Clicks2.2K
en.news
161

Cardinal Hummes: “Ordination of Married Men Will Be Re-Discussed”

Cardinal Cláudio Hummes, 85, who grew up in a German colony in Brazil, confirmed that ordaining married men will be re-discussed.

Hummes, a key Francis alley, was the Amazon Synod’s Relator General.

According to Estado.com (February 12), Hummes said that “this question now needs to be worked on with the Pope in the bodies of the Holy See.”

A Vatican organism announced by Francis after the Synod will play an important role in ordaining married men “in areas of scarcity,” Hummes added.

Therefore, the Synod’s final document – which asks for abolishing celibacy and introducing deaconesses - "will not go on the shelf."

Belo Horizonte Archbishop Walmor Oliveira, 65, recalled that Francis commissioned a study to update questions concerning the ecclesiastical ministry since “the current document is more than 50 years old” – as if the priesthood had changed in the meantime.

Picture: Cláudio Hummes, © Agência Brasil, CC BY, #newsKvuauclqsh

MarkM
The re-discussion never ends. It is the relentless marxist strategy.
In fact, the organization will be discussing how to implement the Final Document, no more and no less.
Another wolf devouring the sheep.
St Michael the Archangel defend us in battle
DEFENSA DE LA FE likes this.
J G Tasan
Time is to be wasted for the re-discussion!
...and re-discussed, and re-discussed, and re-discussed.

In my state of Maryland they are about to consider assisted suicide legislation for the sixth time, even though no one on "either side" wants to go through the miserable exercise again.

Re-discussing ordination of married men is kind of like that. Something other than goodness is driving the discussion.
Novella Nurney likes this.
"My catholic formation was based on the glorious Council of Trent which tells me beyond any doubt whatsoever that..."

Sure it does. That same Catholic formation, if you paid any concern to it beyond virtue-signalling would also tell you the last four Popes were also "excommunicated formal heretics". That's IF you were applying those standards of heresy and excommunication uniformly and you …More
"My catholic formation was based on the glorious Council of Trent which tells me beyond any doubt whatsoever that..."

Sure it does. That same Catholic formation, if you paid any concern to it beyond virtue-signalling would also tell you the last four Popes were also "excommunicated formal heretics". That's IF you were applying those standards of heresy and excommunication uniformly and you don't.
J G Tasan likes this.
@Ultraviolet
"the last four Popes were also "excommunicated formal heretics""
A sitting pope can only be excommunicated for formal heresy on a grave matter.
I have asked you many many times to post one single example of this from any of the four popes you refer to.

You have run away time after time hiding behind bluster and dodgy website containing dozens of such alleged examples.
Your tactic …More
@Ultraviolet
"the last four Popes were also "excommunicated formal heretics""
A sitting pope can only be excommunicated for formal heresy on a grave matter.
I have asked you many many times to post one single example of this from any of the four popes you refer to.

You have run away time after time hiding behind bluster and dodgy website containing dozens of such alleged examples.
Your tactic is called fillibustering.

You do this because there is no such example anywhere.
You obviously believe thee is so I ask you again post ONE EXAMPLE OF A FORMAL
HERESY BY A SITTING POPE .

YOU CLAIM THERE ARE DOZENS BUT FAIL, AND FAIL, AND FAIL AGAIN TO POST JUST ONE.

IF YOU WISH TO RETAIN ANY SHRED OF CREDIBILITY YOU WOULD DO AS I ASK.

[CUE BLASTS AND INSULTS AND MORE FILLIBUSTERING]
"Your tactic is called fillibustering."

Wrong. For starters, this isn't a legislative proceeding and I'm not delaying it. Typical. You fabricated a new definition for an existing word that means something entirely different. Another lie from you as usual.

My "tactic" is called debating. You can't debate and it shows. You confuse debate with rhetoric. Your endlessly repeated claims never …More
"Your tactic is called fillibustering."

Wrong. For starters, this isn't a legislative proceeding and I'm not delaying it. Typical. You fabricated a new definition for an existing word that means something entirely different. Another lie from you as usual.

My "tactic" is called debating. You can't debate and it shows. You confuse debate with rhetoric. Your endlessly repeated claims never have any support except your big mouth. You invent and ignore canon law as you invent "facts" and ignore real ones.

Benedict doesn't wear his Papal Ring anymore, for example. You just lie and say he does, but you can't find a photo of him wearing it. You lie. It's a simple as that.

"A sitting pope can only be excommunicated for formal heresy on a grave matter."

[citation needed, none supplied as usual]

Define "grave"? More precisely, where does the Church define "grave"? As opposed to how YOU define it. Your definitions are as arbitrary as any other nonsense that pours out of your beak.

What Canon Law are you citing? None supplied. As usual.

"I have asked you many many times to post one single example of this from any of the four popes you refer to."

...and I have supplied that list many, many times.

I'll supply it again! I don't have to re-write every example because YOU demand it.

My argument is simple. You are a hypocrite. If Francis is an automatically exommunicated heretic anti-pope etc. etc., then so are the last four popes on similar grounds. That includes Benedict XVI.

Or... we can give them ALL the benefit of the doubt, including Francis.

If you feel the previous four popes did NOT formally advanced any heretical teachings, then YOU must disprove all the heresies other critics HAVE allegedly found.

This isn't about ONE instance.

Your tactic is obvious. You want to fallaciously reduce this entire discussion to ONE example you can fixate on like never before. But that is NOT my argument and I'm NOT going to allow you to re-write my position to suit your dishonest grand-standing.

...like calling a website "dodgy". That's you falsely attacking the source of the info because you can't refute the information they provide.

Worse, it isn't just ONE website. There are numerous sites all criticizing the last four popes.

YOU are the one who "runs away" from doing what YOU should to prove YOUR claim. Disprove EVERY accusation of heresy critics have found against the last four popes. ALL of them.

If you can't or you won't, then the accusations stand as does MY argument that you're a hypocrite.

"so I ask you again post ONE EXAMPLE OF A FORMAL HERESY BY A SITTING POPE ."

...and I ask you AGAIN to go to each of the sites and disprove ALL of them.

"IF YOU WISH TO RETAIN ANY SHRED OF CREDIBILITY YOU WOULD DO AS I ASK."

That isn't how debating works, Thor, and you know it.

I've lost count how many times I've explained why YOU need to disprove the material supporting MY claim. Others have compiled the evidence and YOU must disprove it.

You're inherently dishonest. You lie as easily as anyone else speaks the thruth because you truly do seem to believe saying thing magically makes them true.

I don't have to re-write it or choose one example just because YOU keep screaming I should. Grow up. Debate like an intelligent adult, not like an middle-schooler.

Benedict XVI denied the Resurrection. That's an error he advanced as Pope. He also advanced a bunch MORE.

www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/RazResArt.pdf

novusordowatch.org/…/deniers-of-the-…

...along with lots of other bad stuff that YOU simply ignore and "run away from".

ttp://www.calefactory.org
www.opusdeialert.com/footnotes.htm
www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/…/anti-pope-bened…
www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/…/principles-of-c…
holywar.org/Ratzinger.htm
Go forward?
My catholic formation was based on the glorious Council of Trent which tells me beyond any doubt whatsoever that Bergoglio aka “pope “ francis is an excommunicated formal heretic.
It also tells me that any misfortunate person in such a state can NOT BE THE VICAR OF CHRIST.
I don't see the rubber duckie.
Jim Dorchak and 2 more users like this.
Jim Dorchak likes this.
Alex A likes this.
DEFENSA DE LA FE likes this.
Under the wheels.
J G Tasan likes this.
Deacon Waugh likes this.
Tesa
[Imaginative Take]

QA: Authentic Magisterium, directed to universal Church and everyone else

Synod Doc: Work of the council fathers/bishops of the region, belongs to Amazon Church as fruit of the synod, has papal blessing and is thus authoritative in that region. Example of PF's "synodal vision."
But QA fully incorporates Synod Doc by reference, making it just as magisterial as QA, no matter what ++Baldisseri says.
There is no magisterium connected to antipope francis.
All this trash he constantly publicizes is harming both catholics and the environment.
"There is no magisterium connected to antipope francis."

...because Thor's Catholic Parrot underlined his squawking.

"RAWWK Anniepope Francis, Aunty Pope Francis, RAWWK"
Discontent with Pope Francis among Germany’s progressive Catholics. Head of top lay group on Wednesday laments “lack of courage to pursue real reforms.” Germans’ trust in pope was down to 29% in 2019 from 34% previous year.