Posted on 08/21/2010 6:34:23 AM PDT by markomalley
The Case of the Heretical Priest from Nashville is closing, we hope. Fr. Joeseph Breen posted a video on his website and committed multiple counts of video heresy. CMR picked up the video and the story went national.
Fr. Breen was given a choice by Bishop Choby of Nashville. Retract your terrible statements made in the video and abide by your promises not to do it again or you are gone. Father Breen chose to retract his statements.
Here is the official statement by the Diocese of Nashville.
Father Breen retracts statements, apologizesWhile I did call for Fr. Breen's ouster, I totally respect the Bishop's judgment in this case. Father Breen will be retiring in a year and the Bishop clearly wanted to give him an exit strategy that allowed him a graceful exit. If Father Breen abides his promises this time, I think the Bishop did the right thing.
In letters to Pope Benedict XVI and to St. Edward Parish, Father Joe Pat Breen has retracted and apologized for statements made in an internet video and subsequent media interviews that Catholics are not obligated to follow teachings of the Catholic Church as defined by the pope and bishops. In addition, he has agreed to no longer voice his private concerns publically or in the media as required by a document presented to him by Bishop Edward Kmiec in 1993.
The letter to the parish also indicated that he expects to continue as pastor of St. Edward Parish until Dec. 31, 2011.
Father Breen has shared the content of those letters with Bishop David Choby and the letter to the parish will be distributed in the next few days.
Bishop Choby offered Father Breen the choice of retracting and apologizing for his statements or face the process set forth for the removal of a pastor under canon law when a ministry becomes harmful or ineffective.
The offer came during a meeting on Aug. 19, a little more than two weeks after a video interview with Father Breen posted on the St. Edward Parish website received worldwide attention. It was the bishop’s second meeting with Father Breen about his statements contradicting Church teaching. Bishop Choby asked Father Breen to remove the video from the parish site on Aug. 6. The video was removed but copies remain available on the internet and have been viewed more than 14,000 times.
In the letter to the parish, Father Breen said “the meeting was cordial and fruitful.”
The terms of the 1993 ban put in place by Bishop Edward Kmiec prohibit him from making statements that disagree with the authentic magisterium of the Church.
Although the process to remove a pastor has not been used in recent memory in the Diocese of Nashville, it is used with some regularity in the worldwide Church.
“The role of pastor is particularly important as the leader and teacher of a parish,” Bishop Choby said. “The office is a direct link to the authority of the Church as instituted by Christ in the apostles and handed down through the popes and bishops. A pastor holds a public office charged with administering, teaching, and sanctifying the local community of the faithful. The Church expects him to work in unity with its authentic teaching as handed down through the pope and the bishops. It is simply wrong to state, as Father Breen has repeatedly, that one’s conscience frees an individual from the truth revealed and instilled in Church teaching. A deep understanding of Church teaching is, in fact essential to a fully formed conscience, and helps guide an individual in making the distinction between one’s opinions and a decision based soundly on the foundation of a rightly formed conscience. One who chooses to act contrary to Church teaching acts outside of the revealed truth of God’s will.”
“In recognition of his many years of good work among the people of his parish, I want to give Father Breen every opportunity to correct the errors in his teaching, and gracefully enter retirement,” Bishop Choby said, “but in any case, his recent public remarks could not stand.”
Nothing in 1 John contradicts Christ. John specifically warns us against walking in darkness - sinful disobedience. That would include violating Christ’s command against divorce and remarriage.
“Nothing in 1 John contradicts Christ.”
You are correct;
“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.”
He is not contradicted here at all. I believe this particular passage to be one of the greatest gifts from God that there is in the Holy Bible. Especially since we are fallen man that can in no way be deserving of Heaven on our own and are all in need of His grace.
point taken. Peter had a mother-in-law, he was married. The Sanhedrin had a marriage requirement. There is NO biblical statement condemning married priests/apostles. No to the idol worship because that is condemned unlike marriage which was ordained by God.
Can you show me a verse where Christ said that what a man does is what saves him?
Pardon me for interjecting. I’m sure you will get several; the unfruitful fig tree comes to mind. Also when Christ spoke to the good, believing follower and told him he needed to DO more by leaving his family and following Him. The many times Christ talked about having to TAKE UP the cross and FOLLOW Him. These comments all highlight the importance of what we DO. Backsliders have a problem.
But I wanted to add these: In Revelations 20:12 we learn that in Heaven there is a book of life and the dead are judged by what they’d DONE (not believed, but done). We also hear in Revelations 14:13 that “their deeds follow them.”
First off: Any idea that leads one to believe that a person has to earn any part of their salvation is saying that Jesus did not do a complete job by his death and resurrection. If Jesus didn’t fully earn our salvation for us and offer it to us through grace by faith then He wasn’t the PERFECT SACRIFICE was he.
Might I suggest you go read the beginning Revelations 14:13 and see who it was talking about in that passage. The 144,000 are 12,000 from each of the 12 tribes of Israel during the last days. Put things in context before you use them to justify what you have been told.
Revelation 20:12
Again, go read the chapter from the beginning. Pay attention to verse 6 (Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.)
The chapter is talking about those that resisted the Anti Christ prior to the thousand year reign of Jesus after Armageddon.
No, that’s not what I’m saying. Christ did do a complete job of salvation by His death on the Cross. His complete act allowed salvation to even be possible. Up until then no one was entering Heaven.
He made it pretty clear that one’s behavior had an impact on one’s salvation. He speaks about how narrow the gate is. His many teachings center on our behaviors. On the road to Emmaus, the disciples, obviously already believers, did not recognize Him until they took the action of breaking bread and sharing the Eucharist. They already believed but could not see Him as He really is until the celebrating of the Eucharist.
As I said before, the unfruitful fig tree is a good example of Christ’s teaching that we must produce good “fruit.” It’s not enough, according to Him, to be a beautiful, strong tree. We must PRODUCE.
The following passages show the insight behind Catholic teaching on works:
Grace can be lost through mortal sin: 1 John 5: 15-17, Rom 11: 21-22, Heb 10: 26-311, 2 Peter 2: 20-22.
The works of sin can still bring about eternal death: Mt 25: 31-46, Rom 2: 1-13, 1 Cor 6: 9-11, 1 Cor 10: 6-13, 2 Cor 5: 9-10, Gal 5: 13-21, Gal 6: 6-10 and Rev 22: 12-15.
When we take all these passages together, along with Christ’s parables and the Beatitudes, and Christ’s comments on hell, it becomes clear that God expects us to LIVE as we believe. We can’t just say we believe and not follow Christ in our daily life.
Thanks for your suggestion that I read more of Revelations. I’ve read them in their entirety many times. What I read in Revelations convinces me our actions are an integral part of our salvation.
This priest sounds like one of the generation ordained during the wacky 60s. It will be a very good thing for the Church when that generation of priests retires. My God richly bless the priests of that generation who DID live out their vocation in humility, obedience, and faith.
The new crop of young men in the seminaries are much more orthodox and this can only help our Church. In addition, we will be getting the wonderful, faith-filled transfusion from all the converts who were zealous and smart enough to find their way to us!
The winnowing out continues.
Thank you, Holy Spirit, for continuing to guide our Church!
Female ordination? Infallibly condemned by the ordinary magisterium, explicitly so in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis
Artificial contraception? Condemned again and again by all Christians, not just Catholics, up to 1930. Can never be approved.
Divorce and remarriage? Condemned directly by Our Lord Himself in the pages of Scripture. Can never be approved.
This is really pretty simple. Men who can't explain, defend, and support these teachings should not only get out of the priesthood, they should have the integrity to go down the street to the Episcopal church.
I live in Nashville; Bishop Choby is my bishop. I support what he's doing, although personally I would have removed Fr. Breen, since this is far from his first offense.
BTW, apropos of this situation, I did a little additional research into Fr. Breen. Do you know that a couple of years ago they served the Eucharist like a party snack at St. Edward's? I mean they put the Precious Blood into a bowl, and the Hosts into a dish, and people picked up a host, dipped it into the bowl and communicated themselves?
That, to me, doesn't express a "love for the Church" or a commitment to the service of the people of God. It expresses contempt for liturgical law and a complete absence of faith in the Real Presence.
Saying that unrepented grave sin sends someone to hell is not the same as saying that they have to earn their salvation, sorry. Nobody can earn salvation. God may permit you to throw it away, however, the same way a father can permit a son to separate himself from the family and walk away (cf the parable of the Prodigal Son).
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. -- 1 Cor 6:9-10
So you insist that we still EARN at least part of our salvation. I don’t.
I believe that if we are truly saved with “the spirit of God in our hearts” we will do good works because of the leading of the spirit.
The Bible tells me that when God forgives me of my since they are removed “as far as the East is from the West”. That means to me that they are still going away because you can’t measure that distance. If you start going East there is never a time when you start going West. On the other hand if you go North there comes a time when you are again going South so it is a measurable distance.
Now, if God says that and that I am “washed white as snow” how can He, after my death, bring them up again? Wouldn’t hat make Him a liar?
The man had a job. One of the job requirements was that he not teach something to be true that the Church teaches is not true. How long would an Apple salesman keep his job if he recommends that everyone buy a PC? If he wanted to protest Church teachings than he had a responsibility to become a Protestant. If you had a preacher in your church who told his flock that Jesus was a demon under the command of Satan would he keep his job?
So the priest was given a 5th chance. Seems it would be just as appropriate to throw vipers out of the priesthood for the good of the flock and justice.
Who said “unrepented”? When we accept Jesus as our saviour we repent of our sins and ask forgiveness. That’s not something we would do without the indwelling of the Spirit. When we accept Jesus as our Saviour we are indwelled with the Holly Spirit, thus the term “born again”. The sins that I once did I do not want to do any longer but not because of anything in my but from the Spirit within me.
People who talk so much about the works are putting the works before the saving. I’m putting the works after the saving as it should be. If it weren’t then we would be able to “boast” about what we did.
"Lest we do not highlight sufficiently this important fact. Vatican II was an ecumenical council, i.e., a solemn exercise of the magisterium of the church, i.e. the college of bishops gathered together with the bishop of Rome and exercising a teaching function for the whole church. In other words, its vision, its principles and the direction it gave are to be followed and implemented by all, from the pope to the peasant farmer in the fields of Honduras. Since Vatican II there has been no such similar exercise of teaching authority by the magisterium. Instead, a series of decrees, pronouncements and decisions which have been given various "labels" stating, for example, that they must be firmly held to with "internal assent" by the Catholic faithful, but in reality are simply the theological or pastoral interpretations or opinions of those who have power at the centre of the church. They have not been solemnly defined as belonging to the "deposit of the faith" to be believed and followed, therefore, by all Catholics, as with other solemnly proclaimed dogmas. For example, the issues of celibacy for the priesthood and the ordination of women, withdrawn even from the realm of discussion. Therefore, such pronouncements are open to scrutiny -- to discern whether they are in accord, for example, with the fundamental theological vision of Vatican II, or whether there is indeed a case to be made for a different interpretation or opinion.
At the heart of this is the question of conscience. As Catholics, we need to be trusted enough to make informed decisions about our life, our witness, our expressions of faith, spirituality, prayer, and involvement in the world -- on the basis of a developed conscience. And, as an invitation to an appreciation of conscience and conscientious decisions about life and participation in what is a very human church, I close with the formulation or understanding given by none other than the theologian, Fr. Josef Ratzinger, now pope, when he was a peritus, or expert, at Vatican II:
"Over the pope as expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority, there stands one's own conscience which must be obeyed before all else, even if necessary against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority. This emphasis on the individual, whose conscience confronts him with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even the official church, also establishes a principle in opposition to increasing totalitarianism". (Joseph Ratzinger in: Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II ,Vol. V., pg. 134 (Ed) H. Vorgrimler, New York, Herder and Herder, 1967). Bishop Kevin Dowling C.Ss.R. Cape Town, June 1, 2010
I really don't know what you're talking about.
The Catholic Church is crystal clear that no amount of "works" ever earns anyone's salvation.
She's also crystal clear that unrepented grave sin sends someone who dies with it on their soul to hell.
Those are Biblical teachings.
And I have no idea why you think that either of those issues have anything to do with Fr. Breen.
I never said anything about the syllabus of errors, and something that Joseph Ratzinger wrote when he was a young priest doesn't become somehow more authoritative than the words of any other young priest or theology professor by virtue of his election to the Papacy.
They have not been solemnly defined as belonging to the "deposit of the faith" to be believed and followed, therefore, by all Catholics, as with other solemnly proclaimed dogmas.
This is simply wrong, but it's not surprising coming from the pro-condom Bishop Dowling, who had to be disciplined by the Vatican much as Fr. Breen was disciplined by his bishop.
What I find highly amusing is Bp. Dowling lecturing the rest of us on our lack of fidelity to "the fundamental theological vision of Vatican II", over and above the teaching of men who were actually there, despite the fact that Dowling was not even a priest when Vatican II was adjourned.
I guess I am confused by the notion that once you are “saved” through belief in Jesus as your Savior that it then doesn’t matter how many more sins you go on to commit, you’re still “saved.”
Once you know Jesus, know His desire for the way you should live, shouldn’t you live that way from then on? If you don’t, did you really believe? Was it a sincere recognition that Christ is our Savior? How could one tell?
Once you know Jesus, know His desire for the way you should be living, and still choose to backslide or sin, wouldn’t you be held accountable for doing what you know is wrong in Jesus’ eyes?
In fact, when Peter, a believer, slipped into error, Jesus called him a viper and told him to get away from Him. That’s a pretty strong reaction toward a believer. Peter, the believer, believed Jesus was his Savior. Still Christ demanded more of Peter. He demanded faith lived out correctly.
Jesus makes it very clear in that passage that He cannot be united with anything other than real faith- faith lived correctly.
This is, as I see it, the terrible flaw, in the “saved” interpretation. Lots of people backslide. Lots of people sin. All of us are imperfect. If we, as Jesus admonished us, “go and sin no more” once we are forgiven, I would agree with this notion of being saved. Clearly, here in the story of the adulteress, Christ was attaching a requirement to belief and forgiveness: sin no more. Act in a holy way from that moment onward. Actions.
But most of us cannot do that. We still sin. We believe but the flesh is weak. How can we reconcile Christ’s demand that, once forgiven, we sin no more/walk the way of the Cross/go through the narrow gate; with the notion that few of us can hope to that level of perfection?
Well, Christ gave us a way: the sacrament of Confession/Reconciliation/Penance practiced from the earliest times of the Church.
No one with an unrepented sin on his soul will enter Heaven. It is a place of spiritual perfection. God can only unite Himself to purity. What if one is a believer who is “saved” but sins and does not repent of the sin before he dies? Does he still get to go straight to Heaven to sit with all the saints when he wasn’t sorry for a serious sin? I think not.
Didn’t St. Paul himself say he was working out his salvation with fear and trembling? Why was Paul himself still voicing concerns over his salvation? He was definitely “saved.” Because Paul himself understood that accepting Christ as his personal Savior required more than just belief. Paul believed. But Paul did not assume that belief guaranteed him Heaven. Belief is the first step; the crucial step. But actions must follow. They are a sign of true conversion and faith.
In God’s covenant, He demanded signs of belief from His people: blood on a doorway, circumcision, keeping the commandments, etc. That was the Old Law. In the New Law, Christ too demands a sign of our new covenant with Him: our lives must be an example of Christ’s teachings. Our actions must mirror the New Covenant. We must take up our cross and follow Him. We must walk the road to Calvary just as He walked it. Actions.
“then doesn’t matter how many more sins you go on to commit,”
Where did you get the idea that “it doesn’t matter how many more sins you go on to commit” ??
I said: When you accept Jesus as your Savior the Holy Spirit comes into your “heart”. With the Holy Spirit’s guidance you will not want to sin. You may, in your human nature slip and commit a sin but are immediately aware and ask forgiveness. Conversely, if you don’t have the Holy Spirit as your guide you don’t worry or maybe even care that it’s a sin.
“Jesus called him a viper and told him to get away from Him”
Jesus wasn’t talking to Peter directly but the Spirit that was controlling Peters thoughts.
“No one with an unrepented sin on his soul will enter Heaven. It is a place of spiritual perfection.”
So, you are positive that you have repented of absolutely all your sins? Not forgotten even one? Maybe in grade school or something that God sees as a sin and you didn’t realize it? What if, for example, you did something without even knowing it and forgot? There is no way for you to know everything. If you accept Jesus as your Savior and admit that the only way you could possibly be worthy of Salvation is to accept the fact that His Sacrifice IN YOUR PLACE is the only way then you will be saved. You then ask for forgiveness for ALL of your sins both of commission and omission whether you remember them or not. God knows all. That is what admitting that Jesus paid the price and His Sacrifice is sufficient for your salvation. He was the perfect sacrifice. You, or whatever you do, will never be.
When you say “actions must follow” I agree. But I believe that a saved person WANTS his actions to please God so will search for the right way to do things. The person who thinks that actions are a demanded or required will have a tendency to think they are better then another person or will feel like they “have been good enough” to go to heaven.
Remember that Paul also said that even my best works are but as rags.
Hope I have explained things a little better.
Because Heaven is a place of spiritual perfection, we will go to Purgatory when we die to do penance for any sins we still are guilty of. Once we’ve paid to the last penny, we’ll be ready to be with the saints and God in Heaven.
I believe Jesus’ sacrifice was sufficient for salvation; I am not assured that my faith is sufficient.
Clearly Judas believed in Jesus as the Messiah for a while. We know the devil entered him after he became an Apostle. It was all the way in Luke 22:3. So, at one time, he was “saved” but most scholars believe he probably lost his salvation through his later actions and loss of faith. According to your explanation, he was still “saved” because he had a conversion experience at one time... no matter what he did later.
The conversion moment is fleeting; a lifetime of faithful living from that moment on is what lasts and is worthy of eternity.
Your assertion that the person who thinks actions are required will have a tendency to think they are better than others is not accurate. In fact, those who think actions are also required are often teased about all their “Catholic guilt.”
I really think Christ was talking to Peter in Matthew 16: 23. He rebuked him and said he was a scandal to him because he cared more about his desires than God’s desire. Nowhere does he mention a spirit of any kind. He then tells Peter that if any man wants to follow Him, he must DENY himself (change his actions/stop sinning), take up his cross (again, an action) and follow Him. (More action.)
In Mark 8:33 it says Jesus threatened Peter and said the same thing. No spirit anywhere in that chapter.
Finally, St. Paul says in Philippians 2:12 “Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but much more now in my absence,) with fear and trembling work out your salvation. Work out your salvation. He was talking to believers. Why did they need to work anything out further for salvation? Because works/actions were a necessary component. Why with fear and trembling? Because nothing is assured.
This makes perfect sense to me.
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.