
Pope Francis during his weekly general audience in St. Peter square at the Vatican, Wednesday.23 October 2013
Of all the topics to approach on my return, that of the present Pope ought, probably, to be the last one. At the moment his reaction to allegations of child abuse in the case of Bishop Barros have raised real concerns about his grasp of such a crucial issue; it is, his critics and supporters (agreeing for once) quite unlike him. But then what would it mean to ‘be like him’?
His critics focus on his reaction to the issue of re-married people within the Catholic Church, rightly pointing to the ambiguity of his stance. If anything is clear in this mess, it is that Francis himself wants to extend mercy to couples he thinks needs it, finds the traditional teaching of the Church an impediment, and is looking to see whether allowing local bishops to make a decision is a way to achieve that objective. In view of the fact that Catholic teaching was formulated to deal with Catholic marriages, and in view of the the fact that many converts contracted marriages in other denominations (whose orders the Church does not recognise) or civilly, there is a case for considering how to deal with a pastoral situation exacerbated by our Society’s inadequate understanding of what a sacramental marriage is; whether Amoris Laetitia is the optimal way of conducting that discussion seems doubtful. But the blunt response that teaching designed to deal with Catholic sacramental marriages has to apply to all marriages, seems worth questioning.
But now the Pope finds himself embroiled in a sex abuse scandal concerning the Chilean Church. Christopher Altieri, a respected Vatican commentator, sums it up admirably in the Catholic Herald:
At this point, there are four possibilities: Collins [Marie Collins, a former member of the Pontifical Commission on abuse and Cruz [who alleges he was a victim of Fr Karadima’s abuse, and who wrote an 8 page letter to the Pope which she gave to Cardinal )O’Malley] are both lying about the letter; Cardinal O’Malley gravely misrepresented the diligence with which he discharged his promise to deliver it directly to Pope Francis (though Collins has expressed full confidence in him on several occasions); Pope Francis received the letter and did not read it; Pope Francis received it and read it, only to forget about it.
We hear much from the Pope about the rigidity of clericalism, but in all of this there is something of that. It is the echo of the way in which Churchmen of the Pope’s generation deal with these cases as they first came to light, that is within the Church and without regard to external standards of safeguarding. At the very least the Pope needs to clear this up swiftly. But, as with the famous dubia, His Holiness has been swifter to condemn his critics than to answer them. At some point, smelling of the sheep involves deal with them in a transparent way. One can only hope.
Why hope? There is an almost open sense of something like schadenfreude among some of the long-time critics of the Pope at the latest trials, but that is to ignore that, as ever, there are two sides to the story. To say that the Pope has attracted praise from non-Catholics is a double-edged sword to those Catholics who feel betrayed by what they see as his departures from the straight way; but if the Church speaks only to itself in language it alone understands, it betrays its Great Commission. One might feel the Holy Father goes too far in the other direction, but Mission matters. It would be a great shame if yet another Pontificate were to be mired by the enduring legacy of child abuse.
Satan knows his enemy, and he will always target the One True Church. Since the late 50s, at least, we had had what amounts to a Catholic Culture war between modernisers and those who feared that the baby was being thrown out with the bath-water. The fruits of modernisation are meagre, and whilst the German Church maybe extremely rich in cash, thanks to the Church tax, it is, like most other European Churches, poor in vocations and people in the pews.
The Catholic Church is far from alone in fighting this culture war. In my own former Church, the Anglican Church, with a patrimony which has much to contribute to the Catholic Church, a route has been taken which Catholic modernisers can only envy; but they might like to ask themselves whether the current situation there is one they would wish to imitate?
The Catholic Church is identified with the successor of St Peter, and it is a matter of regret that any Pope should become the object of partisan manoeuvrings; but it was, history suggests ever thus, just not so widely known in an era before mass media.
As Lent approaches, each of us can only do what we are taught to do, which is to pray for the Holy Father, our Archbishops, Bishops and Priests, and the Religious. They are the front line of the war against Satan, and they need the support prayer provides.
Glad you’re back. The most cogent and calm explanation of this whole mess I’ve read.
I’m sympathetic to him on the marriage thing, far too many marry at the courthouse, and use a church for a photo backdrop. That is not a sacramental marriage, and we cheapen the sacraments if we treat it as if it was. Either direction though, is prone to be abused, that why I think kicking it closer to the people is likely the only solution.
But bishops can get in plenty of trouble on their own as well, as we’re seeing in Chile, and Canterbury.
My thoughts on child abuse, well the printable ones, are that this may be an artifact of a celibate priesthood, manned by men in a society more sexualized. Or maybe just weak men. I simply don’t know, but it hurts the Church, in fact, it hurts all churches and needs to be rooted out, if a few churchmen see custodial sentences based on church testimony it might be a good thing, cause they surely can’t be defined as good priests..
The other troubling thing is the increasing tendency to accuse people who can not defend themselves, being dead, of horrendous things with no proper evidence, when done to churchmen, it denigrates all, the church, the complainant, and any civil society daft enough to pay attention. It is just as pernicious when applied to any other member of society.
In truth, all of these issues make me think that we pay entirely too much attention to sex. Kipling nailed it.
On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “The Wages of Sin is Death.”
LikeLiked by 3 people
Re Amoris Laetitia and the dubia, FYI:
1 of 3) The Sarah case: https://musingsfromaperiphery.blogspot.com/2017/10/the-sarah-case.html
2 of 3) The case for absolution: https://musingsfromaperiphery.blogspot.com/2017/11/sarah-is-not-eligible-for-sacramental.html
3 of 3) A possible reply to the dubia: https://musingsfromaperiphery.blogspot.com/2017/10/a-response-to-dubia-of-four-cardinals.html
LikeLiked by 2 people
Those are good responses, but don’t address the question I raise here. Can a marriage be sacramental if the Church does not recognise its Ministry?
LikeLiked by 1 person
If the marriage is between a man and woman who are (validly >> http://www.dosp.org/chancellor/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/3.-Valid-and-Invalid-Baptisms.pdf ) baptized, it is a sacrament >> See Can. 1055 §1 and §2 >> http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3V.HTM
LikeLike
But the code of Canon Law applies to Catholics. That is my point. The whole of Canon Law is constructed around people being Catholic and applies to them, as is made plain by Canon 1059. What of those who were not Catholic and were not married in Catholic Churches? Since when did Canon law apply to non-Catholics?
LikeLike
Canon law. (;-D
LikeLike
‘The code of Canon Law applies to Catholics.’ Perhaps not an apt analogy but that’s a bit like saying (for example) that the Fifth Commandment ‘applies’ only to the Israelites.
Valid baptism makes one part of the Family of God. While Canon 1059 refers to Catholics, Canon 1055 speaks about the baptized and not Catholics only.
‘What of those who were not Catholic and were not married in Catholic Churches?’
In the case of marriage between the baptized, the minister of the sacrament is not the priest but the man and woman who contract marriage through their mutual, expressed consent.
LikeLike
Not at all. Canon Law is unique to Catholics. Why mention non Catholics at all if it applies equally?
LikeLike
‘Why mention non Catholics at all if it applies equally?’
It is not a question of ‘applying equally’. Obviously Catholics who marry are bound to observe canonical form but that requirement is not necessary in the case of non-Catholic Christians.
Just as baptism in other denominations is recognized as valid by the Church, when a baptized (non-Catholic) man and woman enter into the marriage contract, Canon 1055 simply affirms that a sacramental marriage exists.
http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2009/02/19/can-non-catholics-receive-the-catholic-sacrament-of-matrimony/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Again, the passage you cite applies to Catholic marrying non-Catholics. The question I am asking is to do with people who were never Catholics, married before becoming Catholics and did s more than once. Canon Law has precisely nothing to say here. To apply it as though such people had always been Catholic is illogical,
LikeLike
‘The question I am asking is to do with people who were never Catholics, married before becoming Catholics…Canon Law has precisely nothing to say here.’
On the contrary, it does – which is why I cited the aforesaid canons. Looks like you may have missed out on the following from that article:
‘Canon 1055.1 echoes the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes 48) when it asserts that the marriage covenant has, between the baptized, been raised by Christ to the dignity of a sacrament. The following paragraph is even more precise: a valid marriage cannot exist between two baptized persons without it being by that very fact a sacrament (c. 1055-2).
This means that when two Catholics, *TWO PROTESTANTS*, or a Catholic and a protestant marry validly, their marriage is by definition a sacramental marriage.’
‘To apply it as though such people had always been Catholic is illogical’.
The folks in question may be non-Catholic Christians but, as Canon 1055.1 says, since ‘The matrimonial covenant…has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized’, their marriage is a sacramental one.
‘and did so more than once’
That bit complicates things – as the question of a possible violation of the Sixth Commandment may arise. (Also see Canon 1085 §1 & §2 >> http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3Y.HTM )
If the parties have become Catholic, perhaps they could present all the facts of their situation to their parish priest / competent authority to see if a declaration of nullity of a previous union / convalidation (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P46.HTM ) / sanation (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P47.HTM ) may be required.
LikeLike
I did not miss it, but it applies a Catholic understanding of marriage to people who never had it, which is precisely the problem. It gets worse when, as happens in practice, different priests reach different conclusions.
The whole thing is a mess, and AL, alas, does not make it better.
LikeLiked by 1 person
‘it applies a Catholic understanding of marriage to people who never had it.’
But who can, in time and with patience, come to see how and why the Church has a particular understanding which may differ from theirs.
The following is not meant to be arrogant or ‘triumphalistic’ – but with respect, may I remind you of the Creed: ‘…I believe in ONE, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church’.
There really is only One Church of the Lord. And that subsists in the Catholic Church. (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html )
There can be different ‘understandings of marriage’ but the Catholic one gives the most ’rounded’ understanding of the same – so those non-Catholic Christians who have a different understanding and who are open to learning, can certainly benefit from the wisdom of the one who is ‘mater et magistra’. There is of course scope for further study and reflection on the sacrament of marriage but that does not necessarily cast a shadow on the riches already present.
‘It gets worse when, as happens in practice, different priests reach different conclusions.’
This is a different matter altogether. Without meaning to sound condescending, may I suggest that the parties in question take time to pray, and then if possible, take up the matter with the local Chancery, presenting folks there with all the facts, including any conflicting conclusions of priests? The Lord will be with those who sincerely approach Him through His Church.
‘AL, alas, does not make it better.’
AL is on a different plane altogether. But that said, if ‘received’ in obedience, it too can contribute to making things better.
LikeLike
Believing in one Church is not the same as believing it subsists in the RCC. The Eastern Orthodox do not accept that marriages contracted outside the Church should be treated as though they were. In some places it can take years to have a case heard. Adding to the yoke is not in accordance with Christ’s teaching.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good discussion, but remember this. The Lutheran tradition in general, all synods agree, deny that marriage is a sacrament. And Lutherans are probably (excluding Anglo-Catholics) the most ‘catholic’ protestants around. Our rules are very similar, but it is specifically not a sacrament. The only two are Baptism and the Eucharist. Ant that is the core of why Rome should likely recognize other churches’ baptisms but not marriage.
http://smallcatechism.org/Unit4/unit4-aa.htm
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed. The imperialism implied in imposing one’s own understanding on others is the opposite of helpful, I fear.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sadly, it is. But it is something we all do to an extent. Good post today, I just have nothing to add. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks, Neo.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is, it is fine to expect the members of the club to obey the rules. It is rather silly to require those joining to have always obeyed those rules, especially if they had no way of knowing them.
I’m a decent example, I think I am (or at least I try) to be a pretty decent Christian, but I likely violate some rule of Catholicism every day. In Lutheranism, I can keep it down to every other day or so. Doesn’t make me a better Christians than a Catholic, but it doesn’t make me worse either. At least I try!
LikeLiked by 1 person
A discussion needs to be had on this.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Probably a good idea, if we can generate light, and somewhat less heat. Goes to our founding principles, as well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I do hope so
LikeLiked by 1 person
A side note, The Missouri Synod is pushing for and towards private Confession being a sacrament and claim to have references from Luther and Melanchthon. I don’t know much other than that but it’s a selling the Pastors have been using with me the Catholic husband.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@chalcedon451:
‘Believing in one Church is not the same as believing it subsists in the RCC.’
🙂 Whatever one believes, the question, as Pilate asked is, ‘What is truth?’ 😉
That leads to a different conversation altogether, which may be beyond the scope of the question you initially raised, viz., ‘Can a marriage be sacramental if the Church does not recognise its Ministry?’
Here, by the ‘Church’ I presume you meant the RCC and I presented what I believe is the RCC view.
‘In some places it can take years to have a case heard. Adding to the yoke is not in accordance with Christ’s teaching.’
Lk. 18:1-8.
@NEO:
‘And that is the core of why Rome should likely recognize other churches’ baptisms but not marriage.’
This was covered in http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2009/02/19/can-non-catholics-receive-the-catholic-sacrament-of-matrimony/
To wit:
‘….This means that when two Catholics, two protestants, or a Catholic and a protestant marry validly, their marriage is by definition a sacramental marriage. Ironically, not all protestants agree with this! Lutherans, for example, do not believe that there are seven sacraments, for they accept only two, baptism and the Lord’s Supper. This means that when two baptized Lutherans marry validly in a Lutheran church, they themselves do not believe that their marriage is sacramental. Catholics, in contrast, will unhesitatingly assert that this Lutheran marriage is in fact a sacramental marriage, whether the spouses accept that or not. Simply put, we (i.e. the Catholics) believe that it is impossible for two baptized people to validly marry without their marriage being a sacrament.’
LikeLiked by 1 person
The RCC maintains a logically inconsistent position and wonders why so many remain outside it? Truth is a person. How and why better people than me find Him elsewhere remains a mystery, but they do.
LikeLike
Doesn’t one of the parameters of mortal sin is to have full knowledge of the act? I would think since marriage involves also adultery, that would weigh into the topic, which would ultimately support Chalcedon’s position of those who had no prior knowledge, if anything, I would believe that most Diocese marriage tribunals will find those marriages invalid and will be nothing more than money lenders in the temple. It just be pretty basic in initiation process to say—those marriages are invalid, we can validate your existing marriage.
LikeLiked by 2 people
In practice that is often the case
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am not a fan of trading Bible verses. Jesus is perfectly clear about the sinfulness of those in ecclesiastical power adding to the burden on the people; the persistent widow seems a distraction from an inconvenient truth.
How would you characterise telling people who had no idea that marriage was a sacrament that they had contracted one all the same, if not a form of cultural imperialism?
With respect, the marriage of two non Catholics is nowhere covered in Canon Law, for the reason stated in my initial response, Canon Law cannot cover two non-Catholics; you will not find a single proof to the contrary.
That Catholics unhesitatingly affirm that a marriage is sacramental is natural, that they tell none Catholics that their sacramental marriage is, is an act of spiritual arrogance, for which one hopes they will seek the sacrament of reconciliation.
LikeLike
To Phillip’s point on private confession. I think that it is probably a good deal, and a fair part of the LCMS is Confessional already. But I think making it the 3d sacrament is a couple of bridges too far. Uh no. Lutheran sacraments are required to be based in the Bible or Christ’s teaching, and while we can (and I think should) support the practice, as we do marriage, I can’t see it as sacramental, in our context. Luther and Melancthon, great as they are, is simply not enough.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Found on the LCMS website: Although Holy Absolution has no visible element, it defi- nitely does have Christ’s institution. The Lutheran Confessions refer to Holy Absolution as a Sacrament (LC IV.74; Ap. XIII.4). The Lutheran Confessions also wisely point out that“No intel- ligent person will quibble about the number of sacraments or the terminology, so long as those things are kept which have God’s command and promises”(AP XIII.17).
LikeLiked by 2 people
Confession yes, private confession, not so much, in my view.
But they are correct, it’s a very trivial thing to argue about, either way.
LikeLiked by 2 people
More or less, I just wanted to cite so as you didn’t think I was making it up or mistaken. One of great avenues of this group is that it disrupts group think from the many traditions we hail from and stretches our understanding—although the white sepulchrals will admonish such discussions.
Nonetheless, it’s good to talk again.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yep, I rarely do with you. Yes, that is the value, and why ennui set in with me.
It is indeed good to be here again. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
‘The imperialism implied in imposing one’s own understanding on others is the opposite of helpful, I fear.’
I can understand where you are coming from, because the language used may come across like that, but honestly, neither the RCC nor I mean any sort of ‘imperialism’ – and there certainly is no intent to ‘impose’ one’s own understanding on others. And definitely no posturing or claim that one is a ‘better Christian’ than another.
Look at it this way, – when we say ‘Jesus is Lord’ or paraphrase the Lord in Jn. 14:6 and say that no one can come to the Father except through Jesus, would we not sound ‘imperialistic’ or ‘dogmatic’ or trying to ‘impose our understanding’ on non-Christians? To some, we may sound as such, but do we mean that or do we intend any ‘imposition’? We don’t, right?
Similarly, the RCC has a particular understanding, which it believes and teaches to be true, with respect to marriage – and indeed faith and morals in general. Whether others may agree or believe the same or perceive it to be imperialistic is another matter altogether.
‘It is rather silly to require those joining to have always obeyed those rules, especially if they had no way of knowing them.’
Not sure what rules you have in mind. But in any case, whatever their prior ignorance may be, “those joining” are certainly invited to deepen their understanding of what the Church actually believes and teaches.
‘The RCC maintains a logically inconsistent position’.
Not sure where the logical inconsistency lies.
‘Truth is a person. How and why better people than me find Him elsewhere remains a mystery, but they do.’
I don’t claim to be a better person than you but two observations:
1) Truth is indeed a person.
Who becomes / is one ‘flesh’ with His Bride.
2) ‘He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother’ > http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050701.htm read with (for example) Mark 3:35, Acts 5:15.
LikeLike
All Christians acknowledge Jesus is Lord, not all Christians acknowledge marriage is a sacrament, so I am not sure the parallel you draw holds.
To tell two non-Catholics that a marriage they do not consider sacramental is, in fact, so, is surely a trifle on the arrogant side? That the RCC says it is so is fine, that it tells others that their marriage is something they do not think it is, is not.
The logical inconsistency is in not recognising the orders of the Anglican Church but insisting that its marriages are sacramental, when it says they are not.
Again, on the word Church, an Orthodox would cite precisely the same passage at you and I. This dialogue of the deaf simply shows to the wider world that we are failing in the Great Commission. Look, it says, how they love each other.
LikeLike
And it is even more silly to tell a couple, or more likely, a divorced person coming into the church/ or Church, because it applies to us all, that their marriage at the courthouse, or the registry depending on local custom, is sacramental. Any church that does has just legitimized so-called same-sex marriage, because most of our countries allow that, wrong as we may think it.
No reason that a church can’t educate newcomers, indeed they absolutely should, on what a Christian marriage is, and regularize the others if they desire to continue their relationship.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ chalcedon451,
To clarify: when you remarked: “Truth is a person. How and why… people find Him elsewhere remains a mystery”, the Scripture passages were cited merely to facilitate a glimpse of ‘how and why people (do) find Him “elsewhere”.’
‘Jesus is perfectly clear about the sinfulness of those in ecclesiastical power adding to the burden on the people.’
Of course – there may be a few / some who do that, but should we not avoid a sweeping generalization from Jesus’ words and avoid tarring all in ecclesiastical power with the same brush?
‘the persistent widow seems a distraction from an inconvenient truth.’
That parable was cited only to encourage trust in God to ensure that justice is ultimately done despite any “sinfulness of those in ecclesiastical power”.
‘How would you characterise telling people who had no idea that marriage was a sacrament that they had contracted one all the same, if not a form of cultural imperialism?…That Catholics unhesitatingly affirm that a marriage is sacramental is natural, that they tell non-Catholics that their marriage is sacramental, is an act of spiritual arrogance, for which one hopes they will seek the sacrament of reconciliation.’
Simply telling people in charity what is believed to be true in the spiritual realm may be perceived as ‘spiritual arrogance’ or ‘a form of cultural imperialism’, but in reality it is not.
A loose analogy: If a person who has no idea that the Eucharist is a sacrament receives it, would it be ‘spiritually arrogant’ or ‘a form of cultural imperialism’ to tell him that he has received a sacrament?
On a side note, Dominus Iesus, (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html ) and in particular, section IV therein entitled ‘Unicity and unity of the Church’ may come across as ‘spiritually arrogant’ or ‘a form of cultural imperialism’ but actually there is simply a presentation of what Catholics believe to be true.
Further, there is no imposition of that belief on anyone.
‘Canon Law cannot cover two non-Catholics’.
Again a loose analogy: Can we make a sweeping statement and say American law cannot cover non-Americans?
‘you will not find a single proof to the contrary.’
Proof 1: While Canon 1059 refers to Catholics, Canon 1055 speaks about the baptized and not Catholics only.
Proof 2: The link cited earlier: http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2009/02/19/can-non-catholics-receive-the-catholic-sacrament-of-matrimony/
Proof 3: Second and third paragraphs of answer in http://www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage.asp?number=411900&Pg=&Pgnu=&recnu=
Proof 4: https://www.catholic.com/qa/when-is-marriage-a-sacrament
‘All Christians acknowledge Jesus is Lord, not all Christians acknowledge marriage is a sacrament, so I am not sure the parallel you draw holds.’
It does, actually. Here’s another analogy to drive the point about the RCC not meaning any ‘imperialism’ or ‘imposition’ of one’s own understanding on others:
All people have God as their Creator but not all people acknowledge the same or the role of God the Son in their creation. To some – like atheists, we may sound ‘imperialistic’ or ‘dogmatic’ or ‘arrogant’ or trying to ‘impose our understanding’ on non-believers or those “not in the club” – but do we mean that or do we intend any ‘imposition’?
We don’t, right?
Similar is the case about the belief of the RCC with respect to marriage.
‘To tell two non-Catholics that a marriage they do not consider sacramental is, in fact, so, is surely a trifle on the arrogant side? That the RCC says it is so is fine, that it tells others that their marriage is something they do not think it is, is not.’
Non sequitur. Do parties receiving / entering into a sacrament get to ‘decide’ whether it is a sacrament? If yes, does that mean for example, that a baptized person can rightly say: ‘I don’t “consider” my baptism as a sacrament’ or ‘I don’t “think” I have become part of the Family of God’?
‘The logical inconsistency is in not recognising the orders of the Anglican Church but insisting that its marriages are sacramental, when it says they are not.’
I may be imprecise here, but in a nutshell:
Among other things, there needs to be a valid minister for each sacrament. In the case of Orders, per the RCC’s belief in Apostolic Succession, that is only a validly consecrated bishop who is in communion with the Pope. Only he has the authority to licitly ordain men to the priesthood. Anglican orders are considered invalid by the RCC because they do not meet that criterion: there is no valid minister. (http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2011/01/20/the-validity-of-anglican-holy-orders/ explains what I have said in more detail, in case any one is interested).
In contrast, in the case of marriage, the RCC believes that a valid minister is the baptized couple who are getting married.
No logical inconsistency.
‘Again, on the word Church, an Orthodox would cite precisely the same passage at you and I.’
Unable to respond because I am not sure which passage you are referring to.
@NEO: ‘And it is even more silly to tell a couple, or more likely, a divorced person coming into the church/ or Church, because it applies to us all, that their marriage at the courthouse, or the registry depending on local custom, is sacramental.’
Please refer ‘proof 3’ above.
‘Any church that does has just legitimized so-called same-sex marriage, because most of our countries allow that, wrong as we may think it.’
Non sequitur. In the case of non-Catholic Christians, as shown in proof 3, the place of marriage does not matter. Catholics, in contrast, have to adhere to ‘form’ per Canon Law. (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P40.HTM )
Marriage can only be between a man and a woman. There is no ‘legitimization’ whatsoever of “same-sex marriage”.
‘No reason that a church can’t educate newcomers, indeed they absolutely should, on what a Christian marriage is…’
FYI, a summary of the Catholic view: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c3a7.htm
‘and regularize the others if they desire to continue their relationship’
That’s something which the parish priest / marriage tribunal would be able to give guidance on, once all the facts are presented.
‘dialogue of the deaf’?
It may appear as such.
But “the science of the theologians will assist us” – https://zenit.org/articles/text-of-pope-s-videomessage-for-day-of-christian-unity-in-us/ (winking at the reference to Judgement Day) 🙂
Nodding to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZ9Ssvs5cgY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zb1e10RzOV8 and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkfZBtExZuE also.
Oh, btw, re that bit about who is ‘better’, – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAJOIXq2Wv4
🙂
Pax.
LikeLike
But there is an imposition on others if you tell them that a marriage they did not know was sacramental, and their Church does not believe is sacramental is so; you cannot get around this.
The analogy with atheists is a red herring. Atheists simply reject our teaching. What we are talking about is converts
Yes, we can indeed say American law does not cover non-Americans. If I were to say to you as an American that you should pay National Insurance when you visit the UK, you would rightly protest.
There is a very clear logical inconsistency in telling people whose Church says their marriage is not sacramental that it is because we say so.
If we continue to insist that we know better than the host church which conducted the marriage, then we continue in spiritual arrogance and out extra burdens on the people. Jesus is very clear what he thinks of such Pharisaical behaviour.
LikeLike
Wow JN! You really give poor ole Chalcedon a run for his money! What to do you with your spare time? It there anything in the article you LIKE? Geeze.
You don’t really know me from boo. I used to come here alot. I’ve been elsewhere for a while. I might be back. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
‘But there is an imposition on others if you tell them that a marriage they did not know was sacramental, and their Church does not believe is sacramental is so.’
From that, the takeaway is that whatever both the parties involved and their church believes is to be accepted by the other churches, right? And any disconnect would be “imposition”, right?
If that is so, then consider the case of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episcopal_Church_(United_States)#Marriage_of_same-sex_couples
Now, if we tell one of their “same-sex couples” that their marriage which they did not know was invalid, and their church also does not believe is invalid is so, would that be an “imposition”?
‘If we continue to insist that we know better than the host church which conducted the marriage, then we continue in spiritual arrogance’
In the case of a “same-sex married” US Episcopalian couple, do we “know better than the host church”?
‘The analogy with atheists is a red herring. Atheists simply reject our teaching.’
The analogy about the atheist – or say, the Buddhist, – is given simply to illustrate that just because a community of believers holds a particular belief which may not be in sync with another set of people (whether that be about the origin of man or the sacramental nature of marriage between the baptized), it would be a stretch to characterize that as “imposition”.
As for atheists rejecting “our” “teaching” – that begs the questions:
who is the “our”?
what is the “teaching”?
what is “our” authority to “teach”? (would that not be ‘a form of cultural imperialism’ or ‘arrogance’?)
what about those who do not reject our teaching in toto but only in some aspects – say, like the US Episcopalians above who do not consider “same-sex marriage” invalid?
An American need not of course pay National Insurance when he visits the UK, but on visiting the UK, – whether that be a visit to the actual country or to one of the UK’s embassies around the world, – at least some UK laws do “apply” to him – at the very least those pertaining to law and order.
And then of course, there are things like http://www.handelonthelaw.com/articles/law-article.aspx?admiralty-maritime-cruise-ship-crimes—which-laws-apply-69-382
and http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=481901
Does it make sense to speak of ‘imperialism’ or ‘arrogance’ in the above cases?
The point is – just as in the secular realm, we can’t make a sweeping generalization that a country’s law does not or cannot cover other country’s citizens, so too, in the ecclesiastical realm.
‘There is a very clear logical inconsistency in telling people whose Church says their marriage is not sacramental that it is because we say so.’
Not an arbitrary “we say so” but because the parties concerned are baptized. The RCC believes that when a baptized couple get married, their relationship expresses in a unique way the unbreakable bond of love between Christ and His people.
Practically speaking, when does the RCC “tell” the non-Catholic baptized about the sacramental nature of their marriage? It is especially when such folks ask to be received into the RCC, right? [see for example https://insidethewalls.org/documents/2014/8/Marriage_Canonical_Process_for_RCIA.pdf and point A 3) therein.]
How can letting such folks know about what the RCC believes be seen as an ‘imposition’? They are still free to accept or not accept what the RCC believes. So where is the imposition?
LikeLike
Not at all. No one is saying that what is accepted by one should be accepted by all, except you, when you say those married outside the RCC should accept RCC teaching.
LikeLike
@ ginnyfree
https://xkcd.com/386/
🙂
LikeLike
‘when you say those married outside the RCC should accept RCC teaching.’
I am merely pointing to what the RCC believes. Besides, it is misleading to say that ‘those married outside the RCC *should* accept RCC teaching’. There is no compulsion or imposition.
Those baptized who are married outside the RCC – when they wish to join the RCC – are invited to study and understand what the Church actually believes – including its belief on the sacramental nature of the marriage of those who are baptized, as shown by the plain reading of Canon 1055. They are still free to accept or not accept what the RCC believes.
LikeLike
How pleasant it would be to report that all induction programmes did what you describe; but it would not be an accurate description of the situation as I have seen it operate.
LikeLike
Good brother jn, I keep seeing cathols telling me to learn what the CC teaches. What will that do for you? What has it done for anyone? Lets look at this realistically. Your holymen should know what the CC teaches, they are the teachers. What has it done for them? They are vile vilest filthiest group of men to inhabit this planet. What does knowing catholic teaching do for them?
LikeLike
@chalcedon451: An induction program ought to present Church teaching respectfully and faithfully – without any ‘dilution’. I’m sorry to hear that your experience has not been positive. A suggestion: as a Lenten sacrifice, consider “complaining” about it to the Lord a la the persistent widow. Goliaths are slayed by Davids, after all.
@Bosco the Heretic:
Mk. 10:18 🙂
http://www.motherteresa.org/07_family/volunteering/v_cal.html
Mt. 25: 31-46
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM
LikeLike
It is not just my own experience. Like much catechesis, the practice of the Church departs widely from its preaching.
LikeLike
This rather reminds me of the conflict between common law and equity. Any system becomes burdened with its own rules over time. (As I’ve said to NEO, I believe over-regulation is one of the causes of our economic malaise in the UK). I for one do not believe in compulsory celibacy for priests, but then, I’m not a Catholic (and some might say not a Christian, either given refusal to be dogmatic on a number of points).
LikeLiked by 2 people
Compulsory celibacy is a discipline, not a dogma, of course.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Indeed. Well, we shall see if it is eventually repealed. It certainly seems odd to have it in the Roman administration but not in the oriental branch of the Catholic Church.
LikeLiked by 2 people
And there are exceptions made even there
LikeLiked by 2 people
There are many traditional stances I agree within Catholicism, but at the same time, many I find silly and some of those because they lack any sort of charity. I am sorry, but those who constantly point to the law first remind me of the Pharisees more than anything. Of course, this doesn’t mean that dogmas shouldn’t be followed and we should ignore Church Doctrine, but Christ was the harshest on those who hid behind the old laws time and time again in the Gospels.
For example, I recently brought a friend to a TLM church; he loved it. He decided he wanted to join that Parish and met with the priest. I thought, sure, that’s fine; however, now our friendship has been severed because those priest taught him I was guilty of adultery because I married a Lutheran, I informed him that I have the permission of the Bishop in the diocese that they residing in, but it didn’t matter. He kept going on and on on how I needed to repent from my Vatican II ways and that my Parish’s mass was no good.
And yet, when I challenged his new zealotry with the Catechism and Scripture, he said all that matter is what the TLM priest said after by the Grace of God brought him to the Church.
Also, I do believe celibacy in the clergy needs to go.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I cant help but agree with you. Our Lord spoke about making the yoke light, and was not fond of those who heaped burdens on others.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You mean burdens like going to hell(mortal sin) for skipping a catholic church service?
LikeLike
You really believe that?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I can’t help but believe that the priest Phillip speaks of was out of line, by quite a lot. My sister married a Catholic in the 1950s, and while there were various restrictions on raising the children Catholic and such, there was, at least as far as I ever heard, any whispering of heresy. And to follow it with the denigration of what is reputed to be (by everyone I know of) a valid mass seems well beyond the pale to me.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I agree, Neo
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes, the one priest would never use my wife’s name but referred to her as “the Lutheran wife.” I had to check my calendar to make sure it was 2018 not 1518.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Quite. No answer, I’m sure we have some as well, but we shouldn’t. The joke (if you’ll permit) would be that he was afraid your wife was a better catholic than him. Weak I know, but it went through my mind.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You know I believe in Catholicism due to my upbringing and that I’ve read the apologetics of both sides and I agree with the Catholic position. However, I would surmise that he views my wife as a threat to my faith and we’ve had a heated discussion or two but the irony is that he does far more damage of my opinion of the faith than my wife.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I know. I have minimal problems problems with Catholic theology, part of the reason that I’ve never looked seriously at the Church is a bit too much of that attitude, mostly long ago, to be fair. In my former church (now part of the UCC) that attitude has a deal to do with me leaving. So did Rev. Jeremiah Wright, but that is a different problem
LikeLike
No, I don’t believe skipping a mass service is a sin. Skipping a catholic service is a good thing. The Cc scares little kids by telling them that. they grow up believing that, most of them. Its a sadistic way of keeping people in bondage to the CC. Verily, they shall have their reward.
LikeLike
Poor Bosco. You rely on outdate myths to keep you prejudices safe from real news. Show me on example in the last 40 years of any Churchman saying you would go to hell for missing Mass. What, you can’t? Oh well, there you go again.
LikeLike
You mean 40 yrs ago the CC changed that proviso? No, im not aware of this reversal. Obviously I learned of it recently. Which means in the last 20 yrs or so. I thought the CC didn’t change. Well, I guess they had to do away with some of the more ridiculous claims. The CC is becoming gentiler and kinder, or at least putting on sheeps clothing. id even say the CC is becoming protestant. (;-D
LikeLike
No, it has never been Catholic teaching that you went to hell if you missed Mass. You are the biggest sucker there is Bosco. Anything, however rubbish, you will believe if it is anti-Catholic.
LikeLike
In this age of Catholic laxity, many have lost sight of the fact that it is a grave (i.e., mortal) sin to skip Mass on Sunday or a holy day of obligation when one is able to attend
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/why-is-it-a-mortal-sin-to-miss-mass
LikeLike
I didn’t see it say you went to hell, Bosco.
LikeLike
Good brother Nicolas said…..”I for one do not believe in compulsory celibacy for priests,”
Good brother Nicolas, don’t you have any brain cells? Are you devoid of any learning? You are a bad person if you think its compulsory,(forbidden) for priests to Marry.Good brother Chalcedon set me straight. The pure and white gentile godly catholic church doesn’t forbid all its clergy from marriage, all the way from nuns to popes. Its just a happy coincidence that all its clergy aren’t married. All of them want to only focus on a life of prayer, sitting in austere little rooms with their hands folded in prayer their whole life, meditating on the mysteries of the virgin queen. So there, that’s why they are all celibate… its just a coincidence.
LikeLike
No, that was not what I said.
LikeLike
I fully expected that when good brother Chalcedon came back he would have abandoned this catholic madness. Guess not.
I see he still is espousing the big excuse that the Devil attacks the pure and white catholic church because it is so pure and white and the Devil hates pure and white religions.(;-D….Lets be real for a moment…….the whole history of the CC should make Satan sit back and say……Ah,how good to see ones work thrive so well!….Like good brother admits in this post that the child abuse and cover ups from the very top are headline news every day. Now think for a moment….why would the Devil want to harm or destroy that? The CC has a criminal bank that launders mafia drug and blood money, its top men kill each other over control of it, the bishops who control the purse strings live lavish lives of nitely parties(don’t let me start on that) and the priestcraft is solidly homosexual(gay cabal inside the Vatican no less) and good brother and other die hard cathols say Satan wants to attack this. (;-D…How far wil these false religion people go to delude themselves?
As far as the marriage and divorce thing goes for the CC…..the claim that the wonderful church that Christ founded changes not looms large when the faithful get tired of stoneage doctrine of the CC starts getting in the way of sanity. The CC has changed things but small things that they can turn around and claim that they are not really changes. but they are. The good news is….regularly, some cathol or another will get sick of that phoney baloney false repressive cult and leave it and maybe find Christ. happens all the time.
Good to see you again good brother (;-D
LikeLike
Yes, the downside of having C451 back is that Bosco also crawls out from under his stone.Still, if he says that the CC (Calvary Chapel) is really that bad, it doesn’t surprise me.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Who pulled your chain ?
LikeLike
Bosco, where is the excuse, except in your warped imagination? I am excusing nothing. I am explaining what would be obvious to anyone with three functioning brain cells, which is that Satan targets his real foes.
LikeLike
I whole heartily agree Satan targets his foes.
LikeLike
And of those the oldest and strongest is the Church which has the most of the world’s Christians in it.
LikeLike
Im not aware of any church that has most of the Christians in it. The born again are scattered everywhere. They are like the wind…you don’t know where they came from and you don’t know where they went. jesus said so.
LikeLike
Poor Bosco. A child of five could tell you which is the largest Christian Church.Perhaps you better stick to chess or something which requires no wider education?
LikeLike
I took first in a local tournament a month ago. Christian church? Knowing you, you must be referring to the CC. Catholics are not Christians. Benedict Carter, the biggest know it all died in the wool cathol told me chathols aren’t Christians. he went on to elaborate. Cathols aren’t Christian until they enter heaven. I have a more rigorous definition of Christian. They are the saved. The saved don’t belong to a religion. They follow the Lamb where ever he goes. No canon laws or costumed holymen. Those are for the souls that are lost.
LikeLike
Bosco, you do talk rot. Look in any dictionary and you will see the Catholic Church is Christian. Still, one person tells you something, and as long as it fits your prejudice, you will swallow it.
LikeLike
I know that anyone who is not saved isn’t a Christian. Even the nice kindly old lady who attends prot services isn’t Christian if shes not saved. The saved call Christians people who are saved. Im not just targeting Mary worshipers my friend, don’t take it personal. I gotta get off now. Good talking to ya my brother.
LikeLike
Yes, we know you have odd views on who is saved, but that is just your opinion
LikeLike
If the CC changes its policy on divorce, and changes its stand on married priests, it will crumble from the inside out. The CCs claim to fame is that it changes not and all its dogma are god given and cant be revoked. if it repudiates a few claims, people will realize that all its claims are worthless. That will strike a blow in the collection plate….the spot where it matters. People tend to vote with their feet. Anyway, the CC is becoming a dinosaur and peoples of the earth aren’t interested in this stone age cult of a virgin queen. We have better things to waste our time and money on, ….my favorite is the roulette wheel. Ive been pretty lucky at that.
LikeLike
Celibate priests is not Catholic dogma Bosco. You never let not knowing something from stopping you pronouncing with confidence.
LikeLike
Yeah, I have been hearing this excuse lately. its not dogma. Call it what you want. The CC wasn’t allowing married priests, or nuns. If a cathol holyman gets married, isn’t he terminated? I hear you all are letting married Anglican holy men into the CC. Yall must be hard up for priests. But through the ranks of the Cc apparatus, candidates for priest cant be married. is this so? In the deep south in the early days, blacks couldn’t use certain drinking fountains or eat in certain diners or sit in the front of busses. It wasn’t the law but it was enforced. The CC apologists are trying to smooth this out by saying celibacy is just a suggestion, in order to keep it from admitting its forbidden and a doctrine of devils, which it really is. just like the new claim is, which I hear all the time…”god commands us to make images” it kinda keeps catholics from waking up screaming in the middle of the nite.
LikeLike
Poor Bosco, wrong again. The Eastern Catholic Churches have married priests too. It is Latin discipline, not dogma, that says a priest should not be married; you will not understand the difference, and quite why I waste time with the ineducable, God alone knows.
LikeLike
The eastern catholic church says Rome is in error. Youre not going to take that insult lying down are you? How dare them.
LikeLike
No it doesn’t. Do stop telling lies.
LikeLike
Good brother, I was just wondering something. Since like you and a few others have said(claimed) that th CC doesn’t forbid priests and all its clergy to be married, that means they are all free to get married. Is this the case good brother? Nothing should be stopping them, rite?
My problem is….if you claim there is no rule or dogma forbidding marriage, then why does the CCs governing body have to convene to make or change its stand on celibacy for clergy, seeing as how its not forbidden or dogma to not be married? That’s what im wondering.
So which one is it? Are they forbidden or is it just a happy coincidence that all its clergy aren’t married? Thanks in advance.
LikeLike
Bosco, I have often had to refer to the problem you appear to have with reading.
What I have stated is not what you claim. I have said that celibacy is a discipline not a dogma. So it could change, were the Church to decide it; as the Church has not so decided, no one in the Latin Rite who is a proest, is free to marry.
LikeLike
I want to thank you for taking your time to answer me.
I heard that insanity is doing the exact same thing over and over expecting a different result.
I ask you the same things all the time, and I get the same answers. You say celibacy is a discipline Like brushing teeth in the morning running a mile every morning to stay in shape. I don’t see that as a law. That’s vague as one can get, saying its a discipline. I would like to hear from others as to whether celibacy is a CC law or is it just a suggestion(discipline). Others seem to think its compulsory, and you always step in and say its not. Are you the pope? Are your pronouncements infallible?
What im getting at is that it is forbidden for catholic clergy to marry. Use what ever catch words you want. Good brother Hitler used to as k good brother Himmler to use code words when referring to extermination of women and children and men as “sent to the east” or “resettled” and other code words. That way good brother Hitler had an out once he won the war. he could claim he didn’t know they were being killed. I know that cathols who give a darn try to keep from using the word “forbidden” for the obvious reason. Just like some cathol apologist came up with…”god commands us to make images” to combat the prots throwing up in their face the 2nd commandment.
Personally, I would get tired of explaining why I do what the bible and Jesus says not to do. Id either get out of the religion or stop talking to non cathols, or what ever religion I subscribe to.
LikeLike
Again, you fail to understand. A discipline is not a suggestion, it is a rule. Catholic clergy in the Eastern Rites and the Ordinariate can marry.
LikeLike
Ah, a rule. So marriage is forbidden. Something we all already know, but I was trying to goad you into admitting. A doctrine of demons. A drop in the bucket among all the other unbiblical practices.
LikeLike
Was St Paul a demon then? Do look at his views on the issue.
LikeLike
I know good brothers thoughts on the issue. He traveled and couldn’t drag a wife with him. Since when did you or any other card carrying Mary worshiper care what is written in the bible? He said it is better to marry than burn. Didnt he say that? Would you like the verse number? Naw, you don’t care. You know what a Mary worshiper told me 3 days ago? I said to him that Mary is some warrior…..she fled into the wilderness to get away from the Devil. Mary is held up as a warrior fighting the devil by you Mary worshipers. So the liar idolater said to me….”Mary summoned St Michael to fight the devil, befor she fled, and that makes her a warrior.” So I thanked him for the info and asked him where he read that. he never got back to me but some other liar Mary worshiper came in and told me that everything we need to know isn’t in the bible. That gives you liar Mary worshipers an out when you come up with weirdo stuff to support your flagrant idolatry.
LikeLike
Yes, he admitted that sometimes men could not control their urges and it was better to marry than to fornicate.
LikeLike
All that matters is are you saved? Am I saved? Forget what other people do.
LikeLike
As I have asked you before Bosco, just point me to the Apostle who said “i am saved.’
LikeLike
Ill look for that “I am saved verse. But you will have an easy out to anything I quote, because I don’t understand scripture because I don’t worship Mary and bow befor wood and stone. Here,lets see the official idea of the CC…..
A Catholic drives within the lanes; a Protestant is on a road without lanes, getting into wrecks.
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/scottericalt/if-you-want-to-understand-the-bible-listen-to-the-magisterium
Every thing isay is wrong, every thing you say is correct. I cant win.
LikeLike
where’s the verse? Cut the stalling.
LikeLike
The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God
Romans 8;16
Ive said this a million time but you don’t believe it. The saved knowthey know Jesus personally. My catholic friends say I had a encounter with the evil one. They said the same about my Lord. Then they go back to their graven images and costume holymen.
LikeLike
Can you read? I asked for one Apostle saying “I am saved’ – if you can’t offer it, you are preaching a false message
LikeLike
“These things I write unto you, that ye may know that ye have eternal life, even unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God” (1 John 5:13).
LikeLike
I can read. Can you? One verse where anyone says “I am saved’ – you are clearly a liar preaching a false message Bosco. Three evasions.
LikeLike
I cant find someone saying the exact phrase”i am saved”. So what? Christmas isn’t in the bible either. I don’t know what youre getting at. Are you saying no one is saved? I don’t slight you or anyone else who has a hart time with being saved. When you atre on the outside looking in you don’t know what its like and wont know until you are on the inside. Its easy…just ask, but ask believing. But im no shining example. I didn’t even want to be saved. I was tricked into it.
LikeLike
You keep telling us all that matters is are you saved or not, and yet you cannot find anyone in the Bible saying “I am saved’ as you do. Try thinking.
LikeLike
C this pains me, to side with Bosco, but, truth is just that. You will find in the CCC 2180 & 2181 we Catholics have a Sunday obligation and the failure of, is grave sin. So, since many “Churchman” complied the CCC and since it was published within the last 40 years, they have stated it. Also my parish priest has stated such.
The article Bosco directed you to is rather good, the last two paragraphs also state it;
“Now back to the original question. Why is it mortal sin, objectively speaking, to choose to stay away from Mass on Sundays or holy days of obligation? The answer is, by that decision, on that occasion, we turn our backs on Christ and on the process of our redemption. We refuse to carry out Christ’s command to “do this” for the recalling and receiving of him and his salvation.
The utter folly of what we do by willfully ignoring our Mass obligation is somewhat analogous to a deep-sea diver’s putting a crimp in his air line so that no air can come through to keep him alive. By a decision to miss Sunday Mass or a holy day of obligation we suspend the operation of sanctifying grace in our lives. For the sake of our eternal salvation, we must go to confession in true contrition as soon as possible and take the crimp out of our air line, so to speak, allowing sanctifying grace again to flood our souls.”
Am I misunderstanding you?
LikeLike
I was not saying it was not sinful, just denying Bosco’s allegation that we go to hell if we miss church.
LikeLike
Well, a mortal sin deserves hell, according to the CC. if you allowed me to elaborate, I would have said the CC allows one to go to a confession booth and get rid of the mortal sin with a prescribed number of repeating hail Marys. Bottom line is, the CC tells little kids this.
LikeLike
No it doesn’t
LikeLike
Isnt the eastern CC called the orthodox church? If they aren’t the same then I was mistaken. But none of these religions are worth anything. It doesn’t matter what they think say or to. They all are false. They only matter when they are the force of law and start burning people alive again.
LikeLike
No they aren’t the same. To dismiss what millions of Christians believe when you have no understanding at all is, quite simply, to display your ignorance.
LikeLike
Well, I admire the orthodox church. It claims the roman variety is in error, and that’s why it has all the problems with wicked priests. Constantine moved to Byzantium to escape the evilness which characterizes Rome. Then, somehow Rome forced the unfortunate people under its jurisdiction to obey Rome or burn at the stake. It appointed kings who had to obey or else. Whats funny is that some cathols tell me that the CC never harmed anyone for breaking CC rules. tHAT the state did all the killing. Why did the state punish people for breaking CC rules? Because the state was run by the CC. Apologist attempt to keep their religion clean by claiming the state did all the burning while the priests stood around trying to stop the killings. Well, its all over and done with now. can blame anyone who is alive now for the past.
LikeLike
Bosco, did you not know that it is sinful to lie? The Orthodox do not claim that Rome has problems with wicked priests because it is, in its eyes, in error; there is no organisation where there is contact with children where wicked men have not entered.
LikeLike
Well for once I wasn’t just referring just to child abuse, which is everywhere. CC clergy , bishops and others, raid charity funds to provide themselves a life of splendor. But whatever the orthodox problem with the CC is is their opinion, which I heard long ago but forgot the specifics. One would be forbidding to marry would attract homosexuals and other assorted perverts.
LikeLike
Why would forbidding anyone to marry attract homosexuals?
LikeLike
Well, since you know the answer already, I state it for the benefit of the viewers. Faithful catholics already are saying to let priests be married, because the seminaries are hotbeds of homosexuality. Not many normal men want to swear off of women especially at that age. Mostholyfamiliymonestary has a good expose on the matter, replete with names and dates.
Is my sin any less than theirs? No. Do I care if the catholic priestcraft is 70% homosexual? No, not at all. Why do I even bother to mention it? Because my catholic brothers and sisters need to know they are being conned into thinking their holymen are holy. They feel their salvation is secure, as secure as the CC allows. What gets me is how the CC condemns homosexuality, as I do and any Christian should, but the CC actively recruits gay men into the priestcraft. My brothers and sisters need to turn to the risen Lord for their salvation and turn from wicked idolatrous religions.
LikeLike
Can. 11 Merely ecclesiastical laws bind those who have been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it, possess the efficient use of reason, and, unless the law expressly provides otherwise, have completed seven years of age.
So yes, when they turn 7.
Seems at 7 the CC can slap kids with the boogie man of mortal sin. It would be better if that person who scared the child was tossed in the sea with a mill stone around his neck. What a sick religion you got there.
LikeLike
OOpps, I forgot the link….
https://forums.catholic.com/t/mass-obligation-whats-the-minimum-age/413968/3
LikeLike
And a post titled “Pope Francis” would not be complete without comments pointing to the real pope, such as this. https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=1207
LikeLike
Fr. Longenecker opens our minds to the utter disaster of this pontificate and his minions. http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2018/02/vatican-flirting-communism-dwight-longenecker.html
I pray for the pope daily, but not that he will continue his fight against Satan, but that he will start one.
LikeLike
Yes, yes and another yes. I can honestly say, so far Pope Francis has not been my favorite Pope. I’ve been a Catholic under three Pope’s so far. I came in under St. John Paul II, lived to see him pass, was pleasantly surprised by the election of Cardinal Ratzinger who is now Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, and now I have another Holy Father, Pope Francis. I do not like his style nor his wishy-washy spiritual directions. He says one thing one day and contradicts it two days later. I’m in shock over the Chinese betrayals which have yet to unfold. One thing for certain, the shaking up of the stuffy and the making of deliberate messes he promised shortly after his acceptance of the See of Rome continues. He does keep the tongues wagging and the presses rolling. Someone will have to clean up those messes after he is gone and he will be gone someday. Then I’ll have another Pope to obey. It will be my fourth. My favorite so far has been St. John Paul II for many reasons. I am Consecrated to Jesus thru Mary according to the Montfort Formula thanks to his example in this matter. That makes him my spiritual brother in Christ. I drew great comfort in that when he was alive and I’m certain I’ve received blessings from it thru his intercession since he’s gone to Heaven. I guess that kinda makes me partial. God bless. Ginnyfree
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Satan knows his enemy, and he will always target the One True Church”
I happened to come across a transcript of Father marciel from a hidden microphone in his humble little room in his headquarters of his legionnaire for Christ, while he was sitting with his hands folded in prayer contemplating the mysteries of St Bosco. Here is a portion of that transcript which has convinced me that what good brother Chalcedon says is true.
{a knock at the door}
Marciel;…who is it? Inter please.
Satan;…Its me Satan.
Marciel;…Oh my, what do you want Mr devil?
Satan;…I see how holy and pure and white you are and I cant stand it, you sitting here in godly prayer all the time.
marciel;…I do the will of god because im a catholic priest and we are little Christs, we are pure and white and can do only good things.
Satan;….Yes, that’s why im here, to attack you. Hahahahahahaaaaa.
Marciel;…Oh please no Mr Devil, don’t attack me..Oh no.
Satan;….Im going to make you molest and rape everything on two legs…..Hahahahahahahaaa…I cant stand how holy you are.
Marciel;….Oh no Mr Devil, go away and leave me to my pure and white life of contemplating the holy rosary beads.
Satan;…..Im going to hypnotize you into doing my bidding. Now look into my eyes…Youre getting sleepy…sleepy…Hahahahahahaaaa, now you are under my spell.
Marciel;….yes master, I will do as you command.
Satan;…Behold, there are lots of young boys and men in this compound of holiness called the legion of Christ…go forth and rape and molest all of them, for the next 30 yrs, and take all the money you have and buy influence so you wont be exposed for your hideous wonderful crimes. Now go and do as I have said…I Satan command you…Haaaaahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaa
So now I know how the devil attacks the pure and white CC. from now on ill have more sympathy for these pure and white catholic priests.
LikeLike