UPDATE:
I note that Mark de Vries has a better translation than the one someone has provided so far: HERE
(In Dutch, the word for ‘thus’, and an informal word for ‘sister’
consisting of its first syllable, are homonyms…)
____
Here’s some news…
BREAKING Cardinal Eijk: Pope Francis needs to provide clarity concerning Amoris Laetita and communion for the divorced-and-remarried. https://t.co/0Oc3b9ap55
— Kath.ActieNederland (@KathActNed) January 26, 2018
The statement came in the course of an interview. HERE
The core… not my translation:
The question of the so-called remarried divorces is currently splitting the Catholic hierarchy. Bishops are fiercely discussing. Open letters are written and orthodox Catholics even think that the Pope makes heresies possible because he does not take a stand. It is hard against hard. Eijk does have a suspicion of how this comes about: “There is a document written by the Pope,” Amoris Laetitia “, on the basis of both family synods. This has caused doubt to be sown. Can remarried divorced now to communion or not? What you see a little is that one bishop conference arranges the sister and the other so. But yes, what is true in place A can not suddenly be false instead of B. At a given moment you would like clarity. ”
You want that too?
“Yes, I would really appreciate that. People are confused and that is not good. ”What exactly do you require from Pope Francis?
“I would say: just create clarity. Regarding this point. Take away that doubt. In the form of a document, for example. ”The cardinal is clear about what should be in there. “Of course here we have the words of Christ himself: that the marriage is one and unbreakable. We hold on to that in the archdiocese. If a marriage has been declared void by an ecclesiastical court, it has been officially confirmed that you have never been married. Only then will you be free to marry and receive confession and communion. “
Loading ...
Surely, the deeper agenda of Pope Francis in all this is precisely that there WILL be differing moral doctrine among dioceses. That’s why he will not clarify AL, because to him, it is a good thing that local dioceses have decided for themselves how to implement the teaching…whether inconsistently or not.
It seems that the relatively recent tradition of Jesuits is to INTENTIONALLY skirt the line on clarity and in some kind of strange notion that obscurity will draw a thousandfold followers into the Church. Just an observation.
I think the Holy Father is onboard with this as he revealed in his talk to journalists.
From Lifesite News:
Issued on the liturgical memorial of the patron saint of journalists, St. Francis de Sales, the Pope concluded his message on fake news and a journalism of peace by offering a new rendition of a traditional prayer of St. Francis:
Lord, make us instruments of your peace.?
Help us to recognize the evil latent in a communication that does not build communion.
Help us to remove the venom from our judgements.?
Help us to speak about others as our brothers and sisters.?
You are faithful and trustworthy; may our words be seeds of goodness for the world:
where there is shouting, let us practice listening;?
where there is confusion, let us inspire harmony;
WHERE THERE IS AMBIGUITY, LET US BRING CLARITY:
where there is exclusion, let us offer solidarity;?
where there is sensationalism, let us use sobriety;?
where there is superficiality, let us raise real questions;?
where there is prejudice, let us awaken trust;?
where there is hostility, let us bring respect;
where there is falsehood, let us bring truth.? Amen.
So, are we going to pretend that there are indeed “other interpretations” even when the author (sigh) of AL gave his clear interpretation in a form of a letter to certain bishops? [He did NOT give a clear interpretation. And the problems with the offering by the Argentinian bishops have been rehearsed elsewhere in detail.] Even more, after he made it official (binding?) by promulgating it in Acta Apostolicae Sedis? [It is hard to know how something that is unclear is binding.]
Are we not beating a dead horse?
Pope Francis has made abundantly clear what his teaching is. [That’s the problem. He hasn’t.] The dilemma now is what to do with a teaching by a Pope which is in contradiction to Holy Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Apostolic Tradition. That is the problem now.
And yes, there is another. What to do with a Pope who does such a thing. [We treat him like THE POPE. That doesn’t mean supine papolatry or spineless toadyism.] And how do we process our understanding of the papacy after such an event. That is the abominable situation we are left with. We can tackle it now or wait for a less awkward moment. But make no mistake, that is what is in our hands and we need to acknowledge that. Pretending otherwise is a further disservice to God and His people.
Adult time, Episcopate!
In the meantime souls are being lost.
[In the meantime, we can examine our consciences, GO TO CONFESSION!, and live our vocations well. We can perform works of mercy and work to expand the use of the traditional Mass – the best antidote there is to the chaos.]
The disingenuousness of this cardinal is almost as revolting as the pope’s by-now utterly obvious false teaching. But I am glad anyway that he is at least speaking up for the truth, even if in a way geared to avoid facing the full truth about Francis’ teaching.
What is that saying, silence implies consent?
His meaning is completely obvious, there can be no other understanding than what is totally obvious.
It is not easy being a faithful Catholic these days. But what is understood to be much more difficult is to be a faithful Catholic priest these days. It makes my heart sad to think of it.
This can’t last forever.
Pingback: FRIDAY EXTRA – Big Pulpit