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.
Bingo!
The Jews had it easy...
I divorce thee.
I divorce thee.
I divorce thee.
Uh...
1. The BIBLE?
2. What does 'usual' mean?
This conclusion is what one gets by ignoring (or misinterpreting) some bible verses...
Great!
Just what I need: more fiber!
No Roget' for YOU!
Of course; you are indeed correct; but incomplete.
ONLY the True Church contains ALL the truth; so RETURN now, and receive great blessings!
--Catholic_Wannabe_Dude(Hail Mary!)
Yeah, what is the *usual* OSAS position? THanks Elsie. Good question)
And what are the not usual OSAS positions?
Like what? Being told I can never be sure of my salvation and I have to find out when I get there?
That I have to work my tail off and then be told it wasn't good enough after all?
That I have to grovel a God of anger and judgment so He won't get mad at me and zap me, instead of loving a Father who cares for me and is quick to forgive?
I'll pass.....thankyouverymuch
CB explained what *partakers* means in post 407 and is not the same as *received* as CB showed there as well.
It’s a different word than *believe*, too, as I showed in post 428.
So, no, those who were *partakers* are not those who have believed or received.
Missionary?
There are five occurrences of this same word (μέτοχος) in the book of Hebrews. The KJV translates the first as "fellows" and the other four as "partakers."
Pearls. You cast pearls.
I accept your explanation and see that perhaps a different vocabulary makes sense. The more orthodox, for want of a better adjective, Protestants could be called genuine historical Protestants, while the more modern denominations could be called something else (Modern, Neo, Other, ?). I'm not sure how we would define those historical Protestants who have somewhat apostasized, although that may be too harsh a term (Anglicans, Episcopalians, Lutherans, and Presbyterians who now accept ordination of women, contraception, abortion, homosexual marriage, and other departures from their denominations' original creeds.)
You make my point for me. Unless there are two versions of the gospel of grace, the same commandment applies to everyone. The LORD and his apostles have repeatedly warned everyone over and over and over again. Whoever can listen should listen to everything they have told us. And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name. Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
Salvation by works, which Paul disproves in Galatians 3.
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.
He doesn't promise that. For one thing, those who trust Christ are not trusting OSAS. We trust Christ, not our doctrine. We believe we are secure because HE promised us that He sealed us with His Holy Spirit.
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.
Ephesians 4:30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.
Even if we grieve Him, we are still sealed by Him.
You didn't really address the last comment at all, much less really answer the questions.
It's not got to do with the doctrine and Scripture. It's got to do with WHY people want to believe so bad that they are not secure when God promises that we are.
Peter denied Christ.
What was Jesus response?
*Did He say, too bad, you crucified Me to yourself again. No eternal life for you.*?
And who says the persevering to the end by the tribulation saints is done in their own strength? Additionally, it’s only an observation, that those who persevere are the saved ones. The ones who don’t didn’t have the saving faith to begin with, no matter what their works may have showed.
People can have works without faith. Many people are going to appeal to their works and Jesus will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’
I'm good with that.
John 10:27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; 28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.…
The only people who don’t believe in once saved always saved are those who believe in a works based salvation. They may want to consider the “filthy rags” perception of their best efforts.
John 10:27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; 28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.…
The only people who don’t believe in once saved always saved are those who believe in a works based salvation. They may want to consider the “filthy rags” perception of their best efforts.
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.