Mother Theresa said, 'I need so much prayer, so I have enlisted many to pray for me.' 'I ask the people in nursing homes, hospitals and asylems for their prayers and their sufferings and it is this that upholds Gods work for the poorest of the poor.'
Again, if the Synod is over and orthodoxy won the day, why are the highest ranking Cardinals in the Church still raising an alarm if all that's left is for the pope to write his Apostolic Exhortation and we don't have to worry that he'll change these things? This isn't Padraig or Brian or Mac talking, this is the Prefect of a Vatican Congregation. http://torontocatholicwitness.blogspot.com/2015/11/breaking-cardinal-sarah-on-holy.html?spref=fb&m=1 BREAKING: Cardinal Sarah on Holy Communion for the divorced: “Not even a pope can dispense from such a divine law.” H.E. Robert Cardinal Sarah Sandro Magister carries a report on an upcoming article to be published in the French language, "L'Homme Nouveau" by Robert Cardinal Sarah. Magister writes: Readers of Sarah’s book have sent him many comments, favorable and unfavorable. And in the dossier that is about to come out in “L'Homme Nouveau,” the cardinal responds to a good number of the objections he has received. But it is precisely what these objections reveal that has convinced Cardinal Sarah even more that the serious case of the Church today is none other than a crisis of faith. A crisis that lies beneath the questions debated at the synod, because it touches the very foundations of the Catholic faith and brings out into the open a widespread illiteracy concerning the age-old teaching of the Church, present even among the clergy, precisely those who are supposed to act as guides for the faithful. There we have it: the Synodal crisis stems from a crisis of Faith. The new "pastoral" orientations have their genesis in a defective, un-Catholic belief system. It is not Catholic, not Christian. Magister writes: “The entire Church has always firmly held that one may not receive communion with the knowledge of being in a state of mortal sin, a principle recalled as definitive by John Paul II in his 2003 encyclical ‘Ecclesia de Eucharistia,’” on the basis of what was decreed by the Council of Trent. And immediately afterward he adds: “Not even a pope can dispense from such a divine law.” Cardinal Sarah with Bishop Athanasius Schneider It is heresy! Any change in the teaching is pure, unadulterated heresy - a "Christological heresy" - in the words of Gerhard Cardinal Muller. Let there be no mistake: if any change is undertaken on trying to change the divine law, the perpetrators will be heretics, and will be denounced as such. The gravity of the situation is fed by - let us be honest - the Pope's continued silence over the explosion of open heresy at the Synod. This cannot be understated. At the Synod - yes - we had marvelous demonstrations of Faith and fidelity - but we also had manifestations of horrible infidelity and treachery. Not one of these men were silenced, expelled from Rome, removed from office by the Pope. These heresiarchs still have their sees, pouring spiritual poison into the souls of the faithful. How is this possible? It is possible because the crisis comes right from the top: from the Pope. Let us return to the words of the great African Cardinal: To conclude, I feel wounded in my heart as a bishop in witnessing such incomprehension of the Church’s definitive teaching on the part of my brother priests. I cannot allow myself to imagine as the cause of such confusion anything but the insufficiency of the formation of my confreres. And insofar as I am responsible for the discipline of the sacraments in the whole Latin Church, I am bound in conscience to recall that Christ has reestablished the Creator’s original plan of a monogamous, indissoluble marriage ordered to the good of the spouses, as also to the generation and education of children. He has also elevated marriage between baptized persons to the rank of a sacrament, signifying God’s covenant with his people, just like the Eucharist. In spite of this, there also exists a marriage that the Church calls “legitimate.” The sacred dimension of this “natural” dimension makes it an element awaiting the sacrament, on the condition that it respect heterosexuality and the parity of the two spouses when it comes to their specific rights and duties, and that the consent not exclude monogamy, indissolubility, permanence, and openness to life. Conversely, the Church stigmatizes the deformations introduced into human love: homosexuality, polygamy, chauvinism, free love, divorce, contraception, etc. In any case, it never condemns persons. But it does not leave them in their sin. Like its Master, it has the courage and the charity to say to them: go and from now on sin no more. The Church does not only welcome with mercy, respect, and delicacy. It firmly invites to conversion. As its follower, I promote mercy for sinners - which all of us are - but also firmness toward sins incompatible with the love for God that is professed with sacramental communion. What is this if not the imitation of the attitude of the Son of God who addresses the adulterous woman: “Neither do I condemn you. Go and from now on sin no more” (Jn 8:11)?
Well I suppose there is one good thing about all this ; I was curious to read what other Catholics were writing about all this on the internet and so I have been reading a lot of different Catholic Bloggers , writing on a whole lot of different issiues. It has been something of an eye opener to me. I have bookmarked a lot of them , it is so interesting. Here is one very good one on the Spiritual Life: http://www.spiritualdirection.com/
A Holy Cardinal and Bishop do not speak out as frankly as this without good reason you know. All this is not going to just dissapear because we might want it to. These things can't simply be brushed under the carpet. If these gentlemen are so concerned, we should be very,very concerned too. 'It is heresy! Any change in the teaching is pure, unadulterated heresy - a "Christological heresy" - in the words of Gerhard Cardinal Muller. Let there be no mistake: if any change is undertaken on trying to change the divine law, the perpetrators will be heretics, and will be denounced as such.' Cardinal Sarah
'The gravity of the situation is fed by - let us be honest - the Pope's continued silence over the explosion of open heresy at the Synod. This cannot be understated. At the Synod - yes - we had marvelous demonstrations of Faith and fidelity - but we also had manifestations of horrible infidelity and treachery. Not one of these men were silenced, expelled from Rome, removed from office by the Pope. These heresiarchs still have their sees, pouring spiritual poison into the souls of the faithful. How is this possible? It is possible because the crisis comes right from the top: from the Pope.'
Don't forget the supposed misquoted interviews he gives to Scalfari (sp?). One after another. Is it five now? Why on earth would he return to a supposed liar again and again? Would ANYONE continue to be interviewed by a person who makes the whole thing up? Who twists your words and flat out lies about you? Uh....no. Blame Scalfari all you want, the pope chooses him specifically, and continues to do so. Weird.
Here's a high ranking Cardinal saying exactly what you've been saying here. Are the MOG posters going to anathematize him also? Accuse him of attacking the Holy Father? Accuse him if starting a schism or leaving the Church? This is one of the holiest and most steadfast Churchmen alive, with no agenda except the preservation of the Faith. Can we PLEASE, now, start having a substantive debate on this crisis without resorting to juvenile insults?
African Cardinal is at the same intellectual and spiritual state as Brian, Mac and Padraig. 1. The main point Cardinal Sarah said ...you cannot take Holy Communion when in mortal sin. The Holy Father is in agreement. 2. Cardinal Sarah wrote a book...he was answering questions that were brought up about his book. 3. Cardinal Sarah states there are some bad priests...he never mentions the Holy Father. I can go on and on...the African Cardinals are Loyal to our Holy Father. They would rebuke how some of you have treated him. I think we should all read more about Cardinal Sarah...he will be the voice of Africa once Cardinal Arnize passes. Thanks for posting article of a holy man. Brother al
Heidi, I found this from Scott online. Scott is a genious in my book. Now the significance of Pope Benedict placing his pallium on the tomb of Pope Celestine is clear – Scott Hahn By Deacon Nick Donnelly, on February 11th, 2013 Scott Hahn has written in interesting observation about Pope Benedict’s pilgrimage to the tomb of Pope Celestine V, in 2009 and the relics of Pope Celestine in 2010, the last pope to abdicate in the 13th century ‘Back on April 29, 2009, Pope Benedict XVI did something rather striking, but which went largely unnoticed. He stopped off in Aquila, Italy, and visited the tomb of an obscure medieval Pope named St. Celestine V (1215-1296). After a brief prayer, he left his pallium, the symbol of his own episcopal authority as Bishop of Rome, on top of Celestine’s tomb! Fifteen months later, on July 4, 2010, Benedict went out of his way again, this time to visit and pray in the cathedral of Sulmona, near Rome, before the relics of this same saint, Celestine V. Few people, however, noticed at the time. Only now, we may be gaining a better understanding of what it meant. These actions were probably more than pious acts. More likely, they were profound and symbolic gestures of a very personal nature, which conveyed a message that a Pope can hardly deliver any other way. In the year 1294, this man (Fr. Pietro Angelerio), known by all as a devout and holy priest, was elected Pope, somewhat against his will, shortly before his 80th birthday (Ratzinger was 78 when he was elected Pope in 2005). Just five months later, after issuing a formal decree allowing popes to resign (or abdicate, like other rulers), Pope Celestine V exercised that right. And now Pope Benedict XVI has chosen to follow in the footsteps of this venerable model.’ Hers one comment I just wanted to add. The Earthquake was in L’Aquila Italy 2009, "yes Scott , I think it is significant. Pietro, known as celestine was a very holy hermit.I have actually been to his cave above Sulmona in Abbruzzo , and to his tomb , which contains his displayed body in the Collemaggio in L’Aquila." http://www.facebook.com/pages/Scott-Hahn/165171813503937
The Holy Father is not in agreement. He is pushing to have the divorced and remarried and non-Catholics, through his surrogates in the Kasper camp, admitted to the Holy Eucharist. That's why Cardinal Sarah had to write this book and continues to do interviews on it. That is why Archbishop Chaput made his comments this week. The Kasper proposal is still on the table. What you post here does not reflect the views of Cardinal Sarah. The Synod is over and all that's left is for the pope to publish his Apostolic Exhortation. If the pope agreed with Cardinal Sarah and Archbishop Chaput none of these articles and books and interviews would be necessary.
Four objections, four responses, and one conclusion by Robert Sarah 1. DOCTRINE, LET’S VOTE ON IT BY MAJORITY Q: According to one of my critics, the Catholic Church “is not only the hierarchy of bishops, including that of Rome, but the baptized as a whole. In order to say what is the ‘position of the Church,’ it would therefore be legitimate to assume the judgment of this majority.” A: The first statement is correct. But the thought of the faithful does not represent the “position of the Church” if it is not itself in accord with the body of bishops. Vatican Council II, dogmatic constitution “Dei Verbum,” no. 10: “The task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.” Moreover, this is not a matter of majority, but of unanimity. Vatican Council II, dogmatic constitution “Lumen Gentium,” no. 12: “The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One, cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole peoples' supernatural discernment in matters of faith when, from the Bishops down to the last of the lay faithful, they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals. That discernment in matters of faith is aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth. It is exercised under the guidance of the sacred teaching authority, in faithful and respectful obedience to which the people of God accepts that which is not just the word of men but truly the word of God. Through it, the people of God adheres unwaveringly to the faith given once and for all to the saints, penetrates it more deeply with right thinking, and applies it more fully in its life.” Finally, this unanimity is a sufficient condition for declaring that an assertion is in the deposit revealed by God (as in the case of the Assumption of Mary), but it is not a necessary condition: it can happen that the magisterium may solemnly define a doctrine of faith before unanimity has been reached (as for papal infallibility, at Vatican Council I). 2. COMMUNION FOR ALL, WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION Q: According to one critic whose fidelity to the priesthood I admire, thousands of priests do not hesitate to give communion to all. A: In the first place we note the absence of doctrinal authority in this myriad of sacred ministers, who in other ways are certainly respectable. Moreover, no matter how authentic this “statistic” may be, this position mixes up, among persons living in a notorious and habitual state of sin (for example, adultery and permanent infidelity to one’s spouse, frequent and grave fraud in business): a) a believer who finally repents with the firm intention to avoid falling in the future, receives holy absolution and as a result may receive the holy Eucharist, and b) the believer who does not want to stop committing acts of grave objective guilt in the future, contradicting the Word of God and the covenant signified precisely by the Eucharist. This latter case excludes the “firm intention” defined by the Council of Trent as necessary to be forgiven by God. We should specify that this firm intention does not consist in knowing that one will not sin again, but in making the deliberate decision to employ the means suitable for avoiding the sin. Without a firm intention (and apart from a total and non-culpable ignorance), such a Christian would remain in a state of mortal sin and would commit a grave sin by receiving communion. In the hypothesis that his state is publicly known, the ministers of the Church for their part have no right to give him communion. If they do so, their sin will be more grave before the Lord. It would be unequivocally a premeditated complicity and profanation of the Most Holy Body and Blood of Jesus. 3. REMARRIED AND ACTIVE IN THE PARISH. WHY NO COMMUNION? Q: A person who writes to me and whose age inspires the greatest respect evokes the case of a Catholic woman, divorced following domestic violence, who lives as “remarried” but participates intensely in the life of her parish. Should this not incite us to give holy communion to this person? A: I acknowledge the generosity of heart underlying the objection. But this mixes up or forgets various aspects. Here they are. 1. If one undergoes domestic violence, one has the right to leave one’s spouse (Code of Canon Law, canon 1153). 2. The Church allows one to ask, with divorce, for the civil effects of legitimate separation (John Paul II, January 21, 2002, address to the Roman Rota). Simple divorce does not exclude one from the sacraments. 3. A spouse who abandons himself in a habitual way to domestic violence is probably suffering from a psychological illness, which may be grounds for the nullity of the marriage in question from the very beginning (Code of Canon Law, canon 1095 § 3). 4. If the Church declares the first marriage null, the victim could contract another, granted that the other conditions of this sacrament are present. 5. It can happen that a divorced person, for important reasons such as raising the children, may not be able to leave the second spouse. In this case, in order to be absolved and receive holy communion, the person must resolve no longer to commit with this second spouse the acts that, according to divine law, are reserved for true spouses (“Familiaris Consortio,” no. 84). Now, the experience of numerous couples shows that this is often very difficult, but it is nonetheless possible with the help of God’s grace, spiritual direction, and the frequent practice of the sacrament of reconciliation. In effect this latter permits one, if one falls, to start again more firmly on the right way, gradually progressing toward chastity. 6. The participation in parish life on the part of a divorced and remarried person not yet ready to promise chastity disposes him precisely to open his heart to the grace of making this necessary promise (“Familiaris Consortio,” no. 84). 4. THE AFRICAN FAMILY IS NOT WHAT YOU TELL US IT IS Q: According to another priest who bases himself on his experience as a “Fidei donum” missionary in Africa, the African family does not correspond to the description I have given. A: I don’t know what African country and diocese this priest is talking about. But in Western Africa, in spite of the massive presence of Islam, in the pure tradition of our ancestors marriage is monogamous and indissoluble. I have spoken of this in my book “God or Nothing.” I have therefore affirmed that “still today, the family in Africa remains stable, solid, traditional.” I did not intend in any way to say that the non-Christian African family would be a model, since it evidently suffers from the imprint of sin and also knows its difficulties. I simply intended to say that in African culture in general: 1. the family is still founded on a heterosexual union; 2. marriage is seen as being without divorce, in spite of the paradigm of simultaneous polygamy; 3. it is open to procreation; 4. family bonds are seen as sacred. Isn’t this precisely what my missionary correspondent wanted to emphasize? (I emphasize here the generosity of the “Fidei donum,” meaning those Western diocesan priests who become voluntary evangelizers in mission countries). However, the question that he raises is another one: it is that of the possible gradual progression of the pastoral evangelization of non-Christian families, still imbued with deviations provoked by sin, but some traditions of which can be evangelized and serve as a point of departure for the proclamation of Christ. In any case, if my correspondent seems implicitly to accuse me of having reduced “the African family” to that which lives the Christian ideal, neither can it be reduced in the other direction to the polygamist typology, whether “traditional” or Muslim. Con't
Con't CONCLUSION. THE MAGISTERIUM OF THE CHURCH, THIS UNKNOWN TERRAIN To conclude, I feel wounded in my heart as a bishop in witnessing such incomprehension of the Church’s definitive teaching on the part of my brother priests. I cannot allow myself to imagine as the cause of such confusion anything but the insufficiency of the formation of my confreres. And insofar as I am responsible for the discipline of the sacraments in the whole Latin Church, I am bound in conscience to recall that Christ has reestablished the Creator’s original plan of a monogamous, indissoluble marriage ordered to the good of the spouses, as also to the generation and education of children. He has also elevated marriage between baptized persons to the rank of a sacrament, signifying God’s covenant with his people, just like the Eucharist. In spite of this, there also exists a marriage that the Church calls “legitimate.” The sacred dimension of this “natural” dimension makes it an element awaiting the sacrament, on the condition that it respect heterosexuality and the parity of the two spouses when it comes to their specific rights and duties, and that the consent not exclude monogamy, indissolubility, permanence, and openness to life. Conversely, the Church stigmatizes the deformations introduced into human love: homosexuality, polygamy, chauvinism, free love, divorce, contraception, etc. In any case, it never condemns persons. But it does not leave them in their sin. Like its Master, it has the courage and the charity to say to them: go and from now on sin no more. The Church does not only welcome with mercy, respect, and delicacy. It firmly invites to conversion. As its follower, I promote mercy for sinners - which all of us are - but also firmness toward sins incompatible with the love for God that is professed with sacramental communion. What is this if not the imitation of the attitude of the Son of God who addresses the adulterous woman: “Neither do I condemn you. Go and from now on sin no more” (Jn 8:11)?
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/ Overrated Synod. Before All Else in the Church There Is a Crisis of Faith This is what African cardinal Robert Sarah maintains in his book “God or Nothing” and in the discussion that has followed. An exclusive preview of his remarks in the next issue of “L'Homme Nouveau” by Sandro Magister ROME, November 19, 2015 – In the four jam-packed pages of the dossier that the French Catholic magazine “L'Homme Nouveau” is about to publish in its next issue, the word “synod” does not occur even once. Much less does one find cited there the “Relatio finalis” that the synod fathers have delivered to the pope. And yet the topics addressed in the dossier include the most controversial ones from the two-part synod on the family, from homosexuality to communion for the divorced and remarried. And above all, the author of the dossier was a leader of the highest caliber at the synod. He is Cardinal Robert Sarah, age 70, Guinean, appointed by Pope Francis one year ago as prefect of the congregation for divine worship and the discipline of the sacraments, and therefore with competence and authority concerning precisely the three sacraments at the center of the synod discussions: Matrimony, the Eucharist, and Penance. So why this silence? Cardinal Sarah has become known all over the world for the extraordinary interest raised in recent years by his book entitled “God or Nothing.” A book that right from the title puts at the top of list of vital questions facing Catholicism the crisis of faith that it is going through. Readers of Sarah’s book have sent him many comments, favorable and unfavorable. And in the dossier that is about to come out in “L'Homme Nouveau,” the cardinal responds to a good number of the objections he has received. But it is precisely what these objections reveal that has convinced Cardinal Sarah even more that the serious case of the Church today is none other than a crisis of faith. A crisis that lies beneath the questions debated at the synod, because it touches the very foundations of the Catholic faith and brings out into the open a widespread illiteracy concerning the age-old teaching of the Church, present even among the clergy, precisely those who are supposed to act as guides for the faithful. The cardinal goes so far as to say, with regard to the sacrament of the Eucharist: “The entire Church has always firmly held that one may not receive communion with the knowledge of being in a state of mortal sin, a principle recalled as definitive by John Paul II in his 2003 encyclical ‘Ecclesia de Eucharistia,’” on the basis of what was decreed by the Council of Trent. And immediately afterward he adds: “Not even a pope can dispense from such a divine law.”
The Church does not only welcome with mercy, respect, and delicacy. It firmly invites to conversion. As its follower, I promote mercy for sinners - which all of us are - but also firmness toward sins incompatible with the love for God that is professed with sacramental communion. What is this if not the imitation of the attitude of the Son of God who addresses the adulterous woman: “Neither do I condemn you. Go and from now on sin no more” (Jn 8:11)? Herein lies the problem. I hear a lot of, "who am I to judge", but none of "go and from now on sin no more."
I contend the gravity of the situation is led by the Evil One and not trusting the Holy Spirit to lead through Christ's Vicar on earth who was handed the key's of the Kingdom. Everyone wants to be pope and lord of the keys. Unfortunatly, for all the wanabees they are to be faithfull to His Church and the best thing any of his faithful can do is pray and fast.
I don't think it's fair to say that any Cardinals and Bishops who speak up to defend Catholic doctrine (not necessarily against the Pope, but at least against other bishops and Cardinals who are airing their views with impunity right now) are wannabes.
Yes or no: Are Cardinal Sarah and Archbishop Chaput "wanabees" ? As to the rest? Nonsense. Mental gymnastics to try to square a round peg.
