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!
Maybe these are still applicable?
Out of love for the truth and the desire to bring it to light, the following propositions will be discussed at Wittenberg, under the presidency of the Reverend Father Martin Luther, Master of Arts and of Sacred Theology, and Lecturer in Ordinary on the same at that place. Wherefore he requests that those who are unable to be present and debate orally with us, may do so by letter.
In the Name our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.
1. Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said Poenitentiam agite, willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance.
2. This word cannot be understood to mean sacramental penance, i.e., confession and satisfaction, which is administered by the priests.
3. Yet it means not inward repentance only; nay, there is no inward repentance which does not outwardly work divers mortifications of the flesh.
4. The penalty [of sin], therefore, continues so long as hatred of self continues; for this is the true inward repentance, and continues until our entrance into the kingdom of heaven.
5. The pope does not intend to remit, and cannot remit any penalties other than those which he has imposed either by his own authority or by that of the Canons.
6. The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring that it has been remitted by God and by assenting to God’s remission; though, to be sure, he may grant remission in cases reserved to his judgment. If his right to grant remission in such cases were despised, the guilt would remain entirely unforgiven.
7. God remits guilt to no one whom He does not, at the same time, humble in all things and bring into subjection to His vicar, the priest.
8. The penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and, according to them, nothing should be imposed on the dying.
9. Therefore the Holy Spirit in the pope is kind to us, because in his decrees he always makes exception of the article of death and of necessity.
10. Ignorant and wicked are the doings of those priests who, in the case of the dying, reserve canonical penances for purgatory.
11. This changing of the canonical penalty to the penalty of purgatory is quite evidently one of the tares that were sown while the bishops slept.
12. In former times the canonical penalties were imposed not after, but before absolution, as tests of true contrition.
13. The dying are freed by death from all penalties; they are already dead to canonical rules, and have a right to be released from them.
14. The imperfect health [of soul], that is to say, the imperfect love, of the dying brings with it, of necessity, great fear; and the smaller the love, the greater is the fear.
15. This fear and horror is sufficient of itself alone (to say nothing of other things) to constitute the penalty of purgatory, since it is very near to the horror of despair.
16. Hell, purgatory, and heaven seem to differ as do despair, almost-despair, and the assurance of safety.
17. With souls in purgatory it seems necessary that horror should grow less and love increase.
18. It seems unproved, either by reason or Scripture, that they are outside the state of merit, that is to say, of increasing love.
19. Again, it seems unproved that they, or at least that all of them, are certain or assured of their own blessedness, though we may be quite certain of it.
20. Therefore by “full remission of all penalties” the pope means not actually “of all,” but only of those imposed by himself.
21. Therefore those preachers of indulgences are in error, who say that by the pope’s indulgences a man is freed from every penalty, and saved;
22. Whereas he remits to souls in purgatory no penalty which, according to the canons, they would have had to pay in this life.
23. If it is at all possible to grant to any one the remission of all penalties whatsoever, it is certain that this remission can be granted only to the most perfect, that is, to the very fewest.
24. It must needs be, therefore, that the greater part of the people are deceived by that indiscriminate and highsounding promise of release from penalty.
25. The power which the pope has, in a general way, over purgatory, is just like the power which any bishop or curate has, in a special way, within his own diocese or parish.
26. The pope does well when he grants remission to souls [in purgatory], not by the power of the keys (which he does not possess), but by way of intercession.
27. They preach man who say that so soon as the penny jingles into the money-box, the soul flies out [of purgatory].
28. It is certain that when the penny jingles into the money-box, gain and avarice can be increased, but the result of the intercession of the Church is in the power of God alone.
29. Who knows whether all the souls in purgatory wish to be bought out of it, as in the legend of Sts. Severinus and Paschal.
30. No one is sure that his own contrition is sincere; much less that he has attained full remission.
31. Rare as is the man that is truly penitent, so rare is also the man who truly buys indulgences, i.e., such men are most rare.
32. They will be condemned eternally, together with their teachers, who believe themselves sure of their salvation because they have letters of pardon.
33. Men must be on their guard against those who say that the pope’s pardons are that inestimable gift of God by which man is reconciled to Him;
34. For these “graces of pardon” concern only the penalties of sacramental satisfaction, and these are appointed by man.
35. They preach no Christian doctrine who teach that contrition is not necessary in those who intend to buy souls out of purgatory or to buy confessionalia.
36. Every truly repentant Christian has a right to full remission of penalty and guilt, even without letters of pardon.
37. Every true Christian, whether living or dead, has part in all the blessings of Christ and the Church; and this is granted him by God, even without letters of pardon.
38. Nevertheless, the remission and participation [in the blessings of the Church] which are granted by the pope are in no way to be despised, for they are, as I have said, the declaration of divine remission.
39. It is most difficult, even for the very keenest theologians, at one and the same time to commend to the people the abundance of pardons and [the need of] true contrition.
40. True contrition seeks and loves penalties, but liberal pardons only relax penalties and cause them to be hated, or at least, furnish an occasion [for hating them].
41. Apostolic pardons are to be preached with caution, lest the people may falsely think them preferable to other good works of love.
42. Christians are to be taught that the pope does not intend the buying of pardons to be compared in any way to works of mercy.
43. Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor or lends to the needy does a better work than buying pardons;
44. Because love grows by works of love, and man becomes better; but by pardons man does not grow better, only more free from penalty.
45. 45. Christians are to be taught that he who sees a man in need, and passes him by, and gives [his money] for pardons, purchases not the indulgences of the pope, but the indignation of God.
46. Christians are to be taught that unless they have more than they need, they are bound to keep back what is necessary for their own families, and by no means to squander it on pardons.
47. Christians are to be taught that the buying of pardons is a matter of free will, and not of commandment.
48. Christians are to be taught that the pope, in granting pardons, needs, and therefore desires, their devout prayer for him more than the money they bring.
49. Christians are to be taught that the pope’s pardons are useful, if they do not put their trust in them; but altogether harmful, if through them they lose their fear of God.
50. Christians are to be taught that if the pope knew the exactions of the pardon-preachers, he would rather that St. Peter’s church should go to ashes, than that it should be built up with the skin, flesh and bones of his sheep.
51. Christians are to be taught that it would be the pope’s wish, as it is his duty, to give of his own money to very many of those from whom certain hawkers of pardons cajole money, even though the church of St. Peter might have to be sold.
52. The assurance of salvation by letters of pardon is vain, even though the commissary, nay, even though the pope himself, were to stake his soul upon it.
53. They are enemies of Christ and of the pope, who bid the Word of God be altogether silent in some Churches, in order that pardons may be preached in others.
54. Injury is done the Word of God when, in the same sermon, an equal or a longer time is spent on pardons than on this Word.
55. It must be the intention of the pope that if pardons, which are a very small thing, are celebrated with one bell, with single processions and ceremonies, then the Gospel, which is the very greatest thing, should be preached with a hundred bells, a hundred processions, a hundred ceremonies.
56. The “treasures of the Church,” out of which the pope. grants indulgences, are not sufficiently named or known among the people of Christ.
57. That they are not temporal treasures is certainly evident, for many of the vendors do not pour out such treasures so easily, but only gather them.
58. Nor are they the merits of Christ and the Saints, for even without the pope, these always work grace for the inner man, and the cross, death, and hell for the outward man.
59. St. Lawrence said that the treasures of the Church were the Church’s poor, but he spoke according to the usage of the word in his own time.
60. Without rashness we say that the keys of the Church, given by Christ’s merit, are that treasure;
61. For it is clear that for the remission of penalties and of reserved cases, the power of the pope is of itself sufficient.
62. The true treasure of the Church is the Most Holy Gospel of the glory and the grace of God.
63. But this treasure is naturally most odious, for it makes the first to be last.
64. On the other hand, the treasure of indulgences is naturally most acceptable, for it makes the last to be first.
65. Therefore the treasures of the Gospel are nets with which they formerly were wont to fish for men of riches.
66. The treasures of the indulgences are nets with which they now fish for the riches of men.
67. The indulgences which the preachers cry as the “greatest graces” are known to be truly such, in so far as they promote gain.
68. Yet they are in truth the very smallest graces compared with the grace of God and the piety of the Cross.
69. Bishops and curates are bound to admit the commissaries of apostolic pardons, with all reverence.
70. But still more are they bound to strain all their eyes and attend with all their ears, lest these men preach their own dreams instead of the commission of the pope.
71. He who speaks against the truth of apostolic pardons, let him be anathema and accursed!
72. But he who guards against the lust and license of the pardon-preachers, let him be blessed!
73. The pope justly thunders against those who, by any art, contrive the injury of the traffic in pardons.
74. But much more does he intend to thunder against those who use the pretext of pardons to contrive the injury of holy love and truth.
75. To think the papal pardons so great that they could absolve a man even if he had committed an impossible sin and violated the Mother of God — this is madness.
76. We say, on the contrary, that the papal pardons are not able to remove the very least of venial sins, so far as its guilt is concerned.
77. It is said that even St. Peter, if he were now Pope, could not bestow greater graces; this is blasphemy against St. Peter and against the pope.
78. We say, on the contrary, that even the present pope, and any pope at all, has greater graces at his disposal; to wit, the Gospel, powers, gifts of healing, etc., as it is written in I. Corinthians xii.
79. To say that the cross, emblazoned with the papal arms, which is set up [by the preachers of indulgences], is of equal worth with the Cross of Christ, is blasphemy.
80. The bishops, curates and theologians who allow such talk to be spread among the people, will have an account to render.
81. This unbridled preaching of pardons makes it no easy matter, even for learned men, to rescue the reverence due to the pope from slander, or even from the shrewd questionings of the laity.
82. To wit: — “Why does not the pope empty purgatory, for the sake of holy love and of the dire need of the souls that are there, if he redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake of miserable money with which to build a Church? The former reasons would be most just; the latter is most trivial.”
83. Again: — “Why are mortuary and anniversary masses for the dead continued, and why does he not return or permit the withdrawal of the endowments founded on their behalf, since it is wrong to pray for the redeemed?”
84. Again: — “What is this new piety of God and the pope, that for money they allow a man who is impious and their enemy to buy out of purgatory the pious soul of a friend of God, and do not rather, because of that pious and beloved soul’s own need, free it for pure love’s sake?”
85. Again: — “Why are the penitential canons long since in actual fact and through disuse abrogated and dead, now satisfied by the granting of indulgences, as though they were still alive and in force?”
86. Again: — “Why does not the pope, whose wealth is to-day greater than the riches of the richest, build just this one church of St. Peter with his own money, rather than with the money of poor believers?”
87. Again: — “What is it that the pope remits, and what participation does he grant to those who, by perfect contrition, have a right to full remission and participation?”
88. Again: — “What greater blessing could come to the Church than if the pope were to do a hundred times a day what he now does once, and bestow on every believer these remissions and participations?”
89. “Since the pope, by his pardons, seeks the salvation of souls rather than money, why does he suspend the indulgences and pardons granted heretofore, since these have equal efficacy?”
90. To repress these arguments and scruples of the laity by force alone, and not to resolve them by giving reasons, is to expose the Church and the pope to the ridicule of their enemies, and to make Christians unhappy.
91. If, therefore, pardons were preached according to the spirit and mind of the pope, all these doubts would be readily resolved; nay, they would not exist.
92. Away, then, with all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, “Peace, peace,” and there is no peace!
93. Blessed be all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, “Cross, cross,” and there is no cross!
94. Christians are to be exhorted that they be diligent in following Christ, their Head, through penalties, deaths, and hell;
95. And thus be confident of entering into heaven rather through many tribulations, than through the assurance of peace.
Keep it simple. Just follow the teachings of Jesus.
Imagine that.......
No thanks. Lutherans now sanction abortion.
Bet on it. It's not as though he's made any secret of what he wants to do.
Well, DUH! Here is what Jesus said about the whole Reformation Church:
Revelation 3:1 “And to the angel of the church in Sardis write, ‘These things says He who †has the seven Spirits of God and the seven stars: “I know your works, that you have a name that you are alive, but you are dead.
2 “Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die, for I have not found your works perfect before God.
3 “Remember therefore how you have received and heard; hold fast and †repent. Therefore if you will not watch, I will come upon you as a thief, and you will not know what hour I will come upon you.
4 “You have a few names even in Sardis who have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with Me in white, for they are worthy.
5 “He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life; but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels.
6 “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.” ’
Nelson, Thomas (2009-02-18). Holy Bible, New King James Version (NKJV) (pp. 1186-1187). Thomas Nelson. Kindle Edition.
Just be one who overcomes!
Not at all . The LCMS does not.
Jesus Chirst established One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
He did not establish Luther’s “deformation church”. What kind of “church” permits abortion?
>>This church recognizes that there can be sound reasons for ending a pregnancy through induced abortion.<<
And catholics worship mary. Just as bad as abortion.
You really think so?
Catholics don't worship Mary, they venerate Her.
Catholocism even has to redefine worship to delude themselves into thinking they're actions aren't worship.
From His perspective they’re both sins.....along with anything against His will.
This is what Jesus wrote to the Apostolic Church:
Revelation 2:1 “To the angel of the church of Ephesus write, ‘These things says He who holds the seven stars in His right hand, who walks in the midst of the seven golden lampstands:
2 “I know your works, your labor, your patience, and that you cannot bear those who are evil. And you have tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars;
3 “and you have persevered and have patience, and have labored for My name’s sake and have not become weary.
4 “Nevertheless I have this against you, that you have left your first love.
5 “Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place—unless you repent.
6 “But this you have, that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.
7 “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes I will give to eat from the tree of life, which is in the midst of the Paradise of God.” ’
Nelson, Thomas (2009-02-18). Holy Bible, New King James Version (NKJV) (p. 1185). Thomas Nelson. Kindle Edition.
Starting a verse 18, Jesus addresses the Medieval Catholic Church, see http://www.usccb.org/bible/revelation/2
The ELCA is not my church. They don’t even teach the Incarnation in seminary anymore. The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod is very pro life. We don’t consider the ELCA Christian, let alone anything close to us. It is similar to me saying the crazy woman priest is really a Roman Catholic.
Hey, I am not holding Luther or the Lutheran Church up as a good thing. Jesus said that the Reformation resulted in a Dead Church. Luther, himself, was a rabid anti-Semite.
This is the Church to which I want to belong:
Revelation 3
7 “To the angel of the church in Philadelphia, write this:
“‘The holy one, the true,
who holds the key of David,
who opens and no one shall close,
who closes and no one shall open,
says this:
8 “‘“I know your works (behold, I have left an open door before you, which no one can close). You have limited strength, and yet you have kept my word and have not denied my name. 9 Behold, I will make those of the assembly of Satan who claim to be Jews and are not, but are lying, behold I will make them come and fall prostrate at your feet, and they will realize that I love you. 10 Because you have kept my message of endurance, I will keep you safe in the time of trial that is going to come to the whole world to test the inhabitants of the earth. 11 I am coming quickly. Hold fast to what you have, so that no one may take your crown.
12 “‘“The victor I will make into a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will never leave it again. On him I will inscribe the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from my God, as well as my new name.
13 “‘“Whoever has ears ought to hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”’
http://www.usccb.org/bible/revelation/3
Nope. Catholics worship Mary -- Catholics PRAY to her. Prayer is a form of worship that is to be to God alone. Can you show me anywhere in Scripture where Jesus taught the disciples to pray, "Our Mary.....", or, "Our Saint..."?
CCC 969 says she holds a "saving office" and acts as an "intercessor" -- which, according to the Scriptures that the RCC claims to have written, there is ONE intercessor between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."
In order for Catholics to take advantage of her fantasy offices, how do Catholics "get the word through?" Veneration? Do Catholics "venerate" to God to be heard?
Many, many examples of PRAYERS to Mary. In fact, doesn't the rosary incorporate an appeal to Mary? Don't Catholics "pray the rosary"?
Seems like there's a whole lotta wrong packed into this whole Roman Catholic thing.
Hoss
I agree wholeheartedly!!!
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.