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.
Check it out. I will not post on it, but it could be fun to watch.
I have been divorced and remarried and I do not go to communion.
1 Cor 11
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.
27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.
31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
Not to be mean to you, but some day your old spouse will die, may it be before you. If not, see you at the table in heaven. :)
As Catholics, our hearts are drawn to help the underprivileged. In this instance, though, we disdain the political agenda behind this mass migration. The Democrat party relies upon dependency of the populace to ensure re-election. This insidious approach, rather than liberating individuals, creates a 'caste' system of sycophants who will continue to vote the democratic ticket to guarantee continuation of their benefits. FWIU, the feds are shuttling these new arrivals to various states, often depositing them into communities that tend to vote republican.
Obama promised change; and he is not done with us. He is bolstering future democratic presidential hopefuls with a fresh voter base.
I am divorced but chose not to remarry. I knew I was making a mistake when I married but did it all the same. I took vows in the presence of God and continue to respect those vows. Several catholic priests, knowing the circumstances behind the divorce, recommended an annulment. I chose to follow my own conscience.
“Whether someone goes to communion or not does not require your permissions or my permission or the church’s permission.”
Actually, people do require the Church’s permission. Those receiving communion must be in good standing.
On the contrary, it's not about meanness, it's about protecting our souls. I think to many people think they have to go to Communion and that the collective "we" have become far to casual in partaking of the Eucharist. I used to tell my Confirmation classes we are not lining up for a bag of popcorn. Pay attention to what you are doing. Otherwise you might as well not go up there or just get the blessing. That works as well. But I could pick nits all day. I better be careful. I am not without sin.
<<<<< I chose to follow my own conscience.>>>>>
I believe that is the best guide in a case where the damage has already been done.
Oh I meant your former spouse checking out before you. If he/she does, you can get your marriage blessed and back to the table.
Oh I meant your former spouse checking out before you. If he/she does, you can get your marriage blessed and back to the table.
I agree that is the intent but according to a recent article on Texas demographics and voting patterns things don't always work out that way.
It appears that either the Holy Spirit has suspended His guidance or the bishops refuse to listen (or maybe the Holy Spirit has suspended because He knows the bishops would not listen).
In any event it does not mean the end of the Church or that the 'gates of hell' have prevailed against the Church. Just means that the End Times are here, and each of us as Catholics should stick to what we were taught in our youth, if we are over 55 or so. If under 55, seek out old teachings and liturgy.
The True Church will prevail in the end even if it is sustained by only a small number of faithful Catholic laity and clergy.
"In 1960 it will become clearer".
I love the smells and the bells and old musty cathedrals. Wish we would go back. But I don't remember those days. Seems a lot of America died in the 60's. I was born in 1963. Just living with the fallout. Thanks!
That has nothing to do with divorce. In the early church, people were coming to the dinners merely trying to get fed and get drunk.
John 8:1-11 but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say? This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her. And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus stood up and said to her, Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you? She said, No one, Lord. And Jesus said, Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.
If you’re going to make it caucus, do the courtesy of putting it in the title.
The Caucus label was removed.
OK. Thanks for letting me know.
I check first as I’ve made that mistake before.
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.