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.
, 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.
This is why I try as much as possible to distinguish the two (Protestant and simply "non Catholic Christian") when necessary. I didn't feel it was necessary before but I'll say this now: my comments on this thread can be directed to "non Catholic Christians" as well. Sorry for any confusion.
Well, for starters, we need to define *free will* because I don't find any Scripture anywhere that states it even exists.
I have this feeling that there's different meanings and we end up talking past each other.
My take is that there is no such thing as *free will*. Yes, we are told to choose, indicating that we have a choice to make, but that is NEVER free from external influences, so it is never totally *free*.
Jesus tells us that no man can come to God unless the Father draws him, which precludes coming to God of MY free volition.
John 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
And, no, I do not see how one's opinion on free will makes a difference. I've read both sides of the argument, both the Arminian and Calvinist, and find their accusations against each other as to why they're wrong, to be less than well supported.
That one needs some time to think through how to best respond to it. Let me mull that one over some.
The idea of eternal security is a matter of debate amongst Christians. It hasn't been settled in 2,000 years and I doubt that we'll settle it now, but I'll give you my take on it after thinking it through some more.
That is abuse of the caucus privilege.
There were too many inappropriate posts to be removed and so the caucus was broken and the thread opened.
Caucus posters must never, ever use the caucus label as cover to attack non-members or the beliefs of non-members.
Haha me too. I should've made that clear in my OP here. Just to let the others I've posted to here know though, I'm gonna hit the "eject button" on this thread. I think I've trampled on it enough. Haha
Again though in my defense the label wasn't on the title when I posted originally (in post 79). Although I guess in the interim NYer was still trying to rescue it. So I'll plead "mea culpa" on that. Forgive me please.
Cheers,
I stay off all other religious threads. But that's not good enough. So Have a great day FourtySeven.
**Only if the electors are open to the Holy Spirit. I don’t believe the majority of Cardinals today are open to anything but church politics.**
This is a very general statement and cannot refer to all electors.
What specific examples do you have? With the source, please.
If the Catholic Church is correct much of scripture is in error. But if scripture is correct than the Catholic Church is in error.
If the Catholic Church is correct much of scripture is in error. But if scripture is correct than the Catholic Church is in error.
Someone who finds themselves in postition 2 should get a church annulment before remarrying. That’s all it takes to remaining eligible for Communion. Takes time and resources, but in the end it will be worth it.
Amen to that! Paul answered the question very succinctly when he answered the jailer’s question. “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved”. Any “requirements” beyond that disrespect what Christ did in His death, resurrection and ascension and risk what the statement “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ” does.
That's nonsense. The RM said no such thing.
The argument that I’ve heard is that if you believe in *free will* then it puts salvation in the works category, IOW, you have to do something to earn it.
Some points to ponder. Jesus said that no one would be able to take His “sheep” from Him.
John 10: 27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; 28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.…
Now, if a person proclaims Jesus as their Savior, which scripture also teaches cannot be done without the Father drawing them, and they are “given eternal life” who is it that will be able to “snatch them out of the Father’s hand”? I would take “no one” to include the person saved since we know that it’s Satan who would draw someone away from Christ. If they can be “snatched away” than the Father is not “greater than all”.
Amen, Amen, and Amen!
Amen!!! You’re on a role girl!!
I don't know how much clearer it can be.
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 10:25-30 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one.”
2 Corinthians 1:21-22 And it is God who establishes us with you in Christ, and has anointed us, and who has also put his seal on us and given us his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee.
2 Corinthians 5:4-8 For while we are still in this tent, we groan, being burdened—not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who has given us the Spirit as a guarantee.
So we are always of good courage. We know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord, for we walk by faith, not by sight. Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord.
Ephesians 1:13-14 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.
Ephesians 4:30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.
Colossians 1:13-14 He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
Colossians 3:3 For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God.
1 Peter 1:3-5 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God's power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3156607/posts?page=313#313
2 Corinthians 1:21-22 Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.
For which the Greek, from the Byzantine, is:
2Corinthians 1:21-22 ο δε βεβαιων ημας συν υμιν εις χριστον και χρισας ημας θεος ο και σφραγισαμενος ημας και δους τον αρραβωνα του πνευματος εν ταις καρδιαις ημων
The first word in bold above is “bebaion,” the idea of confirmation, frequently used in commercial settings to confirm a bargain. Which of course makes sense of the remaining terms used here, which are also elements of a secured contract.
The second word in bold above is “sphragisamenos,” being sealed is to be marked by the signature, signet ring, or other unique proof of identity, that we belong to God, and this sealing is done by God, who is the one taking action in this verse. We do not and cannot seal ourselves. We do not, by our own powers, have access to God’s “signet ring.”
The third bolded word above is “arrabona,” and indicates what we might loosely refer to as earnest money, but in Hebrew culture conveys more the idea of a pledge of covenant, a security given as a guarantee that the deal will go through, though we only receive part payment at the beginning. See ערב for the related Hebrew stem indicating “pledge.”
Also, the man who was sinning in the Corinthian church was still considered a believer. And Paul said that the reason why some were weak and sick and some had died was because they were not taking communion in a worthy manner, sin in their lives, I'd figure.
You did see where the “bashers” moved in right? It was in a post to you after all. Reference post 26. Hypocrisy comes to mind.
Their statement is this....God does not let anyone go easily. (See Romans 10:21 where Paul was speaking of Israel, but the principle applies.) But a believer can be lost if he disregards the continuing checks of the Holy Spirit a nd reaches the point where he rejects Jesus as his Saviour.
Which is not LOSING one's salvation through works, but rather actively choosing to reject it as an act of that same will that they used to accept it.
There is debate amongst Christians about whether someone can CHOOSE to REJECT the gift of salvation once they have it, but then it's really a matter of whether they ever were really saved to begin with.
Post 26 is not mine. Gray fuzzy people that I referred to our the ones in my own Church and I sure have the right to call them out on it. So your quibble on that post is not with 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.