Posted on 07/16/2014 4:18:13 AM PDT by NYer
I begin with a piece, spotted by Fr Tim Finigan and reported in his indispensable blog The Hermeneutic of Continuity, which had been published in Sandro Magister’s blog—not his English one, Chiesa, but his Italian language blog for L’Espresso, Settimo Cielo.
A few days ago, Magister told the story of a parish priest in the Italian diocese of Novara, Fr Tarcisio Vicario, who recently discussed the question of Holy Communion for the divorced and remarried. This is how he explained the Church’s teaching on the matter: “For the Church, which acts in the name of the Son of God, marriage between the baptised is alone and always a sacrament. Civil marriage and cohabitation are not a sacrament. Therefore those who place themselves outside of the Sacrament by contracting civil marriage are living a continuing infidelity. One is not treating of sin committed on one occasion (for example a murder), nor an infidelity through carelessness or habit, where conscience in any case calls us back to the duty of reforming ourselves by means of sincere repentance and a true and firm purpose of distancing ourselves from sin and from the occasions which lead to it.”
Pretty unexceptionable, one would have thought.
His bishop, the Bishop of Novara, however, slapped down Fr Tarcisio’s “unacceptable equation, even though introduced as an example, between irregular cohabitation and murder. The use of the example, even if written in brackets, proves to be inappropriate and misleading, and therefore wrong.”
Fr Tim comments that “Fr Vicario did not ‘equate’ irregular cohabitation and murder. His whole point was that they are different—one is a permanent state where the person does not intend to change their situation, the other is a sin committed on a particular occasion where a properly formed conscience would call the person to repent and not commit the sin again.”
It was bad enough that Fr Tarcisio should be publicly attacked by his own bishop simply for propagating the teachings of the Church. Much more seriously, Fr Tarcisio was then slapped down from Rome itself, by no less a person than the curial Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, who said that the words of Fr Tarcisio were “crazy [‘una pazzia’], a strictly personal opinion of a parish priest who does not represent anyone, not even himself.” Cardinal Baldisseri, it may be remembered, is the Secretary General of the Synod of Bishops, and therefore of the forthcoming global extravaganza on the family. This does not exactly calm one’s fears about the forthcoming Synod: for, of course, it is absurd and theologically illiterate to say that Fr Tarcisio’s words were “a strictly personal opinion of a parish priest who does not represent anyone, not even himself” (whatever that means): for, on the contrary, they quite simply accurately represent the teaching of the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church.
Sandro Magister tellingly at this point quotes the words of Thomas, Cardinal Collins, Archbishop of Toronto, who was appointed in January this year as one of the five members of the Commission of Cardinals Overseeing the Institute for the Works of Religion, and who at about the same time as Fr Tarcisio was being slapped down from the beating heart of curial Rome, was saying almost exactly the same thing as he had:
Many people who are divorced, and who are not free to marry, do enter into a second marriage. … The point is not that they have committed a sin; the mercy of God is abundantly granted to all sinners. Murder, adultery, and any other sins, no matter how serious, are forgiven by Jesus, especially through the Sacrament of Reconciliation, and the forgiven sinner receives communion. The issue in the matter of divorce and remarriage is one’s conscious decision (for whatever reason) to persist in a continuing situation of disconnection from the command of Jesus … it would not be right for them to receive the sacraments….
What exactly is going on, when Bishops and parish priests can so radically differ about the most elementary issues of faith and morals—about teachings which are quite clearly explained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church—and when simultaneously one Cardinal describes such teachings as “crazy” and another simply expounds them as the immemorial teachings of the Church? Does nobody know what the Church believes any more?
The question brought me back powerfully, once more, to one of the most haunting blogs I have read for some time, one to which I have been returning repeatedly since I read it last Friday. It is very short, so here it is in full; I am tempted to call it Fr Blake’s last post (one can almost hear his bugle sounding over sad shires):
It is four months since Protect the Pope went into “a period of prayer and reflection” at the direction of Bishop Campbell, someone recently asked me why I tend not to post so often as I did, and I must say I have been asking the same question about other bloggers.The reign of Benedict produced a real flourish of ‘citizen journalists’, the net was alive with discussion on what the Pope was saying or doing and how it affected the life of our own local Church. Looking at some of my old posts they invariably began with quote or picture followed by a comment, Benedict stimulated thought, reflection and dialogue, an open and free intellectual environment. There was a solidity and certainty in Benedict’s teaching which made discussion possible and stimulated intellectual honesty, one knew where the Church and the Pope stood. Today we are in less certain times, the intellectual life of the Church is thwart with uncertainty.
Most Catholics but especially clergy want to be loyal to the Pope in order to maintain the unity of the Church, today that loyalty is perhaps best expressed through silence.
I look at my own blogging, and see that I perfectly exemplify this. More and more, my heart just isn’t in it; and I blog less than I did. Now, increasingly, I feel that silence is all. Under Benedict, there was vigorously under way a glorious battle, an ongoing struggle, focused on and motivated by the pope himself, to get back to the Church the Council intended, a battle for the hermeneutic of continuity. It was a battle we felt we were winning. Then came the thunderbolt of Benedict’s resignation.
After an agonizing interregnum, a new pope was elected, a good and holy man with a pastoral heart. All seemed to be well, though he was not dogmatically inclined as Benedict had been: all that was left to the CDF. I found myself explaining that Francis was hermeneutically absolutely Benedictine, entirely orthodox, everything a pope should be, just with a different way of operating. I still believe all that. But here is increasingly a sense of uncertainty in the air, which cannot be ignored. “One knew where the Church and the Pope stood” says Fr Blake. Now, we have a Pope who can be adored by such enemies of the Catholic Church as the arch abortion supporter Jane Fonda, who tweeted last year “Gotta love new Pope. He cares about poor, hates dogma.”
In other words, for Fonda and her like, the Church is no longer a dogmatic entity, no longer a threat. That’s what the world now supposes: everything is in a state of flux. The remarried will soon, they think, be told they can receive Holy Communion as unthinkingly as everyone else: that’s what Cardinal Kasper implied at the consistory in February. Did the pope agree with him? There appears to be some uncertainty, despite the fact that the Holy Father had already backed Cardinal Mueller’s insistence that nothing has changed.
We shall see what we shall see at the Synod, which I increasingly dread. Once that is out of the way, we will be able to assess where we all stand. But whatever happens now, it seems, the glad confident morning of Benedict’s pontificate has gone, never again to return; and I (and it seems many others) have less we feel we can say.
It’s real funny when a Catholic thinks a Protestant made the spelling error.
Now that Salvation finds out that it was a fellow Catholic, I wonder what the response will be.
For the record, I noticed it too, but chose not to be so petty as to make an issue of it. Spelling errors happen and typos happen. I knew what was meant and spelling errors are not a hill to die on and are no excuse to publicly embarrass someone.
Leave others out of it and you can have your nice little caucus discussions. Bring others into it, and we're not going to roll over and play dead. Get over yourselves.
Ouch!
I think some people who are Catholic are ignorant of the fact that evangelical types where practicing RCs, and were as well catechized as faithful RCs are.
When people criticize priests, they truly don't understand why we defend them so.
For the same reason they incessantly promote Rome and too often engage in rash reactionary rhetoric against anything that impugns their cherished imaginary image of her. It is their security.
He's not a symbol or a caricature. He's our spiritual father. He's there if you are hurt in the hospital, a family member is dying. He Baptizes us, he shares in our sorrows and joys and the face may change over the years, but the vocation PRIEST, means something. Father rejoices with you... Some will never understand the difference in the priest as man and the priest as in persona Christi,...when the chips are down, Father always come through.
Those like me who were faithful RCs before we were born again and realized the profound changes in heart and life because of Biblical regeneration, and realization of a real relationship with the Lord, can understand the degree of centrality and psychological dependance and devotion to a class of men, even if yours is an idealistic one that is by no means the view or experience of all Caths.
But it is "thinking of men above that which is written" (1Cor. 4:6) which predominates esp. in Rome and cults and aberrant Prot groups. Yet you did not even include the blasphemy that teaches that God himself is obliged to abide by the judgment of his priests, and that the supreme power of the priestly office means that the priest speaks and Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest's command.
The pastoral office is critical and to which conditional obedience is enjoined, and those who that rule well and esp. who labor in the word and doctrine are to be esteemed insomuch as they do - and publicly rebuked if they are proved to have publicly sinned, (1Tim. 5:17,20) It is not an easy job.
Yet rather than the degree of centrality upon an exalted class of clergy you describe, none of the church epistles or letters to the 7 churches of Rev. are even addressed to the pastor(s), nor is one manifest in all the friends Paul greets by name in Rm. 16.
Moreover, only about 2 pastors besides apostles are even mentioned. Nor are they ever distinctively titled "priest," or even shown blessing and dispensing bread in the Lord's supper to the congregation as part of their function, let alone this being their primary one.
Neither among other things, is submission to Peter as the supreme infallible exalted head in Rome ever commanded to the churches, nor are they ever shown looking to Him as that. The church of Rome is simply the invisible church in Scripture.
Instead of the exalted pastor focused church you describe, it is a Christ-centric born again evangelical relationship with the Lord that saved them which predominates in the sound churches of Scripture, while the Corinthians were treating some men more like popes , and rather than such focus upon the pastor and his special status being stressed, with its special titles, the Lord stressed that "all ye are brethren." (Mt. 23:8)
"Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?" (1 Corinthians 3:5)
"For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." (1 Corinthians 3:11)
It is only as souls have a transforming regeneration in true conversion and walk therein can be true horizontal fellowship. Thus evangelicals can quickly fellowship with other evangelicals from different churches, and in them, due to a shared conversion and relationship with their Lord, church affiliation being rather peripheral, with the "thinking of men above that which is written" and degree of centrality as seen in Rome being a mark of immaturity or dead religion. While the lack of Biblical esteem is a mark of rebellion.
Another conservative and knowledgeable RC (apologist Robert Sugenis) opines PJ2 :
1. Invited pagans to pray to their false gods.
2. Looked the other way while his clerics raped his children, and ordained faggots to say his Masses
3. Shuffled pedophiles and homosexuals from parish to parish, even giving them safe haven at the Vatican.
4. Subjected those Catholic who dare protest to droning quotes from Vatican I and Lumen Gentium about “submission”
5. Watched scantily clad women dance while Mass was being said.
6. Suggested that hell might not exist.
7. Suggested that the Jews still have their Old Covenant
8. Kissed the Koran
9. Made it appear as if God has given man universal salvation by using ambiguous language in official writings
10. Accepted the tenets of evolution.
11. Wrote a catechism that contained theological errors and ambiguities.
12. Changed the canonization laws: marriage laws, capital punishment laws, laws about women’s roles.
13. Went against the tradition by putting women in leadership positions and dispensing with head coverings.
14. Failed to excommunicate heretical bishops and priests who were spouting heresies.
15. Protected Bishop Marcinkus and his entourage of financial hoodlums in the Vatican.
16. Ignored the pleas of a bishop who was merely trying to preserve the tradition (Archbishop Levebre)
17. Exonerated Luther
18. Allowed the Luther‐Catholic Joint Declaration, signed by a high‐ranking Cardinal, to explicitly state that “man is justified by faith alone.”
19. Disobeyed the Fatima request to consecrate Russia.
(http://www.catholicintl.com/articles/Response%20to%20John%20Dejak%20of%20The%20Wanderer.pdf; http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/04/sungenis-alone.html)
The first link i now dead, not surprisingly after it was posted on the second, and thus a reactionary RC rejected Sugenis said them, but the validity of them is established by Catholics, as seen in my
response .
I would really have ‘em rolling in the aisles if I mentioned more of the greco roman latin counterfeits like the savior’s birth on december 25, or His death on good friday, or being raised easter sunday.. all church teachings that are counterfeits of actual set times/appointed times in scripture..
Easier to laugh it off.... but genuine Truth makes the counterfeit look sad.
Sungenis said this??
In the Religion forum, on a thread titled Is There Growing Confusion over Church Teaching?, delchiante wrote:
I would really have ‘em rolling in the aisles if I mentioned more of the greco roman latin counterfeits like the savior’s birth on december 25, or His death on good friday, or being raised easter sunday.. all church teachings that are counterfeits of actual set times/appointed times in scripture..
Easier to laugh it off.... but genuine Truth makes the counterfeit look sad.
Much easier to laugh it off, since what you are spewing is the same nonsense nutcase fringe preachers have spewed since, well, the very first days. Nutcase preachers abound, they fool a few (sadly you sound like you’ve been fooled, since you insist you are not telling jokes) and then eventually wander away.
The Church endures, through century after century, attack after attack. You may choose to listen towhatever ignorant, intinerant whackjob preacher you want, for me and mine, we follow Our Lord and the Church He gave us.
Pax Vobiscum.
That statement is an expression of his own mind, not a reading of yours which is the most common form of “making it personal” around here. That said, if his remarks were to change the direction of the thread, making it “about” you - then it would be “making it personal.”
Most likely.
I think going back to the original article, that there is not confusion on the teaching. The teaching is clear. The problem is obstinacy. What is confusing to certain people is that they want a particular rule changed to fit their individual situation. That is what the tribunal is for.
Defining Divorce is the problem in my opinion. The Church does not recognize divorce for a sacramental marriage.
Generations before this current one understood that if a civil divorce was granted by a court of law, you were not to remarry as in the eyes of the Church you are still married. to the other person despite the civil (government action).
Granted these matters are so complicated that they require Marriage Tribunals to sort it out. Every Diocese has priests that the Bishop thinks will be a good candidate for the tribunal. But they just don't appoint them to it . The priest has to go to Cannon law school.
I think that better Pre-Cana education and more scrutiny of couples asking to be married would solve this problem.
There is to much pressure on priests to agree to marry people. Why should they marry people who are not practicing Catholics.
It should not be a status symbol. If the couple never goes to Mass, perhaps they should just go get married else where. Should they have a conversion of heart latter the marriage can be blessed.
It's our own often self serving obstinacy that gets in the way of following the "rules". Thy will be done means what it says. To many Catholics think MY word be done.
We are all individually special in God's eye, but that does not entitle us to pick a choose what we want to follow. It destroys the fabric of the Body of Christ.
More people need to go back to that old phrase. "offer it up".
I thought Sungenis was a neo-Cat (those who would normally defend JPII). I’ll have to look into the links you provided.
For someone who wants to be offended, it never will.
But sometimes you have to try.
LOL Oy vey!!!
Interesting; sources usually attribute this to Calvinism. Where do you think it originated and what is your denomination's position on the usual Once Saved Always Saved teaching ?
That’s exactly what God says will happen to them when they all get together and come against Israel.
>> I wonder. Have you ever bothered to read footnote #330 at the end of CCC#841?<<
Those don’t change a thing. Muslims may claim they serve the God of Abraham but it’s clear they don’t. They serve a different god of their own making. The Catholic Church not being able to see that is an indication of their lack of knowledge and understanding of the one true God of scripture.
And God used Judas in His plan for Christ to die for our salvation. And God used Balham’s donkey. And God used Herod and Pharaoh.
Do I understand you to write that you think there are two gospels, one for a "church age" and another for "the tribulation." If so, did you receive this teaching from a particular denomination/sect or come up with it independently ? How much of the book of Revelation, I wonder, are you saying does not apply ?
meant to ping you also to reply; too bad reply does not automatically include everyone in the previous post being replied to; need a “reply all” button
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.