I admire tremendously the thought process that Philip Augustine described in his post Support the Pope. It is one of the most reasoned comments I have seen on the matter.
I’m not going to opine on it, it is something for Roman Catholics to settle, except to say that I too think the Pope should answer for the reasons Philip points out. But it does have ramifications for all of us. We Lutherans and Anglicans as well, as well as others, do indeed subscribe to the creed as the one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, some who profess Rome are not Christian, and quite a few who do not are, which is something to keep in mind.
I also note that, long ago, although not as long as it seems, our resident Baptist, Geoffrey, wrote about this phenomenon, as well. You’ll find that post here.
This month we will commemorate an Augustinian monk’s posting of ninety-five theses for discussion on reforming the Church, on the door of Wittenberg’s Castle Church, 500 years ago. Most of the reforms he called for, eventually happened in my Lutheran Church, but also in the Catholic Church. The Church, founded by the sinner St. Peter, like all organizations of men, is not sinless, and never will be. For all that, it is an institution that we all, Catholic and Protestant, look to often for leadership, not least because it has done better than most of us at preserving the things that we have always done, everywhere.
An observation, one thing that many of us have observed is that sometimes the Church appears, especially to outsiders as a bureaucratic, legalistic maze. It may or may not be, but sometimes it appears so to the rest of us. QVO yesterday said, “Amoris laetitia, in so far as it encourages a perversion of discipline re admission of unrepentant adulterers to Communion has a bearing on the external forum.” He’s not wrong, but it begs the question of “How does he know whether said sinner is repentant or not? Surely that is for him and his priest to discern, not a legal document that applies to millions around the world. Guidelines, absolutely there need to be, but in the last analysis it is up to him and his God to resolve. Finally it is a matter of the communicant’s free will. I think we should give St. Paul the last word in the matter.
“Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an
unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of
the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread
and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing
the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.”
I Corinthians 11:27-29 (NIV)
The other thing I want you to consider is this. Like Philip, I urge you to read Amoris laetitia thoughtfully and prayerfully. I suspect you will find it says something very different from what you have seen reported. Again like Philip, I try to eschew terms like ‘liberal/conservative’ or ‘Modernist/traditionalist’ although sometimes we all end up using them, they do not help us to understand, this, after all, is not politics, this is about eternal souls. But for that very reason one cannot trust the media, many of whom are demonstrably Godless people, and as such do not have your, or my, best interests at heart. To take them at their word is neither prudent nor provident. On the other hand, it would be well if the Pope were to refrain from making off the cuff comments to people who may, or may not, have the best interest of the Church at heart. It is considerably more pernicious than President Trump’s Twitter feed,
I’ll leave you with a few words from William Tyndale, whose first translation of the Bible from Greek into English is the basis of our favorite version. From his “To the reder” of his 1526 rendering of the New Testament.
Note the difference of the lawe/and of the gospell. The one axeth and requyreth/the wother perdoneth and forgeveth. The one threateneth/the wother promyseth all good thynges/to them thatt sett their trust in Christ only. The gospell signifieth gladde tydynges/and is nothynge butt the promyses off good thynges. All is not gospell that is written in the gospell boke: For if the lawe were a waye/thou couldest not know what the gospell meante. Even as thou couldest not se person/favour/and grace/excepte the lawe rebuked the/and declared vnto the thy sinne/mysdede/and treaspase.
Repent and beleve the gospell as sayth Christ in the fyrst of Marke. Applyee all waye the lawe to thy dedes/whether thou finde luste in the bottom of thyne herte to the lawe warde: and soo shalt thou no dout repent/and feale in the silfe a certayne sorowe/payne/and grefe to thyne herte: be cause thou canst nott with full luste do the dedes of the lawe. Apllye the gospell/that is to saye the promyses/vnto the deservynge off Christ/and to the mercye of god and his trouth/and soo shalt thou nott despeare: butt shalt feale god as a kynde and a merciful father. And his sprete shall dwell in the/and shall be stronge in the: and the promises shalbe geven the at the last (though not by and by/lest thou shuldest forgett thy sylfe/and be negligent) and all threatenynges shalbe forgeven the for Christis blouddis sake/to whom commit thy silfe all togedder/with out respect/other of thy good dedes or of thy badde.
And finally, I join Francis and all people of good will in welcoming theinfiniterally as he joins us on our journey, to the Cross, and beyond.
All Along the Watchtower 
Ha! You caught me off guard! Thank you for the kind acknowledgment.
I will indeed be cautious when weighing the balance of justice and mercy. Many of my friends will not even consider Christianity for the idea of justice, so it is a matter often on my mind.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m curious, do they believe in any other gods? Or are they secular? I’m always perplexed when the secular attempt to explain justice and morality originating from a natural inclination among humanity. If they believe religion to be lie, the human moral system without any god would be a far greater ruse because the only truth would be the state of nature and the state of nature dictates to the strongest.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Me too, Phillip. Some seem to think morality arose spontaneously from man’s reason…well I took thermodynamics and found that chaos doesn’t turn into order, somebody or something has to do the job. If the universe is the job, only God is big enough.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Many of my friends draw from New Age and Eastern religion. Some are atheist. You are right, it is perplexing. What gets me is the ones who tell you there is no right or wrong in one breath and in the next pronounce moral judgment! One such friend even speculates that we may have gone wrong in allowing weakness to survive.
LikeLiked by 2 people
It’s a not uncommon view. It’s called Eugenicism, derives from taking evolution far beyond where Darwin intended. And yeah, those who make moral judgement without a moral base, bug me too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m glad that I haven’t heard him speak of trying to put it into practice, at least.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood was a famous one. Her goal was to end the black race because she thought them inferior. Hitler was another one. Your friend is not keeping good company in this.
LikeLike
“One such friend even speculates that we may have gone wrong in allowing weakness to survive.” <— Without God, that's the only moral system one can truly live by in my opinion.
LikeLiked by 2 people
My thought is that with God you get justice, unless you plead for mercy. God is Love, of course, but Logos also means Reason.
LikeLiked by 2 people
It is a good thought, though the exact workings are still beyond me. He is God, and we can never know all that He is capable of, so I am hopeful even as I try to follow His commandments. I can no more fulfill them by myself than I can offer up an acceptable prayer.
LikeLiked by 1 person
None of us can, except by the Grace of God.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Neo, I think we’re at an understanding here.
QVO states:
Amoris laetitia, in so far as it encourages a perversion of discipline re admission of unrepentant adulterers to Communion has a bearing on the external forum.
The subjective mitigation of a sin’s gravity by the factors you list is a matter for the internal forum.
However, I believe Jesus Christ instructs that the internal forum, perhaps doesn’t take a precedence; however, it must be considered by the external with a weight that is far greater than the legalism of the rule of law. We’ve debated this time and time again on this blog, but I believe this is the heart of John Chapter 8 and the woman caught in adultery.
4 they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. 5 Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such. What do you say about her?” 6 This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him.
Now here we see, The Scribes and the Pharisees, look to the law to test Christ and to condemn the woman. They go up to Jesus and say, “Look here, the doctrines of our faith say we must stone her, it must be this way!”
Nonsense.
So in many cases, those in the Church look to pass judgment by providing Hell on earth by denying God to the accused.
Look at what Christ says,” and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.”
None of us are without sin; therefore, we shouldn’t rush to judgment in such cases. In fact, if one is a good Catholic and believes that Christ left the Church to “bind or loosen” here on earth, then he left those in the heirarchy of the faith to do so. We should trust in Christ for them to do so. It almost appears that there are those among us who want to deny communion to the faithful.
So, I leave with the words of Pope Francis in his first Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium:
“Everyone can share in some way in the life of the Church; everyone can be part of the community, nor should the doors of the sacraments be closed for simply any reason. This is especially true of the sacrament which is itself “the door”: baptism. The Eucharist, although it is the fullness of sacramental life, is not a prize for the perfect but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak.[51] These convictions have pastoral consequences that we are called to consider with prudence and boldness. Frequently, we act as arbiters of grace rather than its facilitators. But the Church is not a tollhouse; it is the house of the Father, where there is a place for everyone, with all their problems.”
All Pope Francis saying here is to slowing respond to each case rather shutting the door completely on an entire group in our community.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We are, Phillip. That was what I took from Evageli, Amoris I’ve merely skimmed, but this has been the thrust of much of his Papacy. He’s not wrong, but he does speak carelessly, and gives affront, and it is, in truth difficult to strike the proper balance, and we speak of it in our native language. I doubt translators help, either.
LikeLike
“Everyone can share in some way in the life of the Church; everyone can be part of the community, nor should the doors of the sacraments be closed for simply any reason.”
Its not just simply any reason, Phillip. It is because they remain in a state of mortal sin. If they do not change their ways would you give them absolution and access to the Eucharist? It has never been taught that this is the right thing to do and Francis breaks with every Pope that has preceded him on this point.
LikeLike
You know Scoop, there are multiple reasons we can conjure up. They may be rare but nonetheless, they exist.
I’ve just recently started the Father Brown television series from BBC. The first episode shows a young wife, named Susie, committing adultery with another man. She feels compelled to do so for the welfare of husband and home. Do you believe she is fully culpable for her sin? Should she be denied Communion?
What about a woman who has remarried and come to know that her adultery is a sin, but if she refrains from the conjugal act, he’ll beat her or her children. Is she culpable for her sin? Should she not receive communion?
In the Father Brown episode, Susie stopped going to Mass altogether, shouldn’t the Church make it a precedent to properly catechize such concerns?
LikeLiked by 1 person
If someone is going to beat their wife from refraining from the conjugal act she should leave them. And yes, in the first case there may be a remedy: fix the first marriage and marry the man whom she is having an affair. You act as if the more committed and the deeper one gets in a crime against God the less we can do about it. We just throw our hands in the air and say come on in and desecrate the Sacrament of Confession and the Eucharist as well. What’s the difference, you’re probably going to end up in hell anyway. Some Church these people have turned this into and it never seemed even remotely possibe to do this in the past and now everyone is climbing on board.
“Right is right even if the whole world says its wrong and wrong is wrong even if the whole world says its right.” __ Mother Teresa of Calcutta (I believe)
LikeLike
All of which is far easier to say rather than do, you understand.
LikeLike
It’s been done for the past 2000 years among those that valued the loss of their souls.
What is the future of the Church going to look like, Phillip? Are we going to take an exacto knife to the decalogue and the words of Christ (Go, and sin no more)? Then, of course you will need to take all reference of these things from the countless theologians, popes, bishops and priests who have written of these things and have a great bonfire. Murderers, adulterers, active sodimites, professional thiefs need not rectify their lives in order to get absolved and receive the Bread of Life. The whole idea is preposterous.
LikeLike
Of course, but in a culture that knew what sin is and what damnation is as well. The problem today is that we live in a culture of unbelief, even by many who sit in pews, and by condemning without understanding, patience, and compassion we seek to lose these souls forever.
LikeLike
Those who condemn sin are the only ones in the pews who have any understanding it seems to me. We have and always have had the remedy: cease sinning, make a good confession and receive Holy Communion. That is true love not this squishy que sera, sera attitude we have today . . . rolling the dice that their continuing mortal sins won’t matter when they die.
And why doesn’t the culture know about sin etc.? This pope seems to think that proslytizing is solemn nonsense. Its no wonder nobody has a sense of sin any longer, including our pope . . . should he turn out to really be our pope. I’m with the retired bishop of Corpus Christi on that one: only God knows if he is truly the Pope.
LikeLike
Instead of Fr. Robert Brown series you might do well to read this scholarly article by Josef Seifert: https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2017/10/the-persecution-of-orthodoxy
LikeLike
Stories allow us to apply discussed ideas without there repercussions of lives lived. No reason to disparage them. In fact, a Byzantine (Catholic) priest told me to use the medium because I attempted to argue ideas without any worldly context with my ideas.
LikeLike
So the idea of an intrinsically evil deed is now ‘conditioned’ . . . is that what you are now leaning toward? Please read the link that I sent to the Josef Seifert article. The whole world has understood morality from the beginning in quite a different manner and the Church since its institution. In what way should you start using situation ethics or proportionalism or whatever novel ideas have come into vogue these days. Have at it . . . but I will stick to the Faith of Our Fathers.
LikeLike
Scoop, it doesn’t appear you’re engaging to what I’m actually saying, but rather just replying to a message you wish to bring forth. Furthermore, I’m not the enemy, you may be correct in your assessment; however, there’s still not enough for me to stand against the Bishop of Rome.
LikeLike
You do not think that the words of AL are indeed being used by this Pope to further proportionality or situation ethics? I think it more than clear. I know you are not the enemy, Phillip and never intended to make it sound that way but I find it heartbreaking that a good Catholic like yourself cannot see a moral issue like this that could have been solved by a 6th grader back in 1960.
LikeLike
Good brother Scoop, good brother Phillip has not been properly catechized.
LikeLike
Also, how do you menatally conflate ‘punishment’ with an effort to stop a sinner from sinning. we are not going to stone them to deat?. All they must do is stop living in mortal sin. As Saint Francis said and was quoted in several places yesterday:
“We should all realize that no matter where or how a man dies, if he is in the state of mortal sin and does not repent, when he could have done so and did not, the Devil tears his soul from his body with such anguish and distress that only a person who has experienced it can appreciate it.”
“Nor did demons crucify Him; it is you who have crucified Him and crucify Him still, when you delight in your vices and sins.”
–St. Francis of Assisi
The Church is trying to save the souls of these people not to let them ‘off the hook in this life’ but to save their eternal life from damnation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Pharisees broke the Mosaic law. They did not stone the adulterer with her.
So they did not judge with righteousness, as the law commanded.
Also, Christ is God. He had the power and authority to dispense with any prudential provision in the Mosaic law as He saw fit.
Francis is not God. The Church’s law is perfect in a way that the Mosaic law never was.
People living in sin cannot receive the sacraments of the living. Period.
LikeLike
Theres a idea floating around about why the male wasn’t brought befor Jesus to be stoned. It suggests that the male was from the ranks of the Pharisees.
LikeLike
Yes. I have seen that theory.
LikeLike
Bravo!
LikeLike
Your question: ““How does he know whether said sinner is repentant or not?”
Traditionally when a contrite sinner is repentant he or she refrains from conjugal relationships until such time that the first marriage is nullified ‘sacramentally’ and if not they will need live their ives as brother and sister for the party is still in a valid marriage and is thus an adulterer. This would invalidate the sacraments of Confession and also the Eucharist which is heaping sin upon sin. That is exactly what this Pope has allowed at the bishop conferences that have so far allowed this. He must get this straightened out during his pontificate or someone else will do it for him after he’s gone. He will lose this battle in the long run . . . as it ties back not only to Canon Law and Papal ecylicals and the like but to the decalogue itself and the very words of Christ; our God and Savior.
LikeLike
From the Small Catechism
“Where is this written?
The holy Evangelists Matthew, Mark, Luke, and St. Paul write:Our Lord Jesus Christ, on the night when He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks, He broke it and gave it to the disciples and said: “Take, eat; this is My body, which is given for you. This do in remembrance of Me.”
In the same way also He took the cup after supper, and when He had given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you; this cup is the new testament in My blood, which is shed for you for the forgiveness of sins. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”
What is the benefit of this eating and drinking?
These words, “Given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins,” show us that in the Sacrament forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation are given us through these words. For where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation.
How can bodily eating and drinking do such great things?
Certainly not just eating and drinking do these things, but the words written here: “Given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins.” These words, along with the bodily eating and drinking, are the main thing in the Sacrament. Whoever believes these words has exactly what they say: “forgiveness of sins.”
Who receives this sacrament worthily?
Fasting and bodily preparation are certainly fine outward training. But that person is truly worthy and well prepared who has faith in these words: “Given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins.”
But anyone who does not believe these words or doubts them is unworthy and unprepared, for the words “for you” require all hearts to believe.”
Confession of sin comes before the Eucharist, but the act of forgiveness is the Eucharist. One of its purposes is to help us to refrain from sin. It is not a reward, it is the Act of Forgiveness itself. Most of us will sin again before we return to our pew – that’s why, unlike, Baptism, we need to partake in Eucharist frequently.
LikeLike
I don’t know where to begin NEO as it there is so much more to be said. The Didache shows quite early on that we were not to take the Eucharist without confessing our sins first. We are partaking in the body and blood of our dear Christ for whom He gave His life. And all that He ask of us is to follow His Commandments. Thus the Church makes it requirement to truly COMMUNE with HIM to be in a state that is free of mortal sins (sins unto death . . . of the soul) which is very and easily accomplished. Of course, we all have small venial sins and we know that they occur frequently but these and even lower than these (imperfections) does not kill the soul and destroy the COMMUNION with Him. Serious Mortal sins do exactly that and there can be no communion between an unrepentant mortal sinner and Christ though His mercy stands ever at your side to forgive if you will only repent and apply your mind and will to the task of not falling into that mortal sin again (a true testament as to one’s state of true repentance). If they are unable to do this or have not intention of stopping then they only scandalize the Confessional and the Eucharist as well.
LikeLike
“they only scandalize the Confessional and the Eucharist as well.”
That’s because they have not been properly catechized. Befor catechizing someone, you must check the wires and make sure all the connections are in place. Then check the batteries to make sure they are good. Secure the wrist anodes and headplate. And only then flip the catechize switch. A good indication that the subject has been properly catechized is when smoke is beginning to come out of his or her ears.
LikeLike
Good brother Neo, I want to do a hard headed…oops, I meant to say…hard hitting post. Where the devil is good brother Chalcedon? How do you get your posts approved? I have important info that people need to see. Thanks in advance.
LikeLike
All you good catholics, take a long hard look at this video. This is what your religion has done to the children. It has turned them into twofold the child of hell as yourselfs.
LikeLike