Posted on 10/12/2015 6:39:34 PM PDT by markomalley
Cardinal George Pell, Prefect of the Vatican’s Secretariat for the Economy, has just issued a statement saying there is ‘no possibility’ that the ‘minority’ of Synod Fathers who favour allowing divorced and remarried people to receive Communion will get their way at the chaotic Synod on the Family.
His spokesman said: ‘There is strong agreement in the Synod on most points but obviously there is some disagreement because minority elements want to change the Church’s teachings on the proper dispositions necessary for the reception of communion.
‘Obviously there is no possibility of change on this doctrine.’
The cardinal confirmed the existence (but not the accuracy) of a letter to Pope Francis, leaked today, reportedly signed by himself and very senior cardinals. In the text as published by the controversial conservative journalist Sandro Magister, the cardinals suggest that the synod rules have been altered to take power away from the Synod Fathers and hand it to the commission drafting the final report.
They also allegedly warn Francis that bending the rules on the reception of Holy Communion could lead to the sort of factional collapse that has all but destroyed some Protestant denominations.
But is Magister reliable? Four of the 13 cardinals said to have signed the letter today denied that they did so, though without elaboration and in some cases after a mysterious delay.
Here is what Cardinal Pell’s spokesman says on the matter:
‘A private letter should remain private but it seems that there are errors in both the content and the list of signatories.
‘The Cardinal is aware that concerns remain among many of the Synod Fathers about the composition of the drafting committee of the final relatio and about the process by which it will be presented to the Synod fathers and voted upon.’
Meanwhile, Cardinal Napier of Durban this afternoon confirmed that he signed a letter to the Pope – but also disputes its contents as reported by Magister.
Napier, speaking to Crux, said he signed a letter ‘specifically about the 10-member commission preparing the final document’ – i.e., addressing the conservatives’ concern that the commission, which includes Cardinal Baldisseri and Archbishop Forte, architects of last year’s fiasco, will not accurately reflect the discussions of the Synod Fathers.
The Crux interview shows that Cardinal Napier has grave doubts about this synod. He’s worried about the ‘uncertainty’ surrounding the ‘shaping’ of the document – and, in a devastating off-the-cuff comment, says ‘at this stage, it’s too hard to tell’ whether the final result has already been determined.
In other words, Napier fears that the synod has been rigged – for how else can you describe ‘determining the result’ of a report long before the synod discussions are over?
This has been a day of embarrassing chaos at the Vatican. But, at the end of it, Pope Francis is still facing a crisis. Cardinal Napier and Cardinal Robert Sarah, the two most influential African cardinals, apparently do not trust the workings of the synod. Sarah, who is now Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, has not denied signing the Magister letter.
Nor has Cardinal Gerhard Müller, who occupies the even more senior position of Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Meanwhile, Cardinal Timothy Dolan, Archbishop of New York and by no means a hardline conservative like his fellow American Cardinal Raymond Burke, has also failed to deny that he signed it. Instead, he issued a statement today arguing that it is ‘faithful’ Catholics who obey the rules governing sexual behaviour who feel that they have become the minority in the Church.
Pope Francis, having allowed his officials to stack the cards against the conservative majority in the synod, now finds the cards stacked against him. The growing suspicion that the outcome of the proceedings has been predetermined has drawn together a coalition of orthodox Catholics who disagree on questions of liturgy and politics. If Francis ignores their wishes, as he has the power to do so next year when he responds to the synod, a Catholic civil war will begin in earnest.
Since liberalism is the polar opposite of Catholicism and hates everything traditional the Church ever stood for, why are ‘liberals’ in the church allowed?
Anyone wanna explain that to me? As in the secular world, liberals are 100% responsible for every problem the faith has and are also 100% responsible for so many of us having left what the ‘church’ has become.
Once again, good for Cardinal Dolan.
Two more weeks of this $*&!
I can’t answer that question.
As a respectful outsider, it seems logical to me that if one does not, can not, or will not abide by the tenets of Catholic religious doctrine, it would be more honorable to seek and claim fellowship elsewhere, rather than to attempt to introduce schisms into established Catholic fellowship.
Perhaps it is easier for me to see that, coming from a non-Catholic background.
This has been going on since the 18th Century when man Catholics, both lay and clerical, began to be influenced by Enlightenment doctrines. If you are a priest and have committed yourself to that life, but have begun to doubt the dogmas of the Church, the wish thing to do is to pay lip service to their truth but then find friends in the clergy who think as your do, and cynically do whatever you feel is in your best interest. To be sure, the Church has always had many pretend Christians who have taken this route.
<< “.... why are ‘liberals’ in the church allowed?” >>
You probably recall better than I, that wasn’t it Leo X? who had the vision at the Alter during his private celebration of the Mass. And, the just earlier pope who said the smoke of Satan had entered the Church.
I haven’t thought for a moment about the liberals, really, but yes, this is the work of the Enemy who wants the Church.
You’re Catholic much longer than me. I’m just a 2001 model. :)
Former in my case though I still try to follow the rulebook ;)
I don’t see this as one molecule different than Washington. Liberals invaded the church to destroy ‘God” in the world and they invaded the GOP to destroy America in the world. Same tactics. Same people. Same outcome.
Pope Leo X had that vision on October 13, 1884. The 13th of October is also the date Our Blessed Mother appeared to the Fatima children in 5 of Her 6 apparitions to them. The lone exception was when the children were imprisoned.
Tomorrow is October 13th.
Pray for the Cardinals!
If you God can forgive murder, and a murderer can be received back into communion, why can He not forgive a divorce, the murder of a marriage? But I don’t even think that is the hard part. Few Catholc marriages are valid, having done marriage prep, most people I saw marriied didn’t understand a word of what they heard. They just went because it was required of them to have the marriage in the church with their family and friends. I am reminded of Fiddler on the Roof. Most Catholic marragea that last, become valid somewhere along the way.
I feel the same. The West rejected God. There is a price to be paid for that kind of constantly sleeping away the faith. It is seen in our national government, and in the Church. The evil one has his Godless human instruments. They have names. We know most of them.
Cardinal Dolan. Is that not shocking. I would think him to remain quiet as a mouse and as tolerant there as he has been here, and so open minded that brains fall out. This is very good news.
We think and say the word, “marriage”, as if it were in terms of everyday civil marriage, with all its no-fault privileges of divorce and remarriage, and subsequent divorces and remarriages, until your face turns blue, here in the West. That is what marriage has become entirely, here in the West. No one thinks much about it.
Then there is the Catholic “marriage”.
There is only one view in the Catholic Church. It is the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, really quite different than civil marriage, as it is a sacramental bond of two becoming one with God Himself, and unbreakable. As God is of the bond, it is sealed forever. As God can not divorce the couple, they can not divorce Him, nor one another.
Grant it, the new Church, post V2, does an atrocious job of teaching catechesis, and who knows— that has probably cost the salvation of souls, but the unbreakable bond of Holy Matrimony is scriptural, as you rightly know, and the Church upholds the matrimonial sacrament, or none of the other sacraments would hold, like Communion, Baptism, the priesthood Holy Orders, etc.
When one Sacrament falls, ......... you know the rest of the story. There would be no Church at all.
Prayers for tomorrow will be great, in the finest sense of the word. Peace be with you.
Certainly pray for the holy Cardinals and that all against them will be bound, for the sake of Holy Mother Church.
Thanks, Salvation. You do God’s work.
I sure hope and pray he’s right and not just whistling dixie. I don’t trust Baldisseri and the drafting commission appointed by the Pope, so all we can do at this point is pray to the Holy Spirit to prevent the Magisterium from falling into error.
Divorced people are fully capable of receiving Holy Communion. This is not an issue at all.
Divorced and "remarried" people (where the prior union had not been declared null) are living in a continual state of adultery. See Matthew 19:9.
Jesus' instructions for sinners who He forgave can be seen in His encounter with the woman caught in adultery. contained in John 8:3-11, is, "go and sin no more."
How does a person living in an adulterous relationship "sin no more?" By ceasing to live in the adulterous relationship. If a person doesn't do that, then there is no contrition for sin. If there is no contrition, there can be no valid absolution.
As it stands, people who are conscious of being in a state of mortal sin (and adultery is definitely grave matter) are not to approach Holy Communion (Can. 916)
Steelfish, The event that took place between Jesus and the woman at the well is one of the most beautiful of one-on-one Divine encounters. Christ makes no mention here of reproach for her fornication and yet allows her to commune with Him and indeed invites her lover to share the Living Water.
In the story of the woman at the well, if you actually read John 4:4-26, first, you will see that this passage is an allusion to Baptism, not to Holy Communion.
Further, Jesus definitely rebukes her: Thou hast said well, I have no husband: For thou hast had five husbands: and he whom thou now hast, is not thy husband. If that is not a rebuke, I don't know what is.
After this encounter, she began telling others in the city and they believed in him. Now of that city many of the Samaritans believed in him, for the word of the woman giving testimony: He told me all things whatsoever I have done. She believed in Him because He confronted her with her sin.
What we don't see is Jesus absolving her from her sin (not saying whether He did or not). What we also don't see is if she went back to the man she was shacked up with or if she left him (it is implicit that she didn't, but that is not a given). The Orthodox, who celebrate her as St Photini, state that she was baptized after repenting of her sins.
Writeon, you said, Few Catholc marriages are valid, having done marriage prep, most people I saw marriied didn’t understand a word of what they heard. They just went because it was required of them to have the marriage in the church with their family and friends.
I don't know about that, but I do agree that marriage prep needs some changes. Personally, I think it needs to be a lot simpler (more Baltimore Catechism style vice 1993 Catechism style) and easier to understand. But that's just me. Regardless, I don't see "till death" as being very ambiguous, but I'll take your word for it.
For both of you two, in order to make some change in doctrine or praxis, one of three things is necessary:
This Holy Communion for remarried folks is a very, very dangerous thing.
I figure if you join the club either follow the rules or find another club to join. Religion works exactly the same way. Follow the rules or find another church to join that fits better with your understanding of the rules.
Catholic ping!
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.