Yeah, insistence on chastity and purity and opposition to adultery and sodomy is so passé, so old school. We need to bring the Church into modern times. Actually, no. These attacks on "fundamentalists" are a very thinly - and poorly - veiled attack on those good and holy Churchmen who defended Scripture and the Faith at the Synod and refused to accept the Kasper proposal.
Agreed. But I'd still like a rational explanation for images like these. View attachment 3825 View attachment 3826
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/new...ld-be-fundamental-break-with-church-teaching/ Cardinal: Communion for remarried would be ‘fundamental’ break with Church teaching Cardinal Burke tells Mass of Ages quarterly that Catholics should be 'very concerned' Cardinal Raymond Burke has said that if the family synod opened the way for divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Holy Communion then it has “departed from Catholic teaching in a very fundamental matter”. The cardinal, patron of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, made the comments in an interview with Mass of Ages, the quarterly magazine of the Latin Mass Society. He cited an article by Fr Antonio Spadaro, editor of the Jesuit journal La Civiltà Cattolica, who said the synod had “laid the foundations” for remarried Catholics to be admitted to Communion. Fr Spadaro, said Cardinal Burke, “goes through this whole confused argument about a ‘penitential way’ and ‘internal forum solution’ to say that now the way is open for all this”. “So I believe that Catholics should be very concerned,” Cardinal Burke said. “If, in fact, the Synod is taking this position, then it has departed from Catholic teaching in a very fundamental matter. The teaching of the indissolubility of marriage is based on the very words of Our Lord in the Gospel.” The cardinal was asked by the interviewer, Dylan Parry, what concerned Catholics should do. “I think Catholics should simply say ‘I cannot accept this teaching as it goes against what the Church has always taught and practised.’ I don’t think that Catholics should permit themselves to be driven away from the Church by those who are not upholding the Church’s teaching.” The cardinal also said that Pope Francis’s annulment reform was a “radical departure” from Church practice. The cardinal, a leading canon lawyer and former prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, the highest judicial authority in the Church apart from the pope, said: “The reforms are radical and they are a radical departure from what has been the consistent practice with regard the examination of a claim of nullity of marriage.” He said also bishops should not be asked to judge marriage nullity cases, as will be the case under the Pope’s reforms. “Many bishops are not canon lawyers and there is nothing wrong with that, but they shouldn’t be asked to do things they haven’t been prepared to do,” he said. The cardinal said he was “not an enemy of the Pope and never will be”, explaining: “You won’t find a single statement of mine in which I am speaking against the Holy Father. I just don’t do that.” But he suggested that the Pope’s liking for language that was “unusual, colloquial and catchy” at times led to confusion. “The danger of it is that because of who he is, the Supreme Pontiff and Bishop of the Universal Church, this language can be taken and used against the Church. This is certainly not the Holy Father’s intention. So, I think perhaps that’s one thing – and people have pointed this out to him – where he could be more attentive to resist that desire to speak in this way as it does cause confusion. “I think, for example, of the famous phrase ‘Who am I to judge?’ and how that’s been misused to insinuate that the Church’s teaching about the intrinsic disorder of homosexual acts has changed. “People who weren’t too fond of the Church used the 15, or I think it was 18, ailments of the Curia to say, ‘You see how sick and corrupt the Church is’ … So, no doubt people sometimes get the impression that the Pope is very upset with priests, bishops and even cardinals.”
Blah blah blah...the story itself starts with the word "IF" the synod is taking this position...then Catholics should be worried. Assumptions and what ifs... Keep trying to bring doubt and discord to our fellow brothers and sisters.
Let the forum members read this and decide if its all assumptions and what ifs. And after the Apostolic Exhortation is published I'll be happy to eat crow if it is. Will you be willing to admit if it is not? Judging by your past behavior, you'll likely just move the goal posts and continue your attack on the orthodox.
There us no fun in fundamental, its just mental. Actually the muddying of the waters happens when people deliberately exploit the word in a way it is not meant or understood. We have articles that are fundamental to our faith and while we may adhere to them rigidly we are not fundamentalist in their practise. To be a fundamentalist is to be an extremist whose principles are applied to the harm of others. Its when you add the ist and the ism that the meaning changes and the trouble begins. It's the same kind of trouble caused by those trol like comments that continue to deliberately abuse the "who am I to judge quote." Have they got a lot to answer for!
http://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/bp.-schneider-denounces-gnostic-clergy The bishop of Kazakhstan says laity must defend the Faith because many priests fear losing their positions ROME (ChurchMilitant.com) - Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Astana, Kazakhstan is denouncing what he calls gnostic clergy who erroneously believe doctrine and pastoral practice can be separated. To masque over their error, he added, they abuse sentimental expressions of mercy and compassion. Bishop Schneider, in his address last Thursday at the Lepanto Foundation, likened this Gnostic group, comprised of priests, bishops and cardinals, to the Pharisees and Scribes. Even though the Jewish leaders knew the divine truth about marriage, he said, nevertheless they sought to have Jesus legitimize the practice of divorce that had been widely adopted out of "pastoral reasons." Schneider called these Jewish leaders the first liars, teaching that pastoral practice could be in conflict with doctrine. In contrast, he said, Jesus didn't use sophisms nor have "exemptions with reference to an alleged pastoral practice" as did the Scribes and Pharisees. Schneider recalled how Jesus "condemned each deliberate mental sexual act and all the more each corporal sexual act outside of marriage." He added that Christ had commissioned the Magisterium for all time to "teach all nations to obey everything I have commanded you." The bishop spoke of the recurring attempts over the past 2,000 years "to re-interpret the crystal-clear and uncompromising teaching of Christ on the indissolubility of marriage and on the iniquity of any sexual act outside marriage." The bishop said this new gnostic clerical party wants Church approval of "sexual acts outside a valid marriage and even sexual acts against nature." This emerging group of gnostic clerics seek a change in Church discipline regarding reception of Holy Communion by the divorced and civilly remarried. He proclaimed, When clergy stand up for the admittance of divorced and civilly remarried Catholics to Holy Communion, they in fact solemnize their adultery and their sin against the Sixth Commandment. They give to such faithful the message that their divorce and the continuous violation of their sacramental bonds can become ultimately a positive reality. In other words, such clergy are liars. Schneider said that in order to protect themselves, these false shepherds mask over their evident lies with sentimental expressions like "to open a door" or "to be pastorally creative." Schneider quotes Pope St. Pius X, who taught that "charity does not lie in the toleration of false ideas however sincere they may be." After his scheduled talk, Schneider spoke with the National Catholic Register on the need for the laity to defend the Faith because, as he said, the "clergy is very afraid and intimidated" to speak up for fear they could "lose their positions." Schneider finished his talking by urging the faithful to stay strong in their faith: No Catholic who still takes seriously his baptismal vows should allow himself to be intimidated by these new sophistic teachers of fornication and adultery, even though — sad to say — these teachers hold the office of a bishop or cardinal. To learn more about the problems of false shepherds in the Church, watch Churchmilitant.com's interview of Bp. Schneider in Rome.
I love your statement, " Yes, I know that Pope Francis has been less than charitable in his dealings with those who disagree with him. That doesn't give us the right to respond uncharitably. " I hate to say it, it reminds me of President Obama. I can't wait until the pope figures out who his friends are (ie. not George Soros, Maurice Strong, Cardinal Martini, the globalists, etc).
The rubrics are written in red for a reason, it signifies the importance of their acts. Red, as in the blood of Christ. If you violate certain rubrics, the mass is invalid. I guess saying that means I am just a fundamentalist.
You're welcome? And no it does not mean you are a fundamentalist. And yes the rubrics are important. What's the problem? They are not meant to be used a club to beat up our Pope.
I can't imagine that if you don't genuflect the Consecration would not take place. I constantly see at mass old priests who do not genuflect because ,well, they're old. They don't raise an eyebrow. The Pope is old and has they say bad knees. Give the guy a break. It's possible to critique without being petty. Surely there are more serious issues in the Church that whether or not a poor old man with bad knees genuflects or not? This feels a bit surreal...
Well it would be ironic if it were appropriate, honest, and accurate. Again, the deliberate wrong use of the word.
I agree Padraig. It's kind of petty. Bishop Schneider's statement, however, is very troubling. I sincerely hope that things aren't as bad as it seems. I wish that the Pope would have a heart to heart with Bishop Schneider and the other members of the hierarchy who are trying to hold fast to Our Lord's teaching on adultery. Looking at things from another angle, here's something I'm trying to figure out.................. As far as I know, the Orthodox Churches allow divorce and remarriage with some kind of penitential arrangements, probably similar to what Cardinal Kasper and his friends are proposing. How would our more orthodox bishops handle Communion for divorced and remarried members of the Orthodox Churches if we were all to reunite?
I did not say, not kneeling invalidates the consecration. But I do know that if you omit certain words it would.
