Just to be absolutely clear, Emmett has not contributed to this discussion. It is frankly crazy to suggest you know its him. I don't know Emmett's view on the dubia, but it is quite wrong to be assuming my views are actually his. Brian, I think you owe him an apology don't you?
I am glad to hear you are not Emmett. Emmett is way to familiar with prophecy to hold your views.That those who should guide the church will lose their way is a given. WARNING: Fr. Gruner’s final newsletter https://akacatholic.com/warning-fr-gruners-final-newsletter/
Richard I agree. In the thread, "Dubia answered for those confused" Smudger quoted Cardinal Ratzinger ↑ Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger could say in Salt of the Earth (p.207) in response to the question: is the non reception of Holy Communion for the remmaried settled once and for all or still open?: "The principles have been decided, but factual questions, individual questions, are of course a possibility." He goes on to state that maybe experienced local pastors could determine the invalidity of a previous marriage outside the normal annulment process." And my response....... This I believe is a truth! but I believe by allowing this to occur within the Church it would (not could), open up flood gates to many errornous decisions! Therefore the risk of extreme abuse (of this mercy) means it should not be allowed within the Church; I believe the church must be protected at this moment in time! as a muddy tsunami of decadent secular values are just looking for a chance to flood in, decimating the life giving waters that the church embraces and accepts. I believe we are all on the same page. God Bless
I truly hope you're being truthful because that would be an immense relief, and if true I would offer Emmett my sincere and most humble apologies. (Of course Walford creating a sock puppet account here to promote his own book and subsequently engage this debate is still a very distinct possibility given our recent correspondence elsewhere...I still smell head games with these recent recent prevarications.)
Headline currently on Drudge: POPE URGES THE FAITHFUL TO HELP YOUTH FIND PURPOSE http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-12-31-13-28-55 This Pope always zeroes in on what is most urgent in the future of the world....and the foundations within human life that need to be addressed, not just discussed.
Youth unemployment whilst a regrettable problem is hardly the most serious problem that the world faces. The world crisis is primarily a moral one. Unless man repents and returns to God we face chastisement worse than the flood. Now that is a problem worth worrying about.
And yet beyond words or proclamations of belief and basic obedience to the Commandments (example given with the young man attached to his wealth and comforts) Jesus made the most important of questions we will be asked to determine where our hearts are when it comes to our desire for Him....."I was hungry, poor, ignorant, naked, in prison, et al" Same as what Natan was shown as well within his own NDE....know the law, the Torah, but for the purpose of coming closer to God in the heart while showing that heart's true desire via loving acts for others so other hearts will be converted and morals will change. Jesus will know the difference from where our hearts are truly. We are to be lights in the growing darkness....examples of love and concern. When whole generations are effected by the selfishness of older generations it only can contribute to the loss of faith hope and love for an ever growing world population.
If the youth are going to 'find purpose' it must start with the Bishops and Priests at the local Churches. Every year, 30-40 young men and women in their last year of high school are Confirmed by the Bishop in our local church. All but a very few were not going to weekend Mass or Holy Day of Obligation Mass before they received Confirmation and 90% don't go after getting Confirmed. If they are to find "purpose" they had better find their faith. Bishops, priests and faith formation directors are failing these young men and women by giving them watered down theology and fluff and puff development for receiving the sacraments. It all starts with the local church and its willingness or unwillingness to teach the faith as it has been handed down throughout the centuries. Most of the 'faithful' have been marginalized by the clergy if they hold to traditional faith teachings and are not asked to be faith formation teachers. The clergy in most parishes only want 'new age' teachers who don't have a clue themselves what the church teaches. Pope has to lead the way in orthodoxy and insist as much from his bishops and priests.
Like the following reply: Fr. Peter Morello • 18 days ago The real issue is as initially stated by the author that the Four Cardinals in raising the Dubia are not accusing the Pontiff of heresy, understood as adamant and persistent denial of doctrine. The issue is suggestive language. The use of language that "leads to error" as stated by Cardinal R Burke himself a prominent canon lawyer. Everything you say though helpful if we're talking about heresy can be dismissed, since heresy is not the allegation made by the Four Cardinals as you note and many others including Bishop Athanasius Schneider. What I am interested in, is what are the canonical procedures if any that guides the Church if the Pontiff refuses to respond to the Cardinals, and clarify, whether he actually proposes that communion can be given to div and rem without declaration of nullity of the first marriage. There is clear and mounting evidence of confusion and schism within the Church over this issue because the Pontiff has not presented his views, if they do confirm communion for div and rem, in a definitive proposition. A question raised by some is does the Pontiff's proposals nonetheless deserve a "religious" conformity. Still the issue of purpose and clarity remains. Based on the fact that many of us believe the Pontiff is apparently allowing ambiguity as the instrument to further his intent that communion be given, contrary to tradition and confirmed in Consortio Familiaris, we have a dilemma. If that's the Pontiff's purpose he's devised a way to remain free of canonical sanction. Finally Christ never guaranteed that a Pontiff might not mislead surreptitiously. He promised His words would never fail.
Mac--thank you for posting this excellent article. Wow. Lays it out in a way that cannot be misinterpreted. I am speechless.
