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.
The RM did not hold a gun to anyone’s head and force them to make comments about other religions.
Y’all violated the RF guidelines that are on the RM’s homepage. Y’all did it to yourselves.
Quit your blame-shifting and take some responsibility for your actions.
“Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.”
1 Corinthians 11:27
Well, isn't that the most ironic complaint I've seen in a long time.
Comments 10, 26, and 43 didn't leave others alone. Y'all dragged other groups into the discussion and now are complaining *Leave us alone*?
Leave others out of it and you can have your nice little caucus discussions.
Bring others into it, and we're not going to roll over and play dead.
Get over yourselves.
How many articles bashing protestants has their been?
Leave them alone now.
lol
FWIW, the caucus label was removed BEFORE any non-Catholics posted comments on this thread.
So they can't be blamed for it.
You guys did it to yourselves.
I want to make sure that there is no misunderstanding. I do NOT consider everyone that asks questions to be "bigots." There are protestants that come here and ask questions that are neither anti-Catholic or bigots. Sadly on these threads there is a very vocal minority that are both.
When I speak of anti-Catholic bigots that is referring to a certain select group of less than ten individuals.
And once again for the record Verga is a 100% USDA approved MALE. His wife Vergette is a 100% USDA approved FEMALE. I don't know if she even still has an account here.
Oh really? Not according to the Holy Spirit inspired words from scripture.
font color=red>"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has
Has, not will or may but has everlasting life
Now, who is going to take that everlasting life away? God says no one can.
Romans 8:38 For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, 39 nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Again I ask, who will take that everlasting life away when God says “no created thing” can take it away?
>>They profess that they know God<<
Mormons, Muslims and many others profess to know God. That doesn’t mean they believe in Jesus shed blood as their only atonement for sins and turned their lives over to Him. As James says it is their deeds by which we can ascertain whether they have accepted Jesus as their savior. Even the demons “know” God.
>>and you could not be certain until you reached the end of your race;<<
Once again you contradict what scripture teaches.
Romans 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
It’s by God’s grace alone that we are saved. Not by what we do.
Rom. 11:6, "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace."
Paul rebukes Peter for applying rules for salvation.
Gal. 2:16, "nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified."
Gal. 2:21, I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.
Phil. 3:9, "and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith."
Anything that gives man credit for attaining salvation is contrary to scripture.
That's totally irrelevant.
You used the term in relation to non-Catholics and was part of the reason the caucus label was pulled.
We'll not be allowed to play with their blocks soon!
Well said!!!!
Not that I saw.
That “rightly dividing” thing gets a lot of people in trouble with scripture doesn’t it? Also when they think their “church” has superseded the nation of Israel all types of error occurs.
Then perhaps it would have been better for Catholics to not have begun bashing non Catholics which is why the caucus designation was removed. See post 26 and 30 for reference.
What part of you violated the caucus rules do you not understand? Reference post 26 & 30.
Defconw--you evidently didn't read my earlier post to you.
When I came to this thread my intentions were purely honorable. It may surprise you to learn that I am in fact a sympathizer with the traditionalist Catholics on this forum (even if most of them are illogically evolutionists and higher critics). I have defended Catholic traditionalists from their co-religionists and protested their expulsion (which was brought about, not by Protestant critics, but by their "conciliarist" co-religionists).
All I wanted to do was read what Catholics were saying among themselves about the Pope they were mostly defending elsewhere. I was genuinely curious. I did not intend to post, mock, or interfere in any way whatsoever. I just wanted to remain silent and respectfully read (as befits visitors to caucused threads).
Then, as I understand it, a poster mentioned metmom, a Protestant. That was a violation of the rules of a caucused thread. I did not see this, however. What I did see was your using this caucused thread to mention, reference, and attack another religion that, per caucus rules, is not allowed to defend itself. This is a clear, blatant violation of the rules of caucus threads. I called attention to this and the "caucus" label was removed.
A "caucus" is like a church service. Its purpose is to allow the various religions here to post devotionals or information relevant to the members of that religion and to have discussion among the members. Hostile posts from other religions are not allowed. Members of other faiths are permitted to post if their posts are non-hostile and they get the permission of the Original Poster or Religion Moderator to do so. They are considered "guests" on the thread and are to act as such.
What you and the other poster did was to use the thread, while still caucused, to mention and attack another poster and another religion. This is a violation of the rules of caucused threads. Caucused threads are not intended as a cover for attacking other religions freely without having to worry about a response from those attacked. You violated this rule blatantly. Then and only then did I report your post. That was never my purpose in coming here. Never.
Why don't you understand this? Why are you still crying about it as if you were wronged? The Original Poster is not responsible; she was fully within the rules in starting this thread. But then a couple of her co-religionists come along and start using the cloak of a caucus to attack an opposing religion? Why don't you understand that this was wrong?
I am not a Protestant. I do not believe in sola scriptura, "salvation" by "faith alone," or the perspicacity of scripture. I do not believe in a need to "restore" a supposedly long-lost truth. So no Protestantism inspired my reporting of your post.
However, I do confess that although I am not Protestant, I am a product of the Fundamentalist Bible Belt and am extremely sensitive to ethno-cultural slurs hurled against that culture and its people. Catholics on Free Republic regularly engage in this, using such slurs as "Bible-thumpers," "snake-handlers," "brain-dead bibliolators," and even stooping so low as to refer to "Cletus" and "Billy Bob's Glory Barn." Such slurs are to be expected from atheists and liberals, but as far as I am concerned on a conservative American forum like this they are not to be tolerated from "fellow-conservatives." You did not engage in this (you violated an explicit forum rule for caucused threads), but as a child of the Bible Belt and its culture I make it my job to report each and every such cowardly and malicious slur by people who call themselves "conservatives" and purport to believe the the Biblical G-d.
I advise you to acquaint yourself with this particular rule so you will be more circumspect in the future and will not sabotage perfectly good and valid caucuses by such behavior.
And yes, we all get emotional and violate this rule from time to time, and we all get called on it. One day you will probably report me for violating the same rule.
Now do you understand?
NYer--please begin a new caucused thread and warn all participants to not use it to attack other religions which are not present in the caucus.
>>Why don’t you just leave us alone?<<
Because you come here and promote practices and beliefs that are contrary to or added to God’s infallible inspired words from scripture. We cannot allow those to stand unchallenged or we would be disobeying God’s words to us. If you don’t like the challenge of defending beliefs you have then perhaps this isn’t the type of thread you should open and participate in.
If this thread had remained properly caucused, you would not have been allowed to to onto it to challenge diddley, and any post doing so would have rightly be pulled. Caucused threads are for religions to discuss things among themselves without constantly being challenged by others outside that particular religious group. How would you like it if every Protestant (or whatever you are) caucus were jumped on by Catholics because they felt duty bound to respond to your "errors?"
The only reason this thread is no longer caucused is that two members used it to mention or attack other religions. That is the only reason you and I are allowed to post on it.
When they violated the rules of a caucus thread it was no longer a caucus thread was it. How would you like it if in a caucus thread they impugned you and you were not allowed to defend yourself? They have no one to blame but themselves.
Actually, they do that pretty regularly.....
Not that there are that many Prot caucused threads, but then again, we're not so easily offended.
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.