1. Welcome to Mother of God Forums - A place dedicated to the Mother of God. Please feel free to join us in prayer and sharing. Please Register to start posting.
    Dismiss Notice

The World Over, EWTN

Discussion in 'Positive Critique' started by padraig, Oct 1, 2017.

  1. padraig

    padraig New Member

    Thank you Lord for EWTN. Thank you Jesus and Our Blessed Lady for their continued courage and honesty.

    Carol55, Booklady, Mac and 3 others like this.
  2. padraig

    padraig New Member

    Canon Law:

    Can. 1 Christ's faithful, conscious of their own responsibility, are bound to show christian obedience to what the sacred Pastors, who represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith and prescribe as rulers of the Church.

    §2 Christ's faithful are at liberty to make known their needs, especially their spiritual needs, and their wishes to the Pastors of the Church.

    §3 They have the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church. They have the right also to make their views known to others of Christ's faithful, but in doing so they must always respect the integrity of faith and morals, show due reverence to the Pastors and take into account both the common good and the dignity of individuals.
    Carol55, AED and gracia like this.
  3. padraig

    padraig New Member


    Pope Francis, Fr. Martin, and Faith without Reason

    Robert Royal

    Monday, September 25, 2017

    As anyone who follows things Catholic knows, a “filial correction” of Pope Francis was made public yesterday. The document, initially signed by forty scholars, priests, and bishops, had been delivered privately to the pope in July. No response was forthcoming. So the signers – now numbering sixty-two – decided to make known the seven points on which they believe the pope – wittingly or not – has taught or permitted heresy.

    Those seven points have been discussed in several places earlier. You can read them for yourself here – and should. The arguments are worth study. They all stem, of course, from what we’re told Amoris laetitia says about people who are divorced and remarried without an annulment.

    The correctors complain that the pope has taught or failed to condemn propositions such as that God’s grace is insufficient to produce proper behavior in some circumstances; that the divorced/remarried who fully understand their actions may not be in a state of mortal sin; that, on the contrary, following the moral law in certain circumstances may itself be a sin (e.g., leaving a second marriage); that there are no absolute prohibitions in divine or natural law; that Jesus wants us to abandon the old moral disciplines with regard to the Eucharist. And so forth.

    These good and faithful figures have been courageous in making their views – and their names – public. It’s unfortunate that – as with the dubia presented to the pope by four cardinals – there’s little to no chance he will respond. Because these questions cannot be avoided forever.

    And there’s an even deeper problem, of which the seven false teachings are examples, that’s beginning to characterize wide swaths of the Church.

    We’re witnessing a period in which the Church is trying to have Faith without the full benefits of Reason. This is odd, in a way, because it’s usually thought that the only Christians who forsake reason are impossible-to-reason-with fundamentalists. In the current moment, we have a progressive group in Rome and beyond that seems to think that Reason in any strong sense distorts or even blocks Faith.

    They know the outcomes they want and aren’t about to let the logical contradictions theologians, philosophers, or ordinary believers notice, stop them.

    It’s an old philosophical truth that that once you abandon the principle of non-contradiction, you can prove anything. And here is proof positive.

    For example, Father Antonio Spadaro, S.J., of La Civiltà Cattolica has argued that, as a good Jesuit, the Holy Father does not take something and explore its logical consequences, but instead looks directly at it and seeks inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps so (we can’t be sure that anyone really speaks the Holy Father’s mind).

    But behold the confusions this leads to in the Church:

    In Amoris Laetitia, as we’ve been told by various interpreters, sexual relations between the divorced/remarried are sometimes the best that can be done in the circumstances. That ceasing sexual relations may harm the family and the good of children.


    But here’s another case: an industrialist makes gobs of money polluting the local environment (real pollution, not speculations about climate change). He’s confronted by a reader of Laudato Si’. He replies, however, that to clean up his plant would cripple him, probably leading to the departure of his wife and children, to say nothing of the damage to the families of workers he would have to lay off. So the best he can do under the circumstances is to regret those circumstances, seek to do better – someday, and – in the meantime – do nothing.

    We’ve seen a similar lack of logical consistency from the celebrity priest, Fr. James Martin. He’s been saying that the LGBTQ “community” has not “received” the teaching on homosexuality and therefore it’s not binding on them. There’s a technical principle in theology about the faithful “receiving” a teaching. But that is not applicable here. Or to contraception. It often made an equally invalid appearance right after Humanae Vitae.

    Here’s just one reason why: if this is the principle on which progressives are now operating, millions of people, usually the most faithful and active Catholics, have not – and likely never will – receive what (again) seems to be the teaching of Amoris Laetitia. So is it non-binding on them? And if so, why are they – and not the others – being denounced as rigid, uncharitable, Pharisaical, etc.

    And is any teaching universally binding and Catholic if someone hasn’t “received” it? Once we go down this path, we’re very close to some form of radical Protestantism.

    I do not know whether Pope Francis or Fr. Martin wish such an outcome. I do know that beyond the short radius of their ideas lie consequences they may find unwelcome.

    Because neither is a serious theologian nor even a serious thinker, they regard anyone who raises questions about consequences as an irrational enemy (rigid, homophobic, etc.) rather than – as we’ve always had in the Church – someone trying to develop a deep and consistently rational way of understanding what Our Lord asks.

    Fr. Martin even responded to a call for dialogue by the New York Times columnist Ross Douthat by saying that what Douthat was proposing was a Church of “propositions.” This is an old and very feeble red herring. As if the serious developments of Christian thought over centuries have usurped the centrality of the “encounter with Jesus.”

    You only have to look at a figure like Aquinas to see that all that thinking is in the service of knowing and understanding the Beloved better, and seeking to do what He wills.

    The alternative to this careful, patient, loving attention to the One who revealed himself in history, Scripture, tradition, the lives of holy men and women, and great Catholic thinkers is to substitute what you or I or someone else thinks Jesus was, or should have been.

    That path now has a 500-year history. It even has a certain, if truncated logic of its own. But that logic isn’t Catholicism.

    Robert Royal is a Catholic author and the president of the Faith & Reason Institute based in Washington, D.C. Royal received his BA and MA from Brown University and his PhD from The Catholic University of America. Wikipedia
    Born: 21 December 1949 (age 67), Connecticut, United States
    Education: Catholic University of America, Brown University
    Carol55, gracia and sterph like this.
  4. Praetorian

    Praetorian Powers

    Thank goodness that EWTN (and many others) are seeing the light. I have only been watching Raymond Arroyo for about the past year or less and have watched him slowly drift more and more "right" (read that Catholic). This is not to say he wasn't a faithful Catholic before, but there was not as much of a need to really define what you believed. After all we were all Catholic...weren't we?

    I see more and more "mainstream" Catholics (for want of a better word) having to confront their faith and ask themselves what they really believe to be true. I think this is a great blessing for our times amidst the confusion and error.

    The Church is effectively split between Modernists and actual Catholics. One clear sign to me which side is right is to look at which side honors Our Lady. You are much more likely to see men like Cardinal Burke and Cardinal Caffara speaking about the Rosary, Fatima, and Our Lady's other apparitions and messages. They know the signs of the times and what Our Lady came to warn us about. These men have the true faith. They honor the Church as it has existed for 2,000 years.

    What we are witnessing is the Modernists attempting a coup d'etat in the Church. They have been planning it for a long time, but when you are playing against God you cannot win.
    Heidi, Booklady, Mac and 7 others like this.
  5. padraig

    padraig New Member

    Yes , for me Devotion to Our Lady has been the great sign for me of someone who walks the right path.

    But I must admit I have been more than a little confused about this as Pope Francis has always evinced a Great Devotion to Our Blessed Mother. This has greatly confused and troubled me.

    Booklady and AED like this.
  6. AED

    AED Powers

    I think you are right Praetorian. The saints have said often that devotion to Our Lady is a sign of predilection. Devotion to her was one of the first things the "spirit" of Vatican II tried to do away with. The other was the St Michael prayer. Interesting huh?
    gracia, Praetorian and HeavenlyHosts like this.
  7. AED

    AED Powers

    Yes. It is hard to figure but maybe it is hopeful.
    HeavenlyHosts likes this.
  8. padraig

    padraig New Member

    Yes, at any rate so strange and puzzling.
  9. Mac

    Mac "To Jesus, through Mary"

    It is hopeful.
    Pope Francis back in 2013 consecrated his Pontificate to Our Lady of Fatima.
    Our Lady of Fatima will have to sort out this/his mess.
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2017
    AED and Booklady like this.
  10. padraig

    padraig New Member

    Yes it is good to be positive. Hard but good.

    Arantxa and AED like this.
  11. Carol55

    Carol55 Powers

    Padraig, I think it is possible that many MOG members have missed this thread. I hope that you don't mind me stating the following but maybe a different title like "ETWN Discusses the Filial Correction" or something of that nature. This thread has helped me to discern the Filial Correction and may help others also.

    The following article discusses some of the same points that were discussed in the video and I think that it is helpful also, IMHO,
    Pete Baklinski Mon Sep 25, 2017 - 3:27 pm EST

    Critics attack ‘filial correction’ to Pope with mud-slinging at signers
    Support the filial correction of Pope Francis for 'propagating heresies'. Sign the petition!

    ENGLAND, September 25, 2017 (
    LifeSiteNews) — Catholic intellectuals criticizing the “filial correction” of Pope Francis largely have no real arguments against the main claim that he is propagating heresy, only ad hominem attacks against the signers, said Dr. Joseph Shaw, one of the organizers of the correction, to LifeSiteNews.

    More than 60 clergy and lay scholars issued on the weekend what they called a “Filial Correction” to Pope Francis for “propagating heresy.” They asserted that the Pope has supported heretical positions about marriage, moral life, and the Eucharist that are causing a host of “heresies and other errors” to spread throughout the Catholic Church.

    READ: Over 60 scholars correct Pope Francis for ‘propagating heresies’

    But critics have
    attempted to downplay the correction, arguing that the 62 signers are largely obscure figures, that there was too small of a number of signers to make any significant impact, that there are no cardinals backing the letter, and that the letter itself is filled with lies and hypocrisy.

    "The first reaction I had after reading the document concerned the signatories," said Richard Gaillardetz, a theologian at Boston College, to National Catholic Reporter. "The prominence given to the number of signatories ... masks the fact that these are really marginal figures."

    Villanova University theologian and historian Massimo Faggioli also downplayed the letter by stating that it has "no cardinal and no bishop, in a Catholic Church that has more than 200 cardinals and more than 5,000 bishops."

    British Catholic author Stephen Walford said the signers’ accusation of the pope propagating heresy "is based around claims the Holy Father has never made — lies essentially — and a massive dose of hypocrisy."

    After accusing the signers of hypocrisy and lying, Walford interestingly went on to say that “vitriol and judgmentalism aimed at those who are loyal to Pope Francis … are the fruits of the evil one, and they will never bring forth a restoration of a golden age that never existed."

    Papal biographer Austen Ivereigh
    tweeted that the correction “will be ignored” since the “magisterium doesn't bow to middle-class lobbies.”

    Italian vaticanist Marco Tosatti
    noted that in the articles critical of the correction, one "element which is rigorously missing" is the "evaluation whether what is said in the formal correction makes sense or doesn’t. "

    Shaw addressed his critics’ arguments, one by one. He said that when it comes to faith and morals, it’s not numbers that matter, but truth.

    The Church is not only a divine institution, he said, but also a “rational institution,” adding that the views that have prevailed historically in controversial theological debates are usually those which have the “best arguments.”

    “It’s not the view with the most powerful supporters, or the view that has the most money behind it [that has prevailed historically in theological debates],” he said. “It’s the view where one side can’t answer certain questions, and the other side can.”

    Shaw noted how at the time of the Arian heresy that rocked the early Church, it was St. Athanasius alone, against a majority of bishops and even the Pope, who kept the true faith. He prevailed in defending the faith of the Apostles by using unbeatable arguments based on apostolic teaching as well as the Bible that Jesus Christ was, in fact, true God and true man, he said.

    “It’s not just a matter of numbers, it’s a matter of truth,” he said.

    The same argument that highlights a lack of numbers could also be levied against Christ, who started his ministry with 12 men, most of them obscure and insignificant.

    As to no cardinals signing the correction, this was a deliberate move on the part of the organizers, said Shaw.

    “We deliberately didn’t approach the dubia cardinals [such as Cardinals Burke and Brandmüller] because we wanted this to be an independent initiative [by the lay-faithful],” he said.

    “This is an appeal by academics and pastors at the sharp end of the application of these interpretations of Amoris, academics whose job it is to think these things through and explain them to students and Catholics in general, about how Catholic theology is all supposed to hang together,” he added.

    Shaw said critics fall to the level of calling the signers liars and hypocrites because they have no other substantial argument.

    “They are conscious of their weakness, and they have nothing to say about the substantive issue at hand,” he said.

    Shaw said the substantive issue raised in the filial correction is that Pope Francis’ teaching on marriage and the family, as put forward in his Exhortation Amoris Laetitia, has been used to advance theological concepts and justify pastoral practices that are contrary to previous Catholic teaching as well as to the words of Jesus in the Gospels dealing with adultery as well as divorce and remarriage.

    “This is a very serious problem,” he said, adding that he still has yet to encounter a single argument that demonstrates how accepting adultery in the lives of Catholics can be justified using previous Catholic teaching or the Bible.

    “They can’t point to an authoritative document that says divorced and remarried Catholics can receive Communion,” he added.

    Shaw said the ad hominem attacks against the signers demonstrate that all the talk from the progressive wing within the Church about "openness" and "dialogue" is simply false.

    “People who claim to be all about 'openness,' 'dialogue,' 'mercy,' ‘making a mess,’ not sticking 'strictly to rules,' but allowing things to 'develop organically from the grassroots' … when things don’t end up in the way they want, they turn around and say, ‘Oh no, this isn’t authentic, there’s not enough of them,' or 'they're too much grassroots,’ and so forth,” he said.

    “It makes one realize that for many of them, all this talk about having a more open-minded or democratic approach to these issues, it was simply tactical,” he continued.

    “They don’t really believe in those things at all. They just thought that by saying those things they could get around certain obstacles. And once they got around those obstacles, they would be happy to apply rules in the most stringent way, if they have the power to do that,” he added.

    Shaw said that if critics regard the filial correction as an “important issue, which they should, then they need to provide arguments of substance, and not these ad hominem attacks.”

    Asked what might happen now that the filial correction has been released publicly, Shaw responded that he hopes that it will assist in “future interventions,” including a rumored forthcoming “formal correction” from the cardinals.

    “It certainly clarifies the issues for any such further intervention. Cardinal Burke and others will be able to see the response to this, the kind of support it gets and the kind of arguments that have been used against it. In all these ways, it will assist future interventions,” he said.

    “It’s part of a general process of reflection and clarification, which is always necessary for the Church when there is a theological problem. And I do hope it will be of service to the Church and of service to Cardinal Burke in reflecting on what to do next, if anything,” he added.

    Shaw also said that even if Pope Francis continues to ignore how his teachings are being used to undermine Catholic morality, the next Pope will not.

    “The next Pope is going to access the situation and say what is the future of this approach [as laid out in Amoris Laetitia]. And this [filial correction] is one of the things he is going to take into account,” he said.
    gracia likes this.

Share This Page