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.

[redgolum]

Funny thing is I am a LCMS Lutheran.

We tend to have a very high view of marriage also.

My bride is Catholic, and when we were about get engaged she went to her priest in Lincoln Nebraska and told him she was dating a LCMS boy.

He took her by the hand and laughed. Told her she needed to read the Bible more, and that “Your boyfriend will be very orthodox, but that is ok”.

Turned out the priest knew my pastor, and my pastor growing up .

[NYer]

You mean like posts 10, 26, and 43 where non-Catholics are mentioned and disparaged?

According to the Religion Forum Guidelines,

“Closed” threads on the Religion Forum include devotionals, prayer threads and caucuses. The header of the thread should make it obvious that the thread is closed, i.e. like a church meeting behind closed doors. Such assemblies will not be disturbed. Any challenges or ridicule will be removed. Any thread can be designated a caucus - e.g. labeled as a “[Catholic Caucus]” or “[LDS Caucus]” - provided that neither the article nor any of the posts challenge or ridicule any other confession. These are “safe harbors” for those who are easily offended or are ill equipped to defend their own confession.

In post #10, Verga is challenging someone on their poor understanding of church teaching. In her response, she suggests the individual consider seeking another church more in keeping with her personal views.

In post #26, Verga remains on topic, lamenting the fact that many Catholics do not read the catechism.

In post $43, another freeper is simply relating the reaction received for citing scripture.

None of these comments qualifies as a disparaging remark. The topic of this thread is Catholic and regards Church teaching. There is nothing here that disparages any other denomination; hence, the Catholic Caucus remains.

[piusv]

I’m not Protestant, but if I were I might take issue with post #30?

Heck, I’m just happy that I can now post here even though I’m not considered Catholic here.

[Jim Noble]

For you to leave that second marriage for your first wife would be (again forgive me for assuming) rather horrific at this point

Her husband would most assuredly be a bit put out...

[defconw]

If the first marriage was not a sacrament or the sacrament didn't take, which is just a phrase. Then the marriage could be annulled. That is what the marriage tribunal does.

Now there have been instances where people say the Kennedy's for example have been allowed annulments and they should not have been allowed. BUT.... their bad behavior and the Cardinal that let it happen are not justification for the rest of us not following the "rules".

Most priests would strongly advise you not even to date until you have an annulment. But people being people and passion being passion, cause a dilemma for the priest and parishioner a like. So we don't kick people for divorcing and remarrying. Just as we don't kick people out who are living in sin.

But the Eucharist is not a prize. It's a sacrament. Catholics know from an early age what you should do to be prepared for sacraments.

Now I heard in a discussion once that if a person adamantly believes something, say that they should be married for the second time for example, then if they are willing to stand naked before God some day and defend that, then conscience dictates that is what that person should do. But a priest is going to counsel against that, because that is his job and he will be called to account for what he did on earth someday as well. I have never seen a priest flat out refuse the Eucharist to an individual. Now with 2.1 billion people I am sure it's happened, I have just never seen it.

[metmom]

I’m not Protestant, but if I were I might take issue with post #30?

That would qualify, too, although it's a real hoot to see the made up numbers being thrown around as if they were fact.

Heck, I’m just happy that I can now post here even though I’m not considered Catholic here.

THAT'S ironic. You're Catholic the way I was raised, pre-V2.

So much for Catholic unity, eh? Feel the love.....

[defconw]

Actually I was being generous in 51,000.

I didn’t make it up.

http://hirr.hartsem.edu/research/fastfacts/fast_facts.html

[defconw]

That's awesome. I know back in Fort Wayne, Indiana when I lived there, the Catholics and Lutherans had a close working relationship. Heck one of our Catholic high schools shared a football stadium with the Lutheran high school.

Also they had only one Lutheran parochial school so they played in the CYO leagues so they didn't have to play the government schools.

[metmom]

From your link...

“There is no official directory for all the congregations in the county, so sociologists of religion have to rely on statistical estimates extrapolated from surveys. These are often disputed, and to complicate matters, thousands of new churches open each year, while thousands of others close.”

[defconw]

Yes I was making a comparison. People come on to Catholic threads and attack all the time. I think we should be able to dialog with each other in order to better reply to these people on other threads. We are discussing our faith, but why should we be denied the ability to use a compare and contrast? There sure seem to be no limits on the other side attacking us. Most especially those who claim to have been Catholic at one time.

I'll say it again, it's very similar to how liberals react to conservatives.

[defconw]

Exactly my point! I’ll stay Catholic Thank You! very much and you all are free to pick whatever you want.

[FourtySeven]

To be fair:

The problem with the often used (yet cringe-worthy IMO) Catholic apologetic of “there are X thousand Protestant denominations” is that it’s all ultimately based on self-identification surveys and/or the definition of “denomination” being simply a different congregation (as in the statistics you cite) not actually different *churches*. (Or lack of a church see below)

Indeed the very source you cite (and really any source any erstwhile Catholic may cite) also says there are “ 24,000 are Catholic and Orthodox churches” (in the US).

So what are we to conclude from that? That there are 24,000 “Catholic denominations”? Heaven forbid!

No, the problem is as I mentioned earlier: these surveys and studies play fast and loose with the definition of “church”. We Catholics (correctly) state that to be a true church, it must have apostolic succession (valid Holy Orders). Which limits the number from thousands to a handful. But the statisticians don’t take that into account in their studies, because such a definition is too limiting for their (usual) purposes since it eliminates all Protestants (statisticians are just interested usually in simple demographic comparison not proper theology).

So there is no true source that “proves” the apologetic. IMO we Catholics should avoid using it for this reason because ultimately it’s distracting from the real message that is: Protestants don’t have unity where it counts, which is on core dogmas, such as the existence of free will for example.

[metmom]

Yes I was making a comparison. People come on to Catholic threads and attack all the time. I think we should be able to dialog with each other in order to better reply to these people on other threads. We are discussing our faith, but why should we be denied the ability to use a compare and contrast?

If you were merely discussing YOUR faith, what was the mention of others outside of it in at least 4 different posts on this thread all about?

Why even bring them up?

You guys opened the door. Nobody crashed a caucus thread first.

[metmom]

Protestants don’t have unity where it counts, which is on core dogmas, such as the existence of free will for example.

The unity Christians have is in this.....

John 1:10-13 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

John 3:14-18 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

John 5:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

John 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

John 11:25-26 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?”

Acts 16:27-31 When the jailer woke and saw that the prison doors were open, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself, supposing that the prisoners had escaped. But Paul cried with a loud voice, “Do not harm yourself, for we are all here.” And the jailer called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas. Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

Romans 10:9-13 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Ephesians 2:1-10And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Yeah, it's a lot of Scripture but the unity is of salvation by faith in Christ, but believing in His name.

There are areas that Paul refers to as *disputable matters*, areas where opinion varies but is not a salvation issue.

And Catholicism certainly has those areas where there's latitude, not only based on church teaching, but also on what we see here on the RF.

Not every Catholic here agrees on everything with each other, much less the church.

[metmom]

Protestants don’t have unity where it counts, which is on core dogmas, such as the existence of free will for example.

The unity Christians have is in this.....

Also, here are links to the statements of faith of various denominations and I don't see them varying significantly in any area.

Assemblies of God
http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_Papers/index.cfm#

Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church
http://arpchurch.org/documents/confession-of-faith/

Calvary Chapel
http://calvarychapel.com/home/about/

The Christian and Missionary Alliance
http://www.cmalliance.org/about/history/

Elim Fellowship Churches
http://www.elimfellowship.org/about-us/statement-of-faith/

The Father's House
http://tfhny.org/the-house/what-we-believe/

Osais LA
http://www.oasisla.org/about/what-we-believe/

Presbyterian Church in Americahttp://www.pcaac.org/resources/wcf/

United Reformed church in North America https://www.urcna.org/sysfiles/site_uploads/custom_public/custom2642.pdf

Westside Christian Fellowship
http://westsidechristianfellowship.org/about-wcf/statement-of-faith/

It's there for anyone to read if they choose.

I am only pinging a bunch of others to this comment as a matter of courtesy. I don't know much about the denominational affiliation of most of them nor do I care. They are brothers and sisters in Christ, united together by faith in HIM not what church or denomination we attend.

I know it seems rather vague and nebulous, but our identity is in Christ, not the label hanging out front of the building we worship in.

If I attended a Baptist church, I would not consider myself a Baptist. I would consider myself a follower of Christ first and foremost, who happens at the moment to attend a Baptist church for preaching, teaching, fellowship, encouragement, support, etc.

My salvation is not tied to what church I attend or even the fact of attending church.

[metmom]

Edit...

Not: .....but believing in His name.

Rather: ....BY believing in His name.

[af_vet_1981]

Funny I should quit the Catholic church and join, which of the 51,000 different Protestant denominations ?

The 51,001st; they often won't tell you, which suggests they don't really have confidence their denomination/sect was born from an earlier bona fide apostolic church. Rebellion breeds rebels.

[Zionist Conspirator]

I believe I am the reason the caucus label was removed. Please allow me to explain.

I did not come to this thread to cause trouble. I merely wanted to read some frank Catholic internal discussion about the current pope. But then defconw began referencing and then attacking "proddies." This is in violation of the rules of caucused threads.

Defconw: It is contrary to the rules of Free Republic to use a caucused thread to bash, criticize, or maybe even mention other religions. You are the one who derailed this thread from an inter-Catholic discussion to an anti-Protestant bash fest, and you did so because you thought the people you were bashing would not be allowed to respond.

I'm sorry it came to this but you have only yourself to blame.

[verga]

That's awesome. I know back in Fort Wayne, Indiana when I lived there, the Catholics and Lutherans had a close working relationship.

Heck one of our Catholic high schools shared a football stadium with the Lutheran high school. Also they had only one Lutheran parochial school so they played in the CYO leagues so they didn't have to play the government schools.

Years ago when we lived up north we lived in a very small village. There were about 6 different denominations. They formed an area association of churches. The purpose was to avoid duplication of effort. The AOG had purchased the old high school and took over the furniture ministry. The Larger Catholic Church took over the Clothing ministry. The Lutherans took over the food pantry. My wife worked there and was in charge of that. The Pastor was a woman and the secretary was Episcopalian converting to Catholicism.

None of the pastors had any difficulty sending people in need to any of the other churches to receive services. And none of them would have even thought about flock poaching.

[FourtySeven]

There are areas that Paul refers to as *disputable matters*, areas where opinion varies but is not a salvation issue.

I agree.

And Catholicism certainly has those areas where there's latitude, not only based on church teaching, but also on what we see here on the RF.

Not every Catholic here agrees on everything with each other, much less the church.

That's correct. (I even posted about this phenomena earlier, in my post #79 on this thread.

Where you and I differ (and I guess where I differ with a lot of Protestants) is in the claim that you guys disagree a lot more, on issues that are more important than what we Catholics disagree. I gave an example of the dogma (it's a dogma in the Catholic Church at least) of free will.

Apparently (correct me if I'm wrong) you don't believe that a full understanding of free will (whether it's real or not) is required for salvation. We Catholics do.

Indeed it astounds me that you (Protestants) claim that whether or not free will even exists isn't that important. Don't you think it's important to know if free will exists or not? Don't you think the existence (or lack thereof) of free will has an impact on your salvation? How can that question go unsettled in the "invisible" church and yet you claim to have "unity in everything that matters for salvation"?

Again, the issue of free will (or the lack thereof) has no bearing on the issue of salvation? Really?