Is There Growing Confusion over Church Teaching?

Crisis Magazine ^ | July 16, 2014 | Dr. William Oddie

[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.

[boatbums]

Just so you know, I only pinged you out of courtesy, not to criticize. We ALL make mistakes and no one likes a self-appointed grammar nazi. ;o)

[JPX2011]

And God used Judas in His plan for Christ to die for our salvation. And God used Balham’s donkey. And God used Herod and Pharaoh.

All singular events. Only the Catholic Church was promised to lead the Body of Christ to all Truth until the end of the world. As in, ongoing.

[JPX2011]

Those don’t change a thing. Muslims may claim they serve the God of Abraham but it’s clear they don’t. They serve a different god of their own making. The Catholic Church not being able to see that is an indication of their lack of knowledge and understanding of the one true God of scripture.

If Muslims do not profess to worship the One True God, then what being do they worship and what is its contingency?

Is God still God no matter what man says about him? Is the modalist, who describes the Trinity as being a series of offices instead of persons believing in the same God, even though their understanding of Trinity is flawed?

[CynicalBear]

>>Only the Catholic Church was promised to lead the Body of Christ to all Truth until the end of the world.<<

Please show the scripture that says that it’s that institution that was to lead.

[FourtySeven]

Ok thanks. I didn’t know that. Thanks for your honesty.

[JPX2011]

Everything you all take credit for God could have accomplished on His own.

Yes He could've. In fact he could have saved us all without the need for Christ, the 2nd person of the Trinity coming to Earth as man. But He didn't. He chose to assume humanity to unite us with His Divinity

That act, echoes through eternity. It's why Lucifer and his followers proclaimed non serviam . Raise man above us pure spiriitual beings? Never.

Humanity has a role to play in salvation history. I know this isn't shared with the TULIP crew but its true nonetheless. The Catholic Church is God's way of doing that. So when we "take credit" as you put it, all we're doing is glorifying God's Divine plan which includes our separated brothers and sisters.

[JPX2011]

Please show the scripture that says that it’s that institution that was to lead.

Now when it was late that same day, the first of the week, and the doors were shut, where the disciples were gathered together, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them: Peace be to you. And when he had said this, he shewed them his hands and his side. The disciples therefore were glad, when they saw the Lord. He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. (John 20:19-23)

Christ's power to forgive sins. Given to the Apostles. The power of Christ resides with those who go out and forgive the sins of others. Only the Catholic Church was given this power and exercises it to this day. No other denomination can lay claim to this power.

[metmom]

The same word is used in John 1:12 as Ephesians 1:13

Those who believe, receiving Jesus, are those who are sealed with the Holy Spirit until the day of redemption through that same believing that gave them the right, or authority, to become the children of God.

Believe - Greek

http://biblehub.com/text/john/1-12.htm

John 1:12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,

Strong's Concordance

believe - pisteuó: to believe, entrust

Original Word: πιστεύω Part of Speech: Verb Transliteration: pisteuó Phonetic Spelling: (pist-yoo'-o) Short Definition: I believe, have faith in Definition: I believe, have faith in, trust in; pass: I am entrusted with.

HELPS Word-studies

4100 pisteúō (from 4102 /pístis, "faith," derived from 3982 /peíthō, "persuade, be persuaded")

– believe (affirm, have confidence); used of persuading oneself (= human believing) and with the sacred significance of being persuaded by the Lord (= faith-believing).

Only the context indicates whether 4100 /pisteúō ("believe") is self-serving (without sacred meaning), or the believing that leads to/proceeds from God's inbirthing of faith.

http://biblehub.com/ephesians/1-13.htm

Ephesians 1:13 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,

In Greek: http://biblehub.com/text/ephesians/1-13.htm http://biblehub.com/greek/4100.htm

[metmom]

All singular events. Only the Catholic Church was promised to lead the Body of Christ to all Truth until the end of the world. As in, ongoing.

Absolutely, dead wrong.

Jesus never promised that the church would lead into all truth, but that the Holy Spirit would lead into all truth.

John 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.

[metmom]

Yes He could've. In fact he could have saved us all without the need for Christ, the 2nd person of the Trinity coming to Earth as man.

No, He couldn't have. If there were some other way to save mankind, God would have done it.

Sin cannot be in the presence of a holy God. Death is the penalty for sin. Without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sin.

[CynicalBear]

>>Christ's power to forgive sins. Given to the Apostles. The power of Christ resides with those who go out and forgive the sins of others. Only the Catholic Church was given this power and exercises it to this day. No other denomination can lay claim to this power.<<

Scripture shows that to be untrue.

Acts 15:8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us. 9 He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts.

Acts 11:17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?

[CynicalBear]

>>Jesus never promised that the church would lead into all truth, but that the Holy Spirit would lead into all truth.<<

Interesting how the Catholic Church has twisted the meaning of so much of scripture. The “church” assembly of believers was to uphold the truth. No where does scripture teach that they would “lead into” or “make” truth.

[daniel1212]

The larger issue is that Caths cannot lose what they never had, as they are told they are children of God and treated as such due to being sprinkled with water (in their usually morally cognizant condition), and thus are formally justified due to their own holiness.

And thus usually end up in "Purgatory" in order to be made good enough to enter Heaven.

[Gamecock]

It originated from modern evangelicalism/easy believism.

I believe I alraedy gave you my churches, as well as other Reformed church stand on OSAS.

[Elsie]

Neither could Claire Booth ****...

[Elsie]

No one has ever said a Saint now in Heaven didn’t make a mistake while on Earth.

Yet, saints are CLAIMED to actually BE in Heaven with no proof.

Strange world; ain't it!

[Elsie]

I mean we know that declarations of Sainthood are considered infallible. So are you saying he was erroneously “made” a Saint (and thus Francis is not a valid Pope)?

Bah!

He'll NEVER make it to the list of BAD popes!

[Elsie]

Nutcase preachers abound, they fool a few (sadly you sound like you’ve been fooled, since you insist you are not telling jokes) and then eventually wander away.

Kinda like FR posters...

[Elsie]

The Church endures, through century after century, attack after attack.

I'd expect nothing less...

Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:

But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.

But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.

So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?

He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?

But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.

Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, 
and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn. 


—Matthew 13:24-30, Holy Bible: King James Version

[Elsie]

The Church endures, through century after century, attack after attack.

I'd expect nothing less...

Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:

But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.

But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.

So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?

He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?

But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.

Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, 
and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn. 


—Matthew 13:24-30, Holy Bible: King James Version