"Francis has been totally orthodox..can only be faulted by faulty reading"

John Paul II saw a mutual subjection of the spouses

Path to holiness

 

3) AL 159. " Virginity is a form of love. As a sign, it speaks to us of the coming of the Kingdom and the need for complete devotion to the cause of the Gospel (cf. 1 Cor 7:32). It is also a reflection of the fullness of heaven, where “they neither marry not are given in marriage” (Mt 22:30). Saint Paul recommended virginity be-cause he expected Jesus’ imminent return and he wanted everyone to concentrate only on spreading the Gospel: “the appointed time has grown very short” (1 Cor 7:29). Nonetheless, he made it clear that this was his personal opinion and preference (cf. 1 Cor 7:6-9), not something demanded by Christ: “I have no command in the Lord” (1 Cor 7:25). All the same, he recognized the value of the different callings: “Each has his or her own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another” (1 Cor 7:7). Reflecting on this, Saint John Paul II noted that the biblical texts “give no reason to assert the ‘inferiority’ of marriage, nor the ‘superiority’ of virginity or celibacy”166 based on sexual abstinence. Rather than speak absolutely of the superiority of virginity, it should be enough to point out that the different states of life complement one another, and consequently that some can be more perfect in one way and others in another. Alexander of Hales, for example, stated that in one sense marriage may be considered superior to the other sacraments, "

Document......"Understood as denying that a virginal state of life consecrated to Christ is superior considered in itself to the state of Christian marriage: i). Haeretica, sacrae Scripturae contraria. ii). Perniciosa, suspensiva gravis resolutionis. Council of Trent, Session 24, canon 10: “If anyone says that the married state surpasses that of virginity or celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity or celibacy than to be united in matrimony, let him be anathema” (DH 1810). See also: Mt. 19: 12, 21; 1 Cor. 7:7-8, 38; 2 Thess. 2:1-2; Apoc. 14:4; Council of Florence, Decree for the Jacobites, DH 1353; Pius X, Response of the Biblical Commission, DH 3629; Pius XII Sacra virginitas, AAS 46 (1954): 174; 2nd Vatican Council, Decree Optatam totius, 10."

 

No problem with no 3 either.....

Marriage and Continence Complement Each Other
Pope John Paul II
POPE JOHN PAUL AT THE GENERAL AUDIENCE OF 14 APRIL

At the general audience in St Peter's Square on 14 April, the Holy Father delivered the following address.

No reference to inferiority of marriage

1. Let us now continue our reflections of the previous weeks on the words about continence for the sake of the kingdom of heaven which Christ addressed to his disciples, according to the Gospel of Matthew (cf. 19:10-12).

Let us say once more that these words, as concise as they are, are admirably rich and precise. They are rich with a number of implications both of a doctrinal and pastoral nature. At the same time they establish a proper limit on the subject. Therefore, any kind of Manichaean interpretation decidedly goes beyond that limit, so that, according to what Christ said in the Sermon on the Mount, there is lustful desire "in the heart" (Mt 5:27-28).

In Christ's words on continence for the kingdom of heaven there is no reference to the inferiority of marriage with regard to the body, or in other words with regard to the essence of marriage, consisting in the fact that man and woman join together in marriage, thus becoming one flesh. "The two will become one flesh" (Gn 2:24). Christ's words recorded in Matthew 19:11-12 (as also the words of Paul in 1 Cor 7) give no reason to assert the inferiority of marriage, nor the superiority of virginity or celibacy inasmuch as by their nature virginity and celibacy consist in abstinence from the conjugal union in the body. Christ's words on this point are quite clear. He proposes to his disciples the ideal of continence and the call to it, not by reason of inferiority, nor with prejudice against conjugal union of the body, but only for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.

Relationship between marriage and continence

2. In this light a deeper clarification of the expression "for the sake of the kingdom. of heaven" is especially useful. This is what we shall try to do in the following, at least briefly. However, with regard to the correct understanding of the relationship between marriage and continence that Christ speaks about, and the understanding of that relationship as all Tradition has understood it, it is worthwhile to add that superiority and inferiority fall within the limits of the same complementarity of marriage and continence for the kingdom of God.

Marriage and continence are neither opposed to each other, nor do they divide the human (and Christian) community into two camps (let us say, those who are "perfect" because of continence and those who are "imperfect" or "less perfect" because of the reality of married life). But as it is often said, these two basic situations, these two "states," in a certain sense explain and complete each other as regards the existence and Christian life of this community. In its entirety and in each of its members this is fulfilled in the dimension of the kingdom of God and has an eschatological orientation, which is precisely of that kingdom. So, with regard to this dimension and this orientation—in which the entire community, that is, all of those who belong to it, must share in the faith—continence for the kingdom of heaven has a particular importance and a special eloquence for those who live a married life. Besides, these constitute the majority.

3. It therefore seems that a complementarity understood in this way finds its foundation in the words of Christ according to Matthew 19:11-12 (and also 1 Cor 7). On the other hand there is no basis for a presumed counterposition according to which celibates (or unmarried persons), only by reason of their continence, would make up the class of those who are "perfect," and, to the contrary, married persons would make up a class of those who are "imperfect" (or "less perfect"). If, according to a certain theological tradition, one speaks of a state of perfection (status perfectionis), it is done not by reason of continence in itself. But it is in regard to the entirety of a life based on the evangelical counsels (poverty, chastity and obedience), since this life corresponds to Christ's call to perfection: "If you would be perfect..." (Mt 19:21). Perfection of the Christian life, instead, is measured with the rule of charity. It follows that a person who does not live in the state of perfection (that is, in an institute that bases its life plan on vows of poverty, chastity and obedience), or in other words, who does not live in a religious institute but in the "world," can de factoreach a superior degree of perfection—whose measure is charity—in comparison to the person who lives in the state of perfection with a lesser degree of charity. In any case, the evangelical counsels undoubtedly help us to achieve a fuller charity. Therefore, whoever achieves it, even if he does not live in an institutionalized state of perfection, reaches that perfection which flows from charity, through fidelity to the spirit of those counsels. Such perfection is possible and accessible to every person, both in a religious institute and in the "world."

Complementarity

4. It seems then that the complementarity of marriage and continence for the kingdom of heaven, in their significance and manifold importance, adequately corresponds to Christ's words recorded in Matthew (19:11-12). In the life of an authentically Christian community the attitudes and values proper to the one and the other state—that is, to one or the other essential and conscious choice as a vocation for one's entire earthly life and in the perspective of the "heavenly Church"—complete and in a certain sense interpenetrate each other. Perfect conjugal love must be marked by that fidelity and that donation to the only Spouse (and also of the fidelity and donation of the Spouse to the only Bride), on which religious profession and priestly celibacy are founded. Finally, the nature of one and the other love is "conjugal," that is, expressed through the total gift of oneself. Both types of love tend to express that conjugal meaning of the body which from the beginning has been inscribed in the personal makeup of man and woman. We shall return to this point at a later date.

Each his special gift

5. On the other hand, conjugal love which finds its expression in continence for the kingdom of heaven must lead in its normal development to paternity or maternity in a spiritual sense (in other words, precisely to that fruitfulness of the Holy Spirit that we have already spoken about), in a way analogous to conjugal love, which matures in physical paternity and maternity, and in this way confirms itself as conjugal love. For its part, physical procreation also fully responds to its meaning only if it is completed by paternity and maternity in the spirit, whose expression and fruit is all the educative work of the parents in regard to the children born of their conjugal corporeal union.

As can be seen, there are many aspects and spheres of the complementarity between the vocation, in an evangelical sense, of those who "marry and are given in marriage" (Lk 20:34), and of those who knowingly and voluntarily choose continence "for the kingdom of heaven" (Mt 19:12).

In First Corinthians (which we will analyze later in our considerations), St. Paul will write on this subject: "Each has his special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another" (1 Cor 7:7).

Taken from:
L'Osservatore Romano
Weekly Edition in English
19 April 1982, page 10

 

With all due respect... you either a) don't know what you are talking about, or b)are purposefully trying to misrepresent St. John Paul II.

Are you seriously trying to twist a general audience out of context quote into JPII's teaching???

 

The Magisterium of the Church

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."48

87 Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: "He who hears you, hears me",49 the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.


It only seems extraordinary when you do not read the CCC.

Give me a break, more modernism/relativism nonsense... by your statement this would mean that the Magisterium could change anything in the Catholic deposit of faith to what ever they wanted when ever they felt like it. They could even change Gods laws to mean what ever they felt like.

I worship God not the Pope...

 

Thats my issue...by you insinuating a or b without explanation, its just nonsense. Please explain your position...i am interested in your thoughts. Where is someone trying to twist teaching?

Your interpretation is valued.

Brother al

Note: wheres the argument?

 

I was slight on the details because I first wanted to get a sense of where she is coming from, what her angle is so to speak.

Nonsense? Far from it. In fact all it takes is careful reading of what she posted and a quick google search.

I can expound- and suspect I will, but this is hardly proof.

 

SH could you kindly google "CDF catholic" ( i added the word catholic to hopefully narrow the number of results returned) I hope you will then understand Davidtlg very understated surprise at your comment. Your further comments i see as you digging yourself a deeper hole.

 

To make it easier...wheres the problem or argument. To say marriage and celibacy is equal. That is spiritually correct? Both have a path to God. As individual saints or as a couple bonded to one.

Where is the problem.

Brother al

 

I'm not sure what is the best way to respond to you.

Regarding paragraph 85, I will highlight the words which confirm my position:

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

Regarding paragraph 85, nothing I have said disagrees with this paragraph. Of course the Magisterium is not superior to Scripture, but it is needed to interpret it and in doing so, serves it.

You are concerned that the Magisterium could change anything it liked. No, it can not as the Magisterium is only one of the three pillars of authority. It is God's Church and He will prevent the Magisterium leading the Church astray. That is the nature of the infallibility which is an article of faith.

I also worship God and most certainly not the Pope!

My earlier response to you was to point out that the Magisterium is most certainly not there to serve the CDF!

 

I shall not serve...you have just alienated yourself from 2000 years of rockstar saints. The all served and were obedient.

Even if they were jailed, ridiculed or killed.

 

I always thought of St Thomas More as a "rockstar" saint. I guess today, he would be considered a fundamentalist, hypocrite, and a pharisee, no Al?

 

It is a problem because it is not spiritually correct and is a misreading of John Paul II.


I don't have the time to formulate a long response now - but JPII's teaching and two millennia of Church Tradition is quite clear. Virginity is a superior calling.

Case.
Closed.
Not.
Open.
For.
Debate.


APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION
FAMILIARIS CONSORTIO
OF POPE JOHN PAUL II

Virginity or celibacy, by liberating the human heart in a unique way,[40] "so as to make it burn with greater love for God and all humanity,"[41] bears witness that the Kingdom of God and His justice is that pearl of great price which is preferred to every other value no matter how great, and hence must be sought as the only definitive value. It is for this reason that the Church, throughout her history, has always defended the superiority of this charism to that of marriage, by reason of the wholly singular link which it has with the Kingdom of God.[42]

 

Now that is interesting...it is a superior calling. I would love to debate that...but work calls. Superior calling...not sure God would use superior.

But i will have to wait on this one.

May God Bless you Frodo.

 

The four holiest people to ever exist were chaste virgins: Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and John the Baptist. That may be the best clue.

 

I see your point... I was using it to mean Catholic Deposit of Faith

 

This controversy concerns the Deposit of Faith. It is the duty of the Pope and the Magisterium to preserve intact and pass on to future generations that Deposit of Faith which comes to us from the three pillars: Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and 2000 years of Magisterial teachings. Papal authority does not stretch to contradicting the Deposit of Faith. What a pity those who took umbrage at the response to Janet's statement about the Pope being the Church are less than accommodating of Sorrowful Heart's mistakenly using the acronym CDF for the Deposit of Faith. The CDF is the body entrusted by the Church to ensure that the Deposit of Faith is not contradicted in official Church Teaching. Yes, personnel can change or the CDF can be disbanded at the Pope's say so, but while it is entrusted with such an enormous responsibility it should not be dismissed as either irrelevant or inconsequential.

To suggest that the Pope in Union with some Bishops cannot teach heresy is simply wrong and is not Church teaching unless it includes the proviso that the Pope in Union with the Bishops cannot teach heresy provided the teaching does not contradict the Deposit of Faith which includes Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. We already have an example of this in the case of Pope Honorius 1 who, in union with some bishops, permitted heretical teaching about the nature of Christ. It took years and bloodshed before both the Pope and the Bishops in Union with him were posthumously declared heretics (Honorius was subsequently cleared of heretical beliefs but the censure remained because he permitted the heretical teaching). The reason I cite the case of Pope Honorius is to emphasise the error that some here appear to have embraced, i.e. that the Pope is protected by the Holy Spirit from either being a heretic or preaching heresy so long as the Bishops are in union with him. In the days of Pope Honorius, the Church certainly did not believe that to be the case, and it still doesn't believe it.

Honorius' error was exposed and corrected thanks to a monk from Palestine who would have been deemed a Protestant according to the standards some here are applying to those who question Amoris Laetitia.

Those who are supposedly answering the issues raised in the letter from the Theologians by picking bits and pieces of Magisterial statements are not fully responding to the contentious issues unless they can answer each and every point raised including each and every reference the Theologians cite to support their argument. This forum and most likely most members of this forum cannot supply the educated and informed evidence from the Deposit of Faith to support a repudiation of the arguments raised by the Theologians. A simple statement that they must be Protestant because they disagree with the Pope and the Bishops in union with him is simply not Catholic.

The response to the Theologians should come from the Magisterium. It only took ten days for Hans Kung to get a response from the Pope to this request: https://www.ncronline.org/news/theology/infallibility-hans-k-ng-appeals-pope-francis Among other things, Kung questions Church teaching on Papal Infallibility, the Assumption of Our Lady, Contraception and Euthanasia (he has made arrangements for himself and for a Priest to be present despite Priests being forbidden to administer Extreme Unction in such cases). Time will tell whether the theologians who have been faithful to the Magisterial teachings of the Church will be afforded the courtesy of a response. Reading the news report casts more light on what is behind the loss of faith in Germany and could well be spreading to the universal Church.

 

Hi Frodo,

The text I posted didn't contradict the truth that virginity/celibacy is a higher calling. What the text and the Pope are saying is that there is value in the different callings: “Each has his or her own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another”

Pope John Paul II ...tells us we are all called to a deep relationship with Jesus Christ. “It is not because either of these has a special status, is convenient or even ‘useful’ in the typical sense of the word. Rather, we enter into these vocations because each and every one of us has a ‘call’ and ‘gifts’ to become a special and unique sign of God’s ‘spousal’ love for us and the world.”


God Bless

 

St. Frodo,

I guess i see the layers...our vocation to God has only two paths. We can always argue which is greater and as St. Sterph said....we have the strongest examples. But in the end, it is two distictive ways to Holiness. I don't think it should be argued, which is greater...because both have the gift of Gods calling. So, if one is greater then the other...it really doesn't mean much. Now, is one a greater sacrifice? Maybe...but even that is up to interpretation.

Now if the back issue is...because they are equal, we should have married priests. That is a big jump to make. There are more layers of debate to jumping to that assumption.

I guess i still don't see the issue.

Brother al