Cardinal Maradiaga challenges CDF chief Archbishop Mueller about Communion to re-married

Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga Tells Doctrinal Watchdog Archbishop Gerhard Mueller To Loosen Up
www.huffingtonpost.com...

the story should be read in its entirety. I don't want to make extensive quotes. I don't want to comment the names involved, or should we say: teams of cardinals and archbishops set one versus another. Moreover, the CDF chief was recently appointed by the pope to be given the red hat in February.

IMO, the pace of the trumped reform surfaces already as too slow, even retarded. A bolder wording just pronounced or written, already become defensive territory that reformers must prove somehow. Instead of bold actions from Day 2. Is that all about?

The mulled synod of bishops now set for October 2014 (wasn't it for this Spring) is said to deal with primarily "family issues". Too little, too slow, may be too late. May be.

Let not forget that 10 months already passed since that night with the white smoke. We already had 8 lost years of Benedict that erased much of what John Paul II did. Years in which the world entered the worst crisis after 1929 in USA and Hitler in Europe. The biggest church does not have the luxury of time. The people won't stand it, won't wait it.

I will not criticize anyone personally. Seems the persons at the top do their best, especially the new persons in Rome.

With that speed the much expected reform of pope Francis risks to follow the much faster and UNPREDICTABLE pace of an evolving world. I will not elaborate in this thread other questions discussed in other threads (you don't have to ask me for the link, all you need to do is to click on my profile)

I also wonder where are the catholics online who want to see a different church in 21st century. Seems only the old guard takes time to write online, mostly.

double post

reply to post by 2012newstart

I also wonder where are the catholics online who want to see a different church in 21st century.

Right here, and if you look around at ATS posters, there is general support among Catholics for Pope Francis. Off the top of my head, I can only think of one guy who was adamantly opposed to him, and he was an opponent of Vatican II reforms, so that should come as no surprise.

On the marriage thing, it's a little dicey, because on the one hand, you want to encourage people to stick with their commitments and make the effort to work things out. On the other, sometimes it is just impossible (or dangerous) and the church needs to be about helping people to heal and becoming closer to God. I've only known one person who has gone through an annulment, and both he and those who knew him said that it was a huge and unpleasant ordeal, which seems unnecessary.

Doctrinally, the church believes that marriage is a sacrament that incorporates the two being married, as well as God (the "three strand cord" bit from Ecclesiastes,) and you can only get that sacrament once. The process of annulment declares that the marriage was flawed from the start, and that, while it was a valid marriage, it was not a sacramental one, so the people involved are free to receive that sacrament. Barring that, a re-married Catholic without an annulment is not sacramentally married, and is therefore committing adultery.

Personally, I disagree with that, but I'm not the world's greatest Catholic, lol.

reply to post by adjensen


Thanks to make clear the catholic status quo point of view! Perhaps the doctrine is the first to change, but I am not doctrinal person either.
From Orthodox point of view, although the divorse is not recommended in anyway, after a divorce it is allowed a second, a third marriage. If you are a married priest, because the Orthodox churches have that too, you can divorce but you can't remarry.
I wonder do they read the Gospels worse than the Catholics? Do they keep traditions worse? No they keep them better for the last 10 centuries or so.

Perhaps the issue should stop being doctrinal derived of 12th century theologians, and become a real life issue where it belongs. A new reread of Gospels is needed, including those Gospels who are not currently being made canonical. Why not to start with that. With Mary Magdalene's case. Because it hurts core beliefs of the people until yesterday. Today we almost know the truth. Isn't Jesus the truth? Then why some people hide from the truth when they themselves know it quite well? What is being offered is not a 1st century model of family AND COMMUNITY (today there is virtually no community life as the first Christians did). It is a medieval model where the great theologians proposed boys and girls to be "married" in advance at the age of 12-15 by the choice of their parents, so they cannot sin whatsoever. That is in the book of Thomas Aquinas if remember correctly. What the church tries to do now is to adapt that absurd to a society when the people usually marry at 18 and above, and where there are too many dissatisfaction, distraction, and also sin. Everyone is a sinner, but the status quo hurts more than helps, including innocent children. And above all it is not quite Biblical. How many wives did have Abraham, our father in faith? If that was possible, if St David had quite many of them, then something is lacking in our understanding. Many say, Jesus didn't, but they forget we are not told the whole life of Jesus. They may swear on the Bible, but this is not the whole Bible. Let face the truth. Perhaps exactly the erased pages of the Gospels (or entire Gospels) in the first centuries speak more on the topic than we could possibly imagine. Personally I follow Jesus, not the Roman agents who composed the Gospels the way we have them. Organized by emperor Constantine. If New "Nicaea council" is needed to overrule that, let do it. If Jesus was married, quite many things change. Others, if He was not and still had relations. Let the people who hold original documents, talk. The easiest thing is to go to another church that gives true Communion and to stop bothering with Catholicism that ruins personal lives. Well, may be the end of the Roman church approaches slowly but surely, if it doesn't find strength to overrun past errors. Including the error to enclose everyone married or not, in sterile atmosphere and ask for impossible virtues. That reflects in the biggest sinners to be found exactly among the supposedly sterile clergy.

reply to post by 2012newstart

Let the people who hold original documents, talk.

What "original documents"?

The New Testament wasn't written or compiled by Constantine or anyone other than the Apostles and those that the Apostles taught (in the case of a couple of epistles, as well as Luke and Acts.) New Testament canon was pretty much what it is today in the latter part of the Second Century, well over a hundred years before the Council of Nicaea.

reply to post by adjensen


The earliest documents date back to 2nd century and not to the time of Jesus. Why so? Why could we have preserved much more ancient texts but not the Gospels of the Son of God from the time He walked the Earth? There should be a very sound and logical explanation for that phenomenon.

The Roman empire is not only one emperor and it did not plan only for 1 generation. The longest empire on earth (besides the Chinese) surely had a vision for longer terms. Most likely the Roman establishment decided to adopt Christianity much earlier a century or two or three before they actually did it thru Constantine. In that time, they had every chance to exterminate all those who held the true Gospels, who didn't bow down before a revised version of Christianity. Why all those persecutions? The Romans were not cruel idiots. In era of illiteracy it wasn't that difficult. Preserved were only those texts and communities who held an adopted ~2nd century version of the Gospels.

Entire years of the life of Jesus were deliberately cut off. Even if you read the Gospel only once you will notice that fact.

No they were not "canonical" before Nicaea, there wasn't such a term and such an institution before Nicaea.

There are a dozen or so Gospels that were never made canonical. Why? Because they are "heretic"? What is heresy then? Who determined who will be called heretic? The people who agreed on the Roman terms.

I suppose nothing less than 8th Universal ecumenical church council could fix the problem that is evident not only for the readers of Dan Brown.

We have the Old Testament relatively intact from 70 BC Septuagint. We don't have the New Testament from let say 40 AD or 70 AD. If they were, they are deeply hidden. I want to read Dead Sea scrolls before making any conclusion about the real life of Jesus the Lord. And any conclusion how today's Christians must behave to keep the word of God.

It is strange 10 months after the new pontificate that was elected as pontificate of change, (if we remember the deliberations of pre-conclave sessions) we don't have a large public discussion on historic, theological, and everyday issues. Instead we have sporadic clashes between top cardinals that leak to the press. Is this the big change in time of democracy, free speech and free thought? Or it is the sure road to the final decline of Rome, perhaps also planned far in advance by the ancients.

the public discussion should certainly include Orthodox and Oriental churches, Evangelical and Protestant churches, and representatives of the Messianic Jews. It should not be secret as everything done until now. otherwise we will have a revised version of previous gatherings and nothing new to come. We don't need Vatican-3. The world needs Jerusalem-2 or said in the language of Orthodox churches, 8th universal council. Let also remember the readers that today's Christians in their majority are not Roman catholics, that has only 1.2 bln out of 2.5 bln total. Let alone the fact how many of those 1.2 bln are practicing and agree upon a number of so called teachings of the church. See what happens in Brazil and how the people continuously leak to other denominations. Including denominations who also hold the name "catholic", have apostolic succession and all sacraments. I bet that process will deepen if what we see coming out of Rome continues in that way. As if we are still in Benedict's pontificate, as we still don't have the conclave that chose the way of change for the benefit of the world and not the benefit of narrow private interests of some several hundred old men.

If the top Roman clergy hold the ancient banners of inquisition style decisions, they'd better retire ASAP. If the pope can't do so little as to change his own Curia and backyard, if he is so powerless, he can't do the bigger things as well. Rather, he might be forced to follow his predecessor's steps. But I think he will stay and he will do more than the handful of powerful of the day think he can. It is a shame I have to discuss that 10 months after the promised change. And not to read elaborated articles of the true gospels that the new Universal council should finally canonize. As the Revelation of John was canonized a century later. As the book of 2 Esdras. It is a shame that the press continues listing lavish lifestyles of those pastors who instead should do the theological work that I just marked in these posts. Why aren't they ordered to answer, for example, the abundant information in the TV serials such as History channel's Ancient Aliens? Because it is all BS? I bet it is not.

The pope alone cannot do everything. If the current trend of 10 lost months preserve, if the current princes of the church care only how to keep their own positions, I see no reform on the way ahead. I see a bitter split and decline of Rome as center of world Christianity. It has other centers as well. Moscow and Jerusalem being two traditional ones. Why not new centers added to the ancient ones.

Do you think why the Orthodox priests are married in most cases?

Perhaps because Jesus was de facto married?

Peter was certainly married. The canonical gospels say it.

Paul says the bishop should be a man of one woman. So there were those who were man of more than one woman?

That is in the canonical books. Not in the burned ones.

I hate to say it, but we the common people are considered as stupid idiots by people of past centuries whose thoughts and way of rule still command many as psycho robots. If the canonical books expose those fake rulers, then what to say about the forbidden knowledge. How is possible still to have discussion on such issues. But that is done purposely. To avoid discussion on bigger, more elaborated and more important issues.

As what was the nature of the angels and what was their relation with the first apostles? Why the angels are cut off the Gospel between the birth and the resurrection of Jesus? Where is Michael who is present everywhere in the old testament? Interesting how they left Gabriel speaking to Mary.

Cardinal Bergoglio was elected pope Francis in March 2013, to make a major difference, and not to have 10 months later a discussion whether or not remarried people should be given Holy Communion. I bet they already have it in the other churches that offer it freely. He was elected, not to have a year and a half later a Synod for the families in October 2014.

He was elected for bigger things than that. He defined some social problems, although I will not discuss them here. Still those are words only. Is it all we could hope for in this pontificate? If so, what is the difference from Benedict's? He also said good words, elaborated theology, and even social teaching very close to that of Francis, in his own visit to Brazil's Aparecida.

I suppose a great doze of fear is present among those catholics who understand well all of that and more, and who do not speak. Including priests and bishops.

Will Rome risk schism with major bishops who do not think the same way? As the German bishops, and not only they? This will be de facto end of Roman influence even if it doesn't end literally as in Malachi prophecy. What current Roman appointees are doing is outdated, (as the inquisitor). What is hinted as reform, is very slowed down even stopped. I hope I am wrong.

This thread was started on particular occasion, and I already said enough arguments about that. Remains to quote may be Gnostic gospels as those found in "The Nag Hammadi Scriptures".

If continue discussing the Vatican affairs, I will inevitably go to other areas as well. Something discussed in other threads. The questions are far from over. It is just the next episode of a saga with unknown end, but not unlimited end in time. Perhaps those in power know the common people's patience has its human limits to wait some miracle to happen. Until today it simply doesn't materialize. Good wishes on the side of reformers remain good wishes, and the old roman guards control the landscape. I doubt it could be called the true face of the worldwide catholic church or anything like that. I doubt all those millions constantly being quoted by all, agree on what happens and what doesn't happen despite decades of waiting that literally took all their lives. Actually no one bothered to ask them.

Vatican -2 failed so far, with the long, complex, controversial and inconclusive pontificates of Paul VI and John Paul II.

As well as the previous council that traditionalists call upon, what was its name. Council of Trent in 16th century known as counter-reformation counter-attack is not something to be introduced in 21st century. en.wikipedia.org...

Vatican-3? It will be just the same as Vatican 2. More than that is needed, much more. Past errors must be admitted and ask the world for forgiveness. Civilizations have been destroyed. Books and people burned. We are here at this 21st century greatly because of the politics of the Roman catholic church in 16-18 century, let alone past centuries. Progress of technical and scientific nature could have occurred centuries earlier if it was not intentionally and brutally stopped. Scientific thought have made it so far at the time of Galileo. Projected in time, we could be on Mars now and utilize the Hellium-3 deposits on the Moon with unlimited energy. If those fanatics didn't burn Giordano Bruno but appointed him chief cardinal observing the science. We all bear the heavy weight, the whole world. Those issues should long be resolved when the world counted less than 7 bln souls and bodies who have their human needs. Those in Rome are of the same human nature and are not more privileged in the sight of God than the last islander in the ocean, even if they now take decisions. Not to mention many of them are much more sinful than those whom they pretend to judge in the name of God. It should be put an end of that. The latest dispute between cardinal Maradiaga and archbishop chief of CDF inquisition shows clearly enough is enough. We are no more in the era of burning books.

Frankly, I am quite surprised that archbishop Mueller is selected to be elevated cardinal next month. We remember well the storm he caused by a kind of ban on Medjugorje seer's public meetings in US parishes. To elevate him cardinal, and to preserve intact the institution of CDF, means pope Francis doesn't really contemplate any major changes of the power hold inside the Vatican walls. His words speak otherwise. Should the faithful Catholics who still count on what Vatican says, be always afraid of the shadow of the inquisitor? Where are those catholics who would vote yes for reforms? I don't see many of them in the forums. Not only here. Mostly write those who defend the status quo one way or another. Apparently the others are afraid to speak freely. Because they do exist. May be the majority. Actually no one has done referendum in the Catholic church and it is unlikely thing to do anytime soon. Welcome to the new era of change. Let those reformers who tried to prove on the conclave they stand for a reform and oppose the "romans" narrow-minded world view, let they show how true their intentions are.

If tomorrow someone comes with new documents of Jesus' life, be it based on Dead Sea scrolls or otherwise, and presents irrefutable proof Jesus' real life was not the way taught for centuries, I will believe him at once. What we see to happen in the churches is not what is written in the Gospel, it is not what Jesus taught (even in the so called canonical books). This is the biggest proof the churches hide something from the very beginning, and that is something big.

reply to post by 2012newstart

The earliest documents date back to 2nd century and not to the time of Jesus. Why so? Why could we have preserved much more ancient texts but not the Gospels of the Son of God from the time He walked the Earth? There should be a very sound and logical explanation for that phenomenon.

There is. Ancient documents are rarely found in their original form, because their technology didn't include things like the printing press. Documents were copied by hand on paper with ink. The earliest extant copies of the books in the Bible are copies of copies of copies.

However, historians and textual critics are able to ascertain that what we have is essentially the same thing that was written in the First Century by examining the text in association with other texts -- early Church Fathers who quote their copies of the Bible, or who write on a subject, which allows us to determine that what we find in the Bible today represents the teaching that existed in the Apostolic and post-Apostolic Ages.

Given the persecution that the church faced in its first two hundred years, as well as the primitive technology, it would be rather suspicious if original letters of Paul or original Gospels did still exist.

Entire years of the life of Jesus were deliberately cut off. Even if you read the Gospel only once you will notice that fact.

The consensus is that the life of Christ prior to his ministry beginning (apart from his birth, and bits that Matthew and Luke toss in that indicate fulfillment of Jewish prophecy,) wasn't relevant to his story. Luke appears to have had access to the Virgin Mary, as a source, and it's unlikely that Jesus kept his past a big secret, so the most reasonable explanation is that it wasn't of note.

No they were not "canonical" before Nicaea, there wasn't such a term and such an institution before Nicaea.

Actually, there was such a term, the first Catholic canon dates back to about 170AD, and if you read early church history, such as Eusebius, the Catholic Church absolutely existed as an institution prior to Constantine. It was variously legal and illegal, and never supported by the government, but it clearly existed and had a defined structure.

There are a dozen or so Gospels that were never made canonical. Why? Because they are "heretic"? What is heresy then?

Heresy simply means "wrong teaching", and the Catholic Church, which established the canon, had the authority to determine what was heretical or not. Why? Because it's their canon. Marcion had his own canon, the Gnostic Christians had theirs, and it was for them to determine whether something was heretical or not, by their own standards.

The majority of texts that people trot out and say "why isn't this in the Bible", such as the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Truth, are holy books from another religion. One might as well complain that there are no Hindu or Muslim books in the Bible.

We don't have the New Testament from let say 40 AD or 70 AD. If they were, they are deeply hidden.

The New Testament didn't exist in 40AD, because the belief was that Jesus was "coming right back" and no one bothered writing anything down until it was readily apparent that Jesus wasn't going to return quickly and witnesses to his life and ministry were dying off. The best dating estimates are that the books of the New Testament were written from 60AD (maybe a little earlier) until 95AD.

I want to read Dead Sea scrolls before making any conclusion about the real life of Jesus the Lord.

Why? They are not Christian texts, they are from an ascetic Jewish community and have no insights into Jesus.

reply to post by adjensen


thank you for your thorough review. You don't comment key issues such as where are the angels promised to be seen by Jesus to Phillip, aren't they cut off later. I do not accept the official explanation for the missing years of Jesus.

Your position is made quite clear. Others do exist, that are not positions of non-Christians rather quite Christian. I don't agree the canonical books were de facto accepted as such in first centuries. I don't agree the non-canonical books were de facto expelled as "other religion" in the first centuries. Actually even the name "heresy" does not signify "other religion" but deviation of the truth within the same religion. When we talk of the first centuries we should differentiate between the 1st with still alive apostle John, 2nd, and 3rd. Those are quite a lot of years. Those were scattered communities without communications of today. Someone drove all that intentionally. I don't have to repeat what I already said, pls refer to older posts.

The canonization of books was ongoing process that lasted long after Nicaea council. For example, John's apocalypse was canonised not before 5th century after quite a big discussion. The Book of Enoch was never canonized in the Roman -Byzantium world but is a part of the Ethiopian Bible and Church. The 2 Esdras from the old testament was canonized later, 5th century I think. It appears in the Latin Vulgate although it does not appear in the Jewish scriptures.

One may see what modern scholars say about these questions
en.wikipedia.org... Three separate Johns?
en.wikipedia.org...

If we come only from positions of well defined status quo for centuries, we won't reach much further with any reform. Be it narrowly Catholic, or even more narrow Roman administrative reform. As the things seem to be at this point.

Or be it a wider Christian reform that takes into account many more issues and has for a goal reinvigorating Christianity as a whole. Such is needed not because of scholarly debate.

(Otherwise, Benedict quoted the Book of Enoch as something true, many others did, and I see nothing wrong or heretical to quote books and newly discovered facts for Jesus on purely scientific ground to establish ever developing better view of what did really take place 2000 years ago, and not fables for children of Sunday school).

Such a reform is needed because the people and the times need it. Those on top realize that. The problem is not IF but how to do and what piece of the wider truth to say to the masses. Deciding on the exact pieces of hidden truth is already risky. Why not to tell the entire truth. The world is not ready for it? Time is not ticking in the favor of the establishment.

I have nothing more to add at this point.

adjensen
reply to post by 2012newstart

 

Let the people who hold original documents, talk.

What "original documents"?

The New Testament wasn't written or compiled by Constantine or anyone other than the Apostles and those that the Apostles taught (in the case of a couple of epistles, as well as Luke and Acts.) New Testament canon was pretty much what it is today in the latter part of the Second Century, well over a hundred years before the Council of Nicaea.

After I read your thread www.abovetopsecret.com... now I know you are quite proficient in those other documents. Only you try to discredit them.

hope the NEW Vatican administration will take new approach, not only buying precious time. Our time. Before the big revelations from "heaven".

Instead of debating whether to give communion to divorced, they could do better things those 10 months.

adjensen
reply to post by 2012newstart

 

The earliest documents date back to 2nd century and not to the time of Jesus. Why so? Why could we have preserved much more ancient texts but not the Gospels of the Son of God from the time He walked the Earth? There should be a very sound and logical explanation for that phenomenon.

There is. Ancient documents are rarely found in their original form, because their technology didn't include things like the printing press. Documents were copied by hand on paper with ink. The earliest extant copies of the books in the Bible are copies of copies of copies.

However, historians and textual critics are able to ascertain that what we have is essentially the same thing that was written in the First Century by examining the text in association with other texts -- early Church Fathers who quote their copies of the Bible, or who write on a subject, which allows us to determine that what we find in the Bible today represents the teaching that existed in the Apostolic and post-Apostolic Ages.

Given the persecution that the church faced in its first two hundred years, as well as the primitive technology, it would be rather suspicious if original letters of Paul or original Gospels did still exist.

Entire years of the life of Jesus were deliberately cut off. Even if you read the Gospel only once you will notice that fact.

The consensus is that the life of Christ prior to his ministry beginning (apart from his birth, and bits that Matthew and Luke toss in that indicate fulfillment of Jewish prophecy,) wasn't relevant to his story. Luke appears to have had access to the Virgin Mary, as a source, and it's unlikely that Jesus kept his past a big secret, so the most reasonable explanation is that it wasn't of note.

No they were not "canonical" before Nicaea, there wasn't such a term and such an institution before Nicaea.

Actually, there was such a term, the first Catholic canon dates back to about 170AD, and if you read early church history, such as Eusebius, the Catholic Church absolutely existed as an institution prior to Constantine. It was variously legal and illegal, and never supported by the government, but it clearly existed and had a defined structure.

There are a dozen or so Gospels that were never made canonical. Why? Because they are "heretic"? What is heresy then?

Heresy simply means "wrong teaching", and the Catholic Church, which established the canon, had the authority to determine what was heretical or not. Why? Because it's their canon. Marcion had his own canon, the Gnostic Christians had theirs, and it was for them to determine whether something was heretical or not, by their own standards.

The majority of texts that people trot out and say "why isn't this in the Bible", such as the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Truth, are holy books from another religion. One might as well complain that there are no Hindu or Muslim books in the Bible.

We don't have the New Testament from let say 40 AD or 70 AD. If they were, they are deeply hidden.

The New Testament didn't exist in 40AD, because the belief was that Jesus was "coming right back" and no one bothered writing anything down until it was readily apparent that Jesus wasn't going to return quickly and witnesses to his life and ministry were dying off. The best dating estimates are that the books of the New Testament were written from 60AD (maybe a little earlier) until 95AD.

I want to read Dead Sea scrolls before making any conclusion about the real life of Jesus the Lord.

Why? They are not Christian texts, they are from an ascetic Jewish community and have no insights into Jesus.

I replied to most of the replies, however I didn't receive further benevolence to discuss by adjensen. Based on this discussion, and based on what I have read and talked in the adjensen's own OP thread about the book of Thomas, I make my conclusion. And it is, the poster adjensen does not represent authentic catholic point of view, neither contemporary, nor that of ancient church. The contemporary Catholic church holds much more open views than those presented by adjensen here and there. As of the "heresy" named by the ancient church, I already responded. Those heresies although in disagreement are seen as Christian communities with valid Baptism, according to Nicaea council that adjensen so much loves. What is the point for the reader to consider, when someone declares himself /herself to speak from impeccable catholic positions, it is better to double and tripple check those positions. In many cases those are very outdated catholic positions at best, from before a number of councils (Vatican 2) and popes. At best they represent the viewpoint in that time.

In this multiple reply, adjensen teaches me what is right and what is wrong, assuming such a position of authority. He/she however did not enter into prolonged discussion because apparently he/she lacks further arguments beside stating positions that belong to the past, at best. I write that for the sake of the readers who might be tempted to qualify the user adjensen as the true catholic and to attach themselves to very outdated viewpoints not anymore held by contemporary catholic church.

It is quite important to the thread "Cardinal Maradiaga challenges CDF chief Archbishop Mueller about Communion to re-married". Because, if the Catholic church new leadership pretends to follow Jesus up to the word, it should take notice that the words of Jesus has been changed AS WE SPEAK in new verses, translations and updates. "except for adultery" has been silently changed into "except for unlawful marriage" in the catholic readings to fit certain agenda not to allow divorce even in the case of adultery.
This matters.

It matters even more, if the already public knowledge of Jesus having wife is proven by authentic texts. Such as the Gnostic gospels nut not only. Perhaps such texts exist in the Vatican library. It is said emperor Theodosius burnt Alexandria library, but secretly preserved important part of the books. (source - Camelot).