Is There Growing Confusion over Church Teaching?

Crisis Magazine ^ | July 16, 2014 | Dr. William Oddie

[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.

[af_vet_1981]

mediate should be meditate

[CynicalBear]

>> That sounds alot like different gospels, one for the "church age" and one for "the tribulation."<<

Theere are not “different” gospels. There is but one gospel. First of all you need to understand what the term “gospel” means. In the Greek, gospel is the translation of the Greek noun euangelion “good news,” and the verb euangelizo meaning “to bring or announce good news.” Both words are derived from the noun angelos, “messenger.”

When Christians refer to the “Gospel” they are referring to the “good news” that Jesus Christ died to pay the penalty for our sin so that we might become the children of God through faith alone in Christ alone.

Once that age of grace is over, “the fullness of the Gentiles” that “gospel” is not more. Those who are left to go through the tribulation will need to “act”, as in not take the mark of the beast and will be killed, to attain eternal life.

>> Do you consider the first the "Once Saved Always Saved" version and the second the "You Can Lose Your Salvation" or "Works" version ?<<

Scripture is clear that those who are left to go through the tribulation of Revelation can lose their salvation by taking the mark of the beast. Yes, it’s a different “dispensation” during that last seven years.

[CynicalBear]

That is an excellent passage to illustrate our point.

2 Corinthians 5:20-21 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

It is not we who are doing it but “God is doing it through us”. That’s the error of the Catholics trying to take credit for giving us the scriptures and so many other things they try to take credit for.

[CynicalBear]

>> I realize this scripture is unpleasant and uncomfortable for the OSAS teaching.<<

That’s not uncomfortable or unpleasant at all. As I showed in my previous posts to you. There is nothing in that passage that says those people were saved and had the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. They rejected the Holy Spirit and the gospel thus rejected the death and resurrection of Christ.

[CynicalBear]

>>I find it more likely that they understood but developed a different interpretation in some areas which seemed better to them; call them the first protestants if you will; we don't know exactly why but we know<<

They are more like Catholics and indeed some Protestant denominations. Catholics believe that the “church” has superseded the nation of Israel when scripture teaches that Israel will always be God’s chosen people and God will deal with them as a nation again during the tribulation.

[af_vet_1981]

Why do Catholics fight the idea of the security of the believer so hard?

I would think Catholics, at least those who are spiritual, would fight for the security of the believer by obeying the scripture But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.. Read the scriptures I posted where the LORD and his apostles plead with us for our benefit and security. All we have to do is willingly trust and obey.

Why don’t they seem to want to believe that God will keep secure those who trust in Him?

He will keep secure those who trust in Him, not those who trust in OSAS. He gets to define what "trust in Him" means and it is to continue in the faith. Never give up. Cling to him because you love him and you will obey him. Remember the woman who washed Jesus' feet with her tears.

Why do they feel the need to contribute to their salvation so much?

Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, 2Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds. Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin. And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him: For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons. Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness. Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby. Wherefore lift up the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees; And make straight paths for your feet, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way; but let it rather be healed. I don’t get the mindset of a person who wants to believe so hard that he could lose his salvation.

It is the mindset of a person who, because of the word of grace and truth from the Holy One of Israel, turns from sin to believe and love the LORD his God with all his heart, all his soul, and all his strength; and his neighbor as himself; and the brethren, who are blessed Mary the mother of God with us and the blessed Apostles who gave their lives in service and martyrdom for our benefit out of their great love and submission, all of which constrains him to the holy scriptures and the holy catholic apostolic church built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

[CynicalBear]

>>Now go look up Strong's "μέτοχος" for "partaker" and mediate on it, if you will.<<

I think you meant “meditate” but anyway.

The Greek μετόχους or metochous meaning partakers.

Metochous - a sharer, partner, associate

Now let’s look at the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as is the case of a true believer.

Acts 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

They received and were filled with the Holy Spirit.

John 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive (lambanó) ye the Holy Ghost:

Greek lambanó - Definition: (a) I receive, get, (b) I take, lay hold of.

Totally different words. In Hebrews 6:4 those who turned away had not “received” the Holy Spirit as a true believe does.

That’s what a “meditation” or “study” of the word shows.

[metmom]

I find it more likely that they understood but developed a different interpretation in some areas which seemed better to them; call them the first protestants if you will; we don't know exactly why but we know

Funny you should comment on interpretation because that's YOUR interpretation of that verse. And that verse no where suggests what your interpretation is.

[CynicalBear]

And here I thought Catholics condemned those who interpreted who were not the “Magesterium”. Don’t they claim that we are being “our own pope” when we do that?

[metmom]

That’s not uncomfortable or unpleasant at all. As I showed in my previous posts to you. There is nothing in that passage that says those people were saved and had the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. They rejected the Holy Spirit and the gospel thus rejected the death and resurrection of Christ.

And having rejected it, there is nothing left to go to for salvation. There is no other means of being reconciled with God.

If you reject Christ with the full knowledge of what you are rejecting, that's it.

Scripture makes it clear that there can be a final hardening of one's heart so that salvation is not possible. Pharaoh reached that point and finally GOD hardened his heart.

[af_vet_1981]

The Greek μετόχους or metochous meaning partakers. Metochous - a sharer, partner, associate Now let’s look at the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as is the case of a true believer. Acts 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. They received and were filled with the Holy Spirit. John 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive (lambanó) ye the Holy Ghost: Greek lambanó - Definition: (a) I receive, get, (b) I take, lay hold of. Totally different words. In Hebrews 6:4 those who turned away had not “received” the Holy Spirit as a true believe does. That’s what a “meditation” or “study” of the word shows.

If you look again you will see μετόχους used here and may get the sense of what "partaker" means.
Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;

[CynicalBear]

Exactly.

[metmom]

When we believed we were sealed.

Ephesians 1:13-14 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.

We are warned to not grieve the Spirit and to not quench the Spirit, but we are never warned that God would remove Him from us if we simply disobeyed. We ALL sin, all the time. Sometimes intentionally, mostly not, sometimes under pressure, and sometimes on the spur of the moment. But that does not sever our relationship with God in Christ. He does not disown us for disobeying and make it an on again off again relationship.

Ephesians 4:30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.

[af_vet_1981]

Read the passage again and you will see that Gentiles who are grafted in through faith will be cut off if they don't continue in his goodness.

[delchiante]

His Bride need not make up a birthday...she will know it..

His Bride need not make up a death day. she will know it...

His Bride will also know His circumcision day, His dedication to the temple day, His baptism day, too...
Israel was taught them..they just didn’t connect them to their King or His Kingdom...
all days fulfilled within His calendar of new moons, Sabbaths and feasts..

One only needs to learn His calendar and timekeeping He placed in the sky
.. And then read Scripture... and ignore greco roman latin church teachings...

And then the counterfeits jump out.. just like they do when trying to detect phony money..
The study of the genuine is the only way to spot the phony, bogus, fake...

Torah really did become flesh and dwelt among us...
And those new moons, sabbaths and feasts in Torah will be restored...

And they will not be done away with, regardless of what ‘church ‘ teaches..

Isaiah 66:22-24
22For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith Yah, so shall your seed and your name remain. 23And it shall come to pass, that from one New Moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith Yah. 24And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.

Communion for divorced people doesn’t seem too important church teaching when all the other stuff is pseudo....

[af_vet_1981]

There is nothing in that passage that says those people were saved and had the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Yes, there is. They were made partakers of the Holy Ghost just as we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;

Same word, same author, same meaning

They fell away and so were cut off from the olive tree, as it were.

[CynicalBear]

That doesn’t change a thing. It’s rejecting the Holy Spirit that leads to no chance for redemption. The Jews have rejected Christ but will one day be redeemed. It’s not Christ that those in Hebrews 6 rejected but it is the Holy Spirit. One has to keep in mind that it’s through the Holy Spirit that now works that we are called. Rejecting that Holy Spirit is what is being talked about in Hebrews 6. Not the rejection of Christ. Rejecting the Holy Spirit leaves one with no one to work in them for redemption. Nice try though.

[narses]

[CynicalBear]

>> Read the passage again and you will see that Gentiles who are grafted in through faith will be cut off if they don't continue in his goodness.<<

>>” Well; because of unbelief they were broken off,<<

Then he goes on to compare them to the Jews who were cut off because of unbelief. It still goes back to Paul’s answer to the jailer. “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved”. Those who truly believe and are filled with the Holy Spirit will not revert to unbelief. God said those who are His can not be taken from Him. If you think that someone who was once His can be taken from Him whether it be by the person himself/herself (which is in fact Satan stealing them from God) than you have to deny the scripture that tells us no one can take them from God.

[delchiante]

Ignorance may just seem like bliss...

Those daughters of the mother are just as willing to accept inherited lies. They have not rejected enough of the greco roman latin teachings and would probably be the first to defend those ‘givens’ they share with mother.

Thankfully, one need not be a Catholic or a Protestant daughter to believe in the Elohim of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and the finished work of His only begotten Son, Joshua, The Messiah of Israel...

HalleluYah!