With all due respects, Julia, just because the majority are committing sacrilege doesn't justify eliminating the sin of sacrilege for others.
Thank you, Julia, for your two posts from today, especially this one. The potential of sacriligious communions is often put forward as the reason for criticizing the Pope's encyclical. Yet the number of sacriligious communions taking place every Sunday, if culpability is ignored, is astronomical. And this has been the situation under previous Popes. The world and, to a large extent, Catholics in general have apostasized. This has taken place over the past 100 years at least. But God has promised the Church would not fail and it will not. The whole controversy surrounding Pope Francis stems from the fact that many of those who still profess to believe, have a mistaken understanding of their faith.
Dolours, thank you for your reply. I do not condone the concept of justifying sin as a solution to eliminating sacrilege. I wholeheartedly support the union in marriage till death do us part. We have to face the reality of the vast majority of practising Catholics who are receiving Holy Eucharist in a state of mortal or perpetual sin, if we are to be honest. We have to get ourselves out of that situation, and pray our loved ones and those placed in our territory of souls are redirected out of that mortal or perpetual sin. I don't believe we can serve Our Lord by fighting and accusing those caught in this trap. It has been going on for 40 or 50 years. I believe there are two or three generations gone astray now. I don't for one second believe one thread on MOG forum will turn the tide of sacrilege back. But we can resist the temptation to join the evil one in accusing our brethren day and night before the Throne of God. We can pray for them. We can ask God to forgive them, they know not what they do. We can be patient and encouraging and love those we meet as Christ asked us to do. Finally we can place them all in the Immaculate Heart of Mary. That is literally what Jesus did on the cross. Or do we know more about humanity than Jesus knew. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Yes, davidtlig. I believe it is my duty and responsibility before God to keep His Laws and Precepts to the best of my ability. I also believe it is my duty and responsibility before God to pray for those He places in my path. Yes, the good, the bad and the ugly. I have wracked my brain to try and understand what makes us so judgemental of each other, and God knows I am guilty of this stone throwing too. I have come to wonder of the way we were trained as children to examine our conscience has put a sort of marker in our thinking, and we apply the examination of conscience method on everyone around us. Of course Jesus warned us not to judge others; but maybe we have to work on keeping the judgement for our own behaviour, and let Jesus do the judging of others. How easily we ask Jesus to have Mercy on us when we fail. What we need to learn is to ask with the same sincerity of heart for His Mercy on our fellow man when we perceive their mistakes. Just a thought.
[QUOTE="It has been going on for 40 or 50 years. I believe there are two or three generations gone astray now. I don't for one second believe one thread on MOG forum will turn the tide of sacrilege back. But we can resist the temptation to join the evil one in accusing our brethren day and night before the Throne of God. We can pray for them. We can ask God to forgive them, they know not what they do. We can be patient and encouraging and love those we meet as Christ asked us to do. Finally we can place them all in the Immaculate Heart of Mary. That is literally what Jesus did on the cross. Or do we know more about humanity than Jesus knew. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.[/QUOTE] Julia the use of the expression "casting stones" was started with Pope Francis. It is an artificial construct to denote Catholics that hold traditional Catholic tenets, (who by their positions) an obstacle to Divine Mercy. If there are 80% Catholics who receive Communion sacrilegoulsy, the Church has the moral imperative to stop that from happening; we must pray for the Church, since I have never heard a homily on the issue; (at least as far as I can remember). What is appalling to me, is the Church apparently turning the other way, to make Catholics adapt the all Catholics to the culture of the day, as the answer to "get more people back". (Back to where?) God Bless
If someone is about to jump of a cliff , Julia, I am not being judgemental if I think it is maybe a bad idea and try to stop him doing it. It is an act of mercy. If I see someone about to jump of a moral cliff and into the Eternal flames I am not being Judgemental if I wish to try to save him from doing so. Matthew 18:15 A Brother who Sins 14In the same way, your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should perish. 15If your brother sins against you, go and confront him privately. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’… I don't think shrugging our shoulders and walking away saying , 'Who am I?' is an option that will justify us at the Judgement Seat of God. If they wind up in hell in such circumstances because of our silence or , 'Who am I?' attitude, that God will punish us with much greater severity than them. But let's be honest; I get the feeling most of these folks have given up any idea of Hell being a reality. I doubt if they believe in any real sense of sin being a reality either.
It might sound daft, but I find both Julia and Padraig right in their recent posts. I suppose it is a Mystery suspended between Hope and the Fear of God. I think, while praying the Fatima prayer we must beware of universalism. If we are all to be saved, why this world at all?
Julia, the example you used was contracepting Catholics receiving Communion. Is your solution for the Church to declare that contraception is no longer a sin? Unmarried Catholics living in common law marriages (I think the correct term is fornication) also receive Communion. Is the solution to abolish marriage altogether? The difference between adultery and contraception is that marriage is a vow exchanged between two people before God, with the Church acting as God's witness. They vow fidelity to that union and the Church keeps a permanent record of it. Nobody goes up to Communion holding their condoms or pills in their hands for the priest to see as he gives them Communion. The reason we are in this situation is that clerics like Cardinals Marx, Kasper, etc., have not been applying Church teaching on marriage and sexuality but have been undermining it for years. The fruits are 3% Mass attendance in Germany, yet this is the solution the Pope is opening, and apparently recommending, to the universal Church. It has failed in Protestantism, it has failed where Catholic priests and Bishops have applied it on the ground and it will fail in the Universal Church because it directly contradicts the word of Jesus. I'm not accusing anyone. I'm repeating what Jesus said about marriage and trying to defend it against interpretations of a document issued by the Pope of all people! There wouldn't be any dispute if the Pope hadn't issued a document that's open to interpretations contradicting Christ's teaching on Marriage. I have a novel idea. Why doesn't the Church actually demonstrate its trust in God by telling all priests and bishops that Jesus meant what he said about marriage and adultery, and laicise any priests or bishops who don't follow that instruction. That's what the Apostles did at a time when divorce was legal according to both the secular and Jewish laws. It might lead to faithful bishops and priests being prosecuted by civil courts as is already happening to some who preach that marriage is between a man and a woman and that same sex unions are sinful but they won't lose their heads for it. If they're afraid of bad press or a backlash from dissenters now over divorce, how can we depend upon them to defend Church teaching on sodomy or whatever else the secular world embraces in the future? Or is it judgemental to say that sodomy is a sin now, since you appear to believe that calling extramarital sex adultery is an accusation. Jesus called it adultery. I knew a woman who was married five or six times and had children with three or four of those husbands. Each time she was convinced that she had met the love of her life. Did she commit a mortal sin? I don't know. I do know that she was living in an objective state of adultery because I don't know how else to describe it. The way things are going, it will be commonplace for Catholics in similar situations to receive Communion. They won't bother going to Confession because there's no requirement to confess if no mortal sin has been committed, and by knowingly giving Communion to people in extra-marital sexual unions, the Church is declaring that it is no longer a mortal sin.
Julia the use of the expression "casting stones" was started with Pope Francis. It is an artificial construct to denote Catholics that hold traditional Catholic tenets, (who by their positions) an obstacle to Divine Mercy. If there are 80% Catholics who receive Communion sacrilegoulsy, the Church has the moral imperative to stop that from happening; we must pray for the Church, since I have never heard a homily on the issue; (at least as far as I can remember). What is appalling to me, is the Church apparently turning the other way, to make Catholics adapt the all Catholics to the culture of the day, as the answer to "get more people back". (Back to where?) God Bless[/QUOTE] Thank you for your reply light. I take the advice of 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone,' from the Gospel. I am not using those words because of anything the Pope said. No disrespect to the Holy Father of course. I do not use the 80% as a figure for those receiving Communion sacrilegiously to represent all sacrilegious Communions. It has been cited as the figure of practising Catholics who use contraceptives in various articles I have come across. How come I have not been brainwashed into thinking the Church wants to adapt to the culture of the day to get more people back. I personally don't believe that. I would suspect younger people who have received the religious education that was imposed since the 80's onwards instead of the Religious Instruction which used to be taught, has brought about the belief that religion is like some sort of commodity that we can take or leave depending on what appeals to us. After all, religion is taught as part of a package of different religions nowadays; with Catholic as just one of the items on the shelf. Even in Catholic schools. How can young Catholics come to understand the role and mission we are called to, if they learn Catholic Faith is just another choice in the array of religions on offer these days. A choice for those who want to make a commitment to that particular path. It does not take a rocket scientist to work out that most young people will not take the Faith seriously on that sort of menu. Who can change things. You might have some ideas, and I would love to hear your take. God bless you too.
The combination of media propaganda and inferior religious instruction since the sixties has been catastrophic. Who is most culpable, the sheep or the shepherds?
Dolours, please don't take this as being mean, it is not. But it seems to me that you are flogging a dead horse. I have no authority to make judgement on how people perceive what the Pope has been saying, and what he may or may not mean. I have been given a commission to Keep the 10 Commandments of God, as all of us have. Your post is categorically accusing me of all sorts of scenarios because you believe I must agree with those who choose to bash the Pope and any Cardinals who might have said things that don't fit in with our traditional beliefs. I will try and answer you in another way. When I was a young woman, the Canadian Bishops had made a statement about contraceptives that was not in keeping with the Holy Father at that time, they were saying contraceptives were ok. I did not have time to research and develop my thoughts on these things at the time; but my gut instinct said stay with the traditional teaching on these matters. Because God knows it was hard to know what was right and what was wrong while I was still naieve enough to believe Priests and Bishops were already saints just waiting to be brought home to Heaven. Anyway, I can tell you I knew a good few young women who used contraceptives, and to my astonishment shared with each other the Priest to go to if you wanted absolution when you confessed using contraceptives. At that time some Priests would not absolve you if you were not prepared to stop using contraceptive. Thank God I had not got into that situation. But I knew young women who were annoyed to be told to go away and amend their lives and then come back for absolution. I never got into debate about the state of anyones souls at the time. I still don't think it is my place to judge anyone. And that includes the Priest who was the go to Priest when you wanted absolution for using contraceptives. When I read posts on this forum about the sacrilegious Communions these sins cause, it is very scary to be honest. And when further scenarios about living in sin and sinning casually and every type of sexual sin that can be imagined become the only view of sin that people can talk about, it is very disturbing. To me, the fifth Commandment; Thou shalt not kill. This tells me abortion is murder. To me, the sixth Commandment; Thou shalt not commit adultery. This tells me, sex outside of a valid marriage is a sin. To me, the ninth Commandment; Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours wife. Tells me God intends us to use our intelligence and know it applies to women as well as men, and we should not even think about sexual things with someone other than our valid marriage partner. There are seven other Commandments, and it seems to me we are sex obsessed; so the rest of the Commandments can be ignored because all that seems to matter sex. So please give me a break. And don't think I am condoning things that God has not authorised me pass judgement on, because I am not prepared to get into making statements about the Pope or the Cardinals, Bishops or Priests. I think we need to concentrate on the eight Commandment and weep for ourselves and our children, instead of pointing the finger at those who have to guide us to a safe harbour, and answer to God if they fail. For they will be judged harshly, and our prayers are the only hope they have of Mercy in the final analysis if they get it wrong.
The Faith is not a dead horse. I'm not accusing you of anything. You used contraception as an example and I tried to point out that turning a blind eye to adultery won't solve the problem of contracepting Catholics receiving Communion but I put it in the form of a question, not an accusation. You suggested that we are accusing our brethren day and night. I'm not accusing any of my brethren by saying that extra marital sex is adultery. If I said that taking money from someone without their consent is stealing, it doesn't mean that I am accusing anyone of being a thief. When I was a young woman there were priests in Ireland doing the same thing. Some years later, the same priests were telling young couples that premarital sex wasn't a sin as long as the couple truly loved each other. To discuss a matter objectively is not to pronounce judgement. If it were, no contentious issues could ever be discussed on matters either civil or religious. And just as individuals are affected by civil law, so too are they affected by religious laws but the laws are useless unless they are enforced. When murder rates rise according to civil law, we would never clamour for the law to be repealed or ignored because we know that the result will be complete chaos. And we would certainly never encourage people we care about to go on killing just because they can get away with it which has been happening on the ground in respect of Church teaching on sexual morality. Souls are at stake. Priests' souls as well as the souls of people in second marriages. It isn't merciful to pretend that the law is less than what God told us it is, especially when God told us the consequence of breaking that law. All ten of the Commandments were given to us for our own good and for the good of society. We only have to look around us to see what effect ignoring the sixth Commandment has had on society. We can see the effects those priests have had on the practice of the faith. I simply don't see how making their teaching official is a solution when they were the root of the problem. The Church will eventually have to get back to implementing Christ's teaching. Which is better: do it now before the heretics infect another generation, or pretend that those priests were right all along in the hope that a few souls will hang around long enough to accept the hard teaching? And who will deliver that hard teaching? The same priests who have never believed in it? To borrow your own phrase, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the answer. Sacrilege is sacrilege. Nobody on this forum invented it. And we all should be scared about it. Believe me, I don't feel in the least superior to anyone because there are times I wonder whether I'm sufficiently appreciative of the gift that is the Eucharist and, although I have confessed it, I sometimes doubt whether I have had sufficient remorse for occasions in my past life when I really shouldn't have received and knew it deep down. I don't want anyone else to have those doubts. And I would hate to think of any priest reflecting on his life knowing that he bore the responsibility of having been complicit in others' receiving Communion when deep down they knew that they shouldn't and deep down he suspected that they shouldn't but opted to be Fr. Nice rather than Fr. Judgemental. The discussion is focused on the Sixth and Ninth Commandments because that's what the infamous footnote impacts. The Church isn't finding a workaround for any of the other Commandments, although I think you'll find that many of the same priests and bishops who favour divorce and gay marriage aren't too pushed about contraception or abortifacient contraceptives. We could all do with a break. Nobody is forcing you to make any statements about the Pope, Cardinals, Bishops or Priest. Supporting the call for clarity on AL is not passing judgement on anyone. If you don't see the damage this debacle will do to the Church, affecting children for generations to come, then you're ok, but please don't accuse those of us who do see the potential damage of bearing false witness. To make sure I don't bother you again, I will try to skip over any further comments you make on this thread.
You have a real problem if you dont read what I write or say properly. when did I mention about any qualificaions or boast about my own? In fact I have none and never once claimed to. But what I do have is a knowledge of theology which is impartial and doesnt get swayed by soundbites. I provided proof by showing how Benedict XVI in his recent book said there is no departure or rupture from previous papal teaching. If you remember the issue of conscience originally arose with evangelii gaudium-thats where the Francis critis began to suggest errors, and yet Benedict said no! You unfortunately cant accept that because then your entire argument against Pope Francis falls apart. The simple fact is that you and others like you are trying to create a parallel magisterium placing yourselves as judge and jury over the pope given to us by the Holy Spirit. Its no different to protestantism-the same mistake traditionalists always make. "We know better". If Sr Lucia of Fatima was alive, she would say without a doubt, obey the Pope -not a previous one, but the reigning one.
If Pope Francis is so orthodox in his doctrine, why not answer the simple questions he has been asked, particularly Dubia 1? If he answered just that one in the negative, most of us would be happy.
Jesus didnt always answer the pharisees, and besides, Pope francis knows they already know the answers
I am pasting from Catholic answers' tim staples. He doesn agree with Pope francis decision, but says there is nothing erroneous in what he did. Personally I think this took great courage from Pope Francis: The pope made quite clear that he is not giving any sort of approval to adultery. In paragraph 297, he says: f someone flaunts [flouts] an objective sin as if it were part of the Christian ideal, or wants to impose something other than what the Church teaches, he or she can in no way presume to teach or preach to others; this is a case of something which separates from the community (cf. Matt. 18:17). Such a person needs to listen once more to the gospel message and its call to conversion. Our Holy Father uses the language of excommunication here. I don’t know if he could have been any more forceful. In paragraph 295, Pope Francis agrees with Pope St. John Paul II, from FC, that there can never be a change in the divine law of God. The moral law is given to us as a gift from God. He reminds us that it was St. John Paul II who: . . . proposed the so-called “law of gradualness” in the knowledge that the human being “knows, loves and accomplishes moral good by different stages of growth” (FC 34). This is not a “gradualness of law” but rather a gradualness in the prudential exercise of free acts on the part of subjects who are not in a position to understand, appreciate, or fully carry out the objective demands of the law. The law is itself a gift of God that points out the way, a gift for everyone without exception; it can be followed with the help of grace, even though each human being “advances gradually with the progressive integration of the gifts of God and the demands of God’s definitive and absolute love in his or her entire personal and social life” (ibid., 9). Pope Francis also made clear “in order to avoid all misunderstanding” that he is in opposition to any who would water down the gospel. He says the essential truth of the gospel must be proclaimed in its entirety, including the indissolubility of marriage: In order to avoid all misunderstanding, I would point out that in no way must the Church desist from proposing the full ideal of marriage, God’s plan in all its grandeur: “Young people who are baptized should be encouraged to understand that the sacrament of marriage can enrich their prospects of love and that they can be sustained by the grace of Christ in the sacrament and by the possibility of participating fully in the life of the Church.” A lukewarm attitude, any kind of relativism, or an undue reticence in proposing that ideal would be a lack of fidelity to the Gospel and also of love on the part of the Church for young people themselves. To show understanding in the face of exceptional situations never implies dimming the light of the fuller ideal or proposing less than what Jesus offers to the human being. Today, more important than the pastoral care of failures is the pastoral effort to strengthen marriages and thus to prevent their breakdown (AL307). Pope Francis is not talking about changing, or even making “exceptions” to, the sixth commandment or the Sermon on the Mount; he is talking about whether or not individuals can break a commandment while not being fully culpable for it. And the answer is: yes they can. The claim is made that Pope Francis contradicts a doctrinal declaration of Pope St. John Paul II, in FC 84: [T]he Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church's teaching about the indissolubility of marriage. The operative word here is “practice.” There is not even a question as to divine law here, as we said above. Pope Francis is not denying divine law. It is the “practice” of the Church that Pope Francis is changing. This is a matter of prudential judgment in a juridical matter, not doctrine. It is interesting to note that in his decision making process Pope Francis is actually building upon principles laid out in FC. He refers to John Paul’s “law of gradualness” (FC34); and we could add here Pope St. John Paul II’s acknowledgment that there are levels of culpability in these cases of divorce and remarriage: Pastors must know that, for the sake of truth, they are obliged to exercise careful discernment of situations. There is in fact a difference between those who have sincerely tried to save their first marriage and have been unjustly abandoned, and those who through their own grave fault have destroyed a canonically valid marriage. Finally, there are those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children's upbringing, and who are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably destroyed marriage had never been valid (FC84). John Paul II does makes clear that, even in these cases of reduced culpability, the divorced and remarried would not be permitted to receive Communion, and for two reasons. First, he mentions their “objective state,” and second because of the real possibility of scandal, as we saw above. These are both very strong reasons for the “practice” of Pope St. John Paul II. But these are both matters of prudential judgment, not doctrine. Pope Francis, on the other hand, acknowledges that his judgment in this matter presents a danger of confusion in its application: “I understand those who prefer a more rigorous pastoral care which leaves no room for confusion” (AL308). He understands that there is a greater need for ongoing pastoral discernment in the lives of these who live in these “irregular” situations. For example, pastors must ensure that whatever mitigating factors there may be continue in their lives (AL301-302, 307). And he understands the pastoral need to ensure that the ninety-nine are not scandalized as a result of the shepherd’s concern for the one (AL299). This is no small undertaking our Holy Father is advocating. And to be frank with you, I do not think Pope Francis’s decision is the most prudent. I am inclined toward the wisdom of Pope St. John Paul II on this. At the same time, I fear that in making that statement I may be standing in opposition to the heart of the Good Shepherd. Could it be differing times require differing prudential judgments? Is it providential that this decision comes in the midst of this extraordinary year of divine mercy (see AL309)? I don’t know. But I am intrigued by Pope Francis’s words echoing those of the Good Shepherd: The Bride of Christ must pattern her behavior after the Son of God who goes out to everyone without exception. She knows that Jesus himself is the shepherd of the hundred, not just of the ninety-nine. He loves them all. On the basis of this realization, it will become possible for “the balm of mercy to reach everyone, believers and those far away, as a sign that the kingdom of God is already present in our midst” (ibid.).
You're surely not equating Pope Francis with Our Lord? And the Cardinals concerned are among the most orthodox and highly-respected in the world. To compare them with pharisees is unjust and wrong. It is perfectly licit to challenge a pope, if there are thought to be valid reasons, which many very highly regarded theologians, canon lawyers, priests, bishops and cardinals consider there to be. They deserve more than bland insult, which serves only to beg the question. I mentioned it before, and I do so again because the comparison is very valid, but had Athanasius not challenged Pope Liberius (and he had councils and the vast majority of the hierarchy in agreement with him), we most likely would all be praying to Mecca now.
