but they did it formally and properly, so I wonder what will follow.

Maybe its our version of don't ask don't tell.

Like for priest pedophilia?

 

[Meriweather]

[The Cardinals obviously stumped the Pope. His non-answer means he doesn't know and needs time to come up with something. And those Cardinals are toast. God is a vengeful sort.

There is nothing to "stump." The Church points to Christ's teaching on the matter: Whom God has joined together, let no one separate. God intended marriage to be between one man and a one woman. To divorce and remarry is to commit adultery.

Many don't take these words seriously. The Catholic Church does.

 

[Eloy]

[The Cardinals obviously stumped the Pope. His non-answer means he doesn't know and needs time to come up with something. And those Cardinals are toast. God is a vengeful sort.

There is nothing to "stump." The Church points to Christ's teaching on the matter: Whom God has joined together, let no one separate. God intended marriage to be between one man and a one woman. To divorce and remarry is to commit adultery.

Many don't take these words seriously. The Catholic Church does.

Joshua Ben Joseph was commenting on marriage as it was practiced among Jews in the first century CE. The point was that there should not be divorce but Jewish law allowed divorce. Joshua Ben Joseph is rejecting Jewish law regarding divorce. So, nowadays when same sex marriage is allowed His teaching on divorce being wrong although allowed in Jewish law, would still stand. There is no rejection of same sex marriage in this text but there is a rejection of divorce which Protestants allow today.

 

[ding]

Like for priest pedophilia?

You are a hammer looking for a nail. When I have more time, I'll explain the problem the Church had.

So how's that theory of yours about the probability of aliens existing in the universe coming along? Come to grips with it yet?

If you had better arguments you wouldn't need to keep creating these straw-men.

And if you had a more meaningful life, you wouldn't need to try to make yourself feel better. Which BTW, we both know has had the opposite effect on your ego. I wonder who you have been taking out your defeats on. Probably someone close to you I suspect.

 

[Eloy]

Like for priest pedophilia?

You are a hammer looking for a nail. When I have more time, I'll explain the problem the Church had.

So how's that theory of yours about the probability of aliens existing in the universe coming along? Come to grips with it yet?

If you had better arguments you wouldn't need to keep creating these straw-men.

And if you had a more meaningful life, you wouldn't need to try to make yourself feel better. Which BTW, we both know has had the opposite effect on your ego. I wonder who you have been taking out your defeats on. Probably someone close to you I suspect.

Please criticize the argument and not the person making it.

 

[Meriweather]

Joshua Ben Joseph was commenting on marriage as it was practiced among Jews in the first century CE. The point was that there should not be divorce but Jewish law allowed divorce. Joshua Ben Joseph is rejecting Jewish law regarding divorce. So, nowadays when same sex marriage is allowed His teaching on divorce being wrong although allowed in Jewish law, would still stand. There is no rejection of same sex marriage in this text but there is a rejection of divorce which Protestants allow today.

There is no doubt Jesus was speaking of marriage between male and female. The discourse recorded in Matthew 19 clearly sets this out.