These are hard times indeed. Saint Catherine of Siena, no shrinking violet when it came to telling popes how things are, insisted that we must obey the pope even if he be the devil incarnate. The saving grace in all this, in my opinion, is Pope Francis' lack of clarity, whatever the reasons for this. He has made no definitive pronouncement which he points out explicitly as a categorical change in doctrine or practice. It is all down to interpretation. It is my understanding that if a pope makes a statement that does not explicitly and categorically make itself clear as being new doctrine, this statement must therefore be interpreted in the light of orthodoxy. Therefore such as Bishop Schneider must thread very carefully and ensure their attacks are upon the false interpretations of the Pope's words rather than upon the direct (are there any?) commands of Pope Francis himself. Is it disobedient to note that certain statements are ambiguous and to call for absolute clarity? I think not. All Pope Francis needs to do is merely come out and say it straight. If he does, we must obey.
So too St Mary MacKillop the foundress of the Sisters of St Joseph [the Josephites] in Australia. St Mary MacKillop is Australias first and only canonised saint! Like St Athanasius she was excommunicated but reinstated and was also canonised a saint but this had nothing to do with opposing a Pope in fact she looked to the Pope to reinstate her order after a Bishop had excommunicated her, because he wanted her order to be under his jurisdiction, as well as many other demands he placed on her and her order at the time. She was one of the first people in Catholic history, I think! to question the behaviour of a priest, and bring these concerns to the Bishop, she knew that this priest had sexually molestered children that had been in her care; This priest used his influence with the Bishop to discredit her, so yet another reason that she was excommunicated. St Mary MacKillop a good and holy women! she obeyed the Bishop and took the excommunication on the chin even as she grieved and spent hours and years in pain, as the agony of excommunication was like a fire from hell. She relied and trusted in God in all things and she was reintsated in the Catholic Church and lead her Sisters of St Joseph, which spread across this great land. Her faith and love were tested enormously and she was found to have done Gods Will to the highest heroic degree! Its seems some special saints are asked to walk this grievious road. But Oh how hard! Their moto........ Gods Will be Done, in all things, no matter who the opponent or what the consequences!
The levels of "obedience" owed is different for religious, secular priests, and laity. There's a reason that this age will be saved by the laity, not the religious, priests, bishops, cardinals etc. who can hide behind a false sense of "obedience" during these times, refusing to act. Sometimes those who are in, or were in, religious life tend to impose a level of obedience on the laity that are not appropriate to them. Their reasons for doing so are not "bad," per se, but their effects may be very bad nonetheless. No obedience is owed to a superior when they tear down the Faith in doing so. At least among the laity.
Who is right, Francis or the Church before Francis? - "It is a very serious error to conclude that the Church's teaching is only an 'ideal'." "No man can serve two masters. For either he will hate the one, and love the other: or he will sustain the one, and despise the other." (St. Matthew 6: 24) *** (1) Either John Paul II and all the Popes who came before him are right, by emphasizing the "absoluteness" of the Church's moral law and by classifying as a "very serious error" that the doctrine of the Church is only an "ideal"... It would be a very serious error to conclude... that the Church's teaching is essentially only an "ideal" which must then be adapted, proportioned, graduated to the so-called concrete possibilities of man, according to a "balancing of the goods in question". But what are the "concrete possibilities of man"? And of which man are we speaking? Of man dominated by lust or of man redeemed by Christ? This is what is at stake: the reality of Christ's redemption. Christ has redeemed us! This means that he has given us the possibility of realizing the entire truth of our being; he has set our freedom free from the domination of concupiscence. And if redeemed man still sins, this is not due to an imperfection of Christ's redemptive act, but to man's will not to avail himself of the grace which flows from that act. ... In this context, appropriate allowance is made both for God's mercy towards the sinner who converts and for the understanding of human weakness. Such understanding never means compromising and falsifying the standard of good and evil in order to adapt it to particular circumstances. It is quite human for the sinner to acknowledge his weakness and to ask mercy for his failings; what is unacceptable is the attitude of one who makes his own weakness the criterion of the truth about the good, so that he can feel self-justified, without even the need to have recourse to God and his mercy. An attitude of this sort corrupts the morality of society as a whole, since it encourages doubt about the objectivity of the moral law in general and a rejection of the absoluteness of moral prohibitions regarding specific human acts, and it ends up by confusing all judgments about values. John Paul II Veritatis Splendor August 6, 1993 *** ...or (2) Francis is right, by qualifying as "heretical" a rejection of the "Doctrine of the Ideal" as well as any affirmation of the absoluteness of moral prohibitions ('or this or nothing'). “This (is the) healthy realism of the Catholic Church: the Church never teaches us ‘or this or that.’ That is not Catholic. The Church says to us: ‘this and that.’ ‘Strive for perfectionism: reconcile with your brother. Do not insult him. Love him. And if there is a problem, at the very least settle your differences so that war doesn’t break out.’ This (is) the healthy realism of Catholicism. It is not Catholic (to say) ‘or this or nothing:’ This is not Catholic, this is heretical. Jesus always knows how to accompany us, he gives us the ideal, he accompanies us towards the ideal, He frees us from the chains of the laws' rigidity and tells us: ‘But do that up to the point that you are capable.’ And he understands us very well. He is our Lord and this is what he teaches us.” Francis http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/06/who-is-right-francis-or-church-before.html#more
Can anyone help me out with something that has been bugging me about Amoris Laetitia and what appears to me to be efforts by the Pope to Protestantise (for want of a better description) the Catholic Church. How much authority does he have to do this? While the Protestants don't approve of divorce, they started out by frowning on it but using mercy to pretend that adultery is not sinful so long as the adultery is committed within a second marriage. Confession and absolution aren't really required in Protestantism because they use their "personal relationship with Jesus" to confess their sins direct to the all merciful God who never refuses absolution. Divorce and remarriage is not an issue for Protestants receiving Communion because any sin of adultery (if they still regard it as sinful) has already been confessed and forgiven via their version of the internal forum aka the personal relationship with Jesus. Once they caved in on divorce, fornication and sodomy were a pushover. Now, we know that Pope Francis will never proclaim that the Sacrament of Reconciliation is unnecessary because that would cause immediate schism. For the same reason, he won't go so far as to proclaim that all sins should be forgiven in Confession irrespective of the sinner's intention or lifestyle. He also won't risk schism by declaring that the Catholic Church has decided to move with the times and accepts divorce and remarriage as a fact of life that does not preclude Catholics from receiving the Sacraments. So, to prevent his friend Cardinal Kasper (and no doubt quite a few more Bishops and Cardinals) from leading the German Church (among others) into schism, he has published Amoris Laetitia with enough input from the pro-divorce lobby to prevent schism by his more liberal friends during his papacy and worded in sufficiently confusing language to prevent schism by Bishops who still believe that adultery is sinful no matter how loving and faithful the couple in the adulterous union. My question pertains specifically to the Blessed Eucharist. Has it always been a requirement that Communion was available only to people ostensibly in a state of grace? I know that in the early Church, prior to receiving the Eucharist the faithful made a public confession of their sins and declared their resolve to not sin again and presumably the officiating Priest gave them absolution or absolution was a given once the public confession and intention to amend their lives had been made. Catechumens were excluded even from the Consecration, but Catechumans had not yet been baptised. I'm assuming that remarried divorcees wouldn't even have tried to receive Communion because they would have been refused if not excluded from the congregation. So, does the Pope have the authority to declare, either ex-Cathedra or not, that being in the state of grace is not a requirement to receive Communion? I know that Pope Francis won't make such a declaration now because he can't be guaranteed that a majority of Bishops would support him. What about the next Pope? Either Cardinal Kasper or Cardinal Daneels (I can't remember which) has said that Pope Francis will be able to promote enough new Bishops and Cardinals during his pontificate to change the future direction of the Church. (I'm paraprashing here. The Cardinal said something along the lines of Pope Francis being able to implement any changes he wants).
1). "...no matter how loving and faithful the couple in the adulterous union.": The more 'faithful' such a couple are, the more unfaithful are they to their true spouse. 2). "...does the Pope have the authority to declare, either ex-Cathedra or not, that being in the state of grace is not a requirement to receive Communion?" No. 3). "...Cardinal Kasper or Cardinal Daneels (I can't remember which) has said that Pope Francis will be able to promote enough new Bishops and Cardinals during his pontificate to change the future direction of the Church." A proven liar and a facilitator of abuse, so what they say has zero bearing on the truth. They are also old men, the last of a cursed liberal generation, one which was always long on wishful thinking and very short on reality. The reality is that, although they get disproportionate prominence in the media, very few liberals of that kind have entered Holy Orders since their time, so the supply lines have become greatly depleted. There might be plenty sub-standard bishops about, but I'd wager (and I'm no gambler) that few descend to the level of disrepute of this pernicious pair. The other important point that must be borne in mind is that Pope Francis, whatever we might say about him, seems a genuinely holy man, unlikely to make his appointments solely upon the mere heterodoxy of the candidates. Have we any documentary evidence of heterodoxy among his appointees heretofore? I have come across surprisingly little evidence even in this paranoid and hypersensitive atmosphere. I researched the recent criticism of Cardinal Mueller by that Madrid, I think it was, bishop, a Francis appointment, to discover that he is regarded as eminently orthodox.
This is really helpful, DeGaulle, thank you. I suppose that Pope Francis is a bit limited in his choice of Bishops because doesn't he just get to choose between only a small number of candidates proposed by the local Church? I think it's different with Cardinals where he can choose any Bishop and only Cardinals vote at the Conclave. Thank God that Daneels and Kasper won't be voting but they still have influence just as Marx never really lost all his influence. Unfortunately, their retirement will most likely be balance out by the retirement of more orthodox Bishops and Cardinals. There are still plenty of Bishops around who are products of the seminaries of the '70s and '80s, and there's no shortage of support for the controversial aspects of Amoris Laetitia in of all places the Philippines and Latin America, so I'm still a bit nervous about who will be our next Pope. While the Polish Bishops' Conference made a strong defence of keeping the status quo before the Synod, their stance could change after Pope Francis attends World Youth Day in Poland. I agree that the Pope does seem to be personally a very holy man. I think he has serious character flaws, but nobody's perfect. Anyway, I'm glad that he doesn't have the authority to do anything about the three Sacraments that can't be undone by a future Pope. Maybe I'll start offering my monthly Storm Heaven rosaries for his successor because it looks like Francis is a lost cause on this particular issue. Time will tell.
Famed Catholic philosopher: How can Christ and Our Lady read Amoris Laetitia without weeping? Jan Bentz June 9, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – In a recent article for the Italian news platform “Corrispondenza Romana”, renowned Catholic philosopher Josef Seifert strongly criticizes Pope Francis for statements in his recent Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia. Seifert, a longtime ordinary member of the Pontifical Academy for Life and a close associate of St. John Paul II, explains that he criticizes the document because instead of invoking joy – as stated in the exhortation title – the papal document would actually make Jesus and his mother cry. Many of the passages which seem merciful turn the teachings of the Church on their heads, according to Seifert. “In my opinion, they risk an avalanche of consequences which would be very harmful to the Church and to souls,” he writes. He continues, comparing passages from the Gospels to paragraphs of Amoris Laetitia (AL). Seifert begins with Jesus’ encounter with an adulteress. The Son of God does not condemn she who would have deserved death in Mosaic law, but shows himself to be merciful. Still, His forgiveness comes with a condition: “Go and sin no more.” Seifert argues: “In citing the synod, His successor Francis tells the adulterous woman that even if she continues to sin gravely, she should not feel herself excommunicated, and he does not deem it necessary for her to convert from her sinful ways, but to feel as ‘a living member of the Church’” (AL, 299). What Francis says here, the philosopher explains, is not false, and it can be comforting to couples that the mercy of God is present with them. “Nevertheless,” he says, “the ‘go and sin no more’ is completely absent.” He argues, therefore, that the document leaves out the core: the call for conversion. The words of Pope Francis’ close collaborator, Jesuit Father Antonio Spadaro, shed a better light on these statements. Spadaro says, “Francis has removed all the ‘limits’ of the past, even in the ‘sacramental discipline’ and for the so-called ‘irregular’ couples: and these couples ‘become recipients of the Eucharist’.” Further, Seifert points out that Jesus explicitly warns his flock 15 times of the peril of eternal damnation as the consequence of mortal sin; whereas his successor on the chair of Peter states: “No one can be condemned forever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel!” (AL, 297). While St. Paul’s Letter to the Corinthians (6:9) states that no adulterer (who has not converted) enters the kingdom of God and therefore is doomed forever, Pope Francis “tells the adulterers that it is possible to live in the grace of God; through the Holy Eucharist they can grow in grace even without turning away from their adulterous life in conversion,” explains Seifert. The philosopher recalls the Letter of St. Paul to the Corinthians (11:27-29) once more. Here, receiving Communion despite one’s state of unworthiness is clearly linked to condemnation: “So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the Body and Blood of the Lord. Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.” “In other words, this is an act of sacrilege which puts one’s own soul in danger,” says Seifert. “Pope Francis, who does not even once mention the possibility of sacrilege or peril for the soul of a person who receives Communion unworthily, tells adulterers that in certain circumstances, which are to be considered individually, it is possible for those who live in adultery or in other ‘irregular’ unions to receive Holy Communion without changing their lives, and so to continue living as adulterers,” Seifert writes. He notes that Pope Francis, in the text, interprets the commandments given by Christ – which are in and of themselves clear – only as expressions of an ideal which few can reach, as if they are mere evangelical suggestions, applicable only to those who seek a superior perfection, rather than as commandments valid for all. “The Pope says that if the adulterous woman cannot separate herself from the adulterer, but lives together with him as sister and brother, then they would practice a style of life which could lead to ‘infidelity’ by her or her partner. According to the Pope, where there is a threat of infidelity between two adulterers who live as brother and sister, it would be better for the woman to have intimate relations with the man. In this case, therefore, it would be better to continue to live in adultery than as brother and sister,” concludes Seifert, citing AL 329 and a related footnote. “How can Jesus and His most holy Mother read and link these words of the Pope with those of Jesus Himself and of His Church without crying? Therefore, let us cry with Jesus, with deep respect and affection of the Pope and with the deep pain that is born out of the obligation to criticize him in his errors,” Seifert writes. The philosopher adds that his criticism is not unwarranted as the Pope himself called for a discussion and an open arena to express opinions. “Someone could ask me how I, a wretched lay person, can criticize the Pope. I respond: the Pope is not infallible if he does not speak ex cathedra. Various Popes (such as Formosus and Honorius I) have been condemned for heresy. For the love and mercy of many souls, it is our holy duty to criticize our bishops, and therefore even our dear Pope, if they stray away from truth and if they damage the Church and souls. This duty was recognized by the Church since the beginning.” He adds: “Pope Francis himself exhorts us to do exactly that: to criticize him instead of lying to or flattering the Catholic world. Let us take his words to heart. But let us do so with humility and with the love of Jesus and His Holy Church, that we may dry the tears of Jesus and glorify God in veritate.” Josef Seifert grew up in Salzburg, Austria. He was rector of the International Academy of Philosophy in Irving, Texas and director of the International Academy for Philosophy in Liechtenstein. From 2004 to 2011, he was director of the Catholic University of Chile. He is married and has six children. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/f...-can-christ-and-our-lady-read-amoris-laetitia
Obviously one may fulfill their duty to obedience while also fulfilling their duty to defend the faith and correct error. Obedience at the cost of truth is not virtue.
Of course . But I think honestly events are about to overtake us and th Church. I emtioend this before. it is like the sea coming in to collapse the sand castle. The sand castle, Rome, is about to fall, I believe.
Understood. I just don't want to see family and friends, or any soul for that matter, 'fall' with it.
Brian, while agreeing with the general tenor of your opinion, I am not entirely sure about your last sentence. If it were absolutely true, our dilemma would not exist.
Who knows the mind of God? But perhaps Rome is to fall, so we will not fall with her. In either the case after Rome falls , the Church in the form she presently exists will cease to exist. I say apparently for of course she will continue to the end of time. But it will seem to very many to cease to exist. Including her enemies.
They will only fall under their own responsibility. Christ wills their salvation even more than you do. And infinitely so. And that is not to underestimate your love for them all, in the slightest.
Many apply a false sense of obedience to the current leadership in the Church, essentially saying to be quiet and just pray. But one can't be silent in the face of a real danger to the Faithful such as that which AL constitutes. So a call to "obedience" may be a call to silence, even if for the "right" reason, in the face of a real danger to the Faith and Faithful. Such could never truly represent a virtuous obedience but would be a false obedience, not a virtue but a vice. This has been left up to us. Even the shining stars among the episcopacy have told us that. There are far too few of them that are both awake to the dangers and willing to say the hard word. So in this situation, if even the laity remain quiet, souls will be lost. We have a duty and an obligation to defend the Faith now.
I have and will continue to criticize (with extreme carefulness and respect) the Pope-- e.g. certain of his cultural preferences that I believe to be damaging and a few of his off the cuff remarks during interviews. I will never criticize his Magisterium, of which Evangelii Gaudium, Laudato Si, and Amoris Laetitia are parts. Once we deem ourselves worthy of criticizing the Magisterium, we have set off a process that has, as its only logical fruition, schism (at least de-facto schism of joining SSPX). I'd rather shed every drop of my blood than have anything to do with any form of schism. If I really thought AL were some grave danger (and I don't, so long as AL is properly understood), I'd respond by promoting marital faithfulness and worthy reception of the Eucharist independently of criticizing AL (i.e. without criticism of it). So that's what I, an unworthy sinner, do, and what I'd do. Take it for what it's worth.
Brian, I think that it is fairly clear that Pope Francis, probably with the best intentions, wants to redefine adultery. Leaving that aside, I have a question about the paragraph quoted above........ I know that the Church has always taught that "in an unworthy manner" means being in the state of mortal or grave sin. Does the bible actually say that we must be free from grave sin or is it simply saying that we condemn ourselves if we receive without believing in the Real Presence? Another question: Why is it possible for divorced and remarried members of the Orthodox Church to receive Communion in a Catholic Church without bringing judgement on themselves but not possible for divorced and remarried Catholics? While I know that a faithful member of the Orthodox wouldn't go to Communion in a Catholic Church, nevertheless it puzzles me why our Church imposes a restriction on its own members that it doesn't impose on the Orthodox. Although I addressed the questions to Brian, I would appreciate the opinion of anyone who wishes to respond.
