Posted on 10/11/2015 10:35:04 AM PDT by ebb tide
I asked Father Brian Harrison, a priest of the Society of the Oblates of Wisdom and an emeritus professor of theology of the Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto Rico in Ponce, the following questions:
If the worst-case scenario comes to pass in regard to the synod, what are we to think of magisterial teaching? Would we have to accept the changes as a form of doctrinal development as with Vatican II?
Father Harrison's response is as follows: First of all, the synod itself is not a magisterial body. If it votes (heaven forbid!) to authorize Communion for the divorced and civilly remarried, we will have to wait and see what Pope Francis decides to say and do about it.
If, as seems quite possible, he compromises (in reality, surrenders totally) by allowing different bishops' conferences to make their own decisions about this controversial matter, I myself will not accept that as a 'new doctrinal development' that requires my assent.
Why won't I?
The only thing our faith assures us, through the dogma of papal infallibility, is that God will not allow Francis to impose this disastrous and heterodox teaching on the universal Church in the solemn form of words that characterizes an infallible, ex cathedra definition. We know in advance that no such papal document will be issued.
In other words, if Pope Francis does promulgate a document allowing the Kasper proposal, it will be non-infallible and readily recognizable as such by its less solemn style and form of wording. Now, non-infallible of course does not necessarily mean false. Indeed, the great bulk of non-infallible papal teaching is true.
But in this particular case, we will have to conclude that the hypothetical pro-Kasper papal document is in fact false and unorthodox, for it will contradict Scripture and two millennia of Tradition by saying that some persons Our Lord describes as adulterers may nevertheless receive sacramental absolution without any purpose of amendment and then go to Holy Communion.
So instead of becoming part of authentic magisterial teaching, this new document, if it is issued, will have to be resisted and openly rejected by faithful Catholics as a monumental papal error.
Indeed, it seems clear that Pope St. John Paul II has settled the matter in Ecclesia de Eucharistia, #36, in such a way that even a future pope has no right to change the discipline. He wrote: 'Along these same lines, the Catechism of the Catholic Church rightly stipulates that 'anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to communion.' I therefore desire to reaffirm that in the Church there remains in force, now and in the future, the rule by which the Council of Trent gave concrete expression to the Apostle Paul's stern warning when it affirmed that, in order to receive the Eucharist in a worthy manner, 'one must first confess one's sins, when one is aware of mortal sin.''
Thus, Pope St. John Paul II affirms that this teaching can never be changed! It's definitive and infallible by virtue of the ordinary and universal magisterium. And, of course, by 'confess[ing] one's sins,' he means what every pope has always meant by that term, namely, a confession that includes a firm purpose of amendment regarding the mortal sin one is confessing.
That, of course, is precisely what's lacking in the Kasper proposal: he and his supporters are proposing a superficial 'penitential process' in which a priest gives people absolution and access to Communion even though they acknowledge to him that they definitely intend to continue sexual intimacy with someone to whom they are not validly married.
Archbishop Mark Coleridge of Brisbane, Australia, a delegate at the synod, admits in this report that the synod fathers are deeply divided on key issues. (We are not hearing this from the official daily Vatican press office reports.) However, he himself appears unwilling to line up clearly with either side of the division.
His 'moderate' approach is exemplified by his saying, for instance, that although any actual blessing of 'gay' unions is unacceptable and off the table at the synod, the Church has to use less harsh and condemnatory language about homosexual liaisons and activity. (Hmm. When was the last time you heard any priest or bishop actually using such language? The current trend among the hierarchy and clergy, from the top down, is all in the other direction – at least among prelates and priests from Western countries.)
Archbishop Coleridge's middle-of-the-road style is also shown in his approach to the notorious Kasper proposal to give Holy Communion to some divorced and civilly remarried Catholics. On the one hand, His Grace says he wouldn't personally agree with that proposal; but on the other hand, he confesses to being shocked and scandalized by one bishop who said on the floor of the Synod that we have to choose between 'the way of Jesus' and 'the way of Cardinal Kasper.' Now, that kind of talk is much too divisive for his liking!
Archbishop Coleridge's kind of 'moderation' appears rather analogous to what we have seen from 'pro-choice' Catholic politicians: 'I'm personally opposed to abortion, but...' He sees the German cardinal's view on divorce and remarriage as a matter of legitimate debate, of respectable pastoral and theological opinion. He probably wouldn't go for that option himself, mind you, but what really offends him is to suggest that the Kasper proposal is ruled out by the law of Christ himself – that it's heterodox.
But that's precisely what it is!
The real scandal is that a matter settled in the Catholic Church for two millennia and explicitly reaffirmed by St. John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio – namely, that those living in objective adultery (bigamists) may not approach the Eucharist – should even be on the table for open discussion at the present Synod.
Archbishop Coleridge then brings us some good news and bad news. The ostensible good news is that, according to his estimate after listening to what has been said at the Synod in the first couple few days, probably two-thirds of the synod fathers are likely to vote against the Kasper proposal. Well, you say, that's great news! Not so fast. It turns out that what His Grace thinks is that two-thirds of the bishops would probably vote against it as a new uniform practice for the universal Church.
The bad news is that he also thinks the synod fathers would probably be about evenly divided as to whether bishops in different regions of the world, or different episcopal conferences, should be allowed to decide for themselves whether to allow some divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Communion. Archbishop Coleridge says he himself would be sympathetic to that solution to this contentious issue.
Of course, it would be no solution at all. On the contrary, that kind of 'decentralized' and 'pastoral' accommodation would be a total disaster. The idea that a certain form of conduct is mortally sinful in some countries, and so debars one from Communion, while in other countries it's OK for Catholics after a 'penitential process,' is plainly preposterous.
It treats a matter of basic morality (whether you can be in the state of grace while living in a bigamous, and therefore adulterous, union) like a matter of mere human positive law that Church leaders can freely change at their discretion. Just like civil laws, for example, that determine which side of the road to drive on: driving on the left is obligatory in Australia but illegal in America.
Indeed, any such absurd 'regional' solution, if proposed by the synod and confirmed by higher up, would become obsolete almost before the ink was dry on the papal motu proprio that authorized it. We would see Gresham's Law in economics ('Bad money drives out good') leap immediately onto the religious stage: bad doctrine will drive out good.
That is, divorced and remarried Catholics in lands where conservative bishops are dragging their feet, i.e., not yet allowing what the pope himself allows them to allow, will immediately clamor for vindication against this intolerable 'discrimination' on the part of their retrograde shepherds. Petitions with innumerable signatures will cascade in to the Vatican demanding that such Catholics not be 'mercilessly' denied Communion for merely geographical reasons, i.e., for living in the wrong country. And of course, their petitions will then be 'mercifully' heeded in short order.
(You'll recall that we've seen this sort of development before: Communion in the hand and female altar service were originally permitted only as exceptions to general norms of the Church, admissible only in certain countries or dioceses. But these 'exceptions' quickly became the de facto rule.)
We can only pray that in the 15 remaining days of the synod, the Holy Spirit will dispel this kind of insanity from the minds and hearts of our Church leaders. Amen!
Remember what you have been taught as a Catholic and proceed with that. Do not be swayed by what you know is wrong.
bfl
Communion in the hand and female altar service were originally permitted only as exceptions to general norms of the Church, admissible only in certain countries or dioceses. But these ‘exceptions’ quickly became the de facto rule.)
The admirable ‘backbone’of the RCC in operation...
And catholics worship mary. Just as bad as abortion.
this is quite possibly the stupidest statement I’ve ever seen...
Yeah, right. Catholics don’t worship the idols of Mary, kneel before those statute and pray to them, replace the Holy Spirit’s roles with her. Nah, no worship there.
doubling down on stupid generally isn’t a good ccourse of action...
there is ONE intercessor between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”
So, Hoss, if I ask others to pray for my sick relative, as I have seen many do on this very website, I am guilty of theological malfeasance...?
"Prayer" is merely "asking for something". In fact, in some languages, German for example, the words for "pray" and "ask" are the same.
I know of no Scripture verse that says a Christian can only ask for things from God. Do you know of one?
according to the Scriptures that the RCC claims to have written, there is ONE intercessor between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."
Except that that's not what the Scripture says. Read it in the Greek. It says that there is "one (Gk heis, one, unique, primary; not monos, one and only one) Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus". This is immediately AFTER -- read the context -- Paul commands intercessory prayer by his readers, through Christ the Mediator, and on behalf of the whole world.
If Christ is the only intercessor, that doesn't makes sense. Neither does it make sense for Paul to ask others to pray for him, which he does in several places. Neither does it makes sense for people in your church to ask for prayers, but I'll bet they do it anyway.
Neither does it makes sense for people in your church to ask for prayers, but I’ll bet they do it anyway.
It’s probably likely that ol’ Hoss has asked others for prayers sometime...hopefully he wrote a post to himself about how messed up that is...
**So instead of becoming part of authentic magisterial teaching, this new document, if it is issued, will have to be resisted and openly rejected by faithful Catholics as a monumental papal error. **
Agree with that.
No... no malfeasance. If you ask others to pray for a sick relative, and you ask them to pray to GOD ALMIGHTY, then no. If you ask them to pray to Mary, or some other saint (neither can hear you), then yes... you're asking others to practice idolatry.
Hoss
Really? How about when Jesus said:
"And he said to them, “When you pray, say: “Father, hallowed be your name...."
Luke 11:2a
Seems like when Jesus prayed, he prayed to The Father....not anyone else.
Besides... no one else is God.... Since God said that we are to place any gods before him, it seems to me that when we pray to anyone/anything other than God, we're putting what/who we're praying to before God and thus violating his commandments.
Except that that's not what the Scripture says. Read it in the Greek. It says that there is "one (Gk heis, one, unique, primary; not monos, one and only one) Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus". This is immediately AFTER -- read the context -- Paul commands intercessory prayer by his readers, through Christ the Mediator, and on behalf of the whole world.
You almost owed me a new laptop.... did you read what you wrote? "Heis" is one, unique, primary... Really? What does UNIQUE mean? Doesn't that mean like no other? Intercessory prayer is perfectly fine... if one prays to GOD ALMIGHTY. No one else can hear prayer.... God doesn't share his uniqueness of omniscience or omnipresence with mere created beings such as us....
If Christ is the only intercessor, that doesn't makes sense. Neither does it make sense for Paul to ask others to pray for him, which he does in several places. Neither does it makes sense for people in your church to ask for prayers, but I'll bet they do it anyway.
What doesn't make sense is what you just wrote. Intercessory prayer is fine; I've never said that was bad. I do covet prayer from others -- when they pray to GOD ALMIGHTY. They are praying for me TO GOD. He is the only one that can do anything for me! Mary can't; she's like all the others who have died and gone to heaven -- she's worshipping God. She has NO idea what goes on down here....
It doesn't make sense for Christ to be the only intercessor? Why? He is the ONE who gave his life for us on the cross; he's the only one who shed his blood for the remission of our sins. He is the only perfect person ever to exist on this earth without sin.... (and yes -- Mary was a sinner. Sorry. But she was). And why can't it make sense? God's inspired and inerrant word says it's so:
1 Timothy 2:5
"For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,"
So... by your logic, when it says there is "one God", there is not really one and only one God... right? So, "one mediator" doesn't mean what it says? Isn't heis used in both places, once to describe God and once to describe Christ as the one intercessor? So, according to your logic, there is one unique God, but not just one and only one God....
Wow.
Roman Catholicism is really, really screwed up.
I'll be praying FOR YOU... but I'll be praying to God Almighty for you. Not wasting time on Mary or anyone else who can't do you any good.
Hoss
Really. Nice straw man.
Intercessory prayer is a wonderful thing; I pray for my family and friends -- and others who are in desperate need of the saving knowledge of the Gospel -- but I pray to God, not Mary, or other saints that are in Heaven. Did you read what I wrote? Intercessory prayer is praying to GOD ALMIGHTY.
Praying to Mary is idolatry. The only way to ask her for anything is to pray to her...
Hoss
How many times have you been told that Catholics do NOT pray TO Mary. We ask her to pray for us.
"Have to:". Speak for yourself, author. My advice: Accept no doctrinal changes subsequent to approximately 1959. Presume that any more recent alterations or innovations are diabolically inspired unless proven to be fully consistent and merely clarification of existing Catholic doctrine. "In 1960 it will become clearer".
If you don't pray TO her, how do you communicate to her your desire for her to pray for you? Really..... In order to ask her, what do you do?
If you can pray DIRECTLY to God, why do you need to go through her? Other friends and family intercede for me--DIRECTLY to God.
How do you ask Mary to do anything for you???
Prayer??
Hoss
I've wondered about that...
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.
Nah; He was addressing the EXISTING Catholic churches of the time.
And mighty potent ones at that!!
Bonaventure: …the gates of heaven will open to all who confide in the protection of Mary. Blessed are they who know thee, O Mother of God, for the knowledge of THEE is the high road to everlasting life, and the publication of thy virtues is the way of ETERNAL SALVATION . Give ear, O ye nations; and all you who desire heaven , serve, honor Mary, and certainly you will find ETERNAL LIFE.
Ephem: …devotion to the divine Mother…is the unlocking of the heavenly Jerusalem.
Blosius: To the, O Lady, are committed the KEYS and the treasures of the kingdom of Heaven.
Ambrose: …constantly pray ‘Open to us, O Mary, the gates of paradise, since thou hast its KEYS.
Fulgetius: …by Mary God descended from Heaven into the world, that by HER man might ascend from earth to Heaven.
Athanasius: …And, thou, O Lady, wast filled with grace, that thou mightiest be the way of our SALVATION and the means of ascent to the heavenly Kingdom.
Richard of Laurence: Mary, in fine, is the mistress of heaven; for there she commands as she wills, and ADMITS whom she wills.
Guerric: …he who serves Mary and for whom she intercedes, is as CERTAIN of heaven as if he were already there…and those who DO NOT serve Mary will NOT BE SAVED.
Anselm: It suffices, O Lady, that thou willest it, and our SALVATION is certain.
Antoninus: …souls protected by Mary, and on which she casts her eyes, are NECESSARILY JUSTIFIED AND SAVED.
Acts 17:11
Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
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.