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 Magisters blognot his English one, Chiesa, but his Italian language blog for LEspresso, 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 Churchs 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 Tarcisios 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 differentone 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 ones fears about the forthcoming Synod: for, of course, it is absurd and theologically illiterate to say that Fr Tarcisios 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 ones 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 moralsabout teachings which are quite clearly explained in the Catechism of the Catholic Churchand 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 Blakes 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 Benedicts 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 isnt 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 Benedicts 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. Thats 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: thats 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 Muellers 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 Benedicts pontificate has gone, never again to return; and I (and it seems many others) have less we feel we can say.
Thats from post 26. That isnt a disparaging remark?
He didn't say it was.
He merely pointed out where the bashing moved in and since it was before the caucus label was removed because it is WHY the caucus label was removed, the bashers moved in before any Protestants showed up.
I didn't notice it was a Caucus thread.
In some people’s book, I guess not.
Thats another aspect of it absolutely! Scripture teaches that we cant even come to God without Him calling and working in us. That gives no room for man to boast or take credit.
Actually it is a factual statement. The two do not have to be mutually exclusive.
Well done!!! I have for many years now been convinced that anything the smacks of giving credit to sinful man has something inherently wrong with it.
First sentence post 30.
"...And thus the fervent theological controversy regarding divine grace that arose between the Dominicans and the Jesuits towards the close of the sixteenth century. And despite the promotion about RC unity and the magisterium settling disputes, this was not settled..."
You called me out on 26. If you have a problem 30 then you have a problem with 30. I stand by it. I merely wanted to know why the Caucus was dropped. I have been informed. I am fine with it.
But which is why i referred to a theological definitions of free will. I know of neither Calvinists of Arminians who deny men are free to make choices, but are only capable of making choices according to their nature, and left to that alone they will not come of Christ, thus "no man can come to Me unless the Father draw Him," (Jn. 6:44; cf. 12:32) and who opens hearts, (Acts 16:14), grants repentance, (Acts 11:18) and gives faith. (Eph. 2:8,9)
Whether the lost are granted salvific grace and whether it can be resisted is the debate, due to the strength of support on both sides.
Do you mean what God allows man to do in His omniscience, or even ordains them as in the case of Judas, but in which one still chooses to do so (mystery) and works out for God, or that the decisions of men to elect grossly immoral men are led by the Spirit in obeying the Word of God, and are infallible?
And which thus are a necessary attribute of the one true church?
And while we are at it, what is your basis for your full assurance that Rome is the one true church (the weight of evidence, Scripture, etc.)?
It’s time for me to go home. I will catch up with this later.
It was because (again) an RC initiated an attack on "anti-Catholic bigots." As the RM pointed to post #26.
Note however, that "anti-Catholic bigots" can refer to those who challenge the elitist presumptions of Rome and her defenders, who argue that they are right because their church is right, if she does say so herself.
Yet we have also been told be an omniscient RC that there has never been a bit of anti-Protestant bigotry on FR.
Which is the often seen victim-entitlement reaction of RCs, whom presume they can promote an elitist autocratic entity, and relegate those who oppose it to being “bigots, and whine when not given special treatment/exceptions.
One need only peruse the religion threads and see the number of Catholic threads to understand how welcome Catholics are here.
So are you saying you don’t want Catholics to respond to any thing that is posted? Is that what you are saying?
Could it be that there are more Catholics? In the USA? In the world?
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.