Tags
A great deal of fuss has been made about the ‘Dubia’ from the four cardinals to the Pope and his refusal to answer them. Readers of the Catholic press will be familiar with the divisions over Amoris Laetitia. They concern the moral law, the nature of the sacraments and the authority of previous teaching. But it comes down to the question: can remarried Catholics receive Communion if they aren’t living as brother and sister? The Church has always been clear that the answer to this is ‘no’, but it is equally clear that pastoral practice has varied, not least in the sorts of circumstances people find themselves in in a society where late conversions are common and civil divorce very easy. These are new circumstances and for the representatives of the Church simply to insist on a binary answer which would fit all cases, might lead to injustice; but for the Pope not to reply might risk another sort of injustice, in which the faithful look up and are fed stones.
Whatever answer to Pope gave, it would seem unlikely to change the reality at parish level. We are told that the use of contraception among Catholics is common, and yet, if one looks at the lines for Communion and one took them at face value, you’d not suppose that at all – quite the opposite. In the end the individual knows their situation, as does their confessor, and to pronounce in the abstract would simply to be to assert what no one has challenged – which is that the recent Synods did not change the teaching of the Church with regard to communion for the divorced, however much some would like to to have done so, and however much those who would have liked this claim it has. This is a matter on which the teaching of the Church is clear, and where pastoral practice clearly varies. It is not the only such issue.
No doubt those calling on the Pope to say something more have their reasons for so doing, and no doubt the Holy Father has his reasons for not responding. For the individual Catholic, it is hard to see what is unclear. Those who wish for clarity have already found it in pastoral practice, which varies according to what the confessor knows of his flock; this is right and proper. The Church is not a penal colony, it is a field hospital in a world where Sin is injuring and has injured many Faithful. Those who want clarity have it in the age-old teaching of the Church; if they wish to apply it to every individual regardless of circumstances then, to use a word much beloved of the Pope, that would seem a trifle ‘rigid’. So the Holy Father may be showing much wisdom in letting things lie where they are, because in practice, it is the individual conscience which knows where truth lies, and if that conscience is formed well by the confessor, then we can be sure that what is done is what ought to be done.
Please give me an analogous text to Amoris Laetitia concerning birth control. AL does bring into question whether or not there remains [or if the Pope believes] that there is such a thing as objective sin and a few other rather serious issues as well. Lest I fail to mention it, AL also contradicts the practice as proclaimed by the Church . . . even by our late great Pope, St. John Paul II. So this is a much different animal than the case regarding contraception as no sitting Pope has ever stated that they can be accompanied and receive communion though they are still contracepting. Perhaps that will be done by Pope Francis as well? For lets face it, if it works for 1 sin it works for another. For my part, I will follow Christ and for others they will can follow the Pope though he breaks with Christ and His Church.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Seems to me there is a category difference between them. C. here is talking about those who divorced and remarried and then became Catholic (or at least parts of other churches). He is not implying that those who married in the Church, and then divorced and remarried are the same. We all know many who married at city hall, or its equivalent, or even in other churches which are more amenable to divorce. They may well have been acting in good faith, as they were taught.
But what you speak of about contraception is people who have done, and continue to do what the Church considers a sin. That is not even close to comparable.
Forgiveness is always available for sins, but we all believe the words, “Go, and sin no more”.
LikeLiked by 2 people
That’s is precisely why the Church has a procedure for annulments although it is becoming more and more necessary for Catholic couples as well as they are separating and remarrying at a rate that is closing in on the rest of the world. Poor education? Or too many Pope Francis types that would ammend the 10 commandments and forget that the sin of adultery continues to be an objective evil. That is why until this document we had a practice that objectified this behavior and was consistent with the Gospels.
LikeLike
Do you really think that at parish and diocesan level provision was not already being made?
LikeLiked by 2 people
I think I answered that in the previous reply. Sorry, I should have read this first and divided the answer between your two comments.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think this is reading Francis through a hermeneutic of distrust. In practice what has changed?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Everything in a way, C. In this line of thinking, then we could say to those who were contracepting or those who are living out of wedlock or in SSM’s etc. need not give up their lifestyle to become Catholic and to receive Holy Communion. For if they do not abide by the teachings of Christ and of the Ten Commandments they have not had a ‘change of heart’ and are not serious about being in communion with the Catholic Faith. I think this intercommunion of Lutherans with Catholics is proof that one not necessarily believe in the Catholic Faith to live as though they were Catholic. It is a false peace and a false mercy. What rogue priest modernist progressive priests and bishops allow is not to be looked upon as the ‘normal’ within the Church. If that is the status quo that we are upholding then we are only aiding and abetting a Church that no longer abides by our principles . . . which is no religion at all. We can all then be excused for not believing what the Church believes and feel justified in living our ‘catholic’ lives in hypocrisy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You seem to ignore the relationship between confessor and penitent and to reduce it to something else. Where a confessor knows the facts then he might well seek permission to exercise mercy. That has always been so, has it not?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t think that the relationship between confessor and penitent is trumps the Will of God and His Bride the Church which has 2000 years experience in protecting these hard teachings. If they want to place in the hand of the confessor the right to violate Catholic principles and allowing objective evil to be forgiven, though it is not repented and continues unabated even when confessing what they are currently doing is a fundamental change in the mind of the Church and Her charge to protect the body of teachings which follow from Christ and the Church over two millennia.
LikeLike
I think there are plentiful examples in the Gospel showing what Jesus thought on such matters.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There are . . . and they were to change and reform their lives. And the Church has always allowed that as did Christ. But that is not what is being required anymore . . . nothing is required except the judgment of the confessor even if they are violating the perenial teachings of the Church.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In confessing we confess not to the priest but to Christ, and the confessor is empowered to act as he sees fit. I don’t know about you, but I’d feel wary of interposing between the penitent and Christ.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Of course we are confessing to Christ and I defy you to show me where the Church has ever said that one is validly absolved for unrepentent sins that are confessed though they have no intention of stopping.
LikeLike
I am not talking about unrepentant sinners – why go to confession except to repent?
LikeLiked by 1 person
So you can save face by going up and receiving with everyone else? I really don’t know why people who are not planning on changing their way of life or who do not agree with Church teaching go to Confession. They add sin to sin. It is both illicit and invalid as you well know. Its like a hit man going to confession and then going back to work. The words of absolution are no better than the penitent’s intention to be loosed from their sins.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Me too – I was talking about sinners who repented and had received absolution.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoop, I think these types grew up in a Catholic household where Mom and Dad would reward the kiddies after they came home from making a good confession to Father. They know they will be treated better by mom and dad and it makes them look good to others if they go, not to mention the little girl who loved to brag about going to confession at recess so she could display her holier than thou locks for all the other gals to envy all day. When they grow up, it isn’t much better. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ya know what C, not everyone who goes to Confession, is there to grow in holiness of life. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In which case they miss the point.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Okie dokie C. Loved this:” but for the Pope not to reply might risk another sort of injustice, in which the faithful look up and are fed stones.” Very good analogy.
Have you read Douthat’s take on things from the New York Times yet? No? Here it is: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/26/opinion/sunday/his-holiness-declines-to-answer.html?_r=0
One gal I know refers to the current Holy Father as His Fuzziness as he seems to like to blur a few too many lines. I think its cute and fits. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In reality, there are many fuzzy lines – I don’t see the Pope contradicting Church teaching, just allowing room for what is, in places, already pastoral practice.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Kind of reminds me of the accepting of Communion in the hand. Though countries were doing this illicitly they were given a pass . . . supposedly only for those rogue and rebellious countries that did not abide by the wishes of the Council. However, they relaxed this to include anybody that went to the Vatican asking for this permission. There now is an ‘indult’ which should be a rare exception which has become a norm, ipso facto, by their disobedience to the wishes of the Church. It seems Pop Francis has learned how to legitimize an illegitimate practice just the ‘spirit of VII’ crowd did after the Novus Ordo hit our parishes. This man is to Church as Fidel Castro was to Cuba . . . a ruthless rebel intent on imposing his views upon the Church whether licitly or illicitly. I am convinced that the ‘purging’ is just beginning among the orthodox members of the hierarchy. Their demotions and the promotions of his liberal marxist progressive friends are the beginnings of this coming ‘pruning’ of orthodoxy that he seems to have set into motion almost from his first day as Pope.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not a good example, since the practice in the Early Church seems to have been to have followed the example of the Last Supper and to have held the blessed bread. Not sure where his silence on the dubia shows a ruthless determination, though.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I wasn’t speaking to his silence so much in that comment. But his silence is cowardice. He knows that if he answers yes he undercuts his own agenda. If he answers no then he is heretic so he allows his progressive henchmen to throw personal bombs at the Catdinals for him. He is a coward as are all bullies who think that only their beliefs and desires are important. So they have marginalized men who were in places of honor while this man was still a second rate bishop in Peronist/Marxist Argentina. And his first order of business is to neutralize them and have his ‘yes’ men attack them ruthlessly . . . not on the actual content of the dubia however but in the personal ways. When you listen to the shrieking of his side compared to the controlled and very measured remarks being made by the Cardinals and men like Athanasius Schneider you can easily see the difference between Liberal and Conservative, Unorthodoxy and Orthodoxy, men of the world and men of God.
LikeLike
Why not open the door to Jesus and stop being battered around by this sick sad religion?
LikeLike
What did Jesus say about Divorce? He said what his church says. What does the Calvary chapel say?
LikeLike
Jesus said that if you just must divorce, give a bill of divorce.
Calvary Chapel is just a legal name. Its not a codified set of dos and donts. The saints let the Lord deal with any problems that come up. Not to say walks thru the door is saved. But there are many saved there. At least at the one I am led to.
LikeLike
No that is not what he said.
LikeLike
Ill look up what Jesus said. Rite now im going to get some hot chocolate and a piece of cake
LikeLike
They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
This is what I said. The same as Jesus said.
So, then tell me….what did Jesus say, even though its rite here. I keep forgetting that cathols take the second command and turn it around to say that god commands us to make graven images and to bow befor them. You idolatrous Sadducees will say absolutely ANYTHING.
LikeLike
C, those at the Last Supper were the Apostles and they were worthy to hold the Blessed Sacrament in their hands as well as the chalice they were handed by our Blessed Lord. Judas was known by his act of intinction, the very first of its kind. Some Rites outlawed intinction all together because of it. But we shouldn’t open this can-o-worms here. It gets ugly fast. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Intinction, no, but the earliest catechetical manual we have specifies communion in the hand and says precisely nothing about communion on the tongue.
LikeLike
Chalcedon – careful – keep it clean.
Is ‘communion in the hand’ the sound of one hand clapping? As far as communion on the tongue – best not to go down there.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Honi soit qui mal y pense as they say in Westminster ☺️
LikeLiked by 1 person
C, what manual might that be? Love to know. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
The catechetical lectures of St Cyril of Jerusalem.
LikeLike
Thanks. I’ll look into it soon. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Exactly C. That’s why he’s so loved by so many. He allows just enough wiggle room for some to feel comfortable in their open rebellion. He does this for many differing groups of persons, not any one particular faction within. He is a people pleaser and wonders why some (here I’m thinking of the 4 Cardinals as well as a few others) don’t practice the same type of spiritual enrichment. One thing in particular your comment brings to mind is this: I have an acquaintance who has a female friend who is a life-long Catholic but married three times. She is currently “serving” as a Eucharistic Minister, her words, not mine, and frequently brings Communion to the homebound and elderly who no longer attend Mass and watch one on television. She also Lectors, again her words not mine, and at times feels spiritual enriched by attending a local Episcopalian church. She thinks the woman who is the Pastor there is beautiful and she has spoken to her several times. She really believes that some day the Church will have to cave in, again her words not mine, and allow all the girls who are serving the altars to become what God is obviously calling them to be and preparing them for, priests. Now, her marriage to husband # 1, who is still living has never been investigated for nullity. But he was abusive and an alcoholic, so she believes God wouldn’t want her in such a relationship. She left and married hubby #2 who died of the same disease, alcoholism and then she married hubby #3. They weren’t married in the Church but in her mother-in-law’s backyard from marriage #2.
Through all of this she would sporadically attend Church, but knew she couldn’t receive and felt so darned guilty when she’d sneak up for Communion, again her words, not mine, she had to stop going all together. Although she wouldn’t admit this next part to me, I suspect she went to the Episcopal church to receive there, because she once let fly in an off-hand way in our conversation at lunch one day, that when you receive elsewhere, you never feel that nagging Catholic guilt. Oh. I nearly dropped my fork, and since my mom said “never speak with your mouth full,” I said not one itty bitty word.
She made a decision to return to the Church a few years ago and found a priest who basically listened to her story of abuse and alcoholic marriages, and after an hour face-to-face, simply absolved her as “She’d suffered enough,” he said. And that was it! He also told her no anullment was needed; that he’d done it all right there and she could receive Communion in the morning at the very next Mass. He is the one who taught her serve in all the capacities that she does and she knows she is an inspiration to other women in her parish and has worked to introduce other women to this priest who also has told them no annulment needed once he’s absolved the serial marriage problem. This is his personal pastoral practice. He is not alone in this. Now here’s where Pope Francis’ fuzzy lines come in. He IS “just allowing room for what is, in places, already pastoral practice.” IF all of this is dismissed as the priest’s own assessment and counsel, why should anyone worry or worse second guess this priest? He took the time to listen and surely he knows his sheep better than anyone, including a smelly old Tribunal who have way too many cases as it is? Why, there are actual times in the past when there were no Tribunals to mitigate marriage troubles and only one priest perhaps within a 500-mile radius. They regularized marriages then, so why shouldn’t they do the same now? I know you know how much fuzzier it can get than that, but if the Pope himself ignores even the Gospel admonition of Christ who said a man who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, well, why should all those rigid old fashioned close minded priests not want to make their parishioners as happy as Pope Francis does? After all, they love him, not mean old Cardinal Burke. Now come on, C. Who would you rather spend an hour with – Francis or Arinze?
God bless. Ginnyfree.
P.S. The above gal and my acquaintance both love Pope Francis to bits and especially love it when he gives stuffed shirts a good shake up. Guess whose words those are? Guessed right – not mine.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I wouldn’t want to put myself in the position of her priest who may know things you don’t- but then I wouldn’t want to put myself in her position either – if it is what you say, then she will soon have to answer to a higher Power. But from your telling of it, she was one of those looking for an excuse – they usually find it.
LikeLike
Well, C, she knows that she isn’t supposed to do this at all, but to her this is the “New Church,” and she loves it! She’s about 8 generations back Irish Catholic and knows really well what she’s doing and doesn’t give a fat rat’s …….. to quote Bosco our favorite clown. There are several vocations to religious life and the priesthood in her family and always have been. Some approve and applaud her and her ways, and some don’t. We’re the ones who need to get over our past. And she believes Francis is the Pope to make it so. She feels she’s finally been given a Pope that listened to her side of things. Yeah. We haven’t spoken much lately, and that I am truly thankful for because it gets hard being around her intolerance for me and my old-fashioned stick in the mud ways. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Where there are people like that, they will behave like that. If you find a fool-proof way to stop sinners sinning, feel free top let us all know ginny. If the priest is colluding, as you imply, then I take it someone has written to his superiors to complain?
LikeLike
Actually C, I’m a transplant to where I live now. It is a very Protestant town and vicinity. It IS reflected in the laissez-faire attitude of the Catholics I’ve had the privilege of getting to know in these three years. So far, I’ve spoken with 8 persons who are divorced who don’t want annulments at all and receive Communion on a regular basis. This used to be a precept of the Church, to follow the Church’s laws regarding marriage, one being divorcees need to seek annulments to be properly reconciled to the Church. That’s the reason I posted the article I did. It still is Church law but the newer Catechism doesn’t list it with the others individually anymore and the attitude is that it doesn’t really matter anymore. NOT!
When I encounter someone who doesn’t think they need an annulment or knowing they should, refuses to do so, then blows it off like it is simply another meaningless restriction on their freedom to decide for themselves, etc., well, then I realize that these actions speak of a hardened heart and stiff neck as God describes in the Scriptures. They simply don’t care anymore about following the Church’s laws regarding marriage. In that state of mind, one is not worthy to receive Communion because one has removed oneself from a functioning union with the Church and thereby broken their part of the Covenant we made in Baptism and renewed in Confirmation. One woman I spoke to who is a regular pillar of the parish and has been so for a long time, she’s 86, commented that if this other gal didn’t want an annulment, she shouldn’t be made to get one! It would violate her conscience! If she is in a “good conscience” over her marital status, then no one should interfere, including another priest. She was absolved of it all in the 80’s by one of the priests who used served here, so it doesn’t matter anymore. This is a story of over 40 years of living as a divorcee and receiving Communion unworthily. She’s not changing a thing and doesn’t really care to hear there is mercy to be had in seeking the annulment she needs. This is just one of the responses I’ve had. Another was simply, “Well, I’m not interested in remarrying at this time. If I found the right person, I might get one (an annulment), but not now. I don’t need one,” (meaning the annulment is just permission to marry again). Yeah. Dating while still technically married to wife number one but not until it gets serious will he think about reconciling himself to God thru the Tribunal.
THAT is the missing link I think in this mess. People have lost sight of the fact that the Tribunal is part of the means of Reconciliation of the sinner in trouble in their married life with God and without it, they aren’t reconciled to God regarding their duties and obligations in marriage as Christian spouses. Vowed to obey, not just each other, but God and His Church, till death do they part. Hello? Gone. Totally gone is the understanding of sins against the Sacrament of Matrimony and the need to bring these to Confession. If a person has decided to end their marriage, until they seek the proper way to do this, they are bound under pain of sin to do certain things or they are no longer worthy to receive the Eucharist. Totally absent is the whole understanding of the sins of the marital state and that the Tribunal process actually brings about reconciliation with God regarding one’s marital obligations. It is part of the firm purpose of amendment a penitent would need to act on if they are seeking out of their marital obligations and vows. Hello? I don’t’ think I’ve heard this part of the process discussed in 20 years as a Catholic but a handful of times and that has been in very obscure places such as recorded talks and lectures available on the Youtube and in websites, but never in a homily.
What do you think would happen if a priest on a Sunday decided to start catechising his parish regarding ALL the details of living the Sacrament of Matrimony including the need to confess on a regular basis their sins against their vows? They’d probably lynch him if he dared tell them the truth that divorce and no annulment means not worthy to receive the Eucharist or serve in any capacity in the parish, whether that is EM, Reader, Usher, Greeter or whatever these folks think of their “ministries” as the priestly people of God. Ah but I digress to another error-laden topic. That woe can wait for another day. The ONLY sins against their vows I’ve ever heard discussed has been cheating, sex with another or pornography use. That’s it. Nothing else. So the little sheep think if they aren’t doing either of these things, then no sins at all in their married lives. Right? He’d be a very brave man to simply stand up and start teaching the people in the parish about what they are supposedly actually living already. What a mission THAT would be: teaching all the Church teaches about the obligations and positive moral laws regarding marriage as Christians witnessing in a fallen world, starving to see that truth we carry with us into the world. Why then some Catholics would actually become the leaven in the world were supposed to be instead of the hypocrisy we sadly witness to everywhere we go. Nuff said. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good points, Ginny, but alas they rather support my view that whatever the rules are, the practice is otherwise.
LikeLike
Bravo, Ginny.
LikeLike
C, this is the crux of the matter. Pastoral and diocesan practice has become so lax following those fuzzy lines that the pope now has to legitimize it. Fuzzy lines = individual consciences defining truth = Protestantism. Pope Francis is the best protestant pope in history.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You say ‘become’ as though this is a new development. Talking, as I do now quite a bit, to older priests, they say otherwise.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Were these priests speaking about this happening on a wide scale before VII? Or are you saying that it is not a new development in the post VII Church; as that seems rather likely?
LikeLiked by 1 person
What I have been told is it has nothing to do with V2 but everything to do with societal change. One of the older priest pointed out that when he was young he’d never come across a divorced parishioner.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, people took their faith very much to heart in his day as a society. Now only those who still have a lively faith do so. Most are rather cold in their faith . . . as you noted by those who do not hold to the teachings of the Church and yet stand in line to receive the Eucharist. Most folks will blame it on the world though we stood against the world many times before. There is something internal to the Church that is going on. And VII did seem to present the world as not one of the 3 things against which we fight but something to be embraced in some way. I think that had some consequences but nobody can say one way or another since we cannot go back and undo what is now history.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I wonder? Back in the days when divorce was rare, I wonder how many adulterers took communion? We don’t and can’t know, but we can suspect.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well the whole parish rarely stood up to receive in those days; showing respect for the Sacrament. However, most did avail themselves of the once a year requirement to confess their sins. I’d prefer that rather than folks pretending to be without sin as they present themselves for reception today. It’s rare for folks who receive each week to one day not receive. Once that was not be the case.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed – and again we see the effect of societal change.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We were certainly quick to chuck our Catholic Culture for the secular one that awaited us with open arms. Satan always greets souls with gifts . . . like liberating moral views and such. 🙂
LikeLike
P.S. Here is an excellent article outlining an area of fuzziness that Pope Francis has failed to take full advantage of yet. Please don’t bring it to his attention!!!!!
The Disappearing Precept on Catholic Marriage
OCT 18
Posted by Brian Williams -Liturgy Guy
A subtle, yet significant, change in the Precepts of the Catholic Church was recently brought to my attention. More than just a change, it is actually an omission: the removal of the sixth precept regarding the Church’s laws on marriage. The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains that the precepts of the Church “concern the moral and Christian life united with the liturgy and nourished by it.” The 1994 Catechism promulgated during the papacy of Pope St. John Paul II lists only five precepts:
1. “You shall attend Mass on Sundays and on holy days of obligation and rest from servile labor.”
2. “You shall confess your sins at least once a year.”
3. “You shall receive the sacrament of the Eucharist at least during the Easter season.”
4. “You shall observe the days of fasting and abstinence established by the Church.”
5. “You shall help to provide for the needs of the Church.”
(CCC 2042-2043)
After being made aware of the omitted precept I went back and consulted my copy of The Catechism Explained, written by Father Francis Spirago and published by Benziger Brothers in 1899. Fr. Spirago lists a total of six precepts of the Catholic Church, with the final advising the faithful:
“Not to marry persons who are not Catholics, or who are related to us within a forbidden degree of kindred, nor privately without witnesses, nor to solemnize marriage at forbidden times.”
The Baltimore Catechism 3 from 1949 also addresses Catholic marriage, listing a sixth precept as well which states: “You shall observe the Church’s laws on marriage.”
It is unclear why the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church omitted the traditional precept on marriage. Following the ecumenical focus of the Second Vatican Council and Pope Paul VI’s 1970 motu proprio on mixed marriages, it appears that the Church may have simply acquiesced to the increasing indifference among many Catholics who did not see their faith as a priority when choosing a spouse. Considering the confusion among the faithful regarding marriage in recent decades, it would seem that now is the time to highlight, rather than delete, this precept from the catechetical life of the Church.
Listening to a Catholic radio show recently, I heard the tragic stories of one caller after another expressing how their own mixed marriages (or those of their parents) had resulted in entire families falling away from the Church. This disparity of cult, marrying a non-Catholic, was always discouraged by the pre-conciliar Church, as demonstrated by the sixth precept. It should be obvious to us all that mixed marriages have presented a serious obstacle to raising children in the faith over the last four decades.
Acknowledging these challenges, the USCCB’s own website “For Your Marriage” explains the troubling shift in language for the Church with the 1983 revision to the Code of Canon Law:
“Because of these challenges, the church requires the Catholic party (in the marriage) to be faithful to his or her faith and to “promise to do all in his or her power” to have their children baptized and raised in the Catholic faith. This provision of the 1983 Code of Canon Law – with its wording to try one’s best – is a change from the 1917 version, which required an absolute promise to have the children raised Catholic.
“Likewise, the non-Catholic spouse is no longer required to promise to raise the children in the Catholic faith, but “to be informed at an appropriate time of these promises which the Catholic party has to make, so that it is clear that the other party is truly aware of the promise and obligation of the Catholic party,” the code states.
“But suppose the non-Catholic party insists that the children will not be raised Catholic? The diocese can still grant permission for the marriage, as long as the Catholic party promises to do all he or she can to fulfill that promise…”
Thankfully, many Catholics are rediscovering traditional resources such as The Catechism Explained and The Baltimore Catechism. For those parents and parishes who utilize these earlier catechisms for forming the next generation, the importance of a Catholic marriage will be prominently stated within the precepts.
Both clergy and the laity need to reclaim a bit of common sense in the coming years as well. It is unrealistic to expect mixed marriages to produce an environment conducive to effectively raising children in the faith. Something as important as our faith, a matter of (supernatural) life or death, deserves to be nurtured by both parents in a truly Catholic household. This doesn’t mean that disparity of cult can always be avoided. However, it can be discussed, discouraged, and explained why unity of faith is vitally important. To this point, it is interesting to note that 80 percent of the men ordained to the priesthood the last two years came from households where both parents were Catholic (according to the Survey of Ordinands to the Priesthood by CARA).
We have seen the near total collapse of the faith in family after family over the last two generations. We have simultaneously witnessed the attack against marriage itself, beginning with an attempt to redefine the very nature and purpose of the male-female relationship. It is a tragic irony that the very disappearance of the sixth precept of the Catholic Church from the Catechism has coincided with the widespread disappearance of sacramental marriage among so many professing Catholics.
Possibly it’s time to once again ensure that all lists of the Precepts of the Catholic Church include the sixth on observing the Church’s teaching on marriage.
https://liturgyguy.com/2015/10/18/the-disappearing-precept-on-catholic-marriage/
God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I do think that we can understand a man by those whom he praises; http://www.torchofthefaith.com/news.php
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am not sure that’s necessarily an unbiased source; may be wrong, of course 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Is the history of the Cardinal wrong? or Charles Curran? I’ve known about these from the days when I first became Catholic. At that time they were considered heretics which Rome simply put up with and ignored.
LikeLike
I have no idea, I simply doubt that site is telling me all I’#d need to know to make an informed judgement.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well it fits with what I know about the two men?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I know nothing except what sites which wouldn’t give me a rounded picture report.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I was lucky enough to have two older priests who help me avoid the mines that were planted in the minefields. It wasn’t something that they would discuss with laypersons normally as ‘dirty laundry’ was still something to keep hidden. However they took me into their confidence and I thank them for it. If they hadn’t, I would have thought that the Catholic Faith had disappeared because the True Faith cannot teach that Truth is both ‘yes’ and ‘no’ on the very same teachings.
LikeLiked by 1 person
True.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Actually Scoop, I would have loved to been given such a list in RCIA. But where I came in, the DRE was in dissent and thought she should be the Pastor and not our Priest. These folks were her heroes. Hell, she’d probably hand out their names and publications and recommended reading material for spiritual enrichment. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’ve met thousands of those types myself Ginny. Thank God when something didn’t sound right, I would take it to the old priests and they would either condemn the false teachings or explain the intricacies that made it orthodox teaching. It was a process rather than a list as such. But we did speak of many people who were destroying the teachings of the Catholic faith.
LikeLike
Scoop, you’re a very lucky man.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am constantly reminded about the blessings that were heaped upon me during and after my conversion to the faith. So for me, I don’t see it as being lucky so much but being blessed beyond my wildest hopes . . . and it came when I needed it most; for it looked as though the true faith no longer existed anywhere. I was given two and then a third for my private mentoring [may they rest in peace] and they led me to finding others who still held the faith [all of it] and I am eternally grateful to God for that help.
LikeLike
Indeed. I was the non-Catholic in my own mixed marriage. Thanks to God we went to an orthodox Bishop that had me make a vow to raise our children Catholic which did. In doing that, it opened me up to attending the Catholic Mass with my wife and children and after some time, to my own conversion to the faith. So the precpept concerning marriage is more than useful it is a weapon against the disruption of the faimily unit which Satan would like to sow if he only given a small opening to insert his thin edge of the wedge.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Again, I am not going to tell the Church how to manage these things, if St John Paul II thought that was right, then I’m not about to go head to head with him. Either we have an authority in whose judgement we trust, or we become Protestants. OIf we insist on putting our two penn’orth in when we have a whole hierarchy empowered to deal with these things, we invite chaos and dissent.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m not telling the Church anything . . . I am merely pointing out what the Church has perenially taught.
LikeLike
And I think the Pope may just be pointing out what pastoral practice has been for some time now.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Which is what? Illicit at the best and invalid at the worst?
LikeLike
Not sure what you’re asking here? I have never said that an inpenitent can be absolved; are you suggesting a penitent sinner cannot be? Can’t follow this I’m afraid.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Our extension of the Amoris Laetitia permission to absolve someone who is continuing in their sin to get absolved opens this door to all sin. Why would this remain an exception to the rule? Like the indult for a few dissident countries to receive in the hand has now spread to all countries. It is really quite simple.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Are you saying that the Church has no power to allow confessors discretion here?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Of course. You may receive an annulment or you may live as brother and sister or you etc. You cannot remain in objective mortal sin and expect to receive Holy Communion or a valid absolution. At least that is how it has always been until Pope Francis popped up. I suppose if he answered the dubia we could find out.
LikeLike
Exactly C, but in the way he’s done it, it hasn’t been as it should be, that is to condemn such acts. He’s waving his hand over it as if it can simply be reconciled to the Church’s Magisterium with a flurry of fuzzy words and catchy phrases. So, there? All better because the Pope has blurred all the lines and maligned all those who are struggling to restore the Church’s discipline and practices to a state of orthodoxy. He’s doing us no favors and the mess he’s going to leave behind could take a few decades or longer to undo. He’s giving to much leeway to dissenting factions and no real help to those trying to restore genuine order. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Those who want to abide by the rules won’t be looking for leeway; those who don’t have, as you pointed out, been finding it for 40 years.
LikeLike
Not to get too personal on a public forum, but the “rigidity” of the Church, as I perceived it rightly or wrongly, played a contributing factor to my bad decision to leave the Church a couple of years ago. However, a priest exercising pastoral mercy in the fashion you speak of, is a huge factor that helped tip the scales in my recent decision to return. I’m not advocating a change of doctrine by any means, but I do believe that giving priests latitude for pastoral discretion better emulates the example of Christ in helping lost sheep come home, than does trying to stifle discussion with an un-catholic black and white view of things. If my history is correct, it would seem to me that rigid black and white approaches have always been the hallmark of schismatics, not the enduring Catholic tradition.
LikeLiked by 3 people
So are you saying that your priest absolved you for a mortal sin that you were still engaged in and which you had no firm purpose of ammendment for? If so, the absolution was invalid anyway. In fact, you compounded your sins by not making a good confession and violating the sacrament of reconciliation.
Confession is always an expression of God’s mercy but it also depends on the penitent’s wish to overcome their weakness and to at least do all in their power to stop whatever serious sins they are involved with. To not have that purpose in mind is simply adding 1 more mortal sin to your others. You can’t game God.
LikeLike
Scoop, you are quite inaccurate in your assumptions as to what I’m talking about. I was deliberately vague, only communicating a very general idea. But thanks for chiming in with your predictably boring response.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So what was the purpose of you comment? So what if a priest forgave you for sins that you confessed? All priests do that. Sorry for being so boring.
LikeLike
It’s all good, Scoop. I shouldn’t be posting stuff in comments sections after being up all night, leads to me getting crabby. The point of my comment was simply to say what I said.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoop – is that not a little close to saying you know better than a priest?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not at all. What were you taught in your catechism about how to make a good confession?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I was taught to make a full and complete confession of sins and of my sorrow for them and my determination to amend my life.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Me too. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you, Steven – that is the sort of thing I am sure the Pope means.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I think Scoop makes some good points, even if I think they come across a bit rigid. Where I struggle with all of this, is how far can priests legitimately go in bending or circumventing canon law, for the sake of mercy? I would presume that in the case of irregular marriages, assuming honest intentions in the priest and penitent, any bending or breaking of canon law regarding sacramental participation would be permitted for the purpose of facilitating conversion and amending the broken areas of one’s life? Scoop’s approach sound more rigid, more of a slavish adherence to the letter of the law no matter what, than what I would think Christ Himself would do. However I do not think it seems clear to me how far confessors can morally go in providing what they may see as extenuating measures in the name of one’s salvation. Just me thinking aloud.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Steven would it help you to see the dilemma if you looked at what it takes for a priest to have the ability to actually absolve a sin in the Sacrament? A priest is given permission to hear confessions and absolve from sin after ordination when he is given his first assignment. He is given two letters, one tells him where he is going and the other provided his faculties. He is given these after quite a few years of instruction at his seminary regarding all the things he will need to know to faithfully and fruitfully carry out his ministry as an alter Christi. He has also swore to do so faithfully in a very public way at his ordination. To administer this Sacrament outside of the laws he swore to uphold is a very grave sin and does not convey the mercy our Blessed Lord intends. Rather it conveys a permissiveness that works contrary to the purpose of confession at a very basic level. He is in serious violation of all that his priesthood represents. Remember he is a brother to our Lord in the Priesthood in a way none of us can fully grasp this side of Heaven. It is Christ’s own Blood that washes away sin in the sacrament of Penance. He swore to administer this sacrament as he was trained to do long before he was given the ability to do so. There is a huge difference between being permissive and being merciful. In one instance, one is simply dismissing bad behavior and spoiling the child so treated. In the other instance one is bringing a sinner to the Sacred Heart of Jesus for healing. Can you really equate the two? No you can’t. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What does it mean to be rigid in one’s practice of their religion?
‘Rigid’ in the sense used here is defined as being: not adaptable in outlook, belief, or response. Now this is in our day being denounced as though there is nothing worse for a man to be than rigid in following the teachings of their religion or belief. We are, one is to suppose, to be malleable and open minded to exceptions which makes of a rule or commandment only a suggestion for our own discernment.
The word ‘religion’ comes to us from the Latin, religare, ‘to bind.’ If then, I claim a religion which binds me, both in my beliefs and my practice, then rigidity would simply mean holding to that which I have come to believe.
St. Luke reminds us in Luke 9:23 what Christ expects of His followers: ‘And he said to all: If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.’ Now that might not be easy for us fallen men but Christ has reminded us that we will not be incapable. One need not fear denying oneself or carrying their crosses for as it is written: Matthew 11:30 ‘For my yoke is sweet and my burden light.’ And further one is reminded of Christ’s promise by St. Paul: 1 Corinthians 10:13 ‘Let no temptation take hold on you, but such as is human. And God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that which you are able: but will make also with temptation issue, that you may be able to bear it.’
Do we believe this or do we think that we need to stop demanding the denial of self and the trading of our rough crosses for velveteen ones? A light and fluffy cross would, of course, be so much more comfortable and easy to bear. Will Christ help the penitent to overcome what seems impossible to do? Will Christ come to the sincere soul and help them carry their cross and even give the merit of that carrying to the person who has faith and hope that Christ will certainly make good on all the helps that He has promised?
In cases which are not defined as objective moral truths or commandments then there is much leeway in how the Church deals with things wherein grey areas exist [as shown in the spirit of the many laws in the OT Church]. But commandments and defined objective moral truths which are as clear as day are not grey areas and no one will be denied the help to overcome sins against these black and white rules if they are serious in their faith. If a soul is not serious in regards to them, then they are not yet ready for the faith. For serious believers are willing to suffer all for Christ including the consequences that the Church has mandated for violation of these; whether that is confession, getting an annulment or anything else. One does not overcome sin right away but one does not overcome mortal sins by not applying their wills to try to eradicate them; repeatedly if need be.
LikeLike
So, as defined above, we all should be rigid. Catholics that is. Although, a large portion should face the fact that they would really be much happier as protestants where their individual conscience could rule the day.
LikeLiked by 2 people
There is good rigidity and bad. Be rigid in the objective truths of the faith and in those where there is movement then we should not necessarily be rigid. As far as Confessors go . . . St. Pio used to let the Holy Spirit guide him to either be tough or lenient. He was known for being both but giving the penitent what was needed due to their personality etc.
LikeLike
EXACTLY!!! Go to the head of the class Steve! Face set like flint. He who denies me before others, I will deny before my heavenly Father, Mt. 10:33. This is done with actions as well as silence. If we do not live as Christian all the time, then we are in denial of him. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
The current use of the word “rigid” to describe persons in the Church is mainly meant to be a derogatory statement. You are correct in perceiving that it is aimed at those who will not concede to the liberals, progressives, et al. The use of equivocation in too many ways by the Pope has become rather tiresome to me personally and to some others, too troublesome to be ignored. That is the reason the Dubia was necessary. He knows well how persons hang on the words of the Holy Father and his careless and cavalier misuse of words tell me he doesn’t really care. Actions speak louder than words. His blunders will cause trouble for a long time. But, putting it all into perspective relative to 2,000 years of Popes, some who were Saints and some who were downright bums, well, the Church will survive and so will I. Yes, I know he was talking about me when he threw the little dart of “rigidity”. More than one of his derogatory words refer to me and to be frank, I’m a wee bit proud of it. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There is nothing to fear by answering the dubia which he should have done. I’m afraid he knows that to answer honestly he would derail his agenda.
LikeLike
Scoop, he was chosen for a reason. The reason is showing itself marvelously.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Perhaps Ginny . . . the wheat and the chaff. However, I am not dismissing that his election might have been invalidated by the actions of the St. Gallen Mafia . . . In which case there is only one Pope in white and not two that live at the Vatican.
LikeLike
Conspiracy theories don’t interest me. However, the politics of the Papacy is a very real thing and should never be ignored. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed Pope St. John Paul II made the situation quite clear. Now these folks actually are bragging about there work in the St. Gallen Mafia out in public. It makes one wonder.
UNIVERSI DOMINICI GREGIS
Part II, Chapter VI
80. In the same way, I wish to confirm the provisions made by my Predecessors for the purpose of excluding any external interference in the election of the Supreme Pontiff. Therefore, in virtue of holy obedience and under pain of excommunication latae sententiae, I again forbid each and every Cardinal elector, present and future, as also the Secretary of the College of Cardinals and all other persons taking part in the preparation and carrying out of everything necessary for the election, to accept under any pretext whatsoever, from any civil authority whatsoever, the task of proposing the veto or the so-called exclusiva, even under the guise of a simple desire, or to reveal such either to the entire electoral body assembled together or to individual electors, in writing or by word of mouth, either directly and personally or indirectly and through others, both before the election begins and for its duration. I intend this prohibition to include all possible forms of interference, opposition and suggestion whereby secular authorities of whatever order and degree, or any individual or group, might attempt to exercise influence on the election of the Pope.
81. The Cardinal electors shall further abstain from any form of pact, agreement, promise or other commitment of any kind which could oblige them to give or deny their vote to a person or persons. If this were in fact done, even under oath, I decree that such a commitment shall be null and void and that no one shall be bound to observe it; and I hereby impose the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae upon those who violate this prohibition. It is not my intention however to forbid, during the period in which the See is vacant, the exchange of views concerning the election.
LikeLike
Scoop, I’m kinda dense sometimes. What is the point of the paragraphs in relation to some St. Gallen Mafia you’re making? I’m just not there. Fill in the blanks please.
Here is what I could find about the so-called St. Gallen Mafia:
“At the launch of the book in Brussels this week, the cardinal said he was part of a secret club of cardinals opposed to Pope Benedict XVI.
He (Cardinal Danneels) called it a “mafia” club that bore the name of St. Gallen. The group wanted a drastic reform of the Church, to make it “much more modern”, and for Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio to head it. The group, which also comprised Cardinal Walter Kasper and the late Jesuit Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, has been documented in Austen Ivereigh’s biography of Pope Francis, The Great Reformer.”
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/cardinal-danneels-part-of-mafia-club-opposed-to-benedict-xvi
Sounds like a great way to launch a book, guaranteeing hefty sales for all the wrong reasons. As for the truth of such things, well, I’m not only not buying the book, but also not buying his story. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well lets just say the members did not deny that Danneels revelation. Nice bunch that are mentioned as well, don’t you think? I claim nothing other than the organization existed and that it adds another layer of fuzziness, doubt and confusion. Simply another raincloud over this papacy.
LikeLike
Scoop, you still didn’t tell me what the two paragraphs have in relation to the supposed St. Gallen Mafia?
Also a man claiming collusion between himself and a bunch of other men, doesn’t necessarily mean they are 1. in collusion with him, and 2. actually doing the things the man states. It also doesn’t implicate the others. You need proof. So, before you settle under the dark cloud of conspiracy and brood over its devastation of the vineyard, perhaps you’ll wait a bit to see if credible witnesses come forward and more importantly if it gets substantiated by the Church herself. BTW, Popes in the past have been influenced and elected by men who were part of nefarious factions. But the Holy Spirit has seen us through. Alexander VI. His papacy was the worst on record. Yet, his evils didn’t prevail over the Church. Nothing will ever. Evil only has a day, but eternity is the Lord’s. It tries men and none are immune. His own mother had a sword of sorrow pierce her immaculate heart.
Look to Romans 8:28-39 “And we know that to them that love God, all things work together unto good, to such as, according to his purpose, are called to be saints. For whom he foreknew, he also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of his Son; that he might be the firstborn amongst many brethren. And whom he predestinated, them he also called. And whom he called, them he also justified. And whom he justified, them he also glorified. Asketh for us: The Spirit is said to ask, and desire for the saints, and to pray in us; inasmuch as he inspireth prayer, and teacheth us to pray. He also predestinated: That is, God hath preordained that all his elect should be conformable to the image of his Son. We must not here offer to pry into the secrets of God’s eternal election; only firmly believe that all our good, in time and eternity, flows originally from God’s free goodness; and all our evil from man’s free will. What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who is against us? He that spared not even his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how hath he not also, with him, given us all things? Who shall accuse against the elect of God? God that justifieth. Who is he that shall condemn? Christ Jesus that died, yea that is risen also again; who is at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. Who then shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation? or distress? or famine? or nakedness? or danger? or persecution? or the sword? As it is written: For thy sake we are put to death all the day long. We are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. But in all these things we overcome, because of him that hath loved us. For I am sure that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor might, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
As for the St, Gallen Mafia, well there are such persons called sedevacantists and some are so secretly and will work to make others believe the seat is actually empty. So, if you wanted to throw a big shadow of a doubt about whether or not a particular pope was elected properly and therefore validly reigns over the Church, you could make use of such a legend as that being fostered by Danneels. Just sayin’.
God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 2 people
In the first place I have said nothing more than the existence of this group which opposed Pope Benedict XV and wanted Francis elected Pope existed in some capacity. As to their ability and/or coercion of other electors is a question that cannot be answered unless it is revealed at some time in the future. I am sure that plausible denial will also exist. I don’t know the answer Ginny . . . I only am saying that everything about this papacy is enshrouded with ‘fuzziness’ and disbelief. Here are two specualatory pieces written by Elizabeth Yore and Make Hickson. Take them for what you will: I only take them as more confusion and more doubt surrounds the present situation in the Church.
http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/2610-the-gall-of-the-st-gallen-mafia
http://www.onepeterfive.com/return-sankt-gallen-mafia-loyal-opposition/
There are, of course, many other articles that range from ‘it means nothing’ to the out and out belief that the conclave was rigged and thereby these electors were automatically excommunicated as was indicated by the JPII document that I copied. That is the connection . . . a simply doubt about the unusual existence of a rather liberal and homosexually based group that seems to wield a bit of clout in Vatican circles. And their clout has been increased as you know after Francis was elected. I find that interesting but have claimed no conspiracy as it is not provable at this point.
LikeLike
Scoop, neither source is one I’d consider trustworthy. I’d look at them askance and know that both support SSPX either openly or in secret. Michael Davies is a heretic as far as I’m concerned and I could say a few other choice things about the whole lot of them but it is almost time for bed. Just stay away from them. Unless of course you want to go a few rounds with some idiots who are perpetually holier than thou…………
LikeLike
Michael Davies was a respected friend of Pope Benedict and I respect the man and his heroic fight. After all when comes to VII I am also on the Ottaviani side of things.
The SSPX is not in schism and has never denounced the papacy. LeFebvre did disobey JPII by creating his own bishops which is about the worst thing that can be said of him or his followers unless you want to get into certain fringe members who were notably in their ranks and which have been removed.
Recently Rome has admitted that VII documents were only pastoral and not doctrinal and therefore the SSPX can reject their texts and therefore they will not have to accept them in order to be reconciled to the Church at large.
So as they are getting more and more regularized and close to being incorporated into the mainstream of the Church is it wise to hold them in such contempt?
I do not prejudge an article because I am disagree with some of what they might say. I take the articles due to their scholarship and truthfulness, individually not in bulk.
Since Alice von Hildebrand has written in these sites is she to be written off as some kind of nut as well . . . a grand dame of the Catholic Church? How about Edward Pentin who is probably getting a bit too far right for the National Catholic Register these days? So I would be careful about throwing out terms like ‘idiots’ or ‘holier than thou’ [you sound like the liberals who attack people rather than the words they speak] simply because they are folks who just happen to be further to the right than you feel comfortable. After all they are the ones that incubated the FSSP. Much good has come from them . . . they have almost single handedly saved Gregorian Chant and the Traditional Rite of the Mass so that it might someday be resurrected.
You act as though you lump them in with the sedevacantists which they aren’t. I have a much more benign view of them and recognize what they have to offer to the Church should we get them back: conservative habit wearing convents and monasteries are just another of the things they have preserved for posterity.
God will use them and their gifts to renew the Church . . . at least that is my hope.
LikeLike
Okie dokie Scoop, I have the time to respond thoroughly. First the SSPX are most certainly a schismatic group. I give you just one of the voluminous documents outlining their antics: DECREE OF EXCOMMUNICATION
From the Office of the Congregation for Bishops, 1 July 1988.
Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of Tulle, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning of 17 June last and the repeated appeals to desist from his intention, has performed a schismatical act by the episcopal consecration of four priests, without pontifical mandate and contrary to the will of the Supreme Pontiff, and has therefore incurred the penalty envisaged by Canon 1364, paragraph 1, and canon 1382 of the Code of Canon Law.
Having taken account of all the juridical effects, I declare that the above-mentioned Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre, and Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta have incurred excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.
Moreover, I declare that Monsignor Antonio de Castro Mayer, Bishop emeritus of Campos, since he took part directly in the liturgical celebration as co-consecrator and adhered publicly to the schismatical act, has incurred excommunication as envisaged by canon 1364, paragraph 1.
The priests and faithful are warned not to support the schism of Monsignor Lefebvre, otherwise they shall incur the very grave penalty of excommunication.
From the Office of the Congregation for Bishops, 1 July 1988.
Bernardinus Card. Gantin Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops
https://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CBISLEFB.HTM
That is a schism responded to by a prelate representing the Holy See. His words are to be taken with as much weight as if the Holy Father said them himself. So, you claim that the papacy didn’t denounce them, you don’t get much more “denounced” then being called a schismatic and excommunicated! That’s as “decnounced” as it can get, unless of course he tossed in an athema sit for good measure.
As for the Ottaviani Intervention, well here is one description of its failure: “Pope Paul VI asked the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the department of the Roman Curia that Ottaviani had earlier headed, to examine the Short Critical Study. It responded on 12 November 1969 that the document contained many affirmations that were “superficial, exaggerated, inexact, emotional and false”. Now, if you have a reigning Pontiff call your assessment of the Novus Ordo Mass false and superficial, would you have the good sense to shut your mouth? No so, the good Cardinal just ran back to Lefebvre, hopped back into his lap and waited for his master to pet him like a good little doggie.
I will not respond to your misrepresentation of the documents of the Second Vatican Council as merely pastoral and thereby non-binding. That is a totally erroneous and flippant dismissal of one of the greatest ecumenical councils in the Church.
Your claim that the SSPX are somehow “getting more and more regularized” is pure fantasy. They don’t want to be a part of our Church as it is and have declined consistently all the recent attempts and concessions made to them. They don’t want to join us. They have said so themselves.
Davies was a loser and died that way, but don’t take my word on it. “He later supported the French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, founder of the Society of St. Pius X, and declined to retract that support after Lefebvre illicitly consecrated four bishops in 1988 against the wishes of Pope John Paul II,” He died outside the Church by his own wishes. There is no heavenly reward for such folly. I’ve read several of his books and they are error laden. He was a heretic.
The FSSP have both my spiritual and financial support. They LEFT the SSPX to avoid falling into the pit of schism and error. They were persecuted by the SSPX within their ranks until and after they left.
Chant is a part of the regular lives of many different religious orders. It will never be gone from the Church. The everyday experience of laypersons in church is not the only places on earth where both the Liturgy and the Church’s life of prayer are celebrated. Gregorian chant has never left those places. The SSPX hasn’t preserved a darn thing except their own tail ends.
If you are placing your hopes into the hands of the SSPX, then your hopes are false. Depending upon your level of support for them, you too may enjoy the privilege of being under the grave penalty of excommunication and in your heart live out a schismatic spirituality.
Now ya know what I think about all that jazz. Nuff said. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
The SSPX is not currently “in schism,” or “excommunicated,” as is sometimes reported. Their canonical status is “irregular”. The excommunications of all their bishops was lifted by Pope Benedict in 2009. You fail to keep up with the times.
Archbishop Guido Pozzo, the Secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, told a German newspaper that Pope Francis has offered the SSPX a return to full Communion via a personal prelature within the Church. A personal prelature is a hierarchically-structured group of Catholic faithful not bound by a geographic location — essentially, a diocese without a territory that complements the work of local dioceses “to which the faithful who form part of a personal prelature continue to belong.” And, of course we know that during the Year of Mercy they have been granted faculties to hear confessions an absolve sin. We expect with the Popes next document he will extend that offering.
The Vatican confirmed that certain documents from the Second Vatican Council [such as Nostr Aetate] are not doctrinal in nature, according to the archbishop [Pozzo] tasked with overseeing the canonically irregular group’s return to full Communion with Rome.
There may be other matters that the SSPX has concerns with but let us just say that we are getting much closer to reuniting with the SSPX than any time prior to this.
I am not SSPX nor have I ever attended an SSPX chapel: I only consider them to be Catholic and much better ones than most of the contracepting pew sitters who receive communion each week without ever going to confession. You seem downright angry with them . . . yet they hold to the same faith that the world held until Vatican II. Not much to quibble about except for their being separated which is a sad thing . . . which I should hope that you would pray for an end.
LikeLiked by 1 person
For someone who claims no support of the SSPX or association with them, well all I can say is you remind me of the cat claiming he has no idea what happened to the canary that is missing from his cage with a few feathers still stuck to his fur. Your defenses are a little too ready and well grooved. More tomorrow. I don’t have time tonight. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
Don’t bother Ginny. I really am not interested in your angry rants or your accusations. I am quite happy at the prospect of a reunification with a lot of very good people that take their Catholic faith as seriously as we do. Though they might want to wait until the dubia is answered before they make a decision to return. 🙂
LikeLike
All rightie then. I have a few minutes to respond.
Scoop says this: “The SSPX is not currently “in schism,” or “excommunicated,” as is sometimes reported. Their canonical status is “irregular”. The excommunications of all their bishops was lifted by Pope Benedict in 2009. You fail to keep up with the times.”
But the Church says otherwise. Here is an excerpt of one letter by Benedict XVI: “The excommunication affects individuals, not institutions. An episcopal ordination lacking a pontifical mandate raises the danger of a schism, since it jeopardizes the unity of the College of Bishops with the Pope. Consequently the Church must react by employing her most severe punishment – excommunication – with the aim of calling those thus punished to repent and to return to unity. Twenty years after the ordinations, this goal has sadly not yet been attained. The remission of the excommunication has the same aim as that of the punishment: namely, to invite the four Bishops once more to return. This gesture was possible once the interested parties had expressed their recognition in principle of the Pope and his authority as Pastor, albeit with some reservations in the area of obedience to his doctrinal authority and to the authority of the Council. Here I return to the distinction between individuals and institutions. The remission of the excommunication was a measure taken in the field of ecclesiastical discipline: the individuals were freed from the burden of conscience constituted by the most serious of ecclesiastical penalties. This disciplinary level needs to be distinguished from the doctrinal level. The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved. In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.
In light of this situation, it is my intention henceforth to join the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei” – the body which has been competent since 1988 for those communities and persons who, coming from the Society of Saint Pius X or from similar groups, wish to return to full communion with the Pope – to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This will make it clear that the problems now to be addressed are essentially doctrinal in nature and concern primarily the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar magisterium of the Popes.” https://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica.html
As I’ve shown you in the previous document, the actual Decree of Excommunication, there were more persons excommunicated than that simple document lists, meaning the laypersons and priests not named but mentioned who associated themselves with those named. Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, when he acted he only lifted the excommunications of 4 persons, no one else. By lifting this, it was hoped that these men would come to Rome to be reconciled to the Holy Father and the Church. In a state of excommunication, one cannot confess and receive absolution except in rare cases as the exact point of death and the excommunication cannot be hidden by the penitent from the priest. Lifting the excommunication was as he stated above, both a matter of discipline and an attempt for these four men to make amends for their wrongs. THEY DECLINED. That is, they chose to remain apart from the Church and turned down the offer. Also in the passage I cited is reference to the Second Vatican Council. The Pope is acknowledging the doctrinal differences that prevent reconciliation, that same reason you hold as true: questioning the authority of the Council itself. That would mean you hold the same position as the SSPX does on V2. That is one of the fundamental reasons no reconciliation could take place, even if the four bishops no longer excommunicated got their plane tickets and touched down in Rome. They would have to publically recant their errors. That is how that stuff works. Without it, there is no salvation. Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. They keep themselves out of the only means of their salvation by their own choice. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not worth answering this or even reading it. I suppose that Pope Francis allowed them to hear confessions as a joke. I suppose that the words of the man that is in charge of regularizing the SSPX is a liar and doesn’t know squat. Have a nice day.
LikeLike
Scoop, I answered this a plenty on another blog and I’ll just quote myself here: “They have no canonical status in the Church, STILL. They weren’t given faculties and their ordinations were not legitimized by Pope Francis. Dr. Peters and a few others who know bunches more then I do and ARE experts in such matters have stated the Francis needs to actually give them faculties and jurisdiction individually in writing the exact same way it is done for every priest on the planet or it is not given. He cannot imply this with a flutter of words. It must be in writing. It is given to a priest just after ordination. Each man gets two letters, one telling him where he is assigned and the other supplies his jurisdiction for that assignment. It changes as his circumstances and assignments change. Without the second letter, he cannot licitly hear confessions except in danger of death. All Francis did was affirm a fact that already existed in the Canons that few knew of, that if a person goes to any priest who appears to be legitimate in good faith and fulfills their part of the rites of Penance, then they receive absolution which is valid but illicit, should absolution be pronounced provided they themselves aren’t under a censure or prohibition such as an existing excommunication. However, the actual actions of the priest remain illegitimate, illicit. There are two factors at play, validity and licitness. It is very possible to have a valid absolution but an illicit sacramental experience. (This simple fact has by its very nature of the SSPX been done to death among its members, that is valid but illicit.) This is still the matter. Until each individual priest is heard by the representatives of the Holy See and has his case regularized, he operates outside the legitimate order of things. That means his participation is still illicit and another mortal sin on his poor soul. The canonical status of all the priests in the SSPX have to undergo a rigorous process to be regularized. Some men do leave the SSPX and are received into the Church, but it is hard. It cannot be done collectively with another flourish of words by Pope Francis. And from reading the scuttle butt available to me the SSPX folks put out there on the net, they do not want to be regularized at all and continue to reject attempts by the Holy See to help them return to the Church.”
Besides that, Pope Francis’ own words were these: ““that those faithful who, for various reasons, attend churches officiated by the priests of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, can validly and licitly receive the sacramental absolution of their sins.”
“For the pastoral benefit of these faithful, and trusting in the good will of their priests to strive with God’s help for the recovery of full communion in the Catholic Church, I have personally decided to extend this faculty beyond the Jubilee Year, until further provisions are made, lest anyone ever be deprived of the sacramental sign of reconciliation through the Church’s pardon.”
This is ONLY for the FAITHFUL, and not as you wish for their priests. And please read this part slowly: “FOR THE RECOVERY OF FULL COMMUNION” If the SSPX were part of the Church, the Pope wouldn’t be hoping his gesture on behalf of those laypersons who seek absolution at the hands of the SSPX priests would aid in recovery of something they already have? No. The SSPX priests are still outside the Church. Pope Francis’ gesture is on behalf of the lay persons duped by them. It did not regularize them, nor give them jurisdiction or faculties. Try again Scoop. I prefer my baloney on a bun with mayo, sweet gerkins on the side, and a few chips. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
To your first sentence . . . who says that do? They are still working this out with Ecclesia Dei under the direction of Pozo. I tire of arguing this with you . . . just as you have smeared the Remnant and OnePeterFive as being SSPX’ers you think that this process of settling the doctrinal differences and coming to a point of reconcilliation is not taking place. It has been going on ever since Pope Benedict lifted the excommunications. It has not stopped and there is more hope for their regularization at this point than ever before. So what is your problem? Do want the settlement of this issue or would you like to see a solution? So you prefer schism to to irregular status? I don’t know what possibly motivates your deep seated hatred for folks that hold more of the Catholic faith than most of my own parishioners. I desire the return of my parishioners . . . why shouldn’t Matt Abbott or Steve Skojic or myself desire the same for the SSPX? And why when they write concerning errors that are being propogated and they make the correct and traditional arguments would you dismiss them even if they are the same ones that our conservative bishops and cardinals might make? Isn’t Truth simply that . . . Truth? I don’t personally care who writes truthfully. We reject that which is objectively wrong not what is right.
LikeLike
Scoop says this: “We reject that which is objectively wrong not what is right.” which I did when he first claimed that the SSPX weren’t in schism and that they’ve been regularized. Those were YOUR claims, not mine. And another point, you are the one speaking of hatred, not me. All I’ve done is state few facts to counter your false claims. I’m not angry, I’m right. They are in schism, they are in error, they don’t desire to return to the fold and believe that a made-up “crisis in the Church” justifies all that they’ve done. The Pope’s actions were directed to the layperson’s absolution being valid, which it was before he said so BTW. Some being dazzled by the smoke and mirrors, but not me or a few others, as I stated above. You claimed falsely that Pope Francis had regularized them. I corrected you. Now you claim, again falsely, that I’m full of hatred and anger, which not being able to read my heart, you have no way of knowing and can only pretend it is true and hope others believe you. Well, Scoop, I have no hatred in my heart for specific persons. Sorry if that disappoints you. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
Take your schism claim to Abp. Pozzo and not me then. I am certain you are far more adept at making that claim than the Ecclesia Dei Commission and its head.
LikeLike
Scoop, did you bother to read the Decree of Excommunication? It clearly states the actions of the SSPX were schismatic. So does Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI in the portions I quoted. Benedict stated that BECAUSE THE ACTS OF THE SSPX WERE SCHISMATIC, the stiffest penalty had to be applied. Now, if I claim someone is in a state of schism, it is only a layperson’s opinion or a reiteration of facts known by the Church and made public to warn me, the unsuspecting layperson of the dangers of association with the wolves in sheep’s clothing. When the Church formally and publicly declares that a group of persons as well as certain individuals are in schism and have committed schismatic acts, it is final and no mere opinion. Until the Church just as publically announces that those they stated are in schism are no longer in schism, then they remain separated from the Body of Christ, the Church militant, suffering and triumphant. Your opinion and words by experts to the contrary cannot change it one whit. “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Matt. 16:19. God to Peter and none other. Apostolic authority, the ability to bind and loose, honored by God in Heaven, or in simple terms, why I can have bacon on my burger. Kosher laws were done away with and if you’ve ever had real Tennesse Pulled Pork BarBQ, you thank God for St. Peter removing the prohibition against pork from our lives. So, until the Church publically announces that the SSPX are in full communion with the Church, they remain extra ecclesia. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Saying that the acts were schismatic is one thing . . . being declared in schism is another. If they were in schism they are no longer considered to be so; see the link to the EWTN experts question that I sent.
You know better than those who are dealing with the reconciliation and are up to date on the present situation. Somehow, silly me, I will take their word for it and not yours. 🙂
LikeLike
You must be typing at the same time I’m replying. I followed the link and it is a very bad answer. Especially when he states it is okay to read prayer books from schismatic groups as long as it doesn’t blast the Holy See directly. Right. Might as well recommend the Book of Common Prayer while he’s at it. And on today of all days, the Feastday of St Edmund Campion hung at Tyburn and publically disemboweled while still alive to watch his intestines being taken from his body for treasonous acts against Elizabeth such as Mass, and having on his person an Agnus Dei. Just a thought of the price some paid to remain faithful. How do you suppose he felt about schism and those who left off communion with the Church to keep their heads and property in England and Wales? I mean, if you could somehow pose all of these questions to a man such as himself, do you think he’d side with the SSPX? Be honest. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
Well the EWTN experts can’t always be as erudite as yourself.
LikeLike
That’s what they said about Athanasius as well. If they are as wicked as you make them out to be there will be no reconciliation. If not then God makes things right in time. Don’t have a case of the vapors if they are regularized under Pope Francis or his successor.
LikeLike
Scoop, I don’t see that as ever happening. I pray I’m wrong, but I won’t be. They’ve gone too far for too long. If they were going to return, they’d have done so within a few years of their tragedy. Keep in mind some history. Rarely do those who leave in such ways come back. Also look again at the some of the dialogs prior to their consecration of the bishops. They were begged by the Pope not to do as they were about to do. Begged. They ignored him and went ahead. Obstinance. Completely hard-hearted. They don’t want to come back. They want to further their own ends and that’s all. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
They have moved as has the Church. They are quite close to reaching an agreement barring any unforeseen problems that will need to be worked out. And yes, they do pray for reunification as do we.
LikeLike
https://www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage_print.asp?number=648437&language=en
LikeLike
Your link is bogus. It has too many typographical errors in it. Also noted is that the answer was given in September of this year, but just below that is a statement that the copyright for the whole piece is 2002 supposedly by EWTN. Your fishy facts stink to high heaven. Nice try Scoop, but like I said, I prefer my baloney on a bun with mayo. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
What does your browser say Ginny? Mine says, EWTN.com. It’s obvious you love your baloney.
Try this one since you have no trust in the other: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/could-reconciliation-with-the-sspx-arrive-with-ease-31983/
LikeLike
Okay Scoop, I read the article. Did you? In it you find exactly repeated things I’ve been saying here. In addition, there is this interesting statement by the current Holy Father, “I trust that in the near future solutions may be found to recover full communion with the priests and superiors of the Fraternity,” Read it slowly, so you don’t miss the point: in the future solutions may be found that help the SSPX RECOVER communion with the Church. Now, it isn’t rocket science to deduce that if something has to be recovered in the future by solutions found at some other point in time, there is no possession of that which will be recovered by said solutions. You cannot recover something that isn’t lost. They lost it. They need to find solutions in the future to recover that which has been forfeited, communion with the Church. If they are regularized as you’ve claimed they are, why did you post an article that says they aren’t? Did you read it? I’m guessing not. Please notice the title of the article. It has a huge question mark at the end of it. Again, not rocket science to deduce they are posing a question and not stating a fact. And since you need help determining whose voice is official for the Church, it isn’t any press agent or newspaper reporter. It those members of Congregations and those members alone. We only get to repeat what they say. Honestly or those reporting the news are ethical failures such as Teresa Tomeo is complaining about lately. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
Full communion is not an indication of schism. Do you know the definition of schism? They were in schism before they accepted the papacy as legitimate . . . since they do accept the papacy they are in an irregular situation that is being worked on. They are getting rather close on things especially in light of the fact that non-doctrinal documents that have to do with practice are not an impediment to their regularization. As Pozzo said, they can work on the understanding of these after they are back in the fold. You did not accept the words from Pozzo concerning the status of schism . . . so what more can I offer you accept that you try to keep up to date when these news matters are made public. Gee, I hope that the only folks that translate the original Italian aren’t folks like the Remnant, 1Peter5 or Rorate Caeli. That makes the story a lie, of course.
LikeLike
Scoop, this is a fantasy of yours that several others share. Saying it is so doesn’t make it so. Remember where our conversation started? You claimed they were never schismatic. I’ve proven that wrong.
Now you’re claiming that it is over when Pope Francis clearly states he hopes there are solutions forthcoming soon that will return them to full communion. Not being in communion with Rome means you aren’t in communion with anyone. Please show me anywhere in the Catechism where is states one can be in some sort of quasi-communion with Rome.
It may help you to know a few facts: The Church’s moral theology has always distinguished between objective or material sin and formal sin. A person who refuses submission to the Roman Pontiff, whom Vatican I defined as having a universal primacy of authority over the whole Church, is at least a material schismatic. To Catholics who are formally guilty of heresy or schism, the Church applies the penalty of excommunication. The 1983 Code of Canon Law states this – c. 1364, 1. With due regard for can. 194, part 1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication and if a cleric, he can also be punished by the penalties mentioned in can. 1336, part 1, nn. 1, 2, and 3. That means once a person willingly repudiates Christ, embraces a heresy, knowing it to be contrary to divine and Catholic faith, or refuses submission to the Roman Pontiff (or communion with the members of the Church subject to him), by virtue of the law itself they are automatically excommunicated. No ecclesiastical act is necessary and no public notice. Now as in the case of the SSPX BEFORE the Decree formally leveling their penalty in 1988, they were MATERIALLY in schism and heresy and had already incurred the latae sententiae excommunication, that is an automatic one, no formal declaration necessary. The Decree of Excommunication I cited here only stated what was already a fact in their lives since they’d already excommunicated themselves by their choices and acts. The Church simply made if formal as opposed to the material state they’d already been in. Hope that helps a bit. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I consent that I mispoke when I wrote ‘never’ schismatic which I have since corrected to clarify that this was a development which brings us to the point at which the SSPX has accepted the papacy. The last link I sent gave you essentially the same quote I began with. The SSPX is not in schism. There status is one of being irregular and not in full communion. But they are moving towards full communion with the Church. So for you to claim, though the Vatican corrects you, that they are presently in schism is outright wrong. Can you now admit that?
LikeLike
They haven’t accepted the Papacy in the way that removes their material schism. They are simply open to dialog. Please go read what they say, not what some spin doctors in the land of the tabloids tell you they think and say and do. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
You are using ‘material schism’ to define what is properly called a lock of full communion which we all know will be granted if they accept the deal that is on the table. However, there are a few more details that must and I pray shall be worked out. Yes they have no licit rights at the moment but there is very little space between the Pontifical Commision of Ecclesia Dei and the concerns of the SSPX. All you have to be able to do is read Ginny. What is your problem? I have given you all you need know about the question that has turned into an endless debate over your historical understanding and the present situation; they are different.
LikeLike
Scoop, I really feel your frustration with me. However, here is the root of the difficulty: “What is your problem? I have given you all you need know about the question” Therein lies your answer. You have told me something you think I should accept as truth because you have stated it as fact. You expect me to comply with your world view. I think for myself. I don’t believe because someone told me to. Your expectation is unreasonable. It frustrates you. You expect compliance and not discourse. You have given me all I need to know! Think about what you just said. I don’t need to find out for myself, I need to trust you and your tall tales of happily ever after for the SSPX. Next, you’ll do like some other hidden supporters of them have done and come out of the closet seeking vindication for Lefebvre and calling Felley a hero worthy of emulation. There are men and women associated with the SSPX who actually believe their leader is going to have to be canonized a saint because he is. Geeeze loueeeeeze! Could it be anything further from the truth?
Anyone who separates himself from the Church for any reason whatever makes a huge mistake and what language they use to justify their mistake is useless on me. There is only one God and he only has one Church. There are four marks of the Church. It is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. The SSPX have broken with two of these, the unity and the apostolicity. There is no way on earth anyone is ever going to convince me that was something good. It never is. It never will be.
So, like I said. I really feel your frustration with me. Try to understand some of us do actually think for ourselves. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
Because it wasn’t ME who is telling you: it is the App. Porro and the Vatican as reported on several sites I have given you. So why are you slinging mud. St Athanasius became a saint. St. Mary of the Cross became a saint. And many others were invalidly excommunicated such as St. Joan of Arc.
I like to think that I also think for myself, Ginny. But really . . . when I am reading from the words of Abp. Pozzo . . . don’t you think it means something?
LikeLike
P.S. You’re the Vatican now? “though the Vatican corrects you, that they are presently in schism is outright wrong. Can you now admit that?” They were materially in schism before it was made a formal declaration by the those who do such things. The Pope removed the excommunications of only 4 persons who at that point could then approach the Holy See for the sacrament of Penance. They declined the offer. In short, they refused to confess their schism and all their others sins. Until they do so, they are still guilty of it. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
I am not the Vatican and you can’t possibly misconstrue what I said to make such a statement. I sent you a quote from a rather respected site and quoted the pertinent sentence that said that the Vatican does not hold the SSPX as being in schism. You can believe whatever you want and obviously you do.
Please produce a document that ever pronounced a formal declaration of schism for the entire SSPX. The escommunication and the words of Benedict that what they did was an act of schism is not a formal declaration of such as you r probably know. They are in an irregular status as has been said. Nobody officially claims them to be schismatic. If Benedict was not hopeful that there was a way to bring them in, he would not have put them under the Pontifical Commission to iron out our differences. Nobody asked them to confess their schism. Where did that come from? They have been in constant conversation with Ecclesia Dei ever since Summorum Pontificum was published. Pope Benedict very much wanted this to be fixed. I would imagine that the only thing that they will be required to do is pledge allegiance to the Papacy, which is not a problem, and maybe any VII documents that are built upon faith and morals. They will not have to embrace, as yet, the pastoral documents from the council. But we are getting ahead of ourselves. They are still speaking and such talks take time and patience to work things out. You pronounce guilt and yet the only ones capable of doing that is the Holy See. Let us wait for the outcome from this dialogue before we run off half-cocked.
LikeLike
Dear oh dear. You have some really scary denial issues. I am not going to even try to cut through that.
You read for yourself actual documents that state their acts were schismatic, yet you claim that isn’t formal enough for you. You are also ignoring the facts I produced of the material part of the equation. The Church wouldn’t have formally excommunicated them unless they were 300% sure of their position. We don’t willy nilly excommunicate people. It stated why they were – because their acts were schismatic. You are never going to find a complete list of all the sins and crimes they’ve committed and are guilty of. It is impossible to do so. They were heavily corresponded with and examined by many faithful men and the determination had to be made. I’ve read through much of the correspondence in the years that led up to their formal excommunication and in those passages I can hear the Holy Father’s heart breaking. You will never convince me they are anything other then what I have stated they are. Losers. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Because you cannot produce an article . . . I’ve looked to no avail. So if you find one please give me a link.
Please people have been excommunicated only to have them lifted many times in our long history. And excommunication does not always imply creating a schism. That in this case a schism followed and then with the acceptance of the papacy lifted also ended the formal schismatic status. Now their status is irregular and ‘not in full communion.’ That is far more fixable and it may lead to that fix rather soon.
There you go with the liberal name calling; losers. You have no idea if these people went through far more pain and serious thought than give them credit for. Don’t you think they knew the what was at stake and that it was their very salvation? It must have been excruciating and yet they had to pick a side. They have abandoned much of what once was unreconcilable and as long as they do not have to give up the traditional doctrines and teachings of the Church and their Traditional Mass we have much to hope for. There return may be simply be a matter of a few details at this point. Please tell me if you are running about calling all the contracepting couples in your church ‘losers’, ‘heretics’ or other names. How about some parish priest that obviously does not hold to certain truths of the faith.
You know, do you not, that over 40% of our parish priests when interviewed in a pew poll did not believe in transubstantiation and only thought that the eucharist was a symbol. Now in my mind that means that 40% of the priests cannot possibly have the intention to do what the Church believes . . . which makes the sacrament invalid. I wonder what the numbers are like in the SSPX? So on one hand we have licit but invalid eucharist in one church and an illicit but valid eucharist in another. I wonder which is worse? Just thinking out loud.
LikeLike
BTW Fr. Z used to serve on the Ecclesia Dei Commission. Note here his sentence: “There hasn’t been any official determination that they are in schism.”
Read it here: http://wdtprs.com/blog/2015/03/sspx-schism-or-not/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wdtprs%2FDhFa+(Fr.+Z's+Blog+-+What+Does+The+Prayer+Really+Say%3F)
LikeLike
‘Talks stalled in 2012 without reaching a formal agreement, reportedly over some persisting differences regarding the society’s view on the ordinary form of the Mass and the Second Vatican Council; however, the Vatican has made clear the society only lacks regular status and is not in a state of schism.’ __ http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/pope-francis-validates-sspx-confessions-for-year-of-mercy
More from the lying press. The vatican never said such a thing. This article is obvious baloney.
LikeLike
Your fella at the NCR put words in the Pope’s mouth that weren’t there. Read carefully: “Pope Francis stated that priests of the Society of St Pius X, which presently lacks official canonical status in the Church, would have full faculties from him during the jubilee year to hear the confessions of “those faithful who for various reasons choose to attend [SSPX] churches.”’ Notice the words “would have full faculties” are those chosen by the author of the article and NOT what the Holy Father’s letter actually said. The reporter spun the story to make it appear as if faculties were given. Dr. Peters clarified this one within 48 hours of its first appearing in print. Like I said before all the Pope did was show everyone something that was already there: the ability for a penitent to receive valid absolution from a priest committing an illicit act. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
What words in whose mouth. That they have no cononical status is known by all. You don’t get that until full communion is reached. You cannot swallow your pride for insisting that they are no longer in schism; admit it and let it go Ginny. You were wrong which not such an awful thing . . . just as I was wrong to say ‘never in schism’ which was my mistake. For their acceptance of the Pope was not held from the beginning . . . though it is now. Go ahead and admit it . . . it good for the soul.
LikeLike
P.S. After Dr. Peters addressed this I think even Burke chimed in.
LikeLike
I’m from MO, show me.
LikeLike
One other thing about this “answer” from David Gregson, if he bothered to review Pope Francis’ words regarding the sacrament of Penance, he would have to face the fact that it says absolutely nothing about faculties. It only addresses validity of the absolution received by laypersons with a proper disposition. He is wrong. Poor man. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
You are missing the forest for the trees.
LikeLike
P.S. Scoop you extended the remission of the excommunication of 4 persons to all of an institution and as you can see from the very first line I quoted, the distinction between individuals and institutions is mentioned by the Pope as two separate things, just so everyone will be clear who his acts refer to. It did not regularize them. It only opened to the door to that process and it IS a process that takes time. There ARE priests who have left the SSPX and gone through it. It is done. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
It was the bishops who were excommunicated Ginny. It is a fraternity of priests. That does not invalidate their priesthood. Yes the excommunications on the bishops was lifted and the SSPX was claimed at the same time to be irregular . . . not excommunicated. The Church has confirmed this over the last 2 years. Bishop Athanasius Schneider sees no barriers to accepting them into the Church. I think the problem lies more with whether or not the SSPX wants to wade into the storm now beginning to turn into a hurricane within the Church. They may need to sit on the sidelines until the dust settles.
LikeLike
He is a Jesuit and so is a master in the art of equivocation. This is not a compliment and many of his brothers in religion are the same. As Pope Emeritus Benedict has stated, we will out live their misguidance.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good thoughts, Steven. My reading would be the same as yours – ditto with the questions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
C, again you and Steven have hit upon the crux of the matter. How far can the priests go? With fuzzy lines way too far. With rigid adherence to Church doctrine and discipline priests have strong guidelines to help them and the laity. When the guidelines are erased, chaos rules.
LikeLike
The confusion that comes with religions.
“Ah, what a pleasure to see ones work thrive so well” — Satan
LikeLike
You must have forgotten to tell us whether Calvary and the born again follow Jesus’ teaching on divorce.
LikeLike
Chalcedon – I don’t defend Bosco (and I have no idea what Calvary Chapel says about divorce), but your earlier statement that Jesus says what his church says about divorce proves that his church is not the Roman Catholic church.
Firstly, Jesus does give the exception of marital infidelity. Spelling it out in crude terms, this basically means that if you are married to somebody who then engages in carnal relations with somebody else, the marriage is over, because God has severed the marriage bond. It is over whether you like it or not; it is over no matter how much you may feel ‘forgiveness’ towards the person who committed adultery. There is also that passage in Deuteronomy: if you divorce somebody you may not marry that person again, so really when marital infidelity takes place the whole thing is over. That is the clear and plain import of the words of Jesus; that is not the position of the RCC.
Secondly, the RCC concept of ‘annulment’, in its details, is found absolutely nowhere in the teaching of Jesus. This is divorce, pure and simple, by a different name where some clever-clever hypocritical canon-lawyers have been able to ‘exchange the truth for a lie’ and fool themselves (and others) into thinking differently.
Most importantly, though, when Jesus talks about issues such as divorce, he is talking eschatologically. He is clearly talking eschatologically in the Sermon on the Mount. He is presenting an ideal that we cannot live up to in this life; this is what we aspire to and what we will be like in the next life. He does expect Christians to use their God-given brain for moral judgment. That is, first and foremost – you would be expected to think about whether or not marriage to a certain individual was a good idea (e.g. you don’t do what one of my pentecostalist friends did and marry a woman whose brain was essentially fried through drug addiction and then expect the Holy Spirit to magically heal everything that was wrong). If you do end up in a bad marriage, you are supposed to think about what to do (e.g. if you have children and your husband is a violent alcoholic, then probably the least sinful thing is to get a divorce and remove your children from the situation. Emil Brunner points out in his ‘Divine Imperative’ that sometimes it is necessary to commit one sin to prevent an even greater sin).
LikeLike
Isn’t the last section what a clever man thinks too, or am I missing something? The Church takes Christ’s words literally. There is no divorce on the art of grounds the Mosaic Law allowed. The only question an annulment deals with is whether a marriage was real in the first place.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Besides that Jock, one single act of adultery or violence is not sufficient grounds for divorce in the eyes of the Church. We are all about forgiveness. It may work in front of the no-fault divorce courts, but the marriage tribunal is a bit more difficult.
LikeLike
. “We are all about forgiveness. ”
Is that why a catholic church here in the US fired a music director for being homosexual…just like many of the holymen are? How come the CC doesn’t fire the homosexual priests?
Answer; There would be no priests left.
LikeLike
….. the ‘theory’ of annulment may sound great – look at it in practice. It is divorce pure and simple.
Yes – it is the personal opinion of a ‘clever man’, it is his way of expressing a dilemma that Christians often find themselves in.
But your main problem is your ‘canon-law’, where you try to take the words of Jesus, intended eschatologically, and derive a set of rules for ‘here and now’. It doesn’t work and never has – and all the wrangling over whether this, that or the other constitutes a valid exception proves the point.
The title of your piece ‘Private Judgement’. Every decision I make, every attitude I have towards something is a judgement of my own, using my God-given sanctified mind. If you are honest with yourself, you’ll see that it is exactly the same with you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Which is precisely my point Jock – it is with all of us. The only question is whether we rely on our own judgement alone, or whether we measure and temper that against the experience of Christians down the ages.
LikeLike
Chalcedon – I think you’re in the wrong place. Measuring it and tempering it against experience of other Christians is one thing; trying to codify the whole thing in terms of something called Canon Law is quite another.
Trying to code it as Canon Law is an exercise that can only ever lead to hypocrisy.
The first attempt at Canon Law is found in Exodus and Leviticus, where they set out laws and punishments that nobody in the whole history of Judaism / Christendom has seriously tried to put into practice – not even God.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dear Jock…………Jesus, Mary and Joseph kept the Law perfectly. Jesus was a circumcised Jew and if you bothered to read both the OT and the NT instead of the few cherries picked for you, you’d find how much of it he lived in his daily life. I also want to bring your attention to our Blessed Lord’s own words regarding the Law, Matthew 5:17-19 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven.”
So, there ya go. Law not destroyed but fulfilled in Christ. Although we do not have to keep the kosher regulations and have our sons circumcised, we do keep the Law. Discipline changes, but doctrine doesn’t and the origin of marriage is in the garden called Eden. Its arrangement is of God and when man and wife complete the arrangement in bring forth new life, they participate in God’s on-going fulfillment until the end of time. God felt so strongly about them and their role and husband and wife that he elevated their natural marriages to sacramentally ones. Think wedding feast at Cana, Jock. It matters more to God than we can know or understand this side of the daisies. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Canon Law on this does what any Canon does – it provides a measuring tool – that’s all. It means we are not the sole judge in our own case.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Holy Scripture already does that. Jesus, in his Sermon on the Mount, presents the ideal which we try to live up to – canon law is an irrelevance and adds nothing.
In this case, it has picked up the wrong end of the stick. The problem with re-married people is that they are re-married. This may be for good reasons or bad reasons; nobody except a married couple really knows what goes on within the four walls of their house.
Whether or not the re-married people are living as brother or sister, or whether they are engaged in perfecting the art of George Best’s favourite subject, is utterly irrelevant. The relevant part is the damage they caused by breaking the initial marriage vows. If your wife leaves you and marries somebody else is it really relevant whether or not she is involved carnally with the person whom she has married?
Canon law on this point, as indeed on every other point, does nothing to illuminate the will of God; it simply shows clever men, who start from abstract theory that seems to be divorced from the commandment ‘love your neighbour as yourself.’
LikeLike
I think you may be missing the point because you insist it is divorce by another name. What CL focuses on is whether there was a marriage at all: did the couple fully understand what marriage entailed? Were they open to their marriage creating new life? Those are the sorts of questions asked. You can be divorced if there was no true marriage.
LikeLike
Jock, another thing. An annulment is not a divorce. It is a declaration that at the time of the exchange of marital vows, there existed impediments to a sacrament and the two parties aren’t actually sacramentally bound. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Annulment. Confession booths. Real presence. Holy Office.
Jesus stands at the door and knocks. Open and he will sup with you. His burden is light.
LikeLike
Cathols keep going on about church teaching while their holymen are the vilest of the vile. Obviously cathols just use that word to make themselves feel better about being lost and unsaved.
Good sister is the closest. good brother Jock says we are automatically divorced when a spouse commits adultery.Jesus said that does release us from marriage, if we just must follow that path. Jesus is also about forgiveness. If your spouse is just a wicked constant cheater, then go ahead and let him or her go.
The Calvary Chapel is just a legal name. It doesn’t have a set of teachings like your damned of god false religions do. The Lord is our shepherd
LikeLike
C, take a few minutes to read and learn how bullies think the world should be run. Instead of answering the dubia and using their great reason and logic to refute the four Cardinals, the Dean of the Roman Rota wants to strip the Cardinals of their red hats for causing “grave scandal.”
http://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/head-of-vatican-court-cdl.-burke-could-be-stripped-of-red-hat
LikeLiked by 1 person
Again, this is only a ‘suggestion’ and an individual ‘opinion’; I’m betting no one will act on it. If they do they’ll find Canon Law an obstacle.
LikeLike
C, even the reaction was wrong. Why not use intellect and dialog to help resolve the matter? Why not get 3 other Cardinals to write a thoughtful reply to the dubia. No, all he can come up with is “off with his head.” Pope Francis has bullies all around him.
LikeLike
Join some other religion if this one has gone to seed.
LikeLike
C, is quite right. It is little more than laughable at this point that there is anything that these men have done that rises to the level that would remove their red hats. It is just more hysteria from the left. Here is an article by a canon lawyer on this:
https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2016/11/29/cardinals-in-the-church-have-rights-too/
LikeLiked by 1 person
P.S. It occurs to me that the whole mess created by the SSPX wouldn’t exist if they’d held back on their own private judgments and favored obedience. They dared to judge the Church, and that never, ever goes well. History will prove it all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Perhaps they merely had the same thought as did St. Athanasius:
Letter of St. Athanasius
to Catholics Suffering at the Hand of Arian Heretics
May God comfort you. I know moreover that not only this thing saddens you,
but also the fact that while others have obtained the churches by violence,
you are meanwhile cast out from your places. For they hold the places, but
you the Apostolic Faith. They are, it is true, in the places, but outside
of the true Faith; while you are outside the places indeed, but the Faith,
within you. Let us consider whether is the greater, the place or the Faith.
Clearly the true Faith. Who then has lost more, or who possesses more? He
who holds the place, or he who holds the Faith? Good indeed is the place,
when the Apostolic Faith is preached there, holy is it if the Holy One dwell
there. (After a little:) But ye are blessed, who by faith are in the Church,
dwell upon the foundations of the faith, and have full satisfaction, even
the highest degree of faith which remains among you unshaken.
LikeLike
C, I rather hope this article and our collective response to it will continue for at least another 500 or so comments. Maybe you will see it useful to discuss several of the comments that are in response to 2 articles that I will highlight. So, please read the comments. Maybe you would like to respond to a comment or 2 that you think the most ridiculous or one that you can refute “with half your brain tied behind your back.” Maybe you will choose to start by answering the dubia, and telling us your reasoning. Or challenging us by taking one at a time and discussing each. Or how would you teach a class on this subject? Maybe you have one more book in you!
Should we be hiding these things either in conversation or even in a sermon? I think not! Please read this comment. http://wdtprs.com/blog/2016/11/new-us-cardinals-respond-and-dont-to-questions-about-five-dubia-of-four-cardinals/#comment-546141
The 2 articles are these:
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2016/11/dean-of-rota-pope-could-strip-four-cardinals-of-cardinalate-because-of-five-dubia/ Be sure to read the comment by “The Masked Chicken.” Discussing this could be a post itself.
http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/item/2906-don-vito-warns-the-four-cardinals-your-red-caps-will-sleep-with-the-fishes Mr. Ferrara ends his article with this: “This is where the Church stands today: at her very summit, Christ and the Holy Ghost have been anthropomorphized into enforcers of human schemes and plans cynically passed off as the designs of Heaven by men for whom the faith of our fathers simply no longer exists. As has become our custom in these days, we laugh at the incredible spectacle of it all, that we might not cry.”
Your last sentence of this post states: “So the Holy Father may be showing much wisdom in letting things lie where they are, because in practice, it is the individual conscience which knows where truth lies, and if that conscience is formed well by the confessor, then we can be sure that what is done is what ought to be done.”
C, with all due respect, if this is the case, then the penitent (individual conscience) and confessor (individual diocesan priest) determine Church doctrine and discipline. This has Never Been The Case in 2000 Years of the Church’s Teaching. Why, pray tell, do you think it should be now? Both of those individuals learn from the Church, not the other way around.
LikeLike
This got caught in the spam filter – so I’ll release it now and answer when I’ve followed the links.
LikeLike
It dawned on me just now……isn’t that good brother Pell in the above pic? Of course himself a pedophile, being in charge of the priestcraft in Austrailia he shelterd and protected the rest of the pedophile priests buddies of his. It was a free for all down under. Instead of sweating over this dubia and latria stuff, how come no one is up in arms about the moral decay of the Vatican leaders? If you cathols want sane leadership why not toss out the perverts and hire sane men to pass out the edicts you all love to hear. You already have Jesus and his words….but youre not satisfied with them. You want the musing and philosophies of men.
LikeLike