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.
That's too broad.
It's the folks to stand up to their heavy-handed tactics and put their noses within inches of them!
6.) Failed to defeated the PROTESTant horde.
And that's why the world doesn't have to worry about them at all these days...
Having undertaken, for the Glory of God, and advancements of the Christian faith and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents, solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic; for our better ordering, and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.In witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the 11th of November, in the year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth, 1620.
Catholics have FULLY embraced...
Arabic numerals over the Roman numerals that the early church used.
And PROTESTants are supposed to be the heretics?
Oh??
It is SO hard to be grateful to those who show SO much arrogance in demanding it!
Can you re-state that using a TRUE Catholic dichotomy for us?
The easily offended one will whine in public about the slight that has been served them?
Like the proverbial tree in the forest...
If the RM is mentioned, but not pinged, does he(she?) still read it???
No one EVER notices that I've mispeled a wurd when I am TALKING to them...
Another Catholic invention.
How does that footnote change things? All it tells me is that JPII has correctly “interpreted” Vatican II which taught contrary to the Traditional Catholic Faith.
I don’t agree with metmom’s religion, but every time she posts that picture, I sit here nodding my head. That picture should make EVERY Catholic ask “WTH?”
“St” JPII kissing the “holy” book of the diabolical religion of Mohammed. Pathetic at best.
Two things:
1. It’s been said that that picture shows him showing thanks and respect for a gift. This you obviously disagree with (and I do too by the way.)
2. It’s never been actually proven, to my knowledge, that that book is indeed a copy of the Koran. I have also heard it said that it was a copy of the Bible given to him by a Coptic cleric. The only “proof” that it’s a Koran is blog post after blog post after blog posts merely claiming it was the Koran. I’ve never seen an article from an accredited news source that independently verifies it was the Koran. I’ve looked. If you can find such a source feel free to share it.
So until and unless it’s shown differently I’ll believe #2. Even then I’ll have the right to disagree as in #1. Don’t fall into the Protestant/non Catholic trap that demands perfection from Saints (while on Earth). No one has ever said a Saint now in Heaven didn’t make a mistake while on Earth. After all a Saint isn’t someone who never sinned. Probably someone who sinned 100 times, but confessed his sin 101 times.
This isn't just a "mistake". This is another example of his MANY actions wrt VII's false ecumenism. He taught the Church through his actions that these actions were Catholic in nature. I wonder how many Catholics he has taught that it's ok to kiss the book of a false religion.
Let me be clear I agree that was a mistake on his part but again, a mistake even an ongoing one doesn’t prohibit him from being a Saint.
I mean we know that declarations of Sainthood are considered infallible. So are you saying he was erroneously “made” a Saint (and thus Francis is not a valid Pope)?
And thanks for this. I’ve never been able to find it.
I have said I was a sedevacantist here before (hence the reason why I am not “allowed” to post in Catholic Caucus threads). I absolutely have strong doubt to the validity of Francis’ papacy.
Everything you all take credit for God could have accomplished on His own.
It’s GOD who is sovereign and rules and reigns and provides and protects.
HE would have done it somehow.
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.