Cardinal Burke Threatens ‘Formal Act of Correction’ if Pope Francis Doesn’t Clarify Doctrine

https://www.scribd.com/document/359632647/Correctio-Filialis-English

* et alia, Jesus was a religious SCHOLAR and a laborer

* Jesus did not hand down any WRITINGS, very little of what he said was quoted verbatim, but Apostles did write and talk and hand down leadership of the Church to those they prepared

WHAT ARE THE 5 questions? This is hard to say without the ORIGINALS (length and in latin). However Marriage was certainly a question as breitbart reports. But was it?

We also have: Cardinal Raymond Burke has insisted that Pope Francis must clarify serious doctrinal doubts arising from his teaching letter Amoris Laetitia, or the Cardinal will be forced to initiate “a formal act of correction of a serious error.” (this one mentions marriage)

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/full-text-and-explanatory-notes-of-cardinals-questions-on-amoris-laetitia

QUESTION OF MARRIAGE DURING POPE JOHN PAUL II

To my memory (which is not great) the Bible doesn't say marriage is a Sacrament: it being a sacrament, like Holy Communion, is knowledge and writings handed down from the Disciples who created the Papacy.

Pope John Paul II (1980's) came under allot of pressure: declining attendance and assertions that divorce should be an option and women should be allowed to be Priests (that Nuns should be able to serve Communion). There was also questions about Gay couples. (Not addressed: MONEY and taxation in the late 1990 - when USA gov decided to triple pay - and infact to set their own pay - and to use "green cards" to pad the voter base to continue, unfair software licensing, and many other possibly more serious social gripes.)

---------------------------------

Pope Francis did not answer.

My take on why:

Seeing links above the question was not about marriage but about people living together in leu of a decision from the Church concerning if the previous marriage were nullified. This question cannot be answered in general because the primary question is not answered - whither nullified - is not yet answered. The answer is dependent.

In summary: A poor question better left un-answered by the leader of the Church when an "inspired answer" is implied by those asking.

Having seen that as the primary question, one can assume the later questions are not better questions.

---------------------------

My take on marriage change during John Paul II:

Sure it's sacred for the sake of seeking love and acceptance and support in one's acts (not resentment and betrayal for silva) and MORESO for supporting children (which not coincidentally is the basis of marital laws in the USA today).

However in the USA, women with children are supported by the State (so were they in history "social security" is not "new": but not everywhere by culpable law). So in USA there is no "walking away from responsibility". Police will come knocking. There is only "not being present in the home", which is different.

There's then a fine line between self seeking for pleasure versus having made a due attempt to "to get along and to play nice". But deciding who is selfish or manipulative in seeking a "sexier wealthier partner" is . Then there's just incompatibility: a rap artist (or drunk) and a "good learner" may well simply be unable to appreciate each other's lifestyles, which is simply obvious.

Finally: it was helpful to dissect the "real teaching" from the "social expectation of the time written" to "ease up" on the question where possible (what were moral motivations then and now), as the Church needs to attract it's followers rather than accuse them and push them out. The Bible (if i remember) mentions marriage being "made in Heaven" but does not say "today" or "at the time of death", it does not say "only once and for eternity, no going back, one person only": these stipulations were taught to ward off real sins ensuing. And for a long time it was "the proper thing to do", a social expectation. A problem is today it is more socially acceptable to not be in quarrel (which by the way caused many serious feudal wars, when marital killings occurred), rather to lawful and happy with a significant other.

So one real sin would be what even non-follows can appreciate: the sack of shit that manipulates arguments hate and resentment in conversations to get out of a marriage for a younger sexier person with less financial problems that skips town and doesn't pay child care. While there are some today who'd say "that's life", many or most would put that person in jail if infact it could all be proven (it rarely is).

-----------------------------------

WHAT THEY DIDN'T QUESTION FRANCIS OF:

The Prophets were courteous but not kind at all to rich politicians - they continually visited and wrote letters and if I remember (it's foggy), some were killed for the same. Not simply marriage but about neglect of citizens in their realm: tax abuse, false imprisonment (i'd guess). physical abuse. The target of the writings were facists (rule by sword) who "set their own pay". These were not simply moral teachings: Jesus experienced similar and (not verbatim) preached similar (though more often about love rather than tax). These were direct writings of the Prophets who lived with Jesus and spent their life in peril and (at time discomforts) to teach.

This "partial teaching / partial enforcement" by the Church can be considered dangerous: accusing a few concerning minor sins while politically aiding those who the Prophets would spend time scolding.

--------------------------------

QUESTION:

Illegals in USA. Is it the Church teaching that tax savings and Church donations be used in a manner to "breed the poor" and then these poor attack those who gave to extent they "are not allowed to work" and infact are evicted in hate / dispatched with weapons to house those they donated to?

I think as far as questions go, the elephant is still in the room, quiet as they are except when disturbed.

---------------------------------

Quote of the day:

Prophets recounts of Jesus's speeches scripted he often said those who did an act would be banned from Heaven, but also that Jesus preached forgiveness between one another. However they also scripted events of his forgiving those who were sorry for their actions (and in necessary cases, took action to repay). (The lectures can seem quite damning if read without other stories). Apparently those who would be banned from Heaven would be those who would never set aside sinful acts or refuse admit that there is infact a line between persons and (rules) that should not be broken. An man who believes attacking others / destroying others for wealth is simply "survival of the fittest" - that lies are a tool: would fit that bill.

CLARITY IS A MEANS OF SUCCESS HAVING PAY, WITHOUT CHEATING OTHERS (ie paid by taxpayer who is disputing pay). IN A WORLD OF DEBT WAR YOUR UNLIKELY TO FIND MUCH CLARITY.

> QUESTION:
>
> Illegals in USA. Is it the Church teaching that tax savings and Church donations
> be used in a manner to "breed the poor" and then these poor attack those who
> gave to extent they "are not allowed to work" and infact are evicted in
> hate / dispatched with weapons to house those they donated to?

the problem with this question is already being inside part II of the question while asking it (it's too late for part I, so why ask?)

snafu

Hmmmmm, he must be made of STRONGER stuff..........................

CARDINAL FANG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BRING the COMFY CHAIR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mark 10:9: “Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."

(see, i would say that politicians would not separate the two for turf-war/tax tactics reasons. i don't see the two joined as being intently part of the "no one" (with love between the two in Gods eyes properly fulfilled assumed). it appears to be a statement defending the right of two properly joined to stay joined despite the insistence of some others, likely highly political reasons, to separate)

Bible "Must not divorce" (unless due to death, unless ...) (as i said above, thuggery is sinful but "what is divorce" / is it one-sided and does it have ramifications / is love fulfilled. these are things not answered here: it's a sweeping statement. Must not divorce obviously means leaving a woman in ancient times without her approval (with her in need) - a woman subject to already harsh conditions and politics of those times who has mouths to feed.) It's simply a moral statement but not one that is intently fully spelled out.

unfortunately i beleive my source to be short of all passages mentioning marriage (let alone all divine teachings) - and i have no time to find and search and really all of the Catholic new testement (note other versions change translation and add writings that Catholics believe were not from prophets or from Jesus, ie protestant versions)

-------------------------

OTHER QUESTIONS FOUND POSED AS LOADED QUESTIONS

* the Papacy is handed down from Prophets
* divine elucidation come from God not from man
* man struggles to understand the teachings
* the Pope has spoken upon matters not specifying if devine
* the Pope must answer our Questions to his answers to avoid heresy (the Pope is required to give divine answers)

Well now, that's a loaded question isn't it?

Personally I saw pages loaded questions and not any divine text Francis wrote that was published as divine for them to ask the questions: questions they hardly mentioned while loading the question.

Having not read all of Amoris laetitia (Latin: The Joy of Love) is a post-synodal apostolic exhortation by Pope Francis.[1] Dated 19 March 2016

I'd say AS A WHOLE ADDRESSES MODERN QUESTIONS THROUGHOUT, and accusations that no questions are answered are absurd: if anything too many modern things, with explanations as to Love, were said, in a very long divine writing - which i have not fully read or parsed myself. (i saw no excerpts that release one from good behavior, however may excepts make certain things (like education, or gays) appear as approved whereas reading a whole excerpt one find Francis infact writes approval only where followers are "doing good" not "doing for themselves", for the Love of God we can say. ie: it does NOT say educate your children at any cost! much the opposite, morality in everything was a theme throughout the text - which i haven't completely read)

people questioned China's morality making a law against "prolific breeding" and setting a "goverment mandated limit per family" (fair to all? or immoral government law?)

HOWEVER, historically, not long ago a woman sued her employer for telling her "your not getting pregnant (it's not your turn, your poor, haven't worked enough, other's are waiting)". Infact i believe the woman won the suit against her employer.

BEFORE OBAMA: employers won suits, saying the contract of pay was for production of their goods not for "personal reproduction"

HISTORICALLY: pregnancy was given the up or down by parents with grace from Town leaders. Illegitimate children (ie not her turn others in line, or town could not afford (same thing), or out of wed-lock), were a shame to hide and even punished.

Many claimed China was immoral for writing a law that Catholic and Protestand Church goers alike infact once held true (and at times inforced often with a stick, sometimes with a shot gun) as unwritten law.

I am a protestant. My ancestors risked being roasted at the stake so I could avoid having to listen to people like Cardinal Burke.

The guy writing most of the posts in this thread sounds like an unmedicated crazy person.