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.
How about something more like the above?
I'm in a picture posting mood for some reason
I’ve already been through this list, although admittedly not directly with you (another poster, but I did ping you when I mentioned you posted this list before. This was about a month ago now)
The Assemblies of God believe one can loose one’s salvation (they reject “Eternal Security” in other words) while the Presbyterians do not believe one can loose one’s salvation. It’s all right there in the links you provided. And clearly this too has a direct impact on one’s salvation.
Or perhaps I should repeat my question here: Like I asked about free will, do you not believe the issue of “eternal security” has an impact on one’s salvation?
Haha thanks for the chuckle.
IIRC they also believe in baptismal regeneration.
If I said I love Pope Francis a torrent rains down.
If I say I hate Pope Francis, same thing. I am sick and tired of being censored most especially by conservatives. I have friends on this site, I met my husband on this site, I love this site, but there are days when I could just say the hell with the whole thing. Ya know?
The Gospel Message is where it counts....those who know Jesus Christ within all denominations, and not, are UNITED IN HIM through Him..."The Fellowship of 'Believers'.
"Dogma" is a meaningless endeavor apart from the above.......and all denominstions are full of Dogma "students" who have entirely missed the message of 'Christ in You.'
Because that is what we were talking about. What difference does it make? You will hound me until I become silent because that is your MO. Go to the Protestant threads and see if I have posted over there. You will see that I have not.
Thank You that was my point. Plus that, despite the fact that about half the Catholics in the world don’t exactly agree with my POV, does that mean I leave? NO, it means I work harder to illuminate them. Because most of them oppose my POV, because they only think they know the Catholic faith. They don’t it’s a fact. That’s why once in a while the Pope has to crack down on the BS.
...”The Assemblies of God ‘believe’ one can loose one’s salvation”....
Key word is ‘Believe’......The sanctity ‘of the believer’ comes to mind.
If one does NOT ‘believe’ in the finished and all sufficient work of Jesus Christ this leaves one easily to believe they can loose what they don’t have in the first place.
Either His work is ‘enough’ and we are ‘complete’ in Him....as is written...and as HE said. Or by denying the security He gives one is simply riding a fence of indecision.....which is rejecting Him.
Your commendable attempt to be fair brings you into conflict with the normal use of the term by your brethren, and the problem is not self-identification surveys, as Rome treats (in life and in death) most all who ID with her as members, but that RCs simply use Protestant based upon the simple aspect that they are not Catholic but claim to be Christian, a definition of which is so wide you can drive a Unitarian Scientology Swedenborgian 747 thru it. But which broadness they would never tolerate for "Catholic," even stating that the EOS are not.
Instead of being like atheists who assert Hitler was a Christian, a term needs to be based upon basic defining aspects, and for the Reformers this meant affirming core Truths such as the apostles Creed state, as well as the supremacy and sufficiency (material or formal) of Scripture as literally being the wholly inspired Word of God, and salvation from Hell to Heaven being by grace thru faith, not earned by the holiness of man.
Which sets them apart from not only Catholicism but liberal Protestantism as well as cults, the latter of whom also operate out of her sola ecclesia model (the church via its leaders are effectively the supreme authority), out of which the most damnable heresies are seen. Whenever Scripture is not the supreme authoritative source of Truth, both the souls and bodies of men are in danger.
Protestants don’t have unity where it counts, which is on core dogmas,...
That requires the same loose definition of "Protestant" as your brethren need for arguing that the fruit of SS is moral liberalism and doctrinal anarchy, as in reality, those who hold most strongly to the supremacy of Scripture as literally being the wholly inspired Word of God are far more unified in basic Biblical beliefs than the fruit of Rome whom she treats as members.
such as the existence of free will for example.
All believe in free will, but what "free" really means is subject to interpretation. Can man believe on the Lord Jesus without God motivating and enabling Him? Catholic theology holds on the one hand that the efficacious grace given for the performance of an action obtains man's consent and that action takes place; on the other hand that in so acting, man is free. Hence the question: How can these two -the infallible result and liberty- be harmonized?
And thus the fervent theological controversy regarding divine grace that arose between the Dominicans and the Jesuits towards the close of the sixteenth century. And despite the promotion about RC unity and the magisterium settling disputes, this was not settled, for
after twenty years of discussion public and private, and eighty-five conferences in the presence of the popes, the question was not solved but an end was put to the disputes. The pope's decree communicated on 5 September 1607 to both Dominicans and Jesuits, allowed each party to defend its own doctrine, enjoined each from censoring or condemning the opposite opinion, and commanded them to await, as loyal sons of the Church, the final decision of the Apostolic See.
That decision, however, has not been reached, and both orders, consequently, could maintain their respective theories, just as any other theological opinion is held. The long controversy has aroused considerable feeling, and the pope, aiming at the restoration of peace and charity between the religious orders, forbade by a decree of the Inquisition (1 December 1611) the publication of any book concerning efficacious grace until further action by the Holy See. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregatio_de_Auxiliis
We Catholics (correctly) state that to be a true church, it must have apostolic succession (valid Holy Orders)
The veracity of this doctrine rests upon the premise of the assured veracity of Rome, based upon tradition, and her interpretation that sees apostolic succession in Scripture based on a solitary example, by a non-political method Rome has never used, and none for the martyred James, (Acts 12:1,2) or any manifest preparation for any papal successor, and in contrast to the requirements for elders.
Meanwhile, the EOs reject the papacy of Rome based upon the same sources Rome invokes for hers.
Yeah I know and I'm sorry for speaking out of turn then. It seems I should have read this thread more closely. I didn't see the Caucus label in the title and ran with the implied "Open" designation before posting. Usually a safe bet in my own defense haha...but anyway seems some wires got crossed...
Anyway this is just to let you know I feel your pain and sorry for adding to any. God bless,
>> “ If you wish to go to communion, do it.” <<
.
Communion is a personal thing, not a ‘church’ thing.
It is done each and every time we break bread, and drink the wine, in memory of Yeshua.
That is what he commanded, and his church has no hierarchy that can change it. (Nicolaitans are not appointed by him)
.
>> “The Assemblies of God believe one can loose one’s salvation (they reject “Eternal Security” in other words) while the Presbyterians do not believe one can loose one’s salvation” <<
.
The AOG at least read their Bibles occasionally. The Presbys don’t even know where they left their Bibles, but they’re sure that they do have one.
.
Well, that tells it like it is.....
Whatever disagreement exists between these and others in the Church (I believe what you are refering to is a disagreement about the nature of predestination, ie the "Thomist vs Molinist" controversey)...whatever disagreement it is not about the very existence of free will. That is not negotiable. Not in the Church it isn't. Apparently it is in the "invisible church" though.
So it's "awesome" that the Catholic church can collaborate with non-Catholic denominations, but when it comes to non-Catholic denominations, suddenly it's not so awesome, that the 51,000 (or whatever the number du jour is) even exist, much less collaborate? Which, BTW, they do fairly often.
Non-Catholic denominations don't have any problem, for the most part, working with each other or with non-denoms such as rescue missions of the Salvation Army.
Don't know what propaganda machine has gotten to you, but the Romanist organization is so conflicted on "core" dogmas that it no longer has any idea what it believes. Augustine fought Pelagian and won, but the Roman cult now understands semi-pelagianism to be one of its central doctrines...go look, read and despair.
In the Catholic Church the only opinion to have when it comes to teaching is the Magisterium. But that's not the reality. That was the fact that we started out on. We did get off tract. But WE were under the impression that it was a Catholic Caucus thread.
Why do you feel the need to inject yourself into every conversation? I mean really?
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.