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.
http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/prayer/15promise.htm
2) "I promise my special protection and the greatest graces to all those who shall recite the Rosary." Explanation: Our Lady is our Advocate and the channel of all God's Grace to us. (see Lumen Gentium chapter VIII - Our Lady #62) [a great more detail is available on this topic in True Devotion to Mary, chapter four, by St. Louis de Montfort]
RF guidelines prohibit me from stating what this really is. There is only ONE advocate between God and man.
1 John 2:1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.
And God's grace is received by faith through Jesus Christ, not Mary.
1 Corinthians 1:4-8 I give thanks to my God always for you because of the grace of God that was given you in Christ Jesus, that in every way you were enriched in him in all speech and all knowledge—even as the testimony about Christ was confirmed among you—so that you are not lacking in any gift, as you wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ, who will sustain you to the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 5:1-2 Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
The rest of the *promises* are just as bad and can be shown to be just as erroneous as that.
http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/questions/yq2/yq397.html
I read your responses before and am not persuaded that the OSAS proof texts are able to negate the other Scriptures. OSAS, as it is usually taught, is derived from John Calvin. You are not saved by believing you are saved. You are not saved by believing in Calvinism. Believe and obey the LORD Jesus Christ completely, entirely, until he comes again. He has warned us so many times in the Scriptures. Even blessed Paul himself warned. Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain. 25 And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible. 26 I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air: 27 But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.
The Greek word Adokimos, that Paul uses to speak of himself if he does not persevere, indicates the lost reprobate believer who turned away from the faith which was once delivered to the saints. For example, They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate. Check the other usage in the Scripture for yourself. OSAS will always argue that such were never really saved to being with; well, that would apply to you as well and you could not be certain until you reached the end of your race; so I don't think that argument holds up to the other Scriptures; reread the parable of the Sower; many believed but did not persevere. You are not saved by believing you are saved. Believe in the LORD Jesus Christ, now and forever, and you shall be saved. To believe is to obey. Read all the warnings to us from the LORD himself in Revelation. He is not telling us to believe in OSAS, but to watch (ourselves), repent, and obey him (there is that free will again).
The things which John wrote concerning Jesus are true. Believe them, cling to them, and endure until the end.
The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon Strong's Number: 96 Original Word Word Origin ÅAdmivn from (1) (as a negative particle) and (1384) Transliterated Word TDNT Entry Adokimos 2:255,181 Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech ad-ok'-ee-mos Adjective Definition not standing the test, not approved properly used of metals and coins that which does not prove itself such as it ought unfit for, unproved, spurious, reprobate King James Word Usage - Total: 8 reprobate 6, castaway 1, rejected 1
See!
The 'confusion' just OOZES outta the pews!
EVERYBODY body knows it's 30K - or 50K or 80K...
51k!!!
Are you part of the solution?
Just WHO 'elected' THESE guys??
Pope Stephen VI (896–897), who had his predecessor Pope Formosus exhumed, tried, de-fingered, briefly reburied, and thrown in the Tiber.[1]
Pope John XII (955–964), who gave land to a mistress, murdered several people, and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife.
Pope Benedict IX (1032–1044, 1045, 1047–1048), who "sold" the Papacy
Pope Boniface VIII (1294–1303), who is lampooned in Dante's Divine Comedy
Pope Urban VI (1378–1389), who complained that he did not hear enough screaming when Cardinals who had conspired against him were tortured.[2]
Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503), a Borgia, who was guilty of nepotism and whose unattended corpse swelled until it could barely fit in a coffin.[3]
Pope Leo X (1513–1521), a spendthrift member of the Medici family who once spent 1/7 of his predecessors' reserves on a single ceremony[4]
Pope Clement VII (1523–1534), also a Medici, whose power-politicking with France, Spain, and Germany got Rome sacked.
While Rome says you can't know whether you are 'saved' or not.
This is a Catholic thread?
I don't see it NOW.
I DO 'see' comment #3; apparently TRYING to make it a caucus.
Have Catholics bashed someone else and AUTOMATICALLY gotten it moved to 'religion'?
Can I ask WHY?
Oh??
Just WHAT are you ACCUSING the RM of??
Sounds like a management problem!
Why not have a test every few years, like the BMV does, to make sure that ONLY the partyline gets parroted?
Wrong answers?
Somebody did; and you accept it as Gospel.
You have GOT to learn to use ONLY the ‘data’ that supports your fantasy.
I am a Catholic! What is your point?
You gave me your opinion that I was wrong, posted a bunch of what I suppose is Scripture, but since there were no references nobody unfamiliar with Scripture would know that, and and considered it what?
That you somehow made a point?
OK, so you don’t think all those verses support the security of the believer.
Then perhaps you could enlighten us as to why *sealed* doesn’t really mean *sealed* and why *guarantee* doesn’t really mean *guarantee*.
Then we could get into the righteousness of Christ being imputed, or credited to the account of the believer after he puts his faith in Christ, and how that righteousness becomes the believers in the sight of God and how the righteous requirements of the Law are fulfilled in the believer that way so the believer is considered by God to have fulfilled the Law. Then even if we are judged by our *works* we pass muster because God sees Jesus works of righteousness as ours, credited to our account.
O...
K...
It was until a couple Catholics tried dragging those bigoted heretics through the mud under the supposed cover and protection of the caucus label. The RM saw through that in a heart beat and removed the label and are now they trying to blameshift and play the martyr and blame it on the RM and those bigoted heretics instead of taking responsibility for it themselves.
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.