FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Cardinal Marx: Pope’s Line in Amoris Laetitia is “Very Clear”
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.

From the NCRegister:




Blogs  |  Feb. 7, 2017
Cardinal Marx: Pope’s Line in Amoris Laetitia is “Very Clear”

Defends German bishops’ guidelines on document as Cardinal Walter Kasper says allowing intercommunion with Protestants in some cases is the “position of the current Pope.”
Edward Pentin


Cardinal Reinhard Marx has said he “cannot understand” why there should be different interpretations of Amoris Laetitia to the one favored by the German bishops as he believes the line taken by the Pope in the apostolic exhortation is “very clear.”

Vox Wrote:
And, as we all know, German Bishops have always been very adamant about following Popes' wishes. Right?

In brief comments to the Register Feb. 6 in Rome after accompanying an ecumenical delegation to the apostolic palace to mark the 500th anniversary of the Reformation, the Archbishop of Munich dismissed concerns about lack of clarity in the Pope’s apostolic exhortation on the family.

“I think, in our conference, there was unanimity”, he said. “Some bishops were asking [questions], but I think there is a clear position and the line of the Pope is very clear.”

Among the passages considered ambiguous is whether some remarried divorcees should be admitted to Holy Communion. Last week, the German bishops’ conference released guidelines on Amoris Laetitia in which they controversially allowed some civilly remarried divorcees to receive Holy Communion on a case by case basis.

German Church sources, however, say there wasn't strict unanimity, and possibly the cardinal meant something else by the word “unanimity” as German has the two similar words for it: einhellig and einstimmig. They say that, on good authority, several bishops had “serious reservations” about the guidelines.

The German bishops' published interpretation is at odds with that expressed by Cardinal Gerhard Müller, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who upheld the Church's teaching on restrictions to admitting Holy Communion to remarried divorcees, telling the Italian monthly Il Timone that Amoris Laetitia must be interpreted in the light of the whole doctrine of the Church, that there cannot be “a contradiction between doctrine and personal conscience”, and that “the task of priests and bishops is not that of creating confusion, but of bringing clarity.” Thousands of priests have also publicly expressed the same concerns.

But Cardinal Marx pointed out he was a "member of two synods, and the discussions between the synods, and the discussion in the synod, and then I read Amoris Laetitia and I said that it is in this line."  He added that he “cannot understand” why there are other interpretations. “The answer is, I think, clear.”

Vox Wrote:
What is also clear, is that some clerics, maybe Francis himself, think a Pope can make up new teachings as they go along, all in contradiction to Tradition and even Sacred Scripture.

He said he hadn’t received any letters from other cardinals about the German bishops’ guidelines. “We decided to underline some points, not because the Pope wasn’t clear, but to underline, for example, preparation for marriage, to go with the couples and to look at special situations of irregularity.” He said they added “no other points” that were not in Amoris Laetitia already.

As president of the German bishops' conference, Cardinal Marx, who is also a member of the Pope’s “C9” group of cardinals advising the Holy Father on curial reform, attended both synods. Along with the president of the French bishops' conference, he was also instrumental in holding a controversial “shadow synod” in Rome in 2015, during which participants pushed for admission of remarried divorcees to the sacraments and acceptance of those living in same-sex unions.


Catholic-Protestant relations

Asked whether a new phase in the relationship between the Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church has begun under Pope Francis, the cardinal replied that the 500th anniversary of the Reformation this year is a “special moment” in relations, “an opportunity for us to work together, pray together and to show that we are, in the center, unified, and the center is Christ.”

Vox Wrote:
Wonder if he's referring to the Christ that set up a Church on the rock of St. Peter...

He said the Church and her ecumenical partners in Germany have decided to celebrate Christ this year. “That is the main point, not looking back always and discussing all the old questions. That’s necessary. We have to work in a theological, serious way, that is clear, but we have to work together.”

He said he thought it was also “very important for  ecumenism that we are willing to grow together, that we are living in friendship and that is the fundament of ecumenical discussion and work.” He said the meeting Feb. 6 “was a good opportunity” and Pope Francis “underlined it with his speech” which he described as “very good.”

Vox Wrote:
You mean we hadn't been "living in friendship" before the travesty of that "celebration of the Reformation"? Was there a Catholic-Lutheran war going on I hadn't been told about?

On a joint commemoration, Cardinal Marx said until now “celebrations were always against each other.”

“It’s a great history of war and going against each other, and for the first time we are celebrating together, making memory together and looking forward to what is the meaning of the Gospel today, and in the center is Christ,” he said.

Vox Wrote:
Hmmm, looks like there was a war going on that I hadn't been told about. Danged media, holding out on me!



Cardinal Kasper on the Pope and intercommunion

Meanwhile, Cardinal Walter Kasper, a close confidant of the Holy Father, has said he believes allowing intercommunion with Protestants in cases such as a mixed marriage is “the position of the current Pope.”

In comments made to Italian television, the cardinal said of Holy Communion: “In certain cases, I think yes, if they share the same faith in the Eucharist, this is presupposed, and if they are interiorly disposed, they can refer to their conscience to go to Communion, and this, I think, is also the position of the current Pope.”

Vox Wrote:
If they shared the same faith in the Eucharist and all that entails, they'd become Catholics or remain hypocrites. The Eucharist doesn't come from nowhwere; it involves priests -- real ones -- using proper matter and form. Lutherans don't have that with their grape juice and wafers.

If there is a “couple or a family, you cannot divide them in front of the altar,” Cardinal Kasper said.

Vox Wrote:
Sure you can.  And maybe it'd inspire the one who isn't Catholic to get on the ball and convert.

Theologians have said that were the Church to change its rules on shared Eucharistic Communion, it would “go against Revelation and the Magisterium”, leading Christians to “commit blasphemy and sacrilege.”

Vox Wrote:
Damn straight.

In the same interview, Cardinal Kasper also addressed the issue of women deacons, but his words were somewhat garbled. He said: “The issue of women is still in discussion, no. It is very difficult for us, [but] I wouldn’t say no.” 

Last year, Pope Francis instituted a new commission to take another look at the issue.

Vox Wrote:
Give 'em an inch, they'll take a mile. Just don't. Theoretically, I don't have an issue with "deaconesses" as long as they aren't seen as ordained, en route to the priesthood, and given authority they shouldn't have -- if they kept to deaconesses' original functions. But that isn't how it'd go, and we all know it -- especially the radical lesbians who are likely to jump on the deaconess bandwagon as soon as it pulls up.
(02-10-2017, 04:58 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: [ -> ]Give 'em an inch, they'll take a mile. Just don't. Theoretically, I don't have an issue with "deaconesses" as long as they aren't seen as ordained, en route to the priesthood, and given authority they shouldn't have -- if they kept to deaconesses' original functions. But that isn't how it'd go, and we all know it -- especially the radical lesbians who are likely to jump on the deaconess bandwagon as soon as it pulls up.

Yep. Deaconesses are pretty much the definition of "time and place." There is simply no doubt that the reestablishment of an order of deaconesses at the present time will be taken as the first step towards priestesses. And if we're going to bring back deaconesses, shall we bring back the practices that necessitated them, e.g, a sharper division of the sexes in Church life than we see in the modern West, nude baptisms, the idea that men should minister to men and women to women, etc?

And of course we know the answer to that. This will mainly mean the ladies already handing out Communion will just do so wearing stoles, which was NOT the original function. The only Church of ancient origin that have maintained deaconesses, at least to some extent, is the Armenian Church. They mainly serve in convents, where they are authorized by the bishop to read the Gospel and preach, which limits the necessity of male clerics entering the convent. When they serve outside the convent, they typically stand with the clergy, but apart from the male deacons, generally wear their stole crossed over the opposite shoulder, and do NOT handle the sacred elements. There are anecdotes of Armenian deaconesses communing the laity, but I don't think this has historically been the norm. I believe they are all nuns, but certainly all celibate, which is not true of male deacons and priests among the Armenians. She wears a headdress much like a wimple, and she is distinguished from ordinary nuns primarily in a cross on the forehead of her headdress. This is what she looks like:

[Image: deaconess.jpg]
I found this on EWTN and now I'm confused. Because we've heard of this as a talk on "women deacons," I thought this wasn't allowed.

"Council of Nicaea I

"Similarly, in regard to the deaconesses, as with all who are enrolled in the register, the same procedure is to be observed. We have made mention of the deaconesses, who have been enrolled in this position, although, not having been in any way ordained, they are certainly to be numbered among the laity" (Canon 19 [A.D. 325]). "
(02-10-2017, 10:04 PM)In His Love Wrote: [ -> ]I found this on EWTN and now I'm confused. Because we've heard of this as a talk on "women deacons," I thought this wasn't allowed.

"Council of Nicaea I

"Similarly, in regard to the deaconesses, as with all who are enrolled in the register, the same procedure is to be observed. We have made mention of the deaconesses, who have been enrolled in this position, although, not having been in any way ordained, they are certainly to be numbered among the laity" (Canon 19 [A.D. 325]). "

As the quote says, they weren't ordained. Here's what the Catholic Encyclopedia said about them:

There can be no doubt that in their first institution the deaconesses were intended to discharge those same charitable offices, connected with the temporal well being of their poorer fellow Christians, which were performed for the men by the deacons. But in one particular, viz., the instruction and baptism of catechumens, their duties involved service of a more spiritual kind. The universal prevalence of baptism by immersion and the anointing of the whole body which preceded it, rendered it a matter of propriety that in this ceremony the functions of the deacons should be discharged by women. The Didascalia Apostolorum (III, 12; see Funk, Didascalia, etc., I, 208) explicitly direct that the deaconesses are to perform this function. It is probable that this was the starting point for the intervention of women in many other ritual observances even in the sanctuary. The Apostolic Constitutions expressly attribute to them the duty of guarding the doors and maintaining order amongst those of their own sex in the church, and they also (II, c. 26) assign to them the office of acting as intermediaries between the clergy and the women of the congregation; but on the other hand, it is laid down (Const. Apost., VIII, 27) that "the deaconess gives no blessing, she fulfills no function of priest or deacon", and there can be no doubt that the extravagances permitted in some places, especially in the churches of Syria and Asia, were in contravention of the canons generally accepted. We hear of them presiding over assemblies of women, reading the Epistle and Gospel, distributing the Blessed Eucharist to nuns, lighting the candles, burning incense in the thuribles, adorning the sanctuary, and anointing the sick (see Hefele-LeClercq, II, 448). All these things must be regarded as abuses which ecclesiastical legislation was not long in repressing.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04651a.htm
So is this talk the Pope is organizing to discuss ordaining women as deacons, or to assign them roles like the ancient deaconesses, with no ordination?
(02-11-2017, 12:04 AM)In His Love Wrote: [ -> ]So is this talk the Pope is organizing to discuss ordaining women as deacons, or to assign them roles like the ancient deaconesses, with no ordination?

That might be how they try to sell it, but what it really means is one step closer to womyn "priests." It's a bad, bad, BAD idea.
(02-11-2017, 12:14 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-11-2017, 12:04 AM)In His Love Wrote: [ -> ]So is this talk the Pope is organizing to discuss ordaining women as deacons, or to assign them roles like the ancient deaconesses, with no ordination?

That might be how they try to sell it, but what it really means is one step closer to womyn "priests." It's a bad, bad, BAD idea.
Yeah, I don't think that door should be opened, especially not with all the ambiguous language coming out of so many prelates' mouths these days.
(02-11-2017, 12:14 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-11-2017, 12:04 AM)In His Love Wrote: [ -> ]So is this talk the Pope is organizing to discuss ordaining women as deacons, or to assign them roles like the ancient deaconesses, with no ordination?

That might be how they try to sell it, but what it really means is one step closer to womyn "priests." It's a bad, bad, BAD idea.

Yep! As I posted in another thread, this is exactly how it happened in the Anglican Communion. First it was 'restore the ancient Order of Deaconesses', then it was 'ordain' women as 'deacons'. Then it was womyn priests and now it's 'bishopesses' playing cute dress up and pretending to be something other than lay women. At each step, the laity were assured that it would go no farther! Yeah, sure!