March 31, 2017 Is the Catholic Church in De Facto Schism? E. Christian Brugger Why is there confusion in the Catholic Church over Amoris Laetitia, and what consequences does it have for Church unity? I argue here that the confusion is ultimately over two de fide dogmas of Christian faith and that one consequence of the confusion is de facto schism within the Catholic Church. When de fide (“of the faith”) is used in Catholic theology to designate a doctrine, it signifies a truth that pertains to Divine Revelation. The term Divine Revelation refers to truths by which God chose to reveal himself and his will to humanity in order to reconcile the world to himself so men and women might live united with him imperfectly in this world and, after death and judgment, perfectly with him in the Kingdom. Thus, the Church considers de fide doctrines necessary for salvation. Their status in Catholic teaching is irreformable. And their mode of proclamation is infallible. This essay has three aims. First, it introduces and explains the theological concept of “secondary objects of infallibility” and shows how almost all of the truths pertaining to sexual matters taught by the Catholic Church belong to the category of secondary objects of infallibility, and so are rightly designated de fide doctrines. Second, it argues that beginning with the intra-ecclesial dissent from the papal encyclical Humanae Vitae, the Catholic Church has existed in a grave state of disunity over de fide doctrines, and that this disunity is deepened by the problems caused by Amoris Laetitia. Finally, it offers practical advice to the hierarchy and laity for responding to the crisis. Secondary Objects of Infallibility The documents of the Second Vatican Council teach that Jesus willed the Catholic Church’s infallible authority in defending and teaching the truths of divine revelation (also known as the “deposit of faith”) to extend not only to formally revealed truths, but also to truths necessarily connected to the truths of divine revelation, even if they have never been proposed as formally revealed. These can be taught infallibly because they are necessary for religiously guarding and faithfully expounding the truths of divine revelation (Lumen Gentium, no. 25). These are sometimes referred to as “secondary objects” of infallibility, in contrast to “primary objects,” which refers to formally revealed truths. Pope John Paul II notes in a 1998 Apostolic Letter that the Church not only possesses primary truths of divine revelation by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, it also possesses these secondary objects of infallibility by “the Divine Spirit’s particular inspiration.” In his commentary, Joseph Ratzinger, then-Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), writes that when compared with doctrines set forth as formally revealed, “there is no difference with respect to the full and irrevocable character of the assent which is owed to these teachings.” Ratzinger designates the assent owed to them as “based on faith in the Holy Spirit’s assistance to the Magisterium and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium.” So, like formally revealed truths, these truths too are owed an assent of faith, even if they also could be understood without the assistance of divine revelation. Although “de fide doctrine” has ordinarily (though not always) been reserved for teachings set down by the Church as formally revealed, it is no less true that Catholic teachings specifying secondary objects of infallibility are de fide doctrines—as Ratzinger calls them, “doctrines de fide tenenda (to be held by faith).” Canon law says they “must be firmly accepted and held” and that anyone who rejects them “sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church” (Canon 750, § 2). Moral Doctrines on Sex and Marriage The moral norms on sex and marriage taught by the Catholic Church fall into both the categories of primary and secondary objects of infallibility. Primary objects include truths explicitly taught in Divine Revelation, such as the prohibition against adultery and the indissolubility of marriage; secondary objects include teachings on sex and marriage taught by the Church since apostolic times as to be definitively held. These latter, in virtue of the way they have been proposed, should be held as taught infallibly by the Church’s Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, which teaches infallibly when the bishops “though dispersed throughout the world, but still preserving the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, teaching authentically on a matter of faith and morals (res fidei et morum), agree on a single judgment (on that matter) and teach that judgment as to be definitively held (definitive tendendam).” There can be no reasonable doubt that the Church’s teachings on the singular context of marriage for upright genital sexual expression and the wrongfulness of every form of freely chosen non-marital sexual behavior (e.g., masturbation, extra-marital intercourse, homosexual acts, contraceptive acts, etc.) have been taught by the bishops in universal agreement, always and everywhere, as clearly pertaining to the temporal and eternal welfare of the faithful, and so definitive tendendam. The fact that Catholics in recent times have denied some or all of the teachings in no way compromises the fact that the conditions for an infallible exercise of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium have been met for most of the Church’s long history. It follows that the basic truths of sexual ethics taught and defended by the Catholic Church pertain either directly (as primary objects) or indirectly (as secondary objects) to the deposit of faith and thus may be referred to—and in fact are—de fide doctrines. Unacknowledged Ecclesial Schism Beginning with the dissent from the Catholic Church’s reassertion of its ancient teaching on the wrongfulness of contraceptive intercourse in Humanae Vitae (1968), and carrying through the widespread acceptance of utilitarian—called “proportionalist”—reasoning in Catholic moral theology in the 1970s, many Catholics began to deny the existence of intrinsically evil actions (i.e., actions that are never morally legitimate to choose because their choosing always radically contradicts the good of the human person). This logically led to the rejection of the Church’s teachings on the wrongfulness of all types of sexual activity traditionally designated as intrinsically evil. This rejection has existed at all levels in the Catholic Church, from the laity to the hierarchy, and has been both resolute and obstinate. The Catholic Church has thus existed for decades in a condition of objective and grave disunity over matters of de fide doctrine. Another way to say this is that the Catholic Church has existed in a de facto state of schism. Confusion, Disunity, and Amoris Laetitia more.....http://www.crisismagazine.com/2017/catholic-church-de-facto-schism
http://magister.blogautore.espresso...1/a-year-after-amoris-laetitia-a-timely-word/ A Year After "Amoris Laetitia". A Timely Word by Anna M. Silvas April 21, 2017 ‘I saw the snares that the enemy spreads out all over the world, and I said, groaning: ‘What can get through so many snares?’ Then I heard a voice saying to me: ‘Humility’. So said Abba Antony the Great, Father of Monks. And so also it seems to me, in accepting to speak to you now, a year after Amoris Laetitia. Please forgive me, for it seems to me any number of more qualified lay faithful should be speaking ahead of me. The current field of the Church is so strewn with canonical, theological, and ecclesiological snares, one would hardly dare say anything, so strange is this hour in the Church. If I were to point to one issue the present crisis in the Church is, it would be ‘modernity’, and that mood in the Church that so greatly prizes ‘modernity’ and follows it at all costs. Theologian Tracey Rowland points out that ‘the modern’ to which we were urged to update, was never defined in the documents of Vatican II, a truly extraordinary lacuna. She says: ‘The absence of a theological examination of this cultural phenomenon called ‘modernity’ or ‘the modern world’ by Conciliar fathers in the years 1962-65 is perhaps one of the most striking features of the documents of the Second Vatican Council.’ (1) The Latin word 'moderna' means the ‘just now’, the ‘latest’, the ‘most recent.’ The cult of modernity happens when we make this an overriding object of desire, so to gain the approval of the elite classes, the captains of the media and arbiters of culture. If I were to place the finger of diagnosis, it would be precisely on this emulous desire. Two years ago or so, a young friend of mine, Elyse Beck, who is a teacher and passionately committed in her Catholic faith, took a new job in a new Catholic School. One day some of her Year 8 students did a class exercise in ‘politics’. Her students were in the second year of high-school, so they had been through eight years of Catholic schooling, and through the whole sacramental ‘program’—horrible word that; what does its use signify? She asked that if they were a candidate for an upcoming election, what would be their policies. To her surprise, every one of them, except for one boy, nominated same-sex marriage and the LGBT agenda. So she began to engage them in remedial conversation. That brought home to me how far the values of a purely secular modernity have more ascendency among ‘Catholics’ today, than the values of the life in Christ and the teachings of the Church. Immersion in the practices of modernity has led to a de facto situation, that the mythos of modernity has seeped into the very bone-marrow and veins of Catholics. It permeates their way of thinking and acting implicitly. I look around, and I begin to wonder, with horror, how much this is now true of the leadership of the Church, perhaps even among the best of them. How many are deeply, deeply, more tributary to the modern world’s ‘program’, than obedient to Christ’s summons to our deepest mind and heart, really? Under St John-Paul II we seemed to have something of a ‘push-back’ for a while, at least in some areas, especially his intense explication of the nuptial mystery of our first creation, in support of Humanae Vitae. This continued under Benedict XVI, with some attempt to address liturgical decay, and the moral ’filth’ of clerical sexual abuse. We had hoped that some remediation at least was in train. Now, in the few short years of Pope Francis’ pontificate, the stale and musty spirit of the seventies has resurged, bringing with it seven other demons. And if we were in any doubt about this before, Amoris Laetitia and its aftermath in the past year make it perfectly clear that this is our crisis. That this alien spirit appears to have finally swallowed up the See of Peter, dragging ever widening cohorts of compliant higher church leadership into its net, is its most dismaying, and indeed shocking aspect to many of us, the Catholic lay faithful. I look up at any number of higher prelates, bishops and theologians, and I cannot detect in them, by all that is holy, the least level of the sensus fidelium—and these are bearers of the Church’s teaching office? Who would risk their immortal soul by trusting to their moral judgment in Confession? ...
*continued... In preparation for this paper, I thoughtfully re-read Amoris Laetitia after nearly a year. As I waded into the murky waters of Chapter Eight, I was overwhelmingly confirmed in my reading of it last year. In fact it seemed to me a worse document than I thought it was, and I had thought it very bad. There is no need here to offer further detailed analyses, carried out by so many thoughtful commentators in the intervening year, such as the early heroes Robert Spaeman and Roberto de Mattei, Bishop Schneider, the ’45 Theologians’, Finis and Grisez, and many others, all of whom should appear on an roll-call of honour when the history of these times comes to be written. There is one group however, whose approach I find very strange: the intentionally orthodox among higher prelates and theologians who treat the turmoil arising from Amoris Laetitia as a matter of ‘misinterpretations’. They will focus on the text alone, abstracted from any of the known antecedents in the words and acts of Pope Francis himself or its wider historical context. It is as if they interpose a chasm that cannot be crossed between the person of the Pope on the one hand, over whose signature this document was published, and the ‘text’ of the document on the other hand. With the Holy Father safely quarantined out of all consideration, they are free to address the problem, which they identify as ‘misuse’ of the text. They then express the pious plea that the Holy Father will ‘correct’ these errors. No doubt the perceived constraints of piety to the successor of Peter account for these contorted manoeuvres. I know, I know! We have been facing down that conundrum for a year or longer. But to any sane and thoughtful reader, who, in the words of the 45 Theologian’s Censures, is ‘not trying to twist the words of the document in any direction, but … take the natural or the immediate impression of the meaning of the words to be correct’, this smacks of a highly wrought artificiality. Pope Francis’ ‘intent’ in this text is perfectly recoverable from the text itself, reading normally and naturally and without filters. Let us try some examples. The first of the Cardinals’ Five Dubia concludes: ‘Can the expression “in certain cases” found in Note 351 of the exhortation Amoris Laetitia be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live more uxorio?’ Without doubt, a papal clarification of the intent in this footnote is of urgent importance to the Church. Nevertheless, what the Pope intended is clear from the beginning of this current section #301. His topic is ‘those living in “irregular situations”’. All that is said a few lines later about those in situations of objective sin growing in grace and charity and sanctification, maybe with the help of the sacraments, Holy Communion in particular, is posted under this heading of ‘irregular situations’. That those in supposedly ‘sanctifying’ ‘irregular situations’ who are admitted to the Eucharist include the divorced and civilly remarried who do not intend to abrogate their sexual relationship, is flagged in #298, where in footnote 329, a passage in G&S 51 which discusses the question of temporary continence within marriage, as taught by St Paul, is outrageously transposed to those not in a Christian marriage, i.e. in ‘irregular situations’, as an argument that they should not have to live as brother and sister. The intention, prefaced by a misrepresentation of St John Paul and a bare-faced lie about the meaning of G&S 51 is clear. So where is the difficulty in understanding what the Pope intends? In #299 Pope Francis asks us to discern ‘which of the various forms of exclusion currently practised in the liturgical, pastoral, educational and institutional framework, can be surmounted.’ This indicates his aim clearly: how are we going to overcome those ‘exclusions’, liturgical first of all, practised till now? Where is the difficulty in grasping Pope Francis’ intent? And there are many other instances like this. As early as the preface he alerts us that ‘everyone should feel challenged by Chapter Eight”, and then late in that chapter (#308) admits obliquely that his approach may ‘leave room for confusion’. Let us believe him: this is his intent, which is not at all that difficult to grasp. We have noted the abstract focus on the text alone that punctiliously excludes the acts and the person of Pope Francis from all consideration of the document’s intent. Also strictly excluded as a means of ascertaining the Pope’s mind, are the wider historical antecedents. To pick off a few in a galaxy of incidents, these include Archbishop Bergoglio’s known practice in his archdiocese of tacitly admitting to Holy Communion all comers, the cohabiting, as well as the divorced and civilly remarried (2); his personal choice of Cardinal Kasper to deliver the opening address of the 2014 Synod, as if we are to politely turn a blind eye to the entire back-history of Kasper’s activities on these issues; the various ways in which these two synods were massaged, such as the papal order that a proposition on communion for the divorced and remarried, voted down by the bishops in the 2014 synod, be included in the final relation (3); his scathing condemnations of the Pharisees and other rigid persons in his concluding address at the conclusion of the 2015 Synod; and more recently, his warm praise of Bernard Häring, the doyen of dissenting moral theologians throughout the 1970s and 80s, whose 1989 book on admitting the divorced and civilly remarried to the Eucharist in imitation of the Eastern Orthodox oikonomia, was ammunition in Kasper’s saddle bag. Then of course there was Pope Francis’ endorsement of the Argentinian bishops ‘interpretation’ of AL, precisely in the way that he intended: ‘No hay otras interpretaciones.’ (4) You know all these incidents, and many, many more, almost on a daily basis, in which it is not difficult to grasp Francis’ intent at all.
*continued... Pope Francis, I am sure, is very well aware of the doctrine of papal infallibility, knows how high are its provisos—and is astute enough never to trigger its mechanism. The unique prestige of the papacy in the Catholic Church, together with the practical affective papalism of many Catholics, however, are useful assets, and these he will exploit to the full. For to Francis, and we have to grasp this: infallibility doesn’t matter, it doesn’t matter at all, if he can succeed in being the sort of change-agent in the Church he wants to be. That this is his spirit we learn in AL #3 where he says: ‘Since “time is greater than space”, I would make it clear that not all discussions of doctrinal, moral or pastoral issues need to be settled by interventions of the magisterium. Unity of teaching and practice is certainly necessary in the Church, but this does not preclude various ways of interpreting some aspects of that teaching or drawing certain consequences from it. This will always be the case as the Spirit guides us towards the entire truth (cf. Jn 16:13), until he leads us fully into the mystery of Christ and enables us to see all things as he does (5). But I think ‘the spirit’ to which Francis so soothingly alludes, has more to do with the Geist of Herr Heigel, than with the Holy Spirit of whom our blessed Lord speaks, the Spirit of Truth whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him (Jn 14:17). The Hegelian Geist on the other hand, manifests itself in the midst of contradictions and oppositions, surmounting them in a new synthesis, without eliminating the polarities or reducing one to the other. This is the gnostic spirit of the cult of modernity. So Francis will pursue his agenda without papal infallibility, and without fussing about magisterial pronouncements. We are in a world of dynamic fluidity here, of starting open-ended processes, of sowing seeds of desired change that will triumph over time. Other theorists—you have here in Italy, Gramscii and his manifesto of cultural Marxism—teach how to achieve revolution by stealth. So within the Church, Francis and his collaborators deal with the matter of doctrine, not by confronting theory head on, because if they did so they would be defeated, but by an incremental change of praxis, played to the siren song of plausible persuasions, until the praxis is sufficiently built up over time to a point of no return. Such underhand tactics are clearly playing to the tune of Hegelian dialectic. That this is Pope Francis’s modus operandi, consider a certain ‘behind the scenes incident’ in the 2015 Synod, ‘“If we speak explicitly about communion for the divorced and remarried,” said Archbishop Forte, reporting a joke of Pope Francis, “you do not know what a terrible mess we will make. So we won’t speak plainly, (but) do it in a way that the premises are there, then I will draw out the conclusions.” “Typical of a Jesuit,” Abp Forte joked (6). Then slowly, region by region, bishops around the world begin to ‘interpret’ AL to mean that the Church has now ‘developed’ her pastoral praxis to admit the divorced and civilly remarried to the Eucharist, setting aside the gravest of sacramental provisos that obtained up till now—provided of course that a sonorous note of ‘accompaniment’ is struck. And when Pope Francis sees this happening, what is his response? He rejoices to find that they have accurately picked up his cues in AL: I have already mentioned his famous ‘No hay otras interpretaciones’ to the Argentinian bishops; the latest is his letter of thanks to the bishops of Malta for their interpretations. I think it an injustice to blame these bishops for ‘misuse’ of AL. On the contrary, they have drawn the conclusions patent to any thoughtful, unblinkered reader of this papal document. The blame however, and the tragedy for the Church lies in the intent embedded and articulated well enough in Amoris Laetitia itself, and in the naïve papalism on the part of bishops, that has so poor a purchase on the Church’s imperishable obedience of faith, that it cannot perceive when it is under most dangerous attack, even from that most lofty quarter. In this game of subterfuge and incremental intent, the elaborate talk of painstaking ‘discernment’ and ‘accompaniment’ of difficult moral situations has a definite function—as a temporary blind for the ultimate goal. Have we not seen how the dark arts of the ‘hard case’ work in secular politicking, used to pivot the next tranche of social reengineering? So now in the politics of the Church. The final result will be precisely in accord with Archbishop Bergoglio’s tacit practice for years in Buenos Aires. Make no mistake, the end game is a more or less indifferent permission for any who present for Holy Communion. And so we attain the longed for haven of all-inclusiveness and ‘mercy’: the terminal trivialization of the Eucharist, of sin and repentance, of the sacrament of Matrimony, of any belief in objective and transcendent truth, the evisceration of language, and of any stance of compunction before the living God, the God of Holiness and Truth. If I may adapt here a saying of St Thomas Aquinas: Mercy without truth is the mother of dissolution (7). Pope Francis has absolutely no intention of playing by anyone’s ‘rules’—least of all yours or mine or anyone else’s ‘rules’ for the papacy. You know well what he thinks of ‘rules’. He tell us so constantly. It is one of the milder disparagements in his familiar stock of insults. When I hear those who lecture us that Pope Francis is the voice of the Holy Spirit in the Church today, I do not know whether to laugh at the naivety of it, or weep at the damage being done to immortal souls. I would say that yes, Francis is the agent of a spirit, namely the Hegelian Geist of ‘modernity’ very much at work in the Church. It is, as I said earlier, a stale and musty spirit, an old spirit that has no life in it, a privative force that only knows how to feed parasitically on what already is. I am not sure that Newman’s Essay on the Development of Doctrine does not give us all we need to face the present crisis. In his seven ‘notes’ or criteria for discerning genuine development of doctrine from its corruption, he provides the needed response to the Hegelian praxis dialectically overwhelming theoria. The seventh note is “chronic vigour”. Over time, a corruption shows itself to be exceedingly vigorous—but only at the beginning of the “infection”, since it does not possess the life to sustain itself in the long term. It will run its course and die out. The Life of Grace, however, possesses in itself the Divine Life, and will therefore throw off in the course of time all that militates against it. Truth perdures. There will be moments of high drama, but, eventually, it must necessarily prevail. It is the way in which grace acts in the organic development of nature, the very reverse of the gnostic ‘time is greater than space’. My dear fellow-believers in Christ Jesus our Lord, this false spirit shall not, cannot ultimately prevail. In the 16th Century, the Protestant revolt demoted Marriage from a sacrament, and set in train the secularisation of marriage in the West. Constantinople began to lose its purchase on the accuracy of the Gospel of marriage with the Emperor Justinian and his Roman civil law of divorce. As the scandalous example of adulterous Emperors and Empresses remarried in the lifetime of their true spouses filtered down into the Church and became the custom, so a fair-seeming theology of oikonomia grew up to cloak this grave breach with holy Tradition. This is what Häring, Kasper and co, in their ignorant folly, have been invoking as an example for us to follow. Only till now did the Catholic Church in communion with Rome hold fast the Dominical and Apostolic teaching on the sacramentality and indissolubility of Christian marriage. I qualify that: you should study the recent history of the Coptic Church on this issue: it is most inspiring and encouraging. Let us take the Copts for our allies, in this and in other ways too. Is it still a possibility, the Cardinals’ proposed fraternal correction of the Pope? We heard of this last November, and it surely lifted our beleaguered spirits. But now it is the end of April, and nothing has come of it. I cannot help but think of that passage from Shakespeare: There is a tide in the affairs of men…, and wonder if the tide has come and gone, and we the lay faithful are left stranded again. Yet Cardinal Burke has recently said: “Until these questions are answered, there continues to spread a very harmful confusion in the Church, and one of the fundamental questions is in regards to the truth that there are some acts that are always and everywhere wrong, what we call intrinsically evil acts, and so, we cardinals, will continue to insist that we get a response to these honest questions.” (8) Well, I hope so, dear Cardinals, I hope so. We the faithful, beg you: forget about calculating prudent outcomes. Real prudence should tell you when it is the right time for courageous witness, whose other name is martyrdom.
*continued... Pope Francis will not heed any fraternal correction, as John XXII once did. But you know what? It would not matter much even if he did publish some statement along those lines. Let one 24 hour news-cycle go by, and we had better not count on it that further utterances do not subtly undercut or openly contradict what was said the day before. If we have not learnt that about his manner by now, then we truly are the stupidest of sheep—or shepherds, as the case may be. Pardon me if I venture to say this, but, however we account for it, the papacy is not working right now in the Church. Peter has become a skandalon again, the ‘rock’ a stumbling block (cf. Mt 16:16-24). Until we face this reality, unbelievable as it may seem, we are bound in intimidation and illusion, and the way out (1 Cor 10:13) that the Lord offers us will be deferred. What kind of prophet do you want to show you the times? Hananiah or Jeremiah? Choose. What then is the plight of us the lay faithful in these days of severe trial in the Church? I could hardly better the following comment, to an article by the honourable and courageous struggler, Steve Skojec, on 1P5. Pray for Steve and his family. The author of the comment is Roderick Halvorsen from Santa, Idaho. He came into the Catholic Church from Protestantism some years ago, and has no intention of leaving, but sees the follies of liberal Protestantism metastasizing in the Catholic Church. He speaks here of us, the lay faithful: "But in reality, God is testing us. He is asking us to be in relationship with HIM, yes, personally and intimately and truly. He has taken all the “crutches” of Catholicism away; the power, the glory, the world’s respect, trustworthy leaders and models, in short, all the stuff that can be of assistance to the faith, but is unnecessary to the faith, and like wealth and worldly success, can be the source of a weakening of our faith, when we begin to shift our trust to the “culture” of the faith, instead of to the person of our faith: Jesus Christ." (9) Jesus answered, and said to him: If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and make our abode with him. (John 14:23). To this abode, this abiding, this being hidden with Christ in God (Col 3:3), therefore, we must go. In the midst of social, cultural and ecclesial collapse, it is a wonderful thing, but I see signs of a common cause between monasticism and the lay faithful who are seeking this interior abiding with Christ. Rod Dreher’s the 'Benedict Option' that appeared a few weeks ago, attests this movement. For not in efficient political programs, but ‘below radar’ so to speak, in the humble life of community ordered in Christ, monastic communities quietly established advance outposts of a new liturgical universe in the rubble of the western Roman empire. In other ways too, the lay faithful, and I have in mind especially the domestic churches of families, sense the worsening crises of these times, and intuit that for them the way of spiritual contest is in the local community, in the small, the hidden, the unimportant in this world’s eyes. They have little or no role in the ecclesiastical world, or perhaps in worldly success either. Such seekers hunger for an alternative liturgy of life and community, prayer and work, and some of them are sensing that deep monasticism has a word for them. A dear friend in the John Paul II Institute in Melbourne, sadly soon to close, Conor Sweeney, likes to use the hobbits in Tolkien’s mythology as an analogy for this hidden alternative Christian lifestyle. For it was the hobbits, an insignificant folk, who had no part in the counsels of the mighty, who against all odds had the decisive role in overturning the powerful forces of the dark Lord threatening to engulf the whole of Middle Earth in a reign of savagery. I have another friend, Michael Ryan, a married man and father, whose shining light of inspiration among the saints is St Bruno. Imagine it, the witness of the most intentionally contemplative monastic life in the Western Church, the Carthusians, a beacon of hope to the lay faithful? For deep monasticism is all about moné, ‘abode’ or ‘abiding’ in Christ, about waiting and watching with hope-filled faith, as ‘useful’ as the Prophet Habbakuk standing upon his watch and stationing himself on the watchtower, as ‘useful’ as Simeon and Anna haunting the temple and waiting their life long for the dawning light of salvation and knowing him when he came, as ‘useful’ as the women who sat at a distance and watched at our Lord’s tomb on the eve of the first Good Friday, as ‘useful’ as our all-holy Lady, Mary, taking her stand beside the Cross. Perhaps prayer, prayer of this sort, is the most radically political act of all, and the very core of Christianity? Where O where have we Catholics been? Perhaps prayer, prayer of this sort, is the most radically political act of all, and the very core of Christianity? Where O where have we Catholics been? Our Lord himself used to rise long before dawn and watch in the night hours, even in the days of his busiest ministry. The disciples, awed one day by the mystery of his prayer, felt a deep wistful attraction: Lord, teach us to pray. This is the one emulous desire that we do need: Jesus, the one model to whose imitation we can give ourselves completely, and we will not be betrayed. Can we, is it at all possible to learn something of the sentiments that filled his human mind and heart in those solitary hours of intimacy with his Father? Yes we can, for in his great compassion he shared them with us in a form of words: sacred words, holy words of complete trustworthy power and truth: Abba! Abbuna de b’ashmayo, yithqaddash shm’okh. Our Father, who are in heaven, hallowed be Thy Name… Rome, April 22, 2017 * (1) Tracey Rowland, 'Culture and the Thomist Tradition' (London: Routledge 2003), 13. (2) 'Above all he encouraged his priests not to deny communion to anyone, whether they be married, or cohabiting, or divorced and remarried. With no fuss and without making this decision public, the then-archbishop of Buenos Aires was already doing what the popes at the time prohibited, but he would later permit once he became pope.' —Sandro Magister, ‘The Man who had to be elected Pope’, http://www.onepeterfive.com/man-elected-... accessed Wednesday, April 5, 2017 (3) Relatio Synodi 2014, #52. (4) https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-n... (5) See Deacon Jim Russell, ‘Pope Francis ‘Time is greater than Space’: What does it mean?’, , ‘http://aleteia.org/2016/05/24/pope-francis-time-is-greater-than-space-what-does-it-mean/ (6) http://www.onepeterfive.com/pope-speakin... Friday, 7 April 2017 (7) Super Matthaeum, Cap. V, l. 2. The original statement is: ‘Mercy without justice is the mother of dissolution.’ (8) From https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2017/03/27/b... (9) ‘RTHEVR’ from the comments to “Archbishop of Malta Claims Fidelity to Pope on Exhortation Guidelines”, Steve Skojec, February 20, 2017, http://www.onepeterfive.com/archbishop-o... accessed Wednesday, February 22, 2017.
What an article! Long, but very astute to the times and the deception that is upon the Church. Pray, pray, pray.
Imagine it, the witness of the most intentionally contemplative monastic life in the Western Church, the Carthusians, a beacon of hope to the lay faithful? For deep monasticism is all about moné, ‘abode’ or ‘abiding’ in Christ, about waiting and watching with hope-filled faith, as ‘useful’ as the Prophet Habbakuk standing upon his watch and stationing himself on the watchtower, as ‘useful’ as Simeon and Anna haunting the temple and waiting their life long for the dawning light of salvation and knowing him when he came, as ‘useful’ as the women who sat at a distance and watched at our Lord’s tomb on the eve of the first Good Friday, as ‘useful’ as our all-holy Lady, Mary, taking her stand beside the Cross. Perhaps prayer, prayer of this sort, is the most radically political act of all, and the very core of Christianity? Where O where have we Catholics been? Perhaps prayer, prayer of this sort, is the most radically political act of all, and the very core of Christianity? Where O where have we Catholics been? Our Lord himself used to rise long before dawn and watch in the night hours, even in the days of his busiest ministry. The disciples, awed one day by the mystery of his prayer, felt a deep wistful attraction: Lord, teach us to pray. This is the one emulous desire that we do need: Jesus, the one model to whose imitation we can give ourselves completely, and we will not be betrayed. Can we, is it at all possible to learn something of the sentiments that filled his human mind and heart in those solitary hours of intimacy with his Father? Yes we can, for in his great compassion he shared them with us in a form of words: sacred words, holy words of complete trustworthy power and truth: Abba! Abbuna de b’ashmayo, yithqaddash shm’okh. Our Father, who are in heaven, hallowed be Thy Name… This portion of the wonderful article posted by Jarg says it all for me. Our Lady's constant request to pray pray pray is the only way forward for now for the lay faithful. I am very grateful to Padraig and all on this forum for providing analysis and direction to us during this crisis. God will have to intervene in the end as apostasy is everywhere. The church in Ireland is currently going down the slippery slope of AL in preparation for the World day of Families scheduled for 2018. I just hope and pray that the warning comes soon.
Jarg-- thank you for printing this article. Anna Silvia is a hero as is Steve Skojec and all here who are praying their way through this time of times we are in. God have mercy on us all and give us the grace of extra oil in our lamps.
Jarg, Thank you for posting this article. I was impressed by her earlier writing, but surely Anna M. Silvas has hit a home run out of the park with her anniversary article. Below I have highlighted three short sections with still briefer comments of my own. There is one group however, whose approach I find very strange: the intentionally orthodox among higher prelates and theologians who treat the turmoil arising from Amoris Laetitia as a matter of ‘misinterpretations’. They will focus on the text alone, abstracted from any of the known antecedents in the words and acts of Pope Francis himself or its wider historical context. It is as if they interpose a chasm that cannot be crossed between the person of the Pope on the one hand, over whose signature this document was published, and the ‘text’ of the document on the other hand. With the Holy Father safely quarantined out of all consideration, they are free to address the problem, which they identify as ‘misuse’ of the text. They then express the pious plea that the Holy Father will ‘correct’ these errors. This is the tendency to which I myself capitulated as I have waited for the Holy Father's clarification. I have held and will continue to hold in high esteem the Petrine Office, but considering the downward trajectory of the implementation of the Pope's document, I now foresee no coming clarification. I grieve. I think it an injustice to blame these bishops for ‘misuse’ of AL. On the contrary, they have drawn the conclusions patent to any thoughtful, unblinkered reader of this papal document. The blame however, and the tragedy for the Church lies in the intent embedded and articulated well enough in Amoris Laetitia itself, and in the naïve papalism on the part of bishops, that has so poor a purchase on the Church’s imperishable obedience of faith, that it cannot perceive when it is under most dangerous attack, even from that most lofty quarter. In this game of subterfuge and incremental intent, the elaborate talk of painstaking ‘discernment’ and ‘accompaniment’ of difficult moral situations has a definite function—as a temporary blind for the ultimate goal. Have we not seen how the dark arts of the ‘hard case’ work in secular politicking, used to pivot the next tranche of social reengineering? So now in the politics of the Church. The final result will be precisely in accord with Archbishop Bergoglio’s tacit practice for years in Buenos Aires. Make no mistake, the end game is a more or less indifferent permission for any who present for Holy Communion. And so we attain the longed for haven of all-inclusiveness and ‘mercy’: the terminal trivialization of the Eucharist, of sin and repentance, of the sacrament of Matrimony, of any belief in objective and transcendent truth, the evisceration of language, and of any stance of compunction before the living God, the God of Holiness and Truth. If I may adapt here a saying of St Thomas Aquinas: Mercy without truth is the mother of dissolution (7). The path of incrementalism which the implementation has initiated has been destructive in two respects. First, it has given boldness to neo-modernist prelates. This reminds me of the frightening verses from Acts 20 which are a living reality in our own day bringing the birth pains of a threatening dissolution: 29 "I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. 31 "Therefore be on the alert, remembering that night and day for a period of three years I did not cease to admonish each one with tears. This first point includes the realization that the incrementalism has fostered a hesitancy on the part of many orthodox bishops who maybe like me were awaiting a clarification. There is way too much silence. Second, is that the Holiness of God is horribly disregarded in the rush to promote a Grade B mercy. Though I long for the Beatific Vision, I must not forget that God's Matchless Love is matched by the Splendor of His Holiness. Is there hope? Always!! I have been borne up this past Lent by a verse from Jeremiah 51: 44 And I will punish Bel in Babylon, and take out of his mouth what he has swallowed. I will always love Pope Francis and those who have encouraged this subterfuge. I can do naught else. The God who calls is the One who saves. May our prayers and faithfulness yet prevail! Safe in the Barque of Peter!
St. Catherine of Genoa describes the terrible enlightenments given by God concerning our sins by saying: "He finds fault with everything."
your thoughts made me think how much I am missing 'something' in the new preaching of mercy and love. That something is I think that severity of Jesus that comes across many times, which modernity confuses with moral rigidity or repressive thinking, and I think is being cut out of the current church message. We find that severity in Acts and also in the teachings of the saints, specially when they speak of Mercy, like St. Faustina. With mercy there also comes the call for repentance and conversion, to change our lives, and that is severe. It is severe to hear that we are doing things wrong, that we are evil in our actions and thoughts, and that we need to radically change our lives, everyday. But Jesus, with love, always rebukes, always exhorts us to repent, and he does that also to saints, because he wants us to get out of sin. Sometimes He is sweet and tender, but sometimes He is really firm, if not extremely tough, and blunt, for our own good ("Get behind me Satan!"), and this is particularly true when He speaks about the indissolubility of marriage to the Jews. That's why I worry when I see one of the essential aspects of the sacred doctrine of Christ spoken about as if it was something that we either have misunderstood for hundreds of years, or that we have to reinterpret in light of a different social context. Another thing I am missing in the 'new church' is Christ himself. The Church is rapidly becoming more anthropometric and less Christocentric. I hear so much that 'we' ('you') are the hope of the world. That the love of neighbor is the new light that shines. I hear about Church closer to the people, but not closer to God. I hear of a Church that brings closer people together, but not people closer to God. I hear of dialogue and decision through consensus in the church, but almost no word or reflection of God's will for us and his sacred law. I hear about peace, world peace, but miss hearing about the only true peace, the peace of Christ. God seems to be left behind in this whole process, and we are ultimately the loosers. It seems about making the church more 'loving' and attuned to people's new realities, but what about the life change God's exhorts us to do? It seems almost that the commandment is love thy neighbor first and then God. But the scriptures, the Church, with all the saints, have always emphasized that in order to love our neighbor, we need to love God first and foremost, with al our heart and all our mind. in fact we need to let God love us first, because we can't give love to others if we don't receive it first from Him. John Paul II said in his visit to Our Lady of Knock: "Paul VI taught the Church to be open to the needs of humanity and at the same time to be unfailingly faithful to the unchanging message of Christ." This zeal to be 'unfailingly faithful to the unchanging message of Christ ' wile being open is what I am missing, and that is what we need if we are to love and do good to others, and to be truly apostolic. That of course does not mean the Church cannot learn new things and cannot move. Jesus told his disciples before he ascended that the Holy Spirit will teach us many more things . And the Holy Ghost certainly is also there allowing us to more deeply understand Christ teaching. But I wonder how can the Holy Spirit teach us sth that, at least According to the faith we have received, seems to contradict a pivotal teaching of the Church on marriage. But maybe we are full of pride in thinking that something is wrong with the new church, we can abandon that to God. What is certain is that so many are confused, and I just pray that God through Our Mother takes us out of this confusion very soon!
Jarg, Yes, I think all three are essential: apostolic, merciful, and zealous. Great post, Jarg! Safe in the Refuge of the Immaculate Heart!
I think the confusion we live in today can be paralleled with the message that St. Paul gave the Romans 2000 years ago. It seems to me to be exactly what we are dealing with today. Epistle Of Saint Paul To The Romans Chapter 1 He commends the faith of the Romans, whom he longs to see. The philosophy of the heathens, being void of faith and humility, betrayed them into shameful sins. [16] For I am not ashamed of the gospel. For it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth, to the Jew first, and to the Greek. [17] For the justice of God is revealed therein, from faith unto faith, as it is written: The just man liveth by faith. [18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice: [19] Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them. [20] For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable. [21] Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God, or given thanks; but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened. [22] For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. [23] And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of fourfooted beasts, and of creeping things. [24] Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. [25] Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. [26] For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. [27] And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. [28] And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient; [29] Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, [30] Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, [26] "God delivered them up": Not by being author of their sins, but by withdrawing his grace, and so permitting them, in punishment of their pride, to fall into those shameful sins. [31] Foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy. [32] Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.
I have always felt that love is an act of will and I must will love toward others even though they are doing terrible things. But if love is wanting the good of the other then I pray for them to have a deep conversion of heart " a deep and saving knowledge of Jesus Christ". I am so conscious of my own sins and failures on an ever deepening level that I dare not judge a person but if they are spreading error then I must guard my heart and pray for the Holy Spirit to lead us in truth. And in love to pray for the one spreading error but it is a balancing act. Exorcists always say they never engage in conversation with the evil spirit. They ask necessary questions but never never get into a debate or discussion. In these times of such subtle errors and heresies I think that is probably a good strategy
If St Paul were alive today and did the exact same things he did 2,000 years ago and spoke the exact same things he did 2,000 years ago how would the church view him?
I believe I need to clarify what Grade B mercy means in my mind. In the Divine Fire thread, Mark wonderfully quotes Sr. Faustina: “I am very much aware of His greatness and my misery. An extraordinary suffering pervades my soul, together with a joy.” I believe God often hewns as the fruit of our choices, crosses in our life. It is a gift that points us to both our misery and to the joy found in Jesus. Those who are counted among the "married, divorced, and civilly remarried" have made choices that result in the heavy Cross of no access to reception of the Eucharist. They can choose to live a life of continence in order to receive, but this is also a Cross that the couple together would have to choose in their desire for Eucharist. To live this out would truly be an extraordinary suffering...together with a joy. Neo-modernists in the Church sincerely desire to reach out to the "married, divorced, and civilly remarried" but in doing so they would cast aside the Cross that is the means for this couple to attain the joy of sanctity. Their idea of accompaniment is wonderful, but they need to imitate Simon of Cyrene who helps carry the Cross the couple bears. Otherwise, they will be trying to grant a Grade B mercy to the couple that stands against the marvelous truth of the Matrimonial union. The devil always tempts us to take such an easy road. To do so prevents the life giving mystery of what St. Faustina expressed: “I am very much aware of His greatness and my misery. An extraordinary suffering pervades my soul, together with a joy.” Let us always uphold a Grade A, rather than Grade B, mercy. But let's also be ready to imitate Simon of Cyrene. Safe in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary!
Oh dear! He would be called rigid and afflicted with mental imbalance I expect. Traditional and stultified and unloving. Etc etc etc
ROME, Italy, April 25, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — “Only a blind man can deny that there is great confusion in the Church.” With this comment from Cardinal Carlo Caffarra, one of the four cardinals who signed the dubia regarding Amoris laetitia, Riccardo Cascioli of La Bussola Quotidiana opened a convention last Saturday at the foot of the Vatican, just a few hundred meters down the Via della Conciliazione. Some would call it provocative. But in calling for “clarity” regarding the Apostolic Exhortation one year later, the organizers created an occasion where learned lay people could voice the grave concerns of many ordinary Catholics. It was a case of begging for bread from the highest authority in the Church and of explaining why. The “bread,” or clarification, is not forthcoming. But many points were made. The voice of reason and thoughtful analysis cannot be a provocation. The absence of a response is all the more disturbing. One main impression was made: Amoris laetitia is ambiguous and confusing, deliberately so, and it urgently needs to be clarified before more damage is done.
