One of the two remaining dubia cardinals, Cardinal Walter Brandmüller, has just given an interview to the prominent German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) which has been published today, 28 October. In this lengthy interview, the 88-year old German prelate explains once more the fundamental teaching of the Catholic Church on marriage, as it has been laid out by Jesus Christ Himself, in its sacramental and indissoluble character. Cardinal Brandmüller – who is known for his courageous outspokenness – made some remarks that might be of special interest to our readers. That is to say, he made it clear that one may not change that teaching on marriage:
That is to say, he who claims that one may enter a new relationship while one’s own lawful wife is still alive is excommunicated because this is an erroneous teaching, a heresy. Whoever does make such a claim [is excommunicated]. And he who simply practices it [adultery] is gravely sinning. And then there is added that whoever is conscious of a grave sin may only go to Communion if he previously has done penance, has confessed his sins, and has been absolved. Thus, if someone thinks he can contradict the defined Dogma of a General Council [Council of Trent], then that is indeed quite vehement. Exactly that is what one calls heresy – and that means exclusion from the Church – because one has left the common foundation of Faith. [emphasis added]
When asked about a German progressive theologian – Magnus Striet – who recently claimed that the papal document Amoris Laetitia does indeed change the Church’s teaching, and not, as some claim, merely deepen it, Cardinal Brandmüller confirms this opinion and line of argument, saying:
He is of course right. There are indeed still people who can think. I have the great concern that something is going to explode. People are not stupid. Alone the fact that a request for clarification addressed to the pope, with 870,000 signatures, [and also] that 50 scholars with international reputation have remained without answer, does raise indeed some questions. That is really hard to understand.
The journalists of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung also raise the issue of the changed and somewhat fearful atmosphere in Rome under the Francis papacy (as it has been recently discussed by Cardinal Gerhard Müller himself), to include the tense atmosphere during the “rigged” family synods. Cardinal Brandmüller himself also indirectly confirms such matters by saying: “Yes, such criticism is being increasingly expressed – even in Ross Douthat’s articles in the New York Times.” And the German prelate continues, saying:
There are journalists who say that the atmosphere has totally changed in the Vatican. One speaks only any more with his closest friends. If one speaks over the phone, one prefers to use the cell phone. What shall I say about that?
The German cardinal is also once more being asked to explain the major concerns of the dubia as put forth to the pope by him and the other three dubia cardinals. He explains that to pose such dubia in the case of a lack of clarity is a normal process within the Catholic Church. Cardinal Brandmüller then adds some specific words about the current dubia concerning Amoris Laetitia:
To put it simply, it is here about the question: Can today something be good which has been a sin yesterday? Additionally, the question is being presented as to whether there are truly – as the continuous teaching says – acts that are always and under all circumstances morally reprehensible? Such as in the case of the killing of an innocent person – or also adultery, for example? That is where it leads to. Should the first question now indeed be answered with “yes” and the second question with a “no”, then this would be a heresy and consequently a schism. The split of the Church. [emphasis added]
When asked whether a schism really is now thinkable or likely, the German cardinal replies: “May God forbid it.”
These piercing statements of Cardinal Brandmüller are coming to us in the wake of another German interview, in which the Protestant theologian and general secretary of the World Evangelical Alliance – Professor Thomas Schirrmacher – who is a friend of Pope Francis announced that the group of Catholics who resist the papal reforms “is not a minority.” As Schirrmacher said to the German newspaper Die Zeit‘s subsection Christ&Welt on 26 October about Pope Francis:
He has made himself immense enemies in the Vatican and he is taking a great risk. Loud voices in his Church are already denying that he is still pope. […] Today, there is open talk about what kind of means of resistance against the pope exist. For a Protestant, this does not sound very Catholic any more. The Vatican still pretends as if this is only a small minority which seeks this confrontation. But this [resistance] is not any more a minority. [emphasis added]
May the Good Lord Bless and Strengthen Cardinal Brandmüller. He speaks with clarity in accord with Word of the Lord and therefore he speaks with Charity in Truth.
As to the Lutheran Theologians remarks, would that it were so. Surely, it is a Majority of Catholics, but only a minority when it comes to those who go by the name Catholic and I fear that this distinction exists in a very real way amongst the Hierarchy of Church.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/humanae-vitae-is-an-extraordinary-example-of-doctrinal-development-cardinal
I just read Cdl. Brandmueller’s speech defending Humanae Vitae. The man is a true asset to the church. I forgot that many Protestant sects condemned contraception 80 years ago.
Yes, indeed the Anglicans followed their wretched immoral history with the most wretched Lambeth Conference in 1930 which began the contraceptive embrace by so called Christians.
The New York Times on the Lambeth Conference: “Lambeth has delivered a fatal blow to marriage, to motherhood, to fatherhood, to the family and to morality,”
The Washington Post: “Carried to its logical conclusion, the committee’s report, if carried into effect, would sound the death-knell of marriage as a holy institution by establishing degrading practices which would encourage indiscriminate immorality. The suggestion that the use of legalized contraceptives would be ‘careful and restrained’ is preposterous.”
Wow!
The Washington post & the ny times were proven right after all these years.
The Lambeth Conference occured on August 15th Feast of The Assumption 1930
Genesis 3:15
[15] I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.
Spiritual Warfare, Folk’s!
Yes, indeed. The Evil One exercising his execrable office via a false church that was founded on the adultery of a perverted murderous king. These assaults are against Our Blessed Lady for She is the Archetype of the Church which is the Body of Christ.
The Evil One cannot Strike God so he spends himself in his vehemence against Our Blessed and Holy Mother Mary who is the embodiment of the Church.
100 per cent! Thank you Fr. RP
RESPONSE TO ANGLICAN’S LAMBETH CONFERENCE OF 1930
THE LUTHERAN CHURCH:
Birth Control, as popularly understood today and involving the use of contraceptives, is one of the most repugnant of modern aberrations, representing a 20th century renewal of pagan bankruptcy.
Dr. Walter A. Maier, Concordia Lutheran Theological Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri.
THE METHODIST CHURCH:
The whole disgusting [birth control] movement rests on the assumption of man’s sameness with the brutes … Its [the Federal Council of Churches] deliverance on the matter of birth control has no authorization from any churches representing it, and what it has said I regard as most unfortunate, not to use any stronger words. It certainly does not represent the Methodist Church, and I doubt if it represents any other Protestant Church in what it has said on this subject.
Bishop Warren Chandler, Methodist Episcopal Church South, April 13, 1931.
THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH:
Its [Federal Council of Churches] recent pronouncement on birth control should be enough reason, if there were no other, to withdraw from support of that body, which declares that it speaks for the Presbyterian and other Protestant churches in ex cathedra pronouncements.
The Presbyterian, April 2, 1931.
And where do they all stand today? With the Anglicans of course for they are all descendants of disobedience.
The don’t stand. They slouch. Toward Gomorrah.
Don’t knock the anglicans do much. I was an Anglican and because there are so many similarities in our liturgies and faiths, it was not difficult for me to transition to Catholicism. And I am a traditional latin rite Catholic. My old episcopal church had a side altar to the holy virgin and some people even prayed the rosary. I do agree that Anglicanism was founded in sin however.
I am simply pointing to the truth of their Founding. And I have always thought that it was quite fitting that the Anglicans are the one’s who gave contraception to Christianity since the very founding of their Church is based upon the Acceptance of Divorce and Remarriage.
Ok. Well father I’m not going to argue with you. I’ve known some very fine anglicans and I myself was a devout Christian as an Anglican as I am now as a traditional catholic. I wanted to return to the true faith and tradition of 2,000 years which is why I converted because o hated the splintering of Protestantism. . I suppose, like when I hate when evangelicals tell us that our faith is a cult and idolatrous and all Catholics are going to hell I, don’t want to be that catholic who likes to focus on Certain Protestant denominations and damn them to hell either. You don’t seem to be targeting dr Martin luther, who gave king Henry the idea to start his own church to begin with. Protestantism was always as much a political movement as much as a religious one.
My intent is not to bash all Anglicans, it is rather pointing to a particular event that the Anglican Church brought about which I see as being spiritually tied to the beginnings of that particular ecclesial communion.
This chain of discourse began with the discussion of Contraception and Christianity, so the Anglican Church took center stage via the Lambeth conference of 1930.
As for Martin Luther, he is an abomination.
I disagree though. I think the decline of the Catholic Church is directly due to Vatican 2 and modernism, which had its roots in the 19th century. I doubt that the Lambeth conference of 1930 would have affected Christianity and surely not Catholicism, as much as Vatican 2 has done, With all respect, father. And some Anglican/episcopalian priests were real hard liners on issues of contraception and marrying outside the church, until Vatican 2 had been fully established. My priest was at least. The Vatican 2 council had a great affect on the Anglican communiion and I dare say other Protestant denominations as well.
I have found this website recently they would agree https://novusordowatch.org/start-here/
Thanks for this link. I’ve gotten so many great resources from all of you posters:). “Pseudo-Catholic religion” is a perfect term for what the Catholic Church is today, sadly.
EjB by all means read this website, I am not sedevacantist but what they write seems to explain alot of the reason for the corruption we now face from our so called Bishops. Of course God may wish this situation upon his church , his ways are not our ways. But we are called to search for the Truth, and I ask myself at the moment if Vatican 2 has not simply been an attempt to destroy the church with the “New Order” Mass is it valid? Or is what the Sedevacantists on this website are saying is true?
I’m not a sedecaventist either and being a fairly recent convert to a traditional parish and now being forced to attend NO churches because I had to move, I’m seeing the situation from a New and treacherous angle. The level of corruption in the Vatican runs deep. I pray that God will save holy mother church.
Yes.
We drive 1 1/2 hours to our Traditionalist parish, passing by 2 Catholic parish churches on the way.
it is worth it tho in bad weather we sometimes pop in to the local parish.
Keep the faith and get a copy of Denzinger to go along with your Bible. If you don’t have that I think you will love it.
I never heard of him. I’ll definiteky check him out though now that I’ve googled him. Thanks! God bless you
It’s an “it”. Denzinger himself has been dead a few centuries now. But the book I guarantee you will not want to put down. No Protestant group can trace their faith as can we.
I was talking about the book. I know denzinger was a man. I’ll oick it up soon:)
I have to agree in part with what you say, though I think you will have a hard time drawing a link between V2 and the new morality for the Protestants.
I see it differently.
While i agree about your first statement “I disagree though. I think the decline of the Catholic Church is directly due to Vatican 2 and modernism, which had its roots in the 19th century”, I disagree about Lambeth.
Lambeth needs to be seen in the context of the entire flow of history from HVIII to that fateful day in 1930. And all other Protestant sects similarly. Once the break with the Church occurred, they were on a straight and narrow path with no detours to moral collapse. It wasn’t V2 that “caused” this, tho V2 certainly didn’t help. In a sense, it was V2 that “caught the cold” of Protestantism and spread the disease throughout the Body of Christ.
I am saying that I don’t think lambeth weakened Catholicism. Whether it weakens Protestantism is a different argument. The catholic hierarchy weakened holy mother church all by themselves with the second Vatican council. And while you may not think V2 affected Protestantism I have to respectfully disagree with you, having been Anglican and Protestant most of my life prior to my conversion. The watering down of the Anglican mass, the ordination of women/ homosexuals and marriage of homosexuals all followed the v2 changes taking place in our church at the time. All the modernist changes began around 1965 and were pretty much in place by the early 70s. . And while you say that Protestantism was on a path to moral collapse, then why is it that the Catholic Church is on that path now? Protestantism wouldn’t have affected us had it not been for Vatican 2. I’m no scholar but I’ve worshipped in both denominations and I can read.
OK, we might be saying something similar, here.
I think Lambeth did weaken Catholicism but only indirectly. Not as a doctrinal statement, but as a culture that infested first the Protestants which then became the “grass greener” that most Catholics wanted to graze.
To cobble St Paul, “I was a Protestant of the Protestants”. My background is this; Great-grandfathers both, father, grandfather, grandmother all ministers in the Methodist {Methodist Episcopal-then-United Methodist} and Free Methodist sects and other grandfather held a preaching license in the Methodist Church, uncle Baptist minister, other uncle Methodist minister, brother Episcopal priest. On my wife’s side Baptists to the bone. I myself hold a Masters Degree in Theology from a Wesleyan Seminary. I have been a member in service of the United Methodist Church, Youth for Christ {missionary to South Africa where I attended Anglican services}, was an elder in the Christian Reformed Church {Dutch Reformed} and attended evangelical groups, a Nazarene sect and before converting was a Lutheran. Some of this was due to moving around and having no access to previous religious associations but in each I studied the doctrines of their faiths and the Bible and came to the conclusion the Bible was adequately represented in NONE of them. {Tho typically Catholics know little about the book that points directly to their faith!!!}
Thus I am a Catholic. The Bible {and history and the Fathers} pointed me in this direction, and the doctrines of the Catholic faith have solidified that belief.
You ask a good question: “Protestantism was on a path to moral collapse, then why is it that the Catholic Church is on that path now? Protestantism wouldn’t have affected us had it not been for Vatican 2. I’m no scholar but I’ve worshipped in both denominations and I can read.”
The Catholic Church hierarchy is following the Protestants and Catholics are chomping at the bit to follow them, too. You could reverse the subjects and come to the same conclusion. Catholics first jumped ship on Catholic doctrine and then the prelates followed. Ex-Pope Ratzinger gives a similar interpretation in his fascinating and horrifying 1958 lecture you can find online where he says most “Catholics” are pagans. To repeat what I said above: “The CC has been chasing Protestants for 50 years and then some, “jealous” it appears to me of their “freedom in Christ”, a euphemism for sinful living.”
I don’t mean to say that Catholics have not been influenced by Protestantism. I am saying that Protestants have not been influenced much at all by Catholicism. I would agree 100% if you say that the path taken by the Catholic Church has ENCOURAGED Protestants, tho. I have seen that exactly, in statements especially in the ’70’s like “See!! The Catholics are coming around!! They are changing their views!” And my own Lutheran pastor, when I informed him we were converting to the Catholic faith told me “the Catholics since Vatican 3 have changed their teaching. They’ve finally admitted that the Lutheran doctrines are correct”. I would also say that by now many Anglicans who MIGHT have converted would see it a worthless enterprise as they watch the CC shift into high gear on the path to Anglicanism.
I have a feeling you and I might be saying the same thing?
In the end, it’s like this for me:
There is One god and his son Jesus Christ is our Savior. there is One holy spirit that flows from the Father and the Son. The Triune God. From that One God men have received One Church. That Church possesses the exclusively full teaching and the call to practice that brings salvation.
ALL other groups teach doctrine that is polluted by apostasy or heresy. The individual members may be members due to personal affirmation of heresy, falling into apostasy or having grown up in ignorance of the One True Faith.
and right now, the leadership of the Catholic Church is driving the Church to follow the same path of heresy and or apostasy that the non-Catholic groups have been wallowing in for years.
And MANY Catholics are just fine with this, because they have been living as Protestants and hate the One True Faith as much as many of our leaders do.
The Catholics in my traditional parish know their bibles so I don’t agree with that statemwnt. If you read the history of the roots of modernism though, it goes back to the 19th century, and many catholic theologians and priests were very interested in the humanistic modernist movement. That was long before lambeth. .
The knowledge of the Bible in the Catholic Church is a known weakness and no priest or bishop i have ever heard deny it. Like you say, there are pockets, and not only in the Traditionalist communities.
The fact is that Protestants for all their supposed valuing of the Bible, rarely know more than some oft-repeated passages and rarely do they know much beyond that. It just so happens that their passages are ones they select to defend their faith and most of the time Catholics are ill-prepared to do that from the Bible.
If a Catholic knows the Mass, either Gregorian or NO, he knows quite a bit of Scripture tho most often he doesn’t realize it.
Your Bible-knowing Catholics are rare birds.
Ask a Protestant how many times he’s read the entire Bible straight through and you’ll find only rare birds there, too…
I know my Bible because I was a Protestant most of my life but I met many Catholics in my parish who gave me a run for my money with bible knowledge. And my traditionalist priest gave me a bible when I met with him to talk about joining too. As you said though the entire latin mass is scriptural.
Our senior pastor is the single most knowledgeable person in Scripture I’ve ever met. I’ve met lots of folks that are pretty handy with the New Testament, but this fellow draws from the whole Bible, and I mean the WHOLE Bible, not just the abbreviated and truncated Protestant version! LOL.
I think us Novus Ordo Catholics need to be trembling about our own salvation..I have just discovered the Ted Sedevacantism and to me it seems to have a lot of very important points https://novusordowatch.org/start-here/
Sedevacantists twist the words of Holy Scripture, the Saints, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church to suit their own agenda.
Remember, the Enemy was trying to use Scripture to tempt Our Lord (c.f. Matthew 4).
Don’t fall for it!
Margaret, I am looking very carefully through their website and being a Novus Ordo Catholic myself, I am quite disgusted to see how the priests Bishops and Popes I should trust are blatantly twisting the Truth. I find this website informative and I am still reading, remember we have to seek our salvation with fear and trembling, can you give me specific facts where the website I posted twists the Truth, I am sincerely interested to know.
And “Pope” Francis is he not Twisting and even contradicting Gods word?
Please don’t just say they twist the Truth, perhaps give examples from the website
“As for Martin Luther, he is an abomination.”
If only we had that kind of clarity and truth from the Holy See.
Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation. Which includes ALL protestant beliefs. They may be fine people but they cannot obtain the beatific vision outside the One true faith. And You cannot damn anyone to hell as you are not God. It is our duty and responsibility out of love for our Lord to tell people this information. The majority will not listen and will attack the messenger but it is still our duty in love. The Catholic Church is the only Christian Church. Full stop.
No you aren’t god either, so I’m not going to tell other people there is no salvation outside the church. My catechism taught that the church is the barque of St. Peter and the others, lij protestants and orthodox are holding on to the sides of the barque and are brought along with Her. . So I trust in the words of the Baltimore catechism and my priest.
Indeed, the Anglican Church cannot escape the historical fact that it was established on the “bedrock” foundation of 1} adultery 2} murder 3} robbery 3} persecution of the saints.
Since then it has formed an almost mirror image of the Catholic faith, an anti-Church which due to the worldwide coverage of the British Empire, a form of universal or “catholic” religion. With many leading Anglicans being Freemasons to-boot.
And now?
Now it seems that this Bergoglio lusts after Anglicanism, its Big Tent “welcoming”, its tolerance of everything, its flexibility of liturgy, its regional diversity.
That there are those who try to follow Christ left in the Anglican Communion I have no doubt, but they live their lives in spite of the Anglican Church, not because of it.
And now we look oh so very much like the Anglican Church.
Is it not JUST unbelievable…what a STORM brewing ever closer!
Astounding Father, that those two latter-day liberal icon rags once apprehended reality. What happened!?
Once upon a time liberalism was not irrational and it was the basis for a truly free society. It advocated the freedom of people to choose the right and oppose the wrong and preferred the right and opposed the wrong. When communism took over the academy it reversed itself while maintaining it’s surface thesis. Internally, however, it demanded absolute subjection to the individual subject who must subsist under a State that inverts the moral order to secure the subjects material desires which required the subjection of the universal objective moral order. Modern liberalism is not liberal, it is a tyranny.
Modern liberalism is, in fact, fascist.
Liberalism is a lie and always has been…it’s a case of “ you can think whatever you want as long as it’s what we tell you” are you a modernist?
Logically you may well be right that lots of (other) evil things follow on from the promotion of contraception.
However if you are arguing, as you seem to be, that it is wrong to work with people of other faiths and none who hold a different view of contraception to prevent the wholesale murder of living babies then you are part of the reason why it is so difficult to get people to see that babies are being murdered.
Are you suggesting that Kellyanne Conway is wrong to work with President Trump to restrict abortion?
If I have misunderstood your comments then I apologise. But that is very much the impression that it gives.
I am saying that every Catholic or anyone who knows the Truth of Contraception is responsible for instructing those in the prolife movement about the Truth of Contraception. If they don’t they are fighting a lost cause as the Contraceptive mentality is the ultimate cause of the legalization of abortion in the Nation.
Furthermore the erstwhile Anti-Abortion crowd that is pro contraception needs to be told that they are not Pro-Life, as many of them think that they are.
What you appear to me to be saying then, is that there is no point in campaigning against abortion, unless you are also hoping to outlaw contraception.
So that someone who wants to outlaw the killing of unborn babies should be treated as a second rate objector unless they also demand an end to contraception.
Someone who wants to stop babies being torn apart, or burned in salt solution should be sat down and told that they aren’t really pro-life unless they object to contraception.
Have I misunderstood ? How many babies who might be saved should be allowed to die because those who offer help, those who offer information on the humanity of the baby, those who campaign against abortion decide that they are better off trying to get contraception outlawed, or are turned away from what they are doing because they are told that they are second rate campaigners?
Are you suggesting that Kellyanne Conway is wrong to work with President Trump to restrict abortion?
The truth is the truth regarding contraception and “abortion” as Fr.RP outlined.
The logic applied by Fr.RP is simple enough to understand otherwise you are not
getting to THE root.
Many refuse to grasp the root SIN with regard to sexual purity the attack on which
is the greatest violence against GOD’S PLAN.
A woman in Birmingham, England was considering an abortion. She was out shopping one day and saw the March for Life and the way that we behaved and saw the way that the protesters behaved and decided that we must have a point. She changed her mind about having the abortion and the following year she brought her baby to the March.
Clearly there is a significant link between the “contraception culture” and abortion. But what causes the “contraception culture”? I think somewhere someone mentioned the desire for your own boat. Or whatever.
So, how are you going to stop the “contraception culture”?
By all means, try. If you and Fr RP and others think that it may one day happen, then work on it. I would absolutely welcome it and wouldn’t dream of telling you that you are wrong.
But to criticise those who try to stop babies being murdered as, at best time wasters and at worst, causing problems is appalling.
Whilst it’s often difficult to get the point over that abortion is killing a baby, at least that means something to most people and there is often a way in.
Are you suggesting that Kellyanne Conway is wrong to work with President Trump to restrict abortion?
We must get to the point where we see the practice of artificial contraception AND abortion as one thing. They are inextricably tied together. They cannot be separated.
So for sure we can work with individual who may not hold all our views, but we must educate boldly those who do not see the whole picture as it is.
Frankly, what I personally find tragic and shocking is that in our area there are no Catholic crisis pregnancy centers at all. But there are Protestant run centers. In fact, one of the things a very good friend of mine just can’t get over, an obstacle of immense proportions to him in converting, is his long activity in pro-life work where he found almost ZERO involvement of Catholics. I have seen some Catholic support for these centers but I have also marveled in something approaching horror that for all the talk in Catholic circles at what might be called the high level, there are very few Catholics involved at the street level. In OUR experience.
It could be that they don’t get involved because the centers are Protestant {chicken and the egg?} but I have wondered why with the teaching of the Catholic Church being what it is, there are so few Catholics involved. We would love to be a part of a Catholic crisis pregnancy center…there just isn’t one.
I think I have commented enough on the first bit and clearly you have read it and I am not going to add to it.
But yes. Second bit, you are absolutely correct. I don’t live there but am connected. In Northern Ireland it is the Protestant Parties with some Catholic assistance and votes who are keeping out both abortion and “gay marriage”. By some Catholic assistance, I mean individual Catholics, not the traditional “Catholic” parties who range from rabidly pro-both to perhaps neutral on the matters and still receive the vast majority of “Catholic” votes. The abuse that the (Protestant) DUP take, particularly from the BBC is appalling, but they refuse to budge.
In my pro-life branch (or perhaps anti-abortion branch if some people here prefer that term) there are 6 of us. Whilst 5 are in fact Catholic, two of those are first generation Catholics in that parents converted.
So in an area of over 100,000 people there are THREE people with family Catholic tradition who are prepared to fight for the unborn, none below 50 years old. But then when you have a Bishop who writes letters about the evils in society and fails to even mention abortion on his list of about 10, it’s perhaps not difficult to see why.
Very interesting.
I am aware of the general history of NI and the various factions there but have read the history from a political angle, not doctrinal, per se.
I wonder what the take on contraception is in Northern Ireland? I am assuming it is accepted but don’t know. If so, the “seed” {pun intended} of destruction of pro-life/anti-abortion staunchness has been planted even if it doesn’t bear fruit at this time.
I assume also that no-fault divorce of some ilk exists there?
I am still as a 4 1/2 year convert trying to get my head wrapped around “Catholics and the Catholic Church”. It is a totally confusing picture to me and my entire adult family that converted after we did.
As for “Catholics and the Catholic Church”, I have never seen, read of or even imagined could be a group of people ostensibly attached to some organization that are more dead to the organization’s goals and mission and indeed, are more hell-bent on destroying those goals and missions.
But then just WHAT ARE the goals and mission of the CC? The leaders themselves seem to run as fast as they can away from them, as if their primary goal is to see the whole edifice collapse so they can live the lives they really want to live.
I do not know what to make of it.
I hadn’t realised that you had replied so fast and added something to the bottom of this last comment.
I rather suspect that you would come to the same conclusion that I have about what the Catholic students are doing.
I fully understand your point about the “contraception mentality” I really do.
But your opinion of “Catholics” is the same as mine. I work alone generally but in an office complex. A Catholic lady in another office and her son both want him to go to a school where Christian faith is important. She has made a decision to send him to a Church of England school where you are required to get “religious points” to get in rather than the local Catholic school. Every day of my life I regret sending my sons to Catholic School so that they could be taught to be good Catholics!!! My wife’s Catholic colleague sent her two daughters to the same CofE school as this lady from my office and her daughters are very committed to the Catholic Church and have attended meetings that normally would be left to adults. Whereas my niece “feminazi”, as her brother calls her left the same school as my sons with great exam results thinking that helping out at pensioners club makes someone a good Catholic. What did I see when I last went into our “Catholic ” school but a Board showing children’s diversity drawings one of which included a rainbow coloured flag and the words “Love is Love”.
But then this man, link below was put in charge of Catholic Education. By a committee led by a Bishop. Who then got promoted to Archbishop. Incidentally I have complained in the past to a Catholic organisation. I am not a member but occasionally read their magazine. This Archbishop appeared three times in one magazine because he said a couple of Masses for them. I am not going to tell you who it was. But despite your understanding of what Catholics are like, I think you might be shocked.
http://spuc-director.blogspot.co.uk/2010/04/catholic-education-service-appoints.html?m=1
Last I heard of this particular man was
http://protectthepope.com/?p=10249
Abortion is the deliberate destruction of a human life. A child “known to God”. Yes. It probably will come in to Northern Ireland but it will be thanks to the “Catholics” who were all taught at school that contraception is wrong.
it is often the abortionists who talk about not liking abortion but because of the way society is that we have to have it. It’s a way of putting off for ever having to do anything about it.
By all means, look at the “contraception culture” as it clearly is closely connected with abortion.
I am a member of a small Catholic organisation that that is trying to move Society in the direction that children will be wanted by all. But in the meantime all of us are active campaigning to stop abortion, and even if we only succeed in stopping one then that’s a success.
Getting to the root of the “contraception problem” involves hundreds of years work. At least. And of course it’s worthwhile. And maybe other people who don’t see the link will come to do so as we work together on abortion.
But telling them that they aren’t “pro-lifers” just “erstwhile anti-abortionists” isn’t going to endear them to us. Because if they disappear then we only have the Catholics to work with.
Many interesting points.
I don’t know what happened to the Church in its entirety. I don’t think anybody truly knows.
Let us pray for Her!!
At our “Catholic” school there is no need to believe anything that you learn in RE. That’s what the RE teachers tell them. As long as you can write your reasons for believing/ disbelief in good literate English then that’s fine.
But actually, although that’s what the RE teachers say it’s not quite true.
There is one thing that they absolutely insist that the children believe.
That female footballers (soccer to you) are as good as males and deserve to be paid the same.
And this is not just one of my younger son’s RE teachers who has an obsession with women’s football, but the one he had last year AND the new one he has this year.
I think that LOTS of prayers are needed.
They are; for the mission of Christ to be restored and for the self-demolition. the Godless self-destruction to end.
I find myself so longing for clarity and a sense of common mission that I think schism would be a blessing. Since, of course, schism already exists, just not officially. But since we aren’t going anywhere, the heretics have to leave or be forced out, and when the heretics are in charge, it doesn’t seem possible. So I find myself asking “Is this just what the CC has become and IS?”
I was for very many years a member of the Conservative Party. I worked hard at election time and did the odd committee job too. For much of the time I was the youngest regular member. Others would come and go but I stayed.
Eventually I got talked in to becoming a Councillor. But it was while I was a Councillor that David Cameron became leader. And within the same month, my friend, the leader of the Conservative Group on the Council, a committed Christian, both within the Church of England and now in the Catholic Church, was deposed and replaced by, well, I perhaps shouldn’t refer to him the way I would like to, but someone who didn’t inspire me to want to be part of his team.
I knew that I couldn’t remain in the Party. I left the Council at the first opportunity and waited for Cameron to give me my excuse to leave the Party. I didn’t have to wait long. Sure enough within a short period of time he announced that as leader he was going to vote to force all Child Adoption Agencies to place children with Gay Couples. I doubt that they (the Catholic ones anyway) would do it now, but at the time the intention was known that if it was forced on them Catholic and (I think) Evangelical Agencies would close. Cameron knew this but to him it was all important that gays should be allowed to adopt
So I left.
I am getting to your point. Honest. It’s a bit long winded but I hope it makes sense.
I first want to withdraw a word that I used. I said “when David Cameron became leader”. It’s the word “became”.
He didn’t win a lottery. He wasn’t necessarily the fastest runner. He didn’t just become.
He was elected.
He was elected by the members of the Conservative Party who shouldn’t have touched him with a barge pole. The Party had ceased to be conservative and had elected this progressive fascist as leader.
I have often wondered whether I would Re-join in the future. Sure if a committed Catholic/ Evangelical became leader I would consider it. But what about a normal conservative. Would I rejoin? Probably not. The party had elected him as leader and what was done could never be undone even if it later returned to normal.
The Conservative Party elected him as leader. It was in such an awful state that it elected someone to make it 100 times more awful. And due to the interference of the Press for whom the alternative candidate was too Christian, only the MPs, many of whom had been selected under Cameron’s shadow, got to select the new leader. And she is a credit to him! She is everything that he was. Indeed she is now forcing schools to tell children that they can be whatever gender they want. She could even decide to become male like him too.
Jorge Bergoglio became leader of the Catholic Church.
Except of course, he was elected leader of the Catholic Church.
Unlike Cameron I had never heard of Bergoglio and I don’t think that I will ever (in this life anyway) understand the immediate dislike that I felt towards him even before he opened his mouth to speak.
He was elected by the Cardinals of the Catholic Church who shouldn’t have touched him with a barge pole. The Church had ceased to be Catholic and had elected this progressive fascist as leader.
Clearly leaving the Church is not the same as leaving the Conservative Party and that’s not what I am talking about.
But just like the Conservative Party the Church was in such an awful state when it elected Bergoglio that it elected someone to make it 100 times more awful. And he is picking the electorate for his replacement.
So. This is a very very long winded way of giving you just my opinion in answering the question that you posed at the end.
This is just what the Catholic Church has become and IS.
“This is just what the Catholic Church has become and IS….”
I hold on to the notion “…UNTIL…”
But I don’t know what follows “until” and admit I don’t see it happening. I mean, I don’t see it happening NOW or in the very near future.
You mentioned your sense of Bergoglio when you first saw him. I’ve told me experience on this site once or twice in the past. I was in RCIA, having struggled through every obstacle I felt was in my way on the path to conversion when the name “Jorge Bergoglio” was announced as the new Pope. Immediately I felt what I can only describe as a dark blanket fall over me. Over my heart. I sank. Probably visibly.
I sensed a dire, horrific spiritual darkness.
It wasn’t his name or place of origin. Indeed, our wonderful Priest at the time, the one who led our RCIA and led me to the Church was himself a Latin, a Mexican. I knew nothing about Bergoglio.
But I had the thought come across my mind that maybe I should just get up and leave and never come back. But what I had been taught jumped out at me. What I had READ jumped out at me; Scripture, dogma of the faith. Something kept me in that seat. I believe it was TRUTH. The Truth of God in spite of the name of the man that had just darkened my heart.
I stayed.
I do not have the answer to why that thing happened, but I HAVE read of others like yourself who senses something ominous at the same time.
And now here we are.
You nailed it. Absolutely.
Certain forms of birth control, such as the hormonal Pill, and IUDs (intra uterine devices), can and do cause the ” killing of an innocent person”. These methods do not always prevent conception, but can allow an egg to be fertilized by sperm, beginning a conceived human life. But this innocent life is prevented from being able to implant in the uterine walls, resulting in abortion. Many women using these forms of birth control, are unaware of the numbers of conceived children that have died in their wombs.
That’s not really relevant to the discussion.
Fr RP is not talking about abortifacients. He is talking about any kind of contraception including it would appear above, natural family planning.
Hi, James, thank you for the clarification. Actually, I wasn’t referring strictly to abortificacients..I meant to say that some commonly used birth control methods that are marketed as contraceptives, can at times act like an abortificacient, which many users may not know.
I understand that and certainly the organisation that I am a member of promotes that fact. When I said abortifacients I was including everything that acts as such.
Excellent!
And many do NOT know.
Yes, RodH, very true!
Other faiths, as in Christian faiths, I hope. I don’t want to work with the muslims on anything.
In my council area (in the UK) and those on either side, 15% of the local councillors are Muslims.
Where my colleague lives, just 100 miles away, 31% of the councillors are Muslim.
I don’t normally link to The Guardian, but this is a good article explaining the powers of the Mayor of London, and how in many ways he has more power than the Prime Minister.. Since the time this was written, a Muslim has become Mayor of London.
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/may/12/boris-johnson-more-powerful-david-cameron-london
I don’t know where you live. Perhaps you live somewhere where you only get to see Muslims on TV. Perhaps your area is mainly Christian with just a few atheists.
I absolutely do not want there to be any increase in the numbers of Muslims in the UK. And I certainly won’t be approaching the local Mosques and offering to work with their campaigns. But if individual Muslims already living here approach me and offer to help with our campaigns saving babies from being ripped apart (it’s not only some Muslims who do that, it’s the leadership of the British Doctors and Nurses too who want to remove all remaining restrictions on abortions) then I am not going to turn them away.
After all, I can’t rely on the Catholics https://www.spuc.org.uk/news/press-releases/2017/april/spuc-condemns-sdlp-for-attack-on-free-speech-and-unborn-babies (SDLP are supposed to be a Catholic Party)
Wow. First of all Sadiq Kahn is Lord mayor of London, not Boris Johnson. Secondly, , I am American and I’ve lived in cities on both coasts. I am no provincial. I can assure you Muslims are much more up close and personal here than my “ just seeing them on TV. “ they are everywhere In my country. They just haven’t conquered us. Thirdly, your quip about “not being able to rely on the Catholics” is an insult, since I AM catholic and pro life. you appear to be a typical liberal snowflake Brit who doesn’t see that you have been invaded by Islam and are about ready to be conquered. You have been post-Christian since ww2 and you folks have contracepted yourselves out of existence. . So I hope you like sharia law because your country is done for. Good show, old chap!
If you would like to read what I wrote again perhaps you could reconsider some of that nonsense.
(1). My point was exactly that a Muslim is now Mayor of London. I said “since this was written a Muslim has become Mayor of a London”. The reason for the article was to show you the power that the Mayor of London has. And therefore the power that a Muslim has already.
2. The SDLP is a “Catholic” Party in Northern Ireland. They are in fact far more Catholic than the other “Catholic” Party. NI is possibly the only place in Western Europe where abortion is illegal and it is thanks to the Protestant Parties (with a number of Catholic votes) that it is so. How would someone who says that we shouldn’t work with people who don’t oppose Contraception cope with the idea of Catholics voting for Protestant Parties?
3. OK so that’s me and you then who are Catholic and oppose abortion. That’s going to get us a long way isn’t it. I am absolutely not a “snowflake”. Before your election I posted a number of times on Catholic websites encouraging people to vote for Trump. But I am a realist and if there are lots of Muslims around and some of them individually want to help me to stop abortion then only an idiot would reject their help.
4. A majority of people in your country voted for a President who would have been far worse than pretty much any European leader. Fortunately the electoral college system meant that she lost. Don’t imagine that the USA is safe and certainly don’t imagine that it’s sensible. She’s even been over here recently. Do us a favour and keep her over there will you.
And do you really think that the last President that you lot elected wouldn’t have let them all in if they hadn’t turned up on the doorstep like they have in Europe. Fortunately for you there is a big sea in the middle. He came over here too and threatened us not to vote for Brexit. Fortunately we ignored him but some didn’t and it’s giving those opposed more room to scream that they were right.
5. I was debating with Fr RP. He seems to believe that Catholics shouldn’t work with those who don’t oppose contraception. You will see that I have asked him twice whether he opposes Kellyanne Conway’s work with the President. Why do you think I did that?
Do you think that the Vatican and pro-life organisations at the UN should refuse to cooperate with Muslim countries over abortion? If they hadn’t done so then who knows what kind of pro-abortion laws would have been forced on all countries.
I didn’t vote for Hillary, snowflake. I voted for trump. And comparing protestants working with Catholics to Christians working with Muslims is idiotic. Catholics ARE Christian, got it? And you can just keep on doing what you’ve been doing and kiss the muslims rear ends. I’m never going to visit England now unless you people grow some testicles. I’m ashamed that half my family comes from your puny little island.
i trust I am not supposed to be disappointed that you are not going to visit.
Clearly if half of your family came from here, then it is obvious that we have problems. Though fewer problems since they left.
Where did I say that you did vote for Clinton?
Oh and by the way, Sadiq Khan is Mayor of London. Someone else is Lord Mayor.
And at the request of Breitbart I wrote to Kellogg’s to tell them I objected to their pulling their advertising.
You see. I am not a “snowflake”. But I am just more intelligent than most who use that term.
A lot of Breitbart is very good. Until you go below the line where there are a number of people who can’t really think for themselves.
Try reading Gatestone Institute. Very much opposed to the Muslim takeover of Europe but from a more intelligent perspective.
First of all I don’t know the difference between a “lord mayor “ and a plain old mayor, and frankly I don’t care because. You see, we don’t gave “Lord anything” here in America., Thank god because we kicked your keesters out of our colonies 250 years ago. And I think perfectly well for myself thank you very much It is Great Britain that has allowed a Muslim invasion into its country as well as Western Europe. We didn’t do it. In America you don’t see Muslims with their “grooming” gangs running around taking your young English girls and gang raping them. And in America we are still armed so if they do some of the things they have been doing in your country. They will be sorry for it. Finally you can take your snobby European elitism and shove it someplace. Europe is finished unless you people man up and do something to protect yourselves. Don’t do what you did prior to ww2 and play nice with the nazis until they kicked your azzes and then you had to call us to clean up your mess for you. Buh bye, old chap.
I like Gatestone. Get it every day. Good stuff.
Very good stuff, Fr RP.
But…”Yes, indeed the Anglicans followed their wretched immoral history (a church founded on adultery) with the most wretched Lambeth Conference in 1930 which began the contraceptive embrace by so called Christians.”
We, too, possess a “wretched immoral history” if DISCIPLINE {condemnations, excommunications, interdicts, etc} do not again become part of the working polity of the Church.
Truly, this is the log in the eye of the Church and we need to extract it NOW.
Yes, and she works with those who do not hold to contraception. Furthermore, she could even work with those who did but not if she refused to tell them the truth about contraception.
Most of the practicing Catholics I know do not have large families. They may be practicing NFP, but that is still a form of contraception. Almost all of them have small families. . So you might want to target our own people and not protestants in this issue.
I was not speaking about individual situations, but rather about Church teaching. As in working with other protestant churches who officially reach that Contraception is fine.
Yes, many Catholics need to be called on the carpet about their lack of procreation in favor of an easier lifestyle with boats and toys etc…
Got it. Thanks.
I suspect most of them simply practice good old fashioned pill/condom/diaphragm contraception.
Look at the Catholic parishes in the USA.
They are made up of old people and the young ones with kids in the “2.2” range just like Protestants. Catholics simply gave up on holding to any fixed moral code years ago if the polls and demographics mean anything.
The traditional parish I was in when I converted was thriving and had many young families, college kids and pretty much every age group. The NO parish that shared the church building was aging and dwindling however.
Yes, I am referring to the NO, My FSSP parish is thriving and full of families. I’m sure there are some thriving NO parishes as well, but overall, the picture is not particularly good.
There are three NO parishes in the city I live in now. They are all aging. Two parishes haven’t exactly combined, but they share a priest. So things aren’t too good. This should wake the Vatican up but their solution is to overrun all of Christendom with third world immigrants to fill up the pews.
The Vatican is as far a I can tell, in favor of the collapse. That is, my read is they want an entirely new and vapid “religion” that opens its doors to all {so far so good} but then presents a an “anti-Gospel” of anti-conversion, meaning, a religion with no particular message but “acceptance”.
Yes, I can see the day when ALL people are communed; Muslim, agnostic, atheist, Methodist, whatever, because, as we are told “Jesus always accepts, never rejects” and anyone who presents a message of conversion to the One Lord Jesus with all that that means, will be driven from this new religion. Let’s face it, we are already well along this path.
DE FACTO, pretty much all of the above are already communed so the foundation in practice is laid well. It is the mopping up f doctrine only that needs to be done.
And now we have Müller hopping on-board with the phony message as well.
If that ever happens I’m probably going to go worship with the orthodox then. My father was ukrainian Catholic and their eastern rite liturgy is very much like the orthodox so I woukd have no problem adjusting. I just pray that the traditionals within the church can somehow save her. God willing.
The Orthodox are no better, and worse in some regards.
Look, this is it. I don’t know if this is the “End times” a la evangelical interpretations of the Apocalypse, but certainly it is a time like none other. We are awash in “Christianity” that is fragmented, disunified and in chaos.
We HAVE the truth. YOU have it if you are a Catholic. But it is under attack.
You can run, but this is boot hill for me. i’m not running. I and mine are standing here and waiting for the consolation of Israel. and if there is going to be an outward fight we want to be part of it.
The truth is Catholicism but Vatican 2 Catholicism isn’t true Catholicism. And the orthodox did come out of the same church . They arent as crazy as the protestants are.
Read the history of the Orthodox and I think you might take that last statement back. Different issues, but…
LOL.
Hey, don’t lecture me on the orthodox. I’m half ukrainian and I know what the Russian Orthodox Church did to the ukrainian Greek Catholics.
Oh, good, as I didn’t want to get into that or the rest of it.
You know the deal, then.
Yes sir. The Ukrainians in the western part of the country suffered terribly for their union with Rome. Thankfully my family got out of there prior to the 1917 Russian revolution and ww1, and made a life in America so we were spared.
We need to drink some good bourbon and talk about this.
Yes, we do.
It is interesting. The center councils against contraceptive use for pragmatic reasons; because the practice leads to all sorts of immorality. They have witnessed the truth of Humane Vitae and give testimony of its veracity, even if they don’t know of its existence.
Contraception is EXPLICITLY forbidden by Scripture. There’s no way around this. The Catholic Church does not, never has, and can never accept it.
Romulus . Nearly every living Catholic thinks contraception is jake and nearly all of them go to communion distributed by priests who never teach this truth from the pulpit.
There are, roughly, nine actual catholics alive in the world.
Is the Pope Catholic?
Is the Pope Emeritus Catholic?
Is your Bishop Catholic?
“There are, roughly, nine actual catholics alive in the world.”
That is really funny. Tragic, sad, awful, and hilarious.
Can it be all those things?
I guess.
Most tragic is that I do not know the answers to your 3 questions….
Wow do we have problems.
I have doubts about myself too, but at least I want to be Catholic.
Good choice.
Well, somebody has to keep St Patrick’s on the straight and narrow way of Tradition
Fr.RP what would you say about this website it claims Humane Vitae was not Catholic enough but a clever trick http://www.whoistheantichrist.org/index.html
The Lambeth Conference is a decennial assembly of bishops of the Anglican Communion convened by the Archbishop of Canterbury. The first such conference took place in 1867.
Contraception rejected in 1920 at conference, accepted 10 year’s later at conference 1930:
Resolution 15 allowed “in those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles.” The vote for this Resolution was 193 for it, 67 against it, and 47 not voting. This was the only Resolution for which a record of the numbers voting was required.
The London Times of June 30, 1930, predicted that the Lambeth Conference would change the “social and moral life” of humanity. This was done by the Conference’s Resolution 15 in which in contradiction to earlier Resolutions (1908 Resolution 41 and 1920 Resolution 66) allowed the use of contraception in marriage.
William Carey, Bishop of Bloemfontein, withdrew from the Conference in protest and even sent a petition to the King on the subject.
Protestants don’t have true bishops because the Apostolic Succession was broken with the death of St. John Fisher. I’d put “Bishop” and “bishops” in quotation marks. Otherwise, interesting post.
Sadly, TS Eliot applauded the decision of 1930.
What do you expect, Eliot is an ex Unitarian and a convert to Anglicanism. As in, a heretic who switched to another heresy.
Well, yes. But his theory of poetry had a fair amount of “romanitas” in it, and he thought the idea of a purely secular society a deadly fiction.
I don’t understand why you put “King” in quotation marks. Otherwise a fine and valuable post.
Thank you.
With regard to quotation marks that’s a personal qualification, I am an Irish Catholic,
a humble request…”don’t open the can”……!
Oh. My sympathy. We firmly believed we were orange Protestants, until my sister did some research.
Humanae Vitae was frowned upon by Cardinals when it was produced because it denied true Catholic teaching…read this website for more information : http://www.whoistheantichrist.org/index.html
So Francis is a heretic, excommunicated, and still the true Pope of a Church of which he is no longer a member?
“…he who claims that one may enter a new relationship while one’s own lawful wife
is still alive is excommunicated because this is an erroneous teaching, a heresy.”
Well, technically speaking he has refused to answer the dubia, so he cannot be claimed to be a manifest obdurate heretic via AL. A material heretic yes, but not a formal one. Though, his refusal to answer the dubia itself can give rise to the logical conclusion that he is allowing heresy to spread via negligence of his office which itself is of itself condemnable as being complacent to the spread of heresy.
Fr. could you expand on the distinction between formal and material heretic and the status of each as regards excommunication?
Any one of us can be a material heretic : one only needs to hold a view contrary to dogmatic thruth, be it out of ignorance.
The material heretic becomes a formal one when, confronted by Church authority about his error, decides to stand by it.
The formal heretic hereby willfully confirms his divorce from Church dogma, is officially declared a heretic and excommunicated as a consequence.
The whole issue about declaring a pope formally heretic and excommunicating him, is that the only authority high enough to judge the pope is either another, subsequent pope or God himself.
Thank you. So avoiding answering the dubia might avoid an official declaration of heresy given the clarity of the Church teaching that is presented. So, in the event of a formal correction by Cardinals if the pope still remains silent there is no recourse? And so Francis remains as pope until such time as God calls him or he retires?
The question remains though, even in the absence of a proclamation, is not the person speaking heresy automatically (latae sententiae) excommunicated in reality, and so the seat might/would be vacant? This seems the stuff of history and anti-popes, sad times.
Any insight into the status of those Cardinals who politicized the election of Pope Francis? Is it only the pope who can publicly confirm their state of excommunication as a result of their rigging the election? Perhaps they aren’t under latae sententiae excommunication by virtue of their working to rig the election?
Seeing how saints and doctors have argued back and forth about these matters, it seems we have to suffer the uncertainty until the Church herself sifts them through.
In the end, the Holy Church remains a hierarchy, led by canon law.
Ranks and formalities, while not an end unto themselves, do have their importance.
A material heretic is someone who is in error regarding a Doctrine or Dogma of the Church but is unaware of their error. So, they are not willful heretics (many people are material heretics) they are heretics but in good faith.
A Formal Heretic is someone who knows full well the Doctrine or Dogma and contradicts it willfully and refuses corrections when it is given.
Material Heretics can become formal heretics if they refuse the true teaching once it is made know to them.
But,… who can even think that he is unaware of his (many) errors?
To think that this could be possible, in some cases of some uneducated layman somewhere on the north pole…
And, the TRUE teaching must be made known to him.
Besides, is not denying the revealed and received Truth, a sin against the Holy Spirit?
All worthy questions.
Thanks, so formal heretics are excommunicated latae sententia?
Yes and no (of course, ugh.) Here is a good article on it:https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/heresy_schism_apostasy.htm
Culpability for the spread of Heresy seems the most likely and obvious charge than can be credibly applied to Pope Francis via his refusal to answer the dubia.
I, personally, think that direct Forma and Obdurate Heresy can be charged against him via numerous statements that he has made publically. Of course, he would be given the chance to repent by recanting those statements publically. Barring a miracle, I don’t see him doing so.
Thanks, I hope and pray for Divine intervention
Since according to the article “schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” [Code of Canon Law c.751] could one say that any who refuse to accept, or indeed even speak out against, the pope’s direction concerning the reception of Holy Communion by the divorced and remarried be correctly charged with schism?
So, what do you call someone who is changing the doctrine to assuage the masses?
No answer is an answer. Absent any reply, he is affirming his statement(s). Not to deny them is to affirm them.
Fair point. Silence gives consent. I believe Pope Felix said something about not opposing error is to consent to it.
I agree.
A penny for Benedict’s thoughts while all this is going on. His mere existence wearing white to boot speaks of the Apocalyptic nature of the situation.
I fear that when the Pope-Emeritus passes on to his eternal reward what little constraint Francis has evidenced to date will evaporate and, God help us, what might he do then?
Ah, Father, so the Pope cloaks himself with the Fifth Amendment upon advice of his consiliere avoiding self-incrimination thus side-stepping the Five Dubia and remaining head of the (Catholic) Family.
I think I have read something of this sort of thing before.
Fr RP: There are now a multitude of statements this Pope has made that point to his manifest heresy {apostasy??}.
What is happening {already happened} in the CC is the development of a culture whereby the the mere existence of “doctrine on paper” is considered to be “enough” to prove the unchangeableness of Catholic doctrine whereas the actual accepted PRACTICE of the Church is in direct conflict with that.
How many priests routinely commune serial adulterers, cohabitors, usurers, homosexuals, adherents of other religions and Freemasons, ALL of which are to be excluded from communion?
How many do so knowingly?
How many do so or allow it to occur because they refuse to simply make uninvasive pastoral inquiry into the status of such people within their parishes?
I am quite fed up with the sophistry of Catholic prelates and other leaders who are effectively saying that as long as we still have something on paper that’s “right” we are good to go before God.
No, we need a radical restoration of faith AND PRACTICE in the Church, and we need a radical restoration of DISCIPLINE as well.
You don’t know the answer to those questions and neither do I: one and once are too many, and we both know its more than that by far. I am fed up too, and yes we need a restoration of the Supernatural Faith and the Discipline of the Sacraments along with Canonical Penalties.
Can you possibly give us a feeling for where the priests are now?
What is going on w/in the priesthood? Do priests speak to each other about the collapse and ransacking of the Church? Do they even see it that way? Or are most glad at what they see and live in hope that the Pope’s agenda plays out in fullness and becomes the Catholic Church?
See here… “Whenever Two Priests Meet, They Talk About How Awful Bergoglio Is”
https://gloria.tv/article/T2B9mtBWtaEv1EXNAv8N8rChT
And does Bergoglio even blink or even care? These priests are of the old order of Melchizedek. There will be new priests with the stigma of the new world order which include lesbians and gays with most of them being married.
The second mentioned kind-a-priests, cannot even exist. They are excommunicated ipso facto after their very first gravely sin, works, words or act. Only thing is, they will not believe that. And second badly thing is, they were not told that by their superiors. Even so… But we know better!
“It all depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is”. The priesthood is dying and Francis is creating a “new Church”. In addition, the social justice products coming out of the seminaries are something out of “the twilight zone”.
I wish (unfortunately) that his were actually true. But I am afraid it is not, many of them praise Him even privately. Yes, it is true that there are a number of Clergy who despise him and for good reason and I am also certain that there are several Cardinals who voted for him who suffer from buyers remorse.
My dear fr. RP, I understand your wish in combination with an respectable and expectant attitude that – unfortunately there are not so many… And I agree, especially with your last sentence. I can say, that I have had quite certain impression about his demagoguery, even a few years ago. And my talking and writing about that, especially at that time, was certainly not a time without many troubles…
Speaking about the priests of Christ, the servants of God, and the shepherds of His flock, … I want to say the following: There are right now, on this earth, many young priests, which some of them are poorly or even wrongly educated, in terms of some matters, and (unfortunately) even in the terms of more important things like the truth of the real faith. This is still happening with thanks to, among other things, but mostly, to the VC2 revolution, and the bad fruits of it. In the form of bad (deceived) theologians, bad teachers, and not less, by some bad school literature. Yet, let us do never forget the work of our good Lord trough the Holy Spirit, and let us never forget the intercession and protection of our beloved advocate and mediatrix, the Mother of God, plus a huge number of mighty Angels and all the Saints of God, from the Church Triumphant, and surely also our beloved brothers and sisters, a poor souls from the Church Penitent .
There are so many (younger) priests who simply do not see YET, the real situation on this (battle)ground. They are on the way, but they are just, yet unable to comprehend that they too are in the very center of a big and fierce spiritual battle. That the immortal Souls are at stake, but also our (and theirs too) bodies, mind and spirit, are involved too, because WE are the members of, WE belong now and here to that part of the Christ’s Holy Church, which is known as the Church Militant.
I am thinking here about many ‘foreign language’ speaking priests whom their superiors and so-called Catholic Catholic media and institutions do not transmit, but rather hide all the bad, but sadly very true and important news and events from the Vatican and Church in general. There is also an even greater evil, that distorts the truth, or alleviates it, or shortens any important news in such a way that it will eventually mislead all Catholics and even the priests.
Considering mentioned ‘priests questions’, I must say, their bishops, and the generals of different Church Orders as Dominicans, Franciscans, etc., are still the most responsible of the state of their Faith, (devotion, credibility, perseverance, knowledge, etc), and with that, their priestly works too. With saying this, we can also easily imagine, how faithful could be all those priests who are under the responsibility of some indifferent, lazy, or frightened bishop. Or even worse, in the case of some uberhyperpapalist bishop.
Therefore, I am convinced that we all, all those who by the grace of God have received the knowledge and the gift of discernment of the true Spirit from the false spirit, – we all have to and must do everything, everything what the Giver of those talents is requiring from us. So that we then, using it properly and without any fear of any weak human or evil spirit, everywhere and any time, justifiably can be called the real children of God, the Catholics. Doing that we really can help all those who are still in the darkness, so that they may wake up and see the true light of the Truth. The TRUTH which only liberates from the bondage of the slavery to Evil.
May our good Lord the God Almighty bless you, lead you and protect you dear fr.RP. I am really thankful to our Lord for having you among us, and all other faithful, devoted, brave, real shepherds of His flock.
Veritas et Gratia,
Through Mary to Christ!
Thank you for this expression of our needed prayers and strengths for so many priests and seminarians.
So many have been poorly formed in these wretched seminaries, and let us remember, these young men are ” young” and wanting to be obedient. How many faithful bishops are left for them to serve under? FEW!
There are a few orthodox seminaries left, but sadly, what is to become of the diocesan priest, whom is greatly needed to serve in his diocese?
May God and our Blessed Mother protect them. She is their greatest protector, and yet, how few are
given this great knowledge in seminary.
There is nothing greater on this earth to serve Christ in His priesthood.
And the Church is making it almost impossible to do so: Our Lady will protect these young men, and we shall be without faithful priests in the years to come, for it, in my opinion.
There can be no freedom, without Truth. How I wish the cardinals would respond to the many graces that have been given them, which seem to be now quite diminished now.
Oh our very rare beautiful jewel, the true Catholic soul, dear sister in Christ,
“There is nothing greater on this earth to serve Christ in His priesthood.”
And, in the same time, especially in our times, but also in the past centuries, there is no heavier burden for a real men. But the reward is also at its highest. If they remain faithful to Christ and His Church, of course.
“May God and our Blessed Mother protect them. She is their greatest protector, and yet, how few are given this great knowledge in seminary.”
You said it! SHE is their Mother, She is indeed their greatest and the best protector. She always was. And will always be. As then, when SHE at the pentecostal, was in the midst of their forerunners, the apostles, SHE who was in that time, already FULL of GRACE, what many descendants and successors of those same apostles today don’t even think about that. Let alone, they think in the proper way. SHE is thus not only their Mother and protector, but also THE very MOTHER of our Church, the Church of our Lord, her Son Jesus Christ.
St. Louis Monfort was not crazy, neither was that st padre Pio, or st. Dominic, or bl Alan Roche, or st. Leopold Mandić, or thousands and more the real saint (not the instant saints)… St. Louis Monfort said: “Who does not have Maria as Mother, he does not have God as Father!”
And I don’t know what young seminarians exactly learns, but we know what they don’t learn! And it’s disastrous that the Mother of God is being omitted, and again, it happens with thanks to VCII!
As de Mattei 5 years ago wrote at Rorate Caeli:
“Our Lady left behind: The Marian Question in Vatican II” – https://plus.google.com/u/0/s/our%20Lady%20left%20behind%20ivan/top
I suggest strongly to read both parts of this important article.
In the end,.. what we can expect from our God the Creator? Since we’ve abandoned Him long ago, we made our own laws, which are almost all of them AGAINST the laws of God. The laws with which we think to justify our killings of hundred of millions unborn people, elderly people, the law to live and act like animals (out of the tolerance aka solidarity, which is a just one of many false ideologies… And this one indeed is also the one that animals knows and sometimes use too, – except when the predators among them have hungry)
…
But we, and I mean especially we – the Church, have abandoned God’s Mother too, because we prefer to accompany the world, the protestants, the islamites, the sodomites, the communists, and all other scum, than our own heavenly Mother which is also The Mother of God. She who only can be who can help us, not because we want it and need it, but because GOD wants it to be that way.
While for J XXIII, P VI and even for B XVI, our Holy Virgin, the Mother of God Himself could not possibly be Coredemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate of all people, SHE IS exactly THAT for many Saints, among others st. padre Pio, st. Leopold Mandić,… !!
Its a hard question to answer period. I am in a rural Diocese and I am in a very rural part of that Diocese. In my Deanery (a territory within the Diocesan Territory) there are 10 priests (one is a retired priest in residence at a parish.) And out of us it’s roughly 4 who see what is going on and are strongly opposed to it and about 6 see it much differently and are in favor, though a couple of those could be said to have some reservations. In the Diocese as a whole I’d say it’s probably a similar breakdown. about forty some percent aware and alarmed and about 50 some percent seeing it through rose lenses and are favorable, with some of those having reservations.
Elsewhere, I tend to think it’s probably much worse as many other Diocese tend to be more liberal than the one I am incardinated in.
Thank you. Very interesting.
Overall in the Church it is hard to see us as a majority, that’s for sure.
Agreed. The Majority of Catholics and I think that this is very close to true if not true of the Clergy too.
But, Jesus Himself said as much when He asked if there would be any Faith left when He comes.
Luke 18:7-8: “And will not God vindicate his elect, who cry to him day and night? Will he delay long over them? I tell you, he will vindicate them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of man comes, will he find faith on earth?”
So, it is for us to be His elect. And that doesn’t involve any watering down of the Faith.
You can sin by omission, that is negligence. Francis has a duty that he is refusing to do even when asked by a million people. The rotten fruit of AL is also certain proof of the rotten tree of Francis’ teaching. Francis has certainly proven his pertinacity.
Of course you can. AL is rotten and Francis is responsible.
When I read they say there are 1.4 billion “Catholics” or so, I’m like, really? Some day we’ll have to stop deluding ourselves. But I guess if you believe those numbers then the resistance is certainly a tiny minority.
Father, would you clarify or elaborate for us the distiction you make about “Catholics” in connection to Shirrmacher’s comments? Thank you.
What I meant is that the majority of Catholics are so in name only as in they openly reject Catholic Doctrine/s, do not fulfill their Sunday or Holy Days of obligation, do not support the Church and do not repent of their sins via the sacrament of Confession etc…
I thought you meant something like that, but I wanted to be sure. It would be bad enough if it were just the laity who have gone astray, but when it includes those who are supposed to have consecrated their lives to God and to His Church, something, somewhere, somehow has gone very radically wrong and it started a long time ago. To paraphrase the Lord’s words in speaking about the last days, ‘…those days will be shortened lest even the elect be led astray and turn to evil.’
From what Holy Scripture and history tell us, God rarely acts directly, but employs natural things or events or people to accomplish His will. For example, the Babylonian exile and the final crushing and scattering of Israel and the destruction of Jerusalem and, more recently, both our world wars spoken of by Our Lady at Fatima were chastisements sent by God for the godlessness and sinfulness of Israel and the world respectively. Now even His own Church has turned its back on Him. I am inclined to believe He is telling us to turn back now because He is about to give us into the hands of Satan and purify us by. Spiritial AND natural fire.
It has been more than a year since the dubia was received by Francis and he has refused to respond indicating hardness of heart. Although there are many worldly things to tempt hesitation, only one thing matters, doing Our Lord’s will, which is the salvation of souls. Since it has been much more than six months after the issuance of the dubia, it is long past time for the first warning of the formal corrrction to be made. Every day that passes without the Church being brought back to the straight and narrow path many, many more soils are being led astray and will be lost. Their inaction and delay will cost them much when the Lord comes. AND that the shepherds of our souls are not guarding the Lord’s sheep but scattering them, I am convinced has made the Lorf extremely angry even though He has always known what would happen. I believe, in my lifetime, He will say “Enough!”
So does this count as the first warning?
Far more than the first.
You could knock me over with a feather.
There is a real Catholic man in the room unafraid to speak the truth boldly.
Too bad it isn’t the pope.
And yet it seems that no one is able to connect the dots.
Let’s begin with what is probably the simplest and most common case. A parish pastor invites a divorced and remarried couple (who are not abstaining from intercourse) to Holy Communion under the guise of the internal forum. IF the priest is aware of Church teaching on this matter (which he should be), the priest is excommunicated de facto under the reasoning of Cardinal Brandmüller, correct? Since he has publicly declared it so, the question has at least been raised.
This excommunicated priest continues to offer Mass. Many people in the parish know what’s going on, but also do/say nothing. Is the Mass of an excommunicated priest valid? What of the status of those who knowingly receive from an excommunicated priest? Certainly the faithful deserve at least some guidance on this matter.
Now, let’s go to the next logical extension. The parish pastor, a big fan of the internal forum since the late 1980s, eventually becomes a bishop, or even a cardinal. Are the ordinations of excommunicated bishops valid? In the case of the SSPX, some have argued in the negative. Certainly the faithful deserve at least some guidance on this matter.
This situation is complicated exponentially when the Pope observes that half of all Catholic marriages are probably invalid, and provides at least some reasonable logic to back up his assertion. Yet, this devastating observation raises some hackles for a few weeks, but then life in the Church eventually goes on as usual. Certainly the faithful deserve at least some guidance on this matter.
These are just a few of the most egregious examples.
Whether the Church realizes it or not, the validity of the Sacraments is coming unraveled before our eyes.
Yet, the man in charge of administering of the Sacraments and responsible for offering needed guidance, Cardinal Sarah, seems to say almost nothing about any of these things except advocate for holy silence, abandoning the faithful in their dire hour of need. His fan base is so enamored by the fact that he is from Africa that they also say/do nothing.
And supposedly a majority of Catholics disagree with the Pope? If true, apathy seems the biggest sin here.
Unraveled.
That is the clear purpose of the Bergoglian enterprise. With fraudulence they account a Church with coherence “triumphalist” and contrary to “the poor humble Geesus.”
An unraveled Magisterium can be reconfigured to suit their purpose.
The Triumphant Christ Who was crucified, died and was buried and rose again on the third day will then be assigned to the role of a mythic heroic figure.
We can no longer deny that the Roman Catholic Church is being metamorphosized into an atheistic society for the support of a sociological agenda that does not even rise to the level of mid-century protestantism.
This ecumenical liturgy coming down the pike, the denial of the doctrine of transubstantiation by an academic who purports to be theologian and who receives no admonishment for the episcopate is the last straw. These atheists have infiltrated the One True Church of Christ with the sole goal of seeing to its collapse and replacing it with their mendacity.
They don’t believe in the sacraments, they don’t believe in God.
They are actors, the church is their stage and we are the groundlings.
Hmmm…James….I think you are overlooking a possibility that is more frightening yet: that they may very well believe in–in fact KNOW–that God is real. But they do not serve Him, they serve….another.
When I started listening to Malachi Martin, I thought there was some truth, some flights of fancy and occasionally the ramblings of an old man riddled with conspiracies. But times go on. Crazy things he said would occur begin happening. And you start thinking more about what he said, and the hair on the back of your neck stands up.
Indeed Brian. Given that he read the 3rd secret and hinted so much about the office of the papacy being a target to be devoured, it seems he knew that a type like Bergoglio was in the works. His interviews with Bernard Janzen and Art Bell are a blueprint of the last 60 years.
Fr. Martin was an exorcist as well, so I would think he KNEW the workings of Satan to a large degree as he had seen him first hand many times. To me anyway, that gives a little more credibility to the ‘strange ramblings’ of an old man.
Gee, I thought I was being too harsh!
But yes, one can’t help but understand that the army of the adversary has its buck privates and its more informed generals. Those merely accommodating themselves to their doubt and disbelief and those engendering and promoting it in the service of their commander.
Malachi Martin. I have kept a football field length away from him for decades for the reasons to which you allude. Whatever I have heard him say on video, audio, or what I have read always has veracity, but it is always so piercingly clear and frightfully accurate it is disorientating, disturbing. I have his book on the Jesuits — I admit to being fearful of reading it. His personal life… The man is an enigma. I just don’t know what to make of him.
We live in times such as the ancient Hebrews — prophets, seers, idolaters all over the place. Who is authentic? When are the frauds putting out a truth only to lure the unsuspecting? When the individual who serves as Christ’s Vicar is part of the problem rather than a blazing correction to the situation we have the problem of this moment.
He has to go if for no other reason — the least harsh — simple inadequacy in every facet for the job.
Yeah, Martin is a seemingly dangerous person because of the accusations leveled against him. Also, his appearances on late night terrestrial radio conspiracy theorist shows didn’t lend him credibility. Of course, one also has to understand that those were the only shows that would have him and at the time he seemed to be peddling in conspiracy theories. Fast forward nearly 20 years and….well….he seems more credible now.
We have one former Jesuit who attacked him and accused him of having an affair with his wife but it’s unsubstantiated. Reports were that Martin was stripped of priestly faculties but I read somewhere that at his death the Vatican confirmed that he was a priest in good standing or least was a valid priest and if celebrating the sacraments was licit in doing so.
I don’t know what to make of him. I don’t encourage others to read or listen to him because I could be causing scandal. I mention that I have heard him because he’s fascinating to me. So many seemingly outlandish things he said 30 years ago have happened: gay “marriage”, a pope resigning (coerced? We will never know), Jesuits trying to completely change the moral teaching of the Church and now, we hear, Christ being removed from mass, a mass without transubstantiation.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5ef2b96629e179fa6af06b19168d075f9c7f4d4994214b7360a8db3c0cce5062.jpg
The Mass is Valid though illicit even when a priest is excommunicated (so long as he adheres to the liturgical norms and intends to do what the Church intends with the Offering of the Holy Mass) and whether or not the priest is excommunicated depends on whether or not he holds the second union to be a valid union. Excommunication is not based on him giving Holy Communion via a false understanding of mercy to the civilly divorced and civilly remarried. The same is true of the Bishop scenario. One does not have to hold the second union as a Valid Marriage to err in giving Holy Communion, they can be beguiled and mislead via a false understanding of mercy And that is what is happening under Amoris Laetitia.
As to the understanding of the faithful, the majority of them are and have been lead astray and are ignorant of the Church’s teaching in almost every way. The average parishioner would incur no guilt via their priest’s error and the majority of them are truly ignorant of each others status regarding marriage etc…
“As long as he intends to do what the Church intends”, haunting words Father. With the widespread apostasy I wonder if we can count on that from many.
Father, you are right that most members of the laity are truly ignorant of Church teachings. I think some of this responsibility lies upon the laity though. To be ignorant over a span of time while having the resources to educate oneself (in a country where WiFi and libraries are abundant) places a level of responsibility on us. I think many of us have earned ourselves the mortal sin of willful ignorance while knowing full well there are many things about our faith we don’t know…nor do we ask…
You have said a mouthful, and I would quite agree.
So many priests use this ” ignorance” as an excuse for not speaking Truth, for not teaching about ” the Sacrifice of the Mass.” It is very distressing and sad. I think they sometimes either feel that the ” stupid and lazy laity cannot handle the Truth” or ” their own s ( the priest) sins condemn them. Both are foolish reasons.
The ignorance is real, very real..so is the indifference though. I think also that many prelates do hold the laity as, you stated, stupid and ignorant. Very sad…where is their humility, who gave them the authority to determine what they can and can’t handle? I guess all are God now. Care for the poor extends beyond material possision..if one is poor in their knowledge of the faith..who will humble themselves to teach them?
I agree fully with your assessment of the unravelling of the Sacraments, they are all under attack and the current public profession of heresy by prelates is creating a bizarre situation for those who still believe.
I have read that the faithful should not attend Mass offered by a priest who is publically (even by a small number) known to be excommunicated, since it would cause scandal. It is different though, if the priest is known to be excommunicated by you alone, let’s say you have personal knowledge that is not publicly known that he violated the seal of the confessional. Each time the priest offers Mass it is still valid, Jesus is still made present, and you may, with a spirit of reparation attend the Mass and receive Holy Communion.
Cardinal Brandmüller is one of those people who does not speak loudly or often, but is well worth listening to when he does speak.
He is a wise man who loves the Church. Fools do not listen to him, because they only care to hear the loud social butterflies. They don’t have the patience to listen to words that have a lot of thought behind them.
God protect Cd. Brandmüller
Clearly, this good Cardinal and Prince of the Church continues to reaffirm his decision and duty to serve God first before man. At 88, may the Lord keep him in good health. May he act as a blazing beacon of Truth to his fellow prelates, clergy and most especially, May he thoroughly embarrass the apparent apostate occupying the Chair of Peter…..who continues giving endless scandal to the world.
These vague statements no longer impress me. We need a precise fraternal correction that names Francis.
Exactly what I always think and say. Is there a Cardinal or bishop “with the balls” (excuse the italianism) who will rise up and tell that damned white wearing incarnated demon, I mean Bergoglio, what he really is? A horrible traitor, an apostate, a slave of Satan!!
In the middle ages someone would have just walked up to him and knocked him out. Men today are so apathetic. Do you know how many men today have never even been in a fist fight?
Good grief we had Catholics fighting each other in WARS in which Popes led one side.
Do we really think all those who fought and killed and died in wars fought against “papal interests” were damned?
It seems now that all “papal interests” fall under the protection of the dogma of infallibility.
What nonsense!
The priests used to instruct Catholic school boys in boxing, back when men were men.
I think a priest taught Sonny Liston how to box.
Vague? ” Thus, if someone thinks he can contradict the defined Dogma of a General Council [Council of Trent], then that is indeed quite vehement. Exactly that is what one calls heresy – and that means exclusion from the Church – because one has left the common foundation of Faith.” This sounds fairly explicit and clear to me. What did you expect him to say, “Jorge Bergoglio is a raving, maniacal heretic as sentences in Amoris laetitia prove beyond a shadow of a doubt”?
I agree
What did you expect him to say, “Jorge Bergoglio is a raving, maniacal
heretic as sentences in Amoris laetitia prove beyond a shadow of a
doubt”?
Yes, That is the way men used to talk until feminism emasculated men. It is manly to be direct, precise and straightforward. Passive-aggressive, indirect, communication is feminine.
You have a point BUT…….there is a danger of alienating those sheep who have not as yet come to
certain conclusions regarding these issues, and may only look at the language used and not the content
of the argument.
Some sheep (perhaps many) need to be drawn to mutual conclusions over a longer period of exposure
e.g. to the constructive and truthful criticism of High Prelates towards Francis.
Our 1st Pope (St.Peter) is a good example of the hot-headed direct approach and look what he did….
.
The moment will come though and (this is what i’m really saying) God will grace the necessary
personalities to greater vigor.
I keep wondering how sheep can be alienated when they are already scattered all over the mountain…
Am “greedy” to attract as many (souls) as possible when the
proverbial hits the fan….
(yes I know, how bad does it have to get)
We resort to Faith that a strong voice will turn heads….
I know that’s poor but we are in DEEP poverty now…
“Passive-aggressive, indirect, communication is……called charitable and Christlike in the culture of Catholic priests and prelates”.
“What did you expect him to say, “Jorge Bergoglio is a raving, maniacal heretic as sentences in Amoris laetitia prove beyond a shadow of a doubt”?”
At this point, yes.
Though I’d appreciate it is they added some of the rest of the statements made by this Pope that lead to the same conclusion.
I agree.
“People are not stupid. Alone the fact that a request for clarification addressed to the pope, with 870,000 signatures, [and also] that 50 scholars with international reputation have remained without answer, does raise indeed some questions. That is really hard to understand.”
1} No, we are not stupid.
2} Are we all not yet sick of these statements that Cardinal Brandmüller repeats here?
And “That is really hard to understand” is becoming less and less difficult to understand. If Cardinal Brandmüller is truly confused about the non-reaction to the Dubia then I submit it is reasonable to doubt his competency. If he is not confused, then one may reasonably doubt his commitment to speak the truth and/or his personal courage.
I do not think I am the only one sick and tired of the word games and sophistry of Catholic prelates.
TV, where everything happens in the space of an hour or, if it’s a series, several hours, has made us all overly impatient, I think. Imagine you were there in the real world in the lead-up to WW II. Starting in 1931, you watched the Japanese invade Manchuria; then you saw Hitler swallow the Rhineland, Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Mussolini gas Africans in Ethiopia. Time and again you probably would have screamed, “Enough is enough!” But for eight long years, no one listened; there was merely an escalation of words. In September of 1939, though, everything changed because Hitler finally miscalculated and exhausted the patience of Western leaders. By doing so, he sealed his fate along with Mussolini’s and, eventually, Japan’s. That was a bit longer than we’ve had to endure the outrageous behavior of Francis, but the words chosen by his opponents around the globe grow stronger every day, and words ultimately have consequences. Unlike you (and some others here), I sense that the pope’s Götterdämmerung is coming.
To a degree, I disagree.
I like your analogy, but it doesn’t serve your argument.
First, Germany deserved the Rhineland back and the Austrians begged for Anschluss. But “Enough WAS enough” with the invasion of Czechoslovakia! THAT early on it was apparent what Hitler was doing and MANY were calling it for what it was. The previous incidents could pretty easily find parallel in some actions of the Pope, by the way.
I do agree that a “Poland” is coming, maybe…in Poland!
The Pope is feeling his oats and I see him making manifest his already blatant support for heresy relatively soon.
In the meantime I will continue to call out “Enough is enough”.
Why?
Because enough IS enough!
The Japanese were “forced” to invade Manchuria to fuel and protect their industrial base by the U.S.A
Oil embargo. And there is a lot more to the official historical narrative than meets the eye, but this is not
the forum.
Suffice to say the Western power’s were complicit in the rise of axis power’s and most notably Communist
Russia. We condemn Evil in all it’s stripes but deeper analysis of histories reveals great manipulations.
“All wars are bankers wars” Anyway, this is not the forum…..
I didn’t want to wade in that deep, but you are right, there is a LOT more to the story than what a short analogy can expose.
“Unlike you (and some others here), I sense that the pope’s Götterdämmerung is coming.”
I disagree here pretty vehemently.
I am certain the collapse of the Pope is coming, tho maybe not this Pope but a similar successor.
Regardless, as I’ve said often, I think the cowardice of our leaders promotes such a collapse, as, again, as I’ve said over and over, the Pope is really feeling his oats now, and is likely to make a mistake no Catholic prelate can deny {tho many of us think he already has}.
But on many things I agree with you.
A question:
Would anyone here REALLY be surprised if this Pope all of a sudden denied the Catholic faith and said that the Church had derailed at some point in the past and there was no fixing it?
I wouldn’t be, as I have heard him say nearly that in the past in his condemnations of Catholics attempting to live out the Catholic faith.
Me neither. But, in fact, he did it already, a countless times. Only, he did it not with a clear words.
Think here on things he said as: “No one should be condemned, it’s against logic of Gospel”, “Time is greater than Space”, “Via Crucis was a failure of God”, …
But, we know, his tongue suppose to be an unclear tongue!
Nothing Francis says or does can surprise me any longer.
You know, Rod, I know you’re a convert which necessarily implies that you didn’t grow up the way so many cradle Catholics do or did: we had great reverence for office and the man. One does not just declare the pope a heretic: there is a long process, a lot of deference, etc. The idea of blaspheming against the Holy Spirit–the unforgivable sin–is kind of, you know, a big deal.
Further, the papacy and the Vatican are not like democratic countries. Griping in the media, a disgruntled proletariat and opinion polls are meaningless. In other words, this isn’t Burger King! You want it your way, join the SSPV or some schismatic group.
Further, your comment about being sick of these statements that Cardianl Brandmueller repeats are perplexing. You may have read these types of comments in com boxes but I have never, EVER, seen this said anywhere by a prelate. We have a Cardinal in the most explicit implicit way possible calling the pope and several of his fellow bishops and priests excommunicates and heretics.
Wrong.
We have a Cardinal expressing confusion about what the Pope is doing. That is a far cry from “calling the pope and several of his fellow bishops and priests excommunicates and heretics.”
and if he is truly co fused, then he must be mentally incompetent.
If he wants to say what you said, he should say it by name. He has not done that and to my knowledge has never condemned a single heretic in the Pope’s entourage by name, either. Just spewing facts about heresy is not the same thing as righteously accusing the guilty.
But he hasn’t. What he has done is hang back and by innuendo take potshots at the Pope, sniping at him from the brush, all the while hanging on to plausible deniability as to who he meant to potshoot.
Now his words in critique of the situation are in that general sense obviously good {he’s one of our best, after all!} and his doctrine is solid as we all know, but his method does not reflect St Paul’s clear and manly resistance to the face of one who is encouraging sin. It does nothing to actually defend the flock. Asking questions is NOT defense of the flock. It comes out in a sea of opinions as just another opinion.THAT is the culture of so-called Catholic prelates. Such an approach reeks of disingenuousness and is unmanly.
He is still alive, so he has time to repair this approach, and indeed, he may yet do that.
You see, it is not the doctrinal position of these conservatives that is repulsive, it is the effeminacy of the way they have lived it out. In the event, it is ugly, and it is tragic, but pretending it isn’t so doesn’t fix anything.
To go as far as the last remaining Dubia Cardinals have gone and not to follow through whith what was an obvious threat is pathetic. It smacks of total capitulation.
I still hold out hope that they will do what they promised to do and in fact, believe that very thing may be coming in one way or another and soon.
But if it comes in the form of a culturally consistent norm {with that of the past 50 years} we can anticipate a vague and vapid “correction”.
But then again, due to the severe crisis we know we face, the Dubia Cardinal may take a different approach, an approach more in keeping with the way of the Scriptures and the Fathers; a direct and honest statement, backed by the available evidence and facts, reinforced with the heavy hand of the perennial Magesterium of the Church.
In the meantime we wait.
And something needs to be said about the waiting. We are told often to have patience.
Well, it is fine for ME to be called to patience, but when one rounds the corner and sees a man raping a girl, the time has come for action. I am a worm who stands there and calls my friend on my cellphone to discuss the gravity of what I am witnessing and tells him of how terrible the act is. No, it is my job to STOP it.
And we have watched many prelates stand around the alley yapping on their cellphones for 50 years while Holy Mother Church was raped.
And many are still doing it.
Rod: he said anybody who supports or abets this is a heretic and is excommunicated. There is 1/1000 of a 1/1000 of an inch of space between the dots: not hard to connect, in other words. As I said, it is not easy nor advisable to for us to call the Pope a heretic.
Cardinals Brandmueller and Burke are smart men. They understand what they are doing, they know how this works. We have no ideas what or who they are working behind the scenes.
Plus, again, I read all of your comments. Generally, I like them, a lot. Yet you are consistently pushy and inpatient: now, Now, NOW! As I said, this isn’t Burger King, Rod. We do not get it our way in a matter of minutes.
Also, my original post left unsaid that a formal correction and follow-up could split the Church, throw the people into chaos, we could have a crack-up bishopric by bishopric. That is not something one should take lightly.
“We do not get it our way in a matter of minutes”.
Defending the faith isn’t “my way”. It is God’s way. So putting it off is no virtue. I would direct you to Cardinal Burke’s own words in a piece written on the effeminization of the Church. He himself describes exactly what I am speaking of here.
Second, do you remember the date QUOD APOSTOLICI MUNERIS was written? How about PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS? They weren’t written yesterday yet they desctibe what is happening in the Church today. Patience? We haven’t been waiting for a year for a coherent coalition of prelates to gather to defend the specific evils that threaten the faith today. It has been over a century since the evils have been noted, identified, and…in many ways ignored. If it was just a year we had been waiting, well, ok, but the faithful have been waiting for 5 generations for leaders to stand up and fight the evils of well-understood modernism. Bergoglio didn’t appear in a vacuum. He is the natural product of the culture.
The prelates {priests and faithful} were warned. And while we know we have always had those amidst the prelature who defied the true faith, we have seen this movement pick up steam in the last 50 years, and a bold, manly approach to it has not been seen from our supposedly orthodox leaders.
Step back from the current situation and reflect. How urgent were the Popes in making plain the evils they foresaw? Do you suppose Leo XIII and Pius X would be proud of the way our prelates have handled the coalescing of modernist teachings and practices in the last 50 years? Do you actually think what we have seen is a success? Read Cardinal Burke’s piece on the effeminacy that has infected the Church. Do you think he would disagree with me in any of what I am saying here? I don’t think so.
But the bizarre point of Burke’s piece is that while describing the sickness, he himself didn’t know how to cure it! He STILL didn’t name names and take on directly the perpetrators of the scourge. Just standing back and describing what he sees in generalities is no manly approach. The poor man does not know how to fight! He has been emasculated.
Indeed, sitting back and playing pattycake with the heretics is the WAY of producing schism. A garden daily weeded is a healthy garden, but the model of the Catholic prelates has been to allow weeds to grow everywhere until the crops can barely be seen.
The leaders of the Catholic Church have as a group modeled almost perfectly the path taken by the liberal mainline Protestants and have allowed much liberal mainline Protestant modernist teaching to creep in to the normal practice of the faith.As a paradigm, it was established in the words of Pope John XII in the opening address to Vatican 2. The Church leadership has been fleeing manly confrontation with heresy and chasing liberal Protestant teaching ever since.
While some sat back and described it, but didn’t FIGHT to drive out their “brother” prelates. And now we see them shuddering in the face of a crisis beyond description.
And you call for patience.
In the end, I believe God will cover what men refuse to. But many will not see the consolation and sadly many will pay dearly for shirking what they know in their hearts they should have done. That, of course, is not limited to prelates. That is the way with most men.
Both yourself and Brian W make important point’s, with the help of our PRAYERS
those in a position to begin and continue A Correction will do so at the best time.
We don’t have a panoramic view, we assume they do.
Thanks.
I think the Correction is coming.
And I don’t think ANYONE has a clear view of what it is going to produce.
So we “little ones” patiently wait!
🙂
It boils down to strategy at the end of the day, but moves will be made and our prayers
can help advance the best timing for a correction.
Nice but not enough. Let’s here the formal declaration of heresy, and add the death penalty issue to the list. Talk talk talk and no action. Fear.
All Hedgehogs will be shoved down all the relevant pants in due course…..
Clearly, this man’s concern is warranted and to be praised, as are his actions in the current crisis, but surely, Catholics, if it is possible, must restore a culture that expects far more of its leaders.
I pray for the good Cardinal and hope he’s not found in his chair “peacefully reading his breviary”.
Agreed.
Brandmuller puts it in pretty concrete and understandable terms. The Brooklyn Bridge is for sale if anyone thinks that Francis will respond. If John XXIII brooked no interference with his agenda, then what makes anyone think that Francis will yield? It will take an act of God, like a comet, which was warned of by the Third Secret.
You’ve said it all. I think. I can only add my voice that I think it is outrageous that the Holy Father will not respond to the ‘Dubia’. He knowlingly is causing a huge rift. Is it pride? seems to be. Hugging kids and sick people is nice, all travelling popes did that, but you must be true to the Word.
Please, Your Eminence, gather all those hierarchs who have maintained the true Faith and once and for all do what has to be done: a canonical correction, and, if he doesn’t change, a declaration of a deposition. Christ Himself will take the Pontiff’s powers away if you but do your duty and declare before the Church what has to be declared. Otherwise you shepherds will allow all your sheep to be eaten by wolves. God help His divine Catholic Church, His Church which, like Her Saviour, is being crucified.
Good column Maike. Cardinal Walter Brandmüller is a ‘stand-up’ guy. We like that. Too bad there are so few of them. But it is good to see the Catholic Church at large has more dissidents as noted in your article. If this were 100 years ago Pope Francis would be declared anathema and ridden out of town on a rail. Your article gives us hope that the cracks in Pope Francis crack-pop doctrine are widening. Keep up your good work.
Cardinal Müller explains something interesting http://www.lastampa.it/2017/10/30/vaticaninsider/ita/vaticano/comunione-ai-risposati-mller-nella-colpa-possono-esserci-attenuanti-uK39UZsbZ580Xv9cVK2kUP/pagina.html?zanpid=2360028187750523904
He basically explains that there is no such thing as situation ethic in Al, and that the divorced and remarried can be admitted to the Sacraments, IF their guilt is diminished because of mitigating factors. If someone wants to translate it maybe it could add fuel to the debate.
Well, if someone is murdering people and they claim they are not sinning due to “mitigating” factors would we say keep murdering and receive communion because you are without guilt?
If someone translates that article you will see the reasons behind Müller’s statement. Besides, i don’t think that murdering can be compared with this, God permitted polygamy in the Old Testament and Abraham and Jacob were polygamists but i would not say that they are to be compared with murderers. In fact, they are recognized as Saints. That said, if someone translates it you will see if what Müller said goes against doctrine.
Adultery is forbidden by Jesus. It is intrinsically evil. It is never allowed at anytime for any reason. Moses allowed divorce, not Jesus.
Of course, but Moses allowed divorce because God allowed him to allow it. And of course that adultery and polygamy are intrinsically evil acts, this can never be denied (and if someone denies that, he is an heretic).
Whether God allowed it seems a matter of debate. Please see the old Catholic encyclopedia.
In any even Jesus forbids it. Adultery cannot be mitigated. Personal culpability maybe mitigated, but we certainly do not tell people to continue engaging in evil acts simply because their culpability may be reduced.
“Whether God allowed it seems a matter of debate. ”
Moses is a Saint. Would he be a Saint if he allowed divorce in spite of God not wanting to allow it? He would have committed a most grave sin if that was the case.
“In any even Jesus forbids it.”
Sure.
“Adultery cannot be mitigated. ”
Of course not. Otherwise it would be situation ethic. Adultery is always grave matter, that’s certain.
“Personal culpability maybe mitigated”
And that’s the all point of Muller’s statement.
“but we certainly do not tell people to continue engaging in evil acts simply because their culpability may be reduced.”
People need to do whatever they can to break the situation of sin, of course. But in some situations it cannot be done for various reasons and that’s where Müller sees the possibility of pastoral care.
I hope that the admin of onepeterfive will translate this article in order to let the reader know.
Moses did commit sins. He repented. That does not mean he cannot be a saint.
If you cannot stop sinning then you abstain from communion.
Subjective conscience does not justify man.
“Moses did commit sins”
Where was it said that he sinned by allowing what he allowed?
“If you cannot stop sinning then you abstain from communion.”
Müller says that if there are mitigating factors then it’s possible for someone to be absolved and partake to Communion, but it’s not a mere personal decision because the priest is called to discern whether there are mitigating factors in the first place.
It’s difficult to summarize the entire article in a comment, expecially for an Italian like me.
Here we go again.
Reassessing that which has already been definitively established.
Moses allowed divorce because of the heard hearts of the people. But Jesus re-established the original intent of God and the Church has held that since His words were uttered.
The Scriptures are clear as is the teaching of the Church.
Get yourself a Bible and a copy of Denzinger. It is all there in clear black and white.
“Moses allowed divorce because of the heard hearts of the people”
Exactly, that’s what i said. And God allowed him to allow divorce, otherwise He could have prevented such thing. Remember that God was very “interventist” in the Old Testament.
Then I am mistaking what you are driving at.
Indeed, God did allow it.
But he does not allow it, now.
That is crystal clear in both the words of Sacred Scripture AND the full Magesterium of the Church. If you question that then the fix is easy. Read the Scriptures and get yourself a copy of Denzinger. It is made 100% clear in both.
Divorce and remarriage are not topics that are up for grabs. Jesus…GOD…has definitively spoken.
“Indeed, God did allow it tho it was not meant to be”
Yes, i agree.
“but he does not allow it, now”
Of course.
“Divorce and remarriage are condemned by Jesus.”
I would never dispute that. I’ve said myself that if someone thinks that adultery can be justified for some reasons he is an heretic.
“Divorce and remarriage are not topics that are up for grabs. ”
Of course they aren’t.
“To suggest that Jesus allows divorce and remarriage now because of the hardness of hearts is blasphemous. It is assigning evil to God.”
And i’ve never said or tought such thing.
Even when God did allow it, it was merely his permissive will.
“We truly DO know more than our Hebrew forefathers. Jesus has definitively established the moral code. It cannot be changed. Not even for “hard hearts”.”
Jesus made us know that moral law, He didn’t change it. Adultery was intrinsically evil even before the incarnation.
Cardinal Müller was talking about the matter of culpability, which is different from the legitimacy of adultery.
That is,adultery is always grave matter, is always a grave sin (therefor it is never licit), but culpability can be reduced to actual venial sin due to mitigating factors.
That’s what he explains in the article i’ve reported previously. So of course it’s true that defenders of adultery are excommunicated, because defending adultery would imply that adultery can sometimes be morally legit and morally good, which would be an abject heresy.
The issue in practice involves admission to communion. And THAT involves a trasformation of what communion is. Which is why many theologians say the teaching in AL risks destruction of teaching on the Eucharist itself.
The Church has ruled on these specific issues in the past. To now re-define the situation and allow what has never been allowed before is preposterous.
It is sophistry; Adultery is only adultery if I think of it as adultery. THAT is what you are presenting here as the assertion of Mueller. I am not denying that is what he is saying. I am saying that Jesus and the Church have already ruled on this issue and has never allowedsuch an interpretation to stand.
Now due to “pastoral” reasons, we will see a radical change in TEACHING. And that is a collapse of the faithin order to accomodate sin in the lives of the “faithful”. This is no different than the approach used by the Protestants to ignore grave sin and allow what was always in the past condemned. This is the Protestantisation of the Church.
Yes, it is.
Points to the advocates of divorce and remarriage for being motivated enough to at least engage in sophistry and try to muddle the issue by saying that it’s not a sin if one doesn’t know it’s a sin. Points to Father James Martin, SJ, for have the intellectual honesty to just admit that the LGBTet.al. “community” just refuses to receive the teaching, ergo their sins are not sins.
Brave new world.
“points to the advocates of divorce and remarriage for being motivated enough to at least engage in sophistry and try to muddle the issue by saying that it’s not a sin if one doesn’t know it’s a sin even after being told it’s a sin”
I’ve never said such an idiocy, so this is a straw man.
“The divorced and remarried who care enough to care about being barred from communion cannot possibly claim ignorance”
Read what Cardinal Müller stated here http://www.lastampa.it/2017/10/30/vaticaninsider/eng/the-vatican/communion-to-the-remarried-mller-there-can-be-mitigating-factors-in-guilt-OI0rK5MajqAn9gHGQE1YbO/pagina.html this is not only a matter of ignorance.
I quote the Cardinal’s words
“ This does not mean that Amoris laetitia art. 302 supports, in contrast to Veritatis splendor 81, that, due to mitigating circumstances, an objectively bad act can become subjectively good (it is dubium n. 4 of the cardinals). The action in itself bad (the sexual relationship with a partner who is not the legitimate spouse) does not become subjectively good due to circumstances. In the assessment of guilt, however, there may be mitigating circumstances and the ancillary elements of an irregular cohabitation similar to marriage can also be presented before God in their ethical value in the overall assessment of judgment (for example, the care for children in common, which is a duty deriving from natural law)”.
For example, the impossibility of imposing chastity on one’s partner without destroying the new union (if the partner is not catholic or is not a practicing catholic) could be a mitigating factor, because such a person would not want to destroy the new union and damaging the children.
Maybe such a person was a lapsed Catholic, who divorced and now is returned to the faith, and he/she finds himselfherself in a situation in which he can’t destroy the new union right off the bat, because of the duty towards the children.
This is what Cardinal Müller is saying. This doesn’t mean that adultery can be good or justifiable, this only means that the adulterer, sometimes, doesn’t carry the full guilt of his sin, and his culpability can be reduced to venial. And if someone is free from actual mortal sin he/she can receive the Sacraments.
I hope i have cleared things a little, because what you wrote was a misrepresentation of what Cardinal Müller said.
Things couldn’t be clearer, your assistance is not needed. The argument remains specious if one applies even a modicum of rational, reasoned thought. There is no occasion in which we can commit a sin or continue committing sin to avoid further sin.
My God, man, our whole reason for being, our telos, is that we are built to know, love and serve God. We are MEANT to achieve the beatific vision. Earthly comfort is not our primary concern. We should be much more concerned with giving heroic witness to our faith than with earthly concern. In the situation of people in a “new union”, the best thing we can do is provide a faithful witness to the children, to let them know who we serve. And yes, Marco, as painful as it is in our current world, with all being touched by materialism and consequentialism, we serve God above all else (children included) and in giving that witness, living that life, we are examples to others.
Spin it, twist, apply Hume’s sentimentalism, present all the hypothetical scenarios you’d like, the fact remains that as a Catholic, one cannot be a consequentialist: there is no sin to bring about a greater good.
“The argument remains specious if one applies even a modicum of rational, reasoned thought. There is no occasion in which we can commit a sin or continue committing sin to avoid further sin.”
Of course there isn’t, but a particular situation can diminish culpability for a sinful act. The act remains sinful (if you ”could” commit it it wouldn’t be sinful, it would be legit and moral, which is not the case) but the culpability is diminished.
That’s the all point that Cardinal Müller stated.
“Spin it, twist, apply Hume’s sentimentalism, present all the hypothetical scenarios you’d like, the fact remains that as a Catholic, one cannot be a consequentialist: there is no sin to bring about a greater good.”
Again, you are twisting what Cardinal Müller said. Consequentialism has nothing to do with what he said.
The fact that mitigating factors resulting from certain situations can diminish a sinner’s culpability was always the teaching of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church never taught that the divorced and remarried were always in a state of actual mortal sin. Never.
Consequentialism has nothing to do about it, mitigating factors are explained in the Catechism 1735, 1860, 1862 and in many other paragraphs.
If saying that a sinner’s culpability can be diminished to venial because of mitigating factors is consequentialism, then GPII was a consequentalist.
We are talking about blessing ongoing sin. I am quite certain that catechism also clarifies that when knowingly commits a venial sin (or several venial sins) it in fact can become a mortal sin. When that venial sin is adultrey under “diminished culpability”, it’s mortal.
“We are talking about blessing ongoing sin”
No you are a liar. Tell me where Müller said such an idiocy.
“I am quite certain that catechism also clarifies that when knowingly commits a venial sin (or several venial sins) it in fact can become a mortal sin. When that venial sin is adultrey under “diminished culpability”, it’s mortal”
Complete bullcrap. An objective venial sin (light matter) does never become actual mortal sin, even if you commit it with full knowledge and without mitigating factors.
Adultery is always grave matter, the diminished culpability is what can diminish the culpability of the adulterer to venial. Adultery always remains a grave sin, but the adulterer can’t be punished like he would as if he carried the full guilt for his/her sin.
First of all, I do not appreciate you calling me a liar. Who do you think you are?
Second, directly from the Baltimore Catechism:
Q. 286. Do past material sins become real sins as soon as we discover their
sinfulness?
A. Past material sins do not become real sins as soon as we discover their sinfulness, UNLESS WE AGAIN REPEAT THEM WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE AND CONSENT.
Now you tell me, FRIEND, how you think anybody can bless somebody to continue committing sin? And that’s what we’re talking about here! I’m not talking about somebody coming in, confessing to committing adultery that they didn’t know was adultery due to remarriage. I’m talking about you and others magically thinking that because of reduced culpability for past sins all future instances of the same sin remain venial or material versus formal or mortal. Once the person knows it’s a sin (as if most people really didn’t before) they must stop sinning at once. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SIN BECOMING A GOOD FOR THE SAKE OF OTHERS! Why would we venerate martyrs who had children but chose to die for the faith? Should we not consider a sin to have left their children without his or her parental influence?
People can be asked to die for the faith but not abstain from sex, to stop committing adultery. Interesting times. Liar indeed.
“I’m talking about you and others magically thinking that because of reduced culpability for past sins all future instances of the same sin remain venial or material versus formal or mortal. Once the person knows it’s a sin (as if most people really didn’t before) they must stop sinning at once”
I they can do that, they must, of course. What Cardinal Müller was saying is that there can be situations in which a person can do that because it would mean destroying a family and they have the duty to care for their children.
That’s what Cardinal Müller was saying when he said that “In the ASSESSMENT of GUILT, however, there may be MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES and the ancillary elements of an irregular cohabitation similar to marriage can also be presented before God in their ethical value in the overall assessment of judgment (for example, the care for children in common, which is a duty deriving from natural law).”.
For example the priest can abstain of asking such a person to live as bother and sister, if he sees that doing that would put this person in a situation of formal mortal sin, forcing to either destroy her family of committing actual mortal sin.
I didn’t read one line of what you wrote after the following words “If they can do that”. Since when do we not have the ability to stop sinning? Let’s stop trying to make everything nuanced and bullsh*tting ourselves about how different human beings are now: human nature hasn’t changed; willingness to ascent to Church teaching has.
Christ didn’t lay out scenarios when a sin isn’t a sin and I’m guessing the reason is simple: because a sin is a sin. And consequentialism–and you may say whatever ridiculous thing you’d like but what else is continuing to sin in order to avoid a greater sin not, by definition, consequentialism?–is not Christian.
Further, our lives on the earth are meant to be lived in order to, by God’s grace, enter into eternal life with Him. On our end, we need to live in accordance with His teachings. Our lives are NOT about our lives here, now, on Earth; our lives are about God, Heaven. We should be concerned with the Four Last Things, not about sentimentalism and live here. What’s 80 years compared to eternity to people who REALLY believe?
“I didn’t read one line of what you wrote after the following words “If they can do that”. Since when do we not have the ability to stop sinning?”
Let me repost, once again, Cardinal Müller who directly responds to your question
“God is particularly close to the person who sets out on the path of conversion, who, for example, assumes responsibility for the children of a woman who is not his legitimate bride and does not neglect the duty to take care of her. This also applies in the case in which he, BECAUSE OF HIS HUMAN WEAKNESS AND NOT FOR THE WILL TO OPPOSE GRACE, which helps to observe the commandments, IS NOT ABKE YET TO SATISFY ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE MORAL LAW . “ http://disq.us/url?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lastampa.it%2F2017%2F10%2F30%2Fvaticaninsider%2Feng%2Fthe-vatican%2Fcommunion-to-the-remarried-mller-there-can-be-mitigating-factors-in-guilt-OI0rK5MajqAn9gHGQE1YbO%2Fpagina.html%3AKz77gYhO3K7bFqk_X9guBcWIVw4&cuid=3129176
You write
“ Christ didn’t lay out scenarios when a sin isn’t a sin and I’m guessing the reason is simple: because a sin is a sin.”
And that’s exactly the point. A sin, an intrinsically evil act, is always a sin, in each and every case. What can change is only the sinner’s imputability. I’ve said it, i’ve repeated it, i’m continuining to say it.
Please, read the following Cardinal Müller’s words
“This does not mean that Amoris laetitia art. 302 supports, in contrast to Veritatis splendor 81, that, due to mitigating circumstances, an objectively bad act can become subjectively good (it is dubium n. 4 of the cardinals). THE ACTION IN ITSELF BAD ( the sexual relationship with a partner who is not the legitimate spouse) DOES NOT BECOME SUBJECTIVELY GOOD DUE TO CIRCUMSTANCES. In the ASSESSMENT of GUILT, however, there may be MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES and the ancillary elements of an irregular cohabitation similar to marriage can also be presented before God in their ethical value in the overall assessment of judgment (for example, the care for children in common, which is a duty deriving from natural law)”.
I really don’t understand why you keep repeating that a sin is sin, as if i said something different.
“And consequentialism–and you may say whatever ridiculous thing you’d like but what else is continuing to sin in order to avoid a greater sin not, by definition, consequentialism?–is not Christian.”
Of course, consequentialism is not christian. What you fail to see is that NOBODY said that one can continue legitimately to sin. Even Cardinal Müller (if you read his statements) said very clearly that the sin does NOT become justifiable.
So i really don’t see why you keep to talk about consequentalism, for Heaven’s sake. Consequentialism is the class of normative ethical theories holding that the consequences of one’s conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct.
Cardinal Müller stated and repeated very clearly that “THE ACTION IN ITSELF BAD ( the sexual relationship with a partner who is not the legitimate spouse) DOES NOT BECOME SUBJECTIVELY GOOD DUE TO CIRCUMSTANCES”.
This is radically opposed to consequentalism. A consequentalist would say that in certain situations the act of adultery can be legit and moral in and of itself, Cardinal Müller stated the EXACT opposite.
So, again, i really fail to understand why you stubbornly persist with consequentalism.
I’ll say one more time: saying that ad adulterer can carry a mitigated guilt for his ongoing sin DOES NOT mean that his sin isn’t a sin. It only means that he can’t be punished with the same severity he would be punished if he didn’t have mitigating factors.
But i agree with the following words
“Further, our lives on the earth are meant to be lived in order to, by God’s grace, enter into eternal life with Him. On our end, we need to live in accordance with His teachings. Our lives are NOT about our lives here, now, on Earth; our lives are about God, Heaven. We should be concerned with the Four Last Things, not about sentimentalism and life here. What’s 80 years compared to eternity to people who REALLY believe?”
I think the same, but i don’t see how helping sinners contradicts that. Nobody has said that if someone is guilty of actual mortal sin he/she can receive absolution without repentance and the intention of not sinning anymore.
What Cardinal Müller said is that in certain cases, people in situation of grave sin can have mitigating factors that reduce their guilt, and that means that they are not guilty of actual mortal sin.
If you don’t agree show me where Cardinal Müller (the ex prefect of the CDF) is wrong and is heretic and i will change my mind.
One can be repentant of having gotten into a new relationship after a divorce and still not know exactly whether and how to get out of it. Like Jesus, Pope Francis is talking to and about real flesh and blood people who live in ambiguity, who make a mess of their lives and seek Jesus’ help, who recognise their sickness and are looking for a way out, a spiritual path out of their mess. Cardinal Müller advocates a careful spiritual accompaniment by an appropriate counsellor.
The brother-sister approach is a coherent solution to ending the sin without causing damage to innocent children.
The problem is that it is doable only when both of them are practicing catholics, because an atheist or a non catholic, or a non practicing catholic, is not going to accept that his/her partner, right off the bat, says that “from now on, we will live as brother and sister”.
If someone were to do such a thing with a non catholic partner the relationship would collapsed in no time, because he/she would not accept such a thing.
Cardinal Müller was speaking about catholics that returned to the Faith after having lapsed and that find themselves in a situation in which they can’t follow the law without causing damage to innocent children, and he says that while this situation does not excuse adultery by any means, it can reduce the adulterer’s culpability for his/her sin.
Even the Catechism of the Catholic Church says that lack of deliberate consent applies in cases where the person’s behavior is affected by fear, anxiety, longstanding sinful habits, and the like.
In such a case the affection developed for the new partner, the fear of losing the new family and hurting the children, may well affect the person’s culpability.
That’s why Müller said that “In the ASSESSMENT of GUILT, however, there may be MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES and the ancillary elements of an irregular cohabitation similar to marriage can also be presented before God in their ethical value in the overall assessment of judgment (for example, the care for children in common, which is a duty deriving from natural law).”
No endorsement of consequentialism, as I’ve already proved.
And even Fr.RP here https://onepeterfive.wpengine.com/cardinal-brandmuller-defenders-adultery-excommunicated/#comment-3589604778 stated that
“As to the understanding of the faithful, the majority of them are and have been lead astray and are ignorant of the Church’s teaching in almost every way. The average parishioner would incur no guilt via their priest’s error and the majority of them are truly ignorant of each others status regarding marriage etc…”
So there is also the problem that many faithful are being lead astray for no fault of their own, and even this is a mitigating factor that many of those people have.
Again, the law is easy. Christ’s words are crystal clear and it’s arrogant to continually assume people do not what they were doing or are doing and what they commit to in marriage. It’s unmerciful to condemn people to possibly spending eternity in hell for the sake of making them feel comfort on earth. How many times did Christ talk about being hated by the world, about the narrow gate.
And, again, sin cannot become good for the sake of potentially committing a lesser sin. The logic you employ is tantamount to saying a prostitue should continue selling herself because we’re she to stop her pimp would go go broke and his kids would starve or her kids would starve. When one employs consequentialism because he or she does not see Heaven as the final goal, as our ultimate aim, then one can justify anything. “I wanted to stop sleeping with my boss but I would lose my job. I wanted to stop abusing my wife but if she built up her self esteem she would leave me and break up our family. I robbed banks to feed my kids, I had no job prospects. I aborted or aided in abortion because the children would have had miserable, poverty ridden lives.
Nothing i said meant jack shit apparently: you keep on talking about consequentalism when i have already proved that consequentalism has nothing to to about it.
I urge you to look up the meaning of consequantialism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism
“Consequentialism is the class of normative ethical theories holding that the consequences of one’s conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct.”
Consequentialism is ends justifying means. In this situation, it is the closest approximation I can find to describe the argument for blessing sin to avoid further sin. How about providing heroic witness to the kids? No wonder the Church is bleeding Catholics: why bother with an organization that disregards and twists its own teaching at every turn. “Sure, Christ, the one we claim to be God, our Lord and Savior said this but….he….err….well…..he couldn’t have anticipated our times. Even though He is omniscient. And outside of time.”.
“ consequentalism is ends justifying means. In this situation, it is the closest approximation I can find to describe the argument for blessing sin to avoid further sin.”
Except that nobody is talking about blessing sin.
No? Well silly me, Marco, could you suggest a different word that describes instances in which adulterers are told by the Church that it would be a sin to stop committing adultery?
Nobody said that “it would be a sin to stop committing adultery”.
Since you are probably referring to Amoris Laetitia 303, let me repeat what i’ve already wrote elsewhere: nobody said that a person obeys God by sinning, or that a person sins against God by obeying. The first thing he says in Al 303 is that “a given situation”, such as divorce and remarriage, “does not correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel.” So he does teach that the acts of the divorced and remarried (more uxorio) are objective mortal sins, they are always grave matter. But some persons, due to their fallen state, various mitigating factors (stated in the CCC), and a longstanding habit of sin, might find it very difficult to change their behavior.
So then, “what God himself is asking” is NOT to commit a grave sin (which would be blasphemy), but rather to continue to struggle against sin, and to work toward complete freedom from all objective mortal sin. God still loves that person. And they remain in the state of grace, IF (mark my words: IF) their objective mortal sin is not also an actual mortal sin. Thus, God continues to help them grow in grace and continue along the path to salvation, and eventually to a life without mortal sin of any kind.
Christ’s words in the Bible are clear and unambiguous. It is very clear that a man who divorces his wife–and vice versa–and “marries” another is committing adultery. Period. This logic about trying to live a better life and the commutation of the sin from actual mortal to objective in contradiction of Christ and common sense is unreasonable.
Game it out, Van Basten: what about a serial murderer trying his best to stop murdering but who cannot so he simply tries to murder “humanely”. How about a kleptomaniac who wants to stop thieving but whose family will leave him if he fails to continue providing the material goods he obtains through theft. How about a priest who is a member of a Satanic coven who wants to leave said coven but just cannot because another member of the coven will be murdered if he (the priest) disappears.
Why, Van Basten, follow any Commandment if we cannot? Perhaps God just wants us to try to live our best life regardless of whether that means breaking Commandments. Why not only is our God the God of Suprises, he is a secular humanist. Who knew?
1 John 5
2 In this way we know that we love the children of God when we love God and obey his commandments.
3 For the love of God is this, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome
“ Christ’s words in the Bible are clear and unambiguous. It is very clear that a man who divorces his wife–and vice versa–and “marries” another is committing adultery. Period. This logic about trying to live a better life and the commutation of the sin from actual mortal to objective in contradiction of Christ and common sense is unreasonable.”
What you said here is completely absurd. The Church has always recognized that actual mortal sin can be reduced to “only” objective mortal sin when there are mitigating factors.
Even Cardinal Burke admitted that there can be mitigating factors that reduced actual guilt.
“Game it out, Van Basten: what about a serial murderer trying his best to stop murdering but who cannot so he simply tries to murder “humanely”. How about a kleptomaniac who wants to stop thieving but whose family will leave him if he fails to continue providing the material goods he obtains through theft. How about a priest who is a member of a Satanic coven who wants to leave said coven but just cannot because another member of the coven will be murdered if he (the priest) disappears.”
What idiotic comparisons. So a 15 years old teenager who masturbate like 99% of teenagers is to be compared to serial murderers? After all the teenager we are talking about is violating the sixth commandment just like the adulterer.
So 99% of teenagers are like serial murderers?
Do you realize how retarded your comparison is?
Following your logic we could say that the summentioned teenager is comparable to Heinrich Himmler.
The Church admits that people can find themselves in a situation in which they have mitigating factors, it’s called the law of graduality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_graduality
So yes, the “ logic about trying to live a better life” and the fact that not every objective mortal sin is not also an actual mortal sin is certainly not against our faith.
You’re an idiot. Who mentioned anything about a teenager. Forget the false equivalences, answer the questions. And refute Christ’s words on marriage in the Gospel of Matthew. Let’s start there and see where you get. Also, I noticed you had nothing on the commentary in the John’s Gospel.
Why do a bunch of men who claim to be living celibate lives and lay Catholics–like you–who presumably are not violating the clear and unambiguous teaching of Christ in conformity with the Sixth Commandment so adamant about trying to excuse away sin that cannot be excused. There are no levels of adultery, adultery is adultery.
“You’re an idiot.”
Says the idiot.
“Who mentioned anything about a teenager. “
I was just following your logic. If the divorced and remarried who is in a complicated situation needs to be compared to the serial murderer than the teenager who masturbates can be compared to the serial murderer as well, because both the teenager and the adulterer are violating the sixth commandment.
“And refute Christ’s words on marriage in the Gospel of Matthew”
I have nothing to refute, because it is clear that remarriage is an objective mortal sin and that it’s adultery. I have never disputed that.
Let me refresh your memory about what i wrote in the previous post
“ the divorced and “remarried” are in a situation of objective mortal sin. Their sin can be an actual mortal sin as well if they have no mitigating factors or it can be only an objective mortal sin if they have mitigating factors, nonetheless they have the duty to strive for goodness and do everything they can do, even if what they can do in the present moment does not allow them to fulfill the law perfectly.”
If you are Thick-headedand you don’t understand what I’m saying it’s your problem.
“why do a bunch of men who claim to be living celibate lives and lay Catholics–like you–who presumably are not violating the clear and unambiguous teaching of Christ in conformity with the Sixth Commandment so adamant about trying to excuse away sin that cannot be excused. There are no levels of adultery, adultery is adultery.”
Of course but there can be different level of culpability, where the sinner has mitigating factors and strive to do good. That’s why i wrote, concerning Al 303, that
“ what God himself is asking” is NOT to commit a grave sin (which would be blasphemy), but rather to continue to struggle against sin, and to work toward complete freedom from all objective mortal sin. God still loves that person. And they remain in the state of grace, IF (mark my words: IF) their objective mortal sin is not also an actual mortal sin. Thus, God continues to help them grow in grace and continue along the path to salvation, and eventually to a life without mortal sin of any kind.”
So yes, adultery is adultery, and adultery is always an objective mortal sin. But culpability can be reduced and the sinner can have a mitigated guilt which allows him to remain in the state of Grace and grow in holiness towards perfection.
This is the law of graduality.
FALSE EQUIVALENCE. I was gaming out logic which even an imbecile could follow: what sins aren’t really sins if we are just trying our hardest? Is that the new logic? Is it your contention now that what informs Catholic morality is what the majority of people think? So your bizarrely injected teenager isn’t really sinning because 99% do it or because he doesn’t really control his thoughts or limbs? SO you’re a determinist?
It’s not a false equivalence. I was just saying that if a divorced and “remarried” can be compared to a serial murderer, then even a teenager who masturbates can be compared to a serial murderer, because the teenager is committing an objective mortal sin, just like the serial murderer.
“So your bizarrely injected teenager isn’t really sinning because 99% do it or because he doesn’t really control his thoughts or limbs?”
He is sinning, but i don’t know if he is committing an actual mortal sin. Allow me to quote the Catechism of the Catholic Church
2352: “By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. ‘Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.’ ‘The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.’ For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of ‘the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved’.”
“To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.”
So as you can see a lot of factors can diminish the sinner’s culpability, even if his/her act remains gravely disordered in and of itself.
The same can be said about people in a second marriage, when they want to live differently but for a lot of reasons cannot do that at the moment.
It remains a sin to which one freely consents. Do I need to quote Christ from scripture again? Your argument fall flat in light of His words. People who choose to commit sin, do not repent and continue sinning do not have reduced culpability.
Your point fails even more miserably in that you’re also arguing that reduced culpability for past sins reduces culpability for the committing the same sin in the future and that people who are sinning and who have no intent to amend their lives can be in a state of grace and receive communion. Once a person knows something is a sin, even a venial sin–neither of which are adultery nor masturbation–by continuing to commit the sin it can be a mortal sin.
There’s no method aside from heresy which can be employed by the Church to tell people to keep sinning.
“It remains a sin to which one freely consents. Do I need to quote Christ from scripture again? Your argument fall flat in light of His words. People who choose to commit sin, do not repent and continue sinning do not have reduced culpability.”
Reduced culpability can arise when people have the mitigating factors mentioned in the Catechism. This is Church’s teaching period, i’m not even disputing that because i’m a catholic.
“Your point fails even more miserably in that you’re also arguing that reduced culpability for past sins reduces culpability for the committing the same sin in the future”
If the same reasons that reduced culpability in the past cannot be removed then sure, they can reduce culpability for the same sin in the future.
If they can’t be removed, though, because if someone can remove them and he doesn’t remove them he or she would be guilty.
“ and that people who are sinning and who have no intent to amend their lives can be in a state of grace and receive communion. Once a person knows something is a sin, even a venial sin–neither of which are adultery nor masturbation–by continuing to commit the sin it can be a mortal sin.”
I’ve said many and many times again that people need to strive for good and do everything they can in order that they not sin.
I’ve never said that someone can be in the state of Grace if he knows that what he is doing is a sin, can stop and nevertheless he doesn’t stop, i said that a person ca be in the state of Grace if he or she cannot stop for various reasons and he or she cannot remove those reasons despite he tries his best.
Again, law of graduality. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_graduality
“In Catholic moral theology, the law of graduality, the law of gradualness or gradualism, is the notion that people improve their relationship with God and grow in the virtues gradually, and do not jump to perfection in a single step.”
Nothing i said is outside of catholic teaching. Your cruel zealotry (which would condemn horny teenagers to hell just because they are horny teenagers like we all were) is not catholic, it’s inhuman.
And I repeat: nobody is telling people that it is ok to keep sinning. They have the duty to do all they can to stop sinning, even though it could not be possibile to stop sinning at once for various reasons. Law of graduality is catholic, your merciless harshness is not.
There is a situation in in which somebody CANNOT stop sinning? When somebody is raped, they are not committing the sin of adultery. When somebody is divorced and sleeping with somebody else of their own volition, it’s adultery. The other person threatening to leave is not a situation that removes free will or volition from a person.
Yes, you are talking about blessing future sin and worse, you advocate giving such people communion despite their continuation of committing mortal sin.
I’m not necessarily saying that those people should be given communion, i’m Just saying that mitigating factors can reduce their guilt, the fact that they attend Communion or not is neither here nor there.
Blessing sin is only in your little head, recognizing mitigating factors has nothing to do with it.
“The other person threatening to leave is not a situation that removes free will or volition from a person”
It does not remove free will but it can weaken the free will and the volition. Remember what the Catechism said about masturbation
2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. “Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.”137 “The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.” For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of “the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved.”138
To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety, or other psychological or social factors that lessen or even extenuate moral culpability
The Magisterium here is not talking about people deprived of free will, what the Magisterium is saying is that “ affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety, or other psychological or social factors that lessen or even extenuate moral culpability”
That could be the case for some people living in irregular situations.
“The issue in practice involves admission to communion. And THAT involves a transformation of what communion is. Which is why many theologians say the teaching in AL risks destruction of teaching on the Eucharist itself”
You are completely misrepresenting what Müller said, even thoug i think you are doing that with good faith. He never said what you are saying right now. He said the following (which pretty much summarizes everything), I suggest you to read carefully http://www.lastampa.it/2017/10/30/vaticaninsider/eng/the-vatican/communion-to-the-remarried-mller-there-can-be-mitigating-factors-in-guilt-OI0rK5MajqAn9gHGQE1YbO/pagina.html
“for the imputabilty of guilt in God’s judgment, one must consider subjective factors such as full knowledge and deliberate consent in the serious lack of respect for God’s commandments, which has as a consequence the loss of sanctifying grace and of the ability of faith to become effective in charity (cf. Thomas Aquinas S. th. II-II, q. 10 a. 3 ad 3).
This does not mean, however, that now Amoris laetitia art. 302 supports, in contrast to Veritatis splendor 81, that, due to mitigating circumstances, an objectively bad act can become subjectively good (it is dubium n. 4 of the cardinals). The action in itself bad (the sexual relationship with a partner who is not the legitimate spouse) does not become subjectively good due to circumstances. In the assessment of guilt, however, there may be mitigating circumstances and the ancillary elements of an irregular cohabitation similar to marriage can also be presented before God in their ethical value in the overall assessment of judgment (for example, the care for children in common, which is a duty deriving from natural law). “
As you can see, nobody is saying that adultery can be good and justifiable in and of itself. It is always a grave sin. So there is no such thing as “adultery is only adultery if I think of it as adultery”. This would be abject heresy.
Müller is saying that adultery always remains a grave sin, it is always grave matter, but the adulterer can have mitigated guilt and be free from actual mortal sin. That’s what he is saying.
“The issue in practice involves admission to communion. And THAT involves a transformation of what communion is. Which is why many theologians say the teaching in AL risks destruction of teaching on the Eucharist itself.”
Cardinal Müller, who is a much more reliable theologian, said that in Al there is no risk for the Faith.
“It is sophistry; “Adultery is only adultery if I think of it as adultery”. THAT is what you are presenting here as the assertion of Mueller. I am not denying that is what he is saying. I am saying that Jesus and the Church have already ruled on this issue and have never allowed such an interpretation to stand. Objective fact once held sway. No longer?”
Cardinal Müller never said such a thing, he never said that “ Adultery is only adultery if I think of it as adultery”
He explicitely states the exact opposite http://disq.us/url?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lastampa.it%2F2017%2F10%2F30%2Fvaticaninsider%2Feng%2Fthe-vatican%2Fcommunion-to-the-remarried-mller-there-can-be-mitigating-factors-in-guilt-OI0rK5MajqAn9gHGQE1YbO%2Fpagina.html%3AKz77gYhO3K7bFqk_X9guBcWIVw4&cuid=3129176
“The action in itself bad (the sexual relationship with a partner who is not the legitimate spouse) does not become subjectively good due to circumstances. In the assessment of guilt, however, there may be mitigating circumstances and the ancillary elements of an irregular cohabitation similar to marriage can also be presented before God in their ethical value in the overall assessment of judgment (for example, the care for children in common, which is a duty deriving from natural law”.
The teaching of the Church is that adultery is an intrinsically sinful act, that is, it is never legit in any circumstances. But the Church never taught that an adulterer always carries the full guilt for his sin, because the Church knows that mitigating factors can sometimes reduce culpability.
Adultery is always a grave sinful act, but this doesn’t mean that the person that commits such a sin is always to be punished with eternal damnation.
Adultery is always a sinful act, this doesn’t change because of circumstances. What can change is only the culpability of the sinner.
You said he could not be a saint if he sinned. I pointed out that is untrue.
If the adulterer confesses then he can go to communion. That was never at issue.
It was, because they were banned from Confession, not only from Communion. Cardinal Müller says that someone can be absolved if he has mitigating factors, so something changed in pastoral practice, because previously this wasn’t allowed even when someone was not fully guilty of actual mortal sin. Either the stopped sinning or they were banned, period. The thing is that Müller says that this change doesn’t go against doctrine.
“You said he could not be a saint if he sinned. I pointed out that is untrue.”
Very few Saints never sinned. I have explained myself badly. I wanted to say that I highly doubt that Moses would have dared to allow divorce if God didn’t allow him to allow it. Moses had a very close relationship with God, closer than nearly every Pope in history, and i don’t think that he would have dared to go against His will in such a blatant way.
I am not understanding your first paragraph. Why would someone go to confession if they think they are not sinning?
See what i wrote here https://disqus.com/home/discussion/onepeterfive/cardinal_brandmuller_defenders_of_adultery_are_excommunicated/#comment-3595200193 quoting the Cardinal.
Here’s the translation:
http://www.lastampa.it/2017/10/30/vaticaninsider/eng/the-vatican/possibilities-of-sacraments-to-the-irregulars-here-is-what-is-traditional-mKRYu8cdCpF7XslCSCSGjI/pagina.html
Chill out, folks. You’re all too “rigid”. God knows that his law and commandments are too tough for us. He understands when we live constantly in mortal sin. He doesn’t mind when we commit the sin of sacrilege. He hates the Church’s legalistic doctrine, too.
Of course this is parody. But in today’s Church there is no room for it since many prelates preach sin with only the skimpiest of veils covering their suggestions.
Can any of us look at this and do not cry out?! :-/
– Catholics praying Hail Mary removed by Police from Brussels Cathedral during “Reformation Celebration” –
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2017/10/catholics-praying-hail-mary-removed-by.html
Tragic but not surprising. The BelgChurch hierarchy is filled with sodomite and child molestor enablers like Danneels and Bonhy. A decade or so ago I was in this Cathedral. There are no kneelers and no holy water fonts.
The marvel is that there are still some fairhful young men in Belgium who witness to the Truth.
Yes. I know. I know more tan I wish already.
We should pray for our Church. CATHOLIC CHURCH.
May I suggest this useful tool for the best weapon that we have. https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLNgl8TaWfVOvZitJhGZ1Cwc850p79t17i
Insane!
A taste of the future! https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c745cd4f205203a453bdc65be1bcbb09bfa308512c9999ea50171c8c97ae7801.jpg
Please remove this diabolical creature! I cannot see it.
Please remove it. Thank you.
So it seems this third cardinal to have signed the Dubia has profoundly and with great sincerity spoken, of what our good Lord has asked of him. God bless and keep you Cardinal Brandmuller.
And now it would appear, Cardinal Mueller, has ” fired back”,hands clasped together with Francis , during a the photo op., supporting the A.L. with gusto. Something is very wrong here.
Allowing the divorced and remarried to receive communion will lead to an avalanche of divorces in the Catholic Church. This is an obvious consequence. So obvious, that you could call the Pope pro-divorce.
By stealth they attack Marriage and the Family, you are correct and those with eyes to see and ears to
hear acknowledge that. It’s an attack on the Sacrament of Holy Communion also.
Pope Benedict and majority of red hat Cardinals need to.join in a formal repudiation of the heresey ab Brandmuellar speaks of .. Atrocious clergy like USA Dolans both coasts USA .,Martin of America. Mgz and ab Martin of Ireland plus bonney etc. Of Belgium are a SCHISM in the making. Enough is enough .
This is frustrating that this is even a discussion. I have to say these things to my son before he spends time in his room thinking about what he did. No, of course you can’t put your feet up on the table. No, you can’t talk back to your mother. No, you have to do your homework. These rules are in place always and everywhere. They don’t change.
Why do we have to have these kinds of conversations with bishops of the church? It has always been wrong. It will always be wrong. You can’t act out of love and do something that will damn someone to hell, even you.
Perhaps Cardinal Brandmüller, with this public comment, is informing the Church that the 1st formal correction has been sent to the Pope?
The schism is already here; it is just not seen by the majority. The rough-hewn cross now beckons for all who stay with Christ.