The Catholic Church is in de facto schism: What’s to be done?

I had another post to share, but I was under the impression that this thread lost its caucus classification due to what i saw in a post I was pinged to. The article the OP posts warns about Wycliffe, Luther, and Zwingli, and Luther was invoked in a post, while in the rules for caucus classification it states, "The “caucus” article and posts must not compare beliefs or speak in behalf of a belief outside the caucus," and forbids "the beliefs of those who are not members of the caucus."

In addition, while "caucus threads are closed to any poster who is not currently and actively a member of the caucus group," yet apparently Catholic Caucus threads can regularly include posts by those who are in schism (SSPV types), debating others on just what are Catholic beliefs (while Catholics insist that former RCs as myself are "still Catholic" if not active).

And in my 2 posts I have only posted on things that are taught in Catholicism. Therefore I respectively request clarification from the RM, presuming a little tolerance for asking here, whose rules and moderation i have found to overall be the best among the forums i am on. Thanks be to God.

The D/R Bible (which is, essentially, the original translation of the Latin, Greek and Arabic texts by St Jerome) was the “Catholic Bible” up until the Second Vatican Council. In the early 1970’s, the Modernist pope (Paul VI) and Modernist bishops abandoned that Bible and adopted the “politically correct” New American Bible.

And which is not part of the USCCB Approved Translations of the Sacred Scriptures for Private Use and Study by Catholics (http://www.usccb.org/bible/approved-translations/). Therefore you are not following your pastors as a docile sheep, which is your one basic duty.

And some RCs are critical of the Douay-Rheims and those who exalt it as the superior text: http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=4300&CFID=45541857&CFTOKEN=30609021

As noted, the Douay Rheims Bible acknowledges precisely what Jesus actually said––and meant. One may separate from your spouse over fornication, but they may not remarry while their spouse is alive.

That is also adding to the text, for the only injunction against remarriage in the context of unlawful putting away, where there is no fornication clause/provision for divorce. (Mk. 10:2-11) And as seen in the OT, where there is a provision for divorce (which the Lord restricted) then their is provision for remarriage. And there is Petrine/Pauline Privilege referred to above .

Its right there after the verses for the conditions that can allow for annulment, such as:

marriage that excluded at the time of the wedding the right to children, or to a permanent marriage, or to an exclusive commitment.

In addition, there are youthful marriages;

marriages of very short duration;

marriages marked by serious emotional, physical, or substance abuse;

deviant sexual practices;

profound and consistent irresponsibility and lack of commitment;

conditional consent to a marriage;

fraud or deceit to elicit spousal consent;

serious mental illness; or a previous bond of marriage.

- www.arlingtondiocese.org/tribunal/faq.php#Grounds

Can. 1095 The following are incapable of contracting marriage:

1/ those who lack the sufficient use of reason;

2/ those who suffer from a grave defect of discretion of judgment concerning the essential matrimonial rights and duties mutually to be handed over and accepted;

3/ those who are not able to assume the essential obligations of marriage for causes of a psychic nature [all are judgment calls which can see varying verdicts].

List of diriment impediments to marriage

Age.[6] If the man is under 16 years of age, or the woman is under 14 years of age, then their marriage is invalid. This is an ecclesiastical impediment, and so does not apply to a marriage between two non-Catholics. However, note that in a marriage between a Catholic and a non-Catholic, the age limitation applies to the non-Catholic party as well.[7]

Physical capacity for consummation lacking [15]. Per Canon 1084 §3 "Without prejudice to the provisions of Canon 1098, sterility neither forbids nor invalidates a marriage." Both parties, however, must be physically capable of completed vaginal intercourse, wherein the man ejaculates "true semen" into the woman's vagina. (See [1] for details.)

To invalidate a marriage, the impotence must be perpetual (i.e., incurable) and antecedent to the marriage. The impotence can either be absolute or relative. This impediment is generally considered to derive from divine natural law, and so cannot be dispensed.[16] The reason behind this impediment is explained in the Summa Theologica:[17]

“In marriage there is a contract whereby one is bound to pay the other the marital debt: wherefore just as in other contracts, the bond is unfitting if a person bind himself to what he cannot give or do, so the marriage contract is unfitting, if it be made by one who cannot pay the marital debt.”

Previous marriage [18]. Previous marriages, whether conducted in the Catholic Church, in another church, or by the State. All previous attempts at marriage by both parties wishing to marry must be declared null prior to a wedding in the Catholic Church, without regard to the religion of the party previously married. Divine, absolute, temporary.

Disparity of cult [19]. A marriage between a Catholic and a non-baptized person is invalid, unless this impediment is dispensed by the local ordinary. Ecclesiastical, relative.

Sacred orders [20]. One of the parties has received sacred orders. Ecclesiastical, absolute, permanent (unless dispensed by the Apostolic See).

Perpetual vow of chastity [21]. One of the parties has made a public perpetual vow of chastity. Ecclesiastical, absolute, permanent (unless dispensed by the Apostolic See).

Abduction [22]. One of the parties, usually the woman, has been abducted with the view of contracting marriage.

Ecclesiastical,[citation needed] temporary.

Crimen [23]. One or both of the parties has brought about the death of a spouse with the view of entering marriage with each other. Ecclesiastical, relative, permanent (unless dispensed by the Apostolic See).

Consanguinity [24]. The parties are closely related by blood.

Ecclesiastical or divine, depending on the degree of relationship. Relative, permanent.

Affinity [25]. The parties are related by marriage in a prohibited degree. Ecclesiastical, relative, permanent.

Public propriety [26]. The parties are "related" by notorious concubinage. Ecclesiastical, relative, permanent.

Adoption [27]. The parties are related by adoption. Ecclesiastical, relative, permanent.

Spiritual relationship [28]. One of the parties is the godparent of the other. This no longer applies in the Latin Rite, but still applies in the Eastern Catholic Churches.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_impediment#List_of_diriment_impediments_to_marriage

And then there is Petrine/Pauline Privilege referred to above , plus past RC teaching which required married priests to put away their wives, in stark contrast to Scripture in which the normative marital state of the apostles and pastors was that of being married. (1Co. 9:5; 1Tim. 3:1-7)

Rome also considers entering marriage with the intention of never having children to be a "grave wrong and more than likely grounds for an annulment."[McLachlan, P. "Sacrament of Holy Matrimony." http://www.catholicdoors.com/faq/qu164.htm], while praying to a women who they claim went thru with a marriage intending to do just that.

Thus while on one Catholics (erroneously) claim that the historical teaching of their church has rejected any provision for the lawful dissolution of marriage, on the other hand she simply can say there was no marriage in the first place, based upon rules that are so subjective that it is reported that a bishop said, "There is not a marriage in America that we cannot annul."

A SSPV (which has their own problems) site concludes,

68% of annulments today [dated] are granted because of "defective consent," which involves at least one of the parties not having sufficient knowledge or maturity to know what was involved in marriage. The ingenuity of judges in confidently asserting that such knowledge or maturity was lacking is amazing. Vasoli says that it is done by substituting "junk psychology" for sound psychology and psychiatry. (www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/28_Annulments.pdf)

I wonder what verses in Scripture show that God ever even recognized the concept of an *invalid* marriage.

Rome also considers entering marriage with the intention of never having children to be a "grave wrong and more than likely grounds for an annulment."[McLachlan, P. "Sacrament of Holy Matrimony." http://www.catholicdoors.com/faq/qu164.htm], while praying to a women who they claim went thru with a marriage intending to do just that.

Ironic, isn't it?

I wonder what verses in Scripture show that God ever even recognized the concept of an *invalid* marriage.

I am sure you mean apart from same genders, or with anything other than a human. Robots will be the next innovation,if not exactly "Stepford wives," as making your own robot becomes something like making your own computer was in the 90's,

But back to an *invalid* marriage, that is unseen, even in the case of lack of mutual consent, or Uncle Ruben's "bait and switch," or Samson's lust, or polygamy, and btwn believers and non believers, or one in which perhaps there was no intention to consummate (David and Bathsheba).

But in principle I would allow that the possibility of a invalid marriage may exist, if not according to the broad criteria of Catholicism, the implications of which mean a vast number of marriages of Catholics are potentially invalid, though they are not considered to be so unless Rome declares them.

Rome also considers entering marriage with the intention of never having children to be a "grave wrong and more than likely grounds for an annulment."[McLachlan, P. "Sacrament of Holy Matrimony." http://www.catholicdoors.com/faq/qu164.htm], while praying to a women who they claim went thru with a marriage intending to do just that.

Ironic, isn't it?

Well, she had the permission of the pope.

For your information, I assist at an SSPX Chapel where the exclusive Bible used is Douay Rheims. I, like many other traditional Catholics who have resisted the heretical teachings of the Second Vatican Council, continue to acknowledge that Pope Francis is, indeed, the pope––despite his disgraceful and seemingly heretical teaching––ergo Amoris Laetitia. We are confident that through our prayers, the Church will one day overcome this terrible nightmare that she has been subjected to for at least the past 50 years.

But before you caution me on what I should be doing with respect to the authority of the USCCB, you would be wise to first carefully read and properly understand the Council documents––especially as they relate to so-called “Collegiality”––that created the USCCB. Not to suggest for a moment that Collegiality is the only destructive aspect of Vatican II, but since you raised the question of “obeying” the teachings of the USCCB, it is the only one of importance in this response. The adoption of this change in authority (Collegiality) within the Church can be found in the Council document, Lumen Gentium, of course, but there are many subsequent discussions on the horrific damage this has caused the Church since that time. You should seek them out and understand what you are advocating.

Nevertheless, and without getting into the specifics of this great error, I’m curious as to your thoughts on this “authority” that Vatican II accorded to the episcopal conferences which you suggest disapproves of the Douay Rheims Bible. Specifically, apparently you believe that a Catholic should follow the teachings of the USCCB here in America, but if you moved to Ireland, would you then follow the teachings of the ICBC (Irish Catholic Bishop’s Conference)? Or if you moved to Germany, would you then feel obliged to follow what the German Bishops Conference dictated? You must know that all the conferences have very different points of view on a long range of topics. Indeed, in Germany you might well be refused Holy Communion if you disagreed with the State of Germany’s position on Islamic refugees. You will also be refused Holy Communion if you refused to pay your “Church Tax” to the government. But, of course, if one were a homosexual they would have the benefit of the priest “blessing” their union. Communion for the divorced/remarried is a fait accompli, while the preforming of homosexual marriages is all but a done deal. Can the USCCB be far behind? And you say this is what I should “follow”?

As for the website Catholic Culture, and I say this with appropriate respect, Jeff Mirus is one of the last persons I would look to for the truth about the Catholic Church. He is a squishy “conservative” Catholic at best, who more often than not has been little more than an apologist for virtually every Modernist and Modernist-leaning pope and prelate of the Church.

Although you are obviously unaware of what is truly happening in the Church, there are many Catholics (both modern and traditional) who are acknowledging that the Church has sadly, but unquestionably, entered into soft schism. And, interestingly enough, much like the political liberals who have been completely indoctrinated by the secular media to follow their “teachings” without engaging anything that might remotely resemble “critical thinking” (they are taught to look only to liberal TV and liberal print journals for their “news”, and completely avoid all “conservative” opinion), the modern Catholics (including priests and prelates) have been similarly indoctrinated by the false and diabolic teachings of Vatican II. But pointing that out to you, I suspect, would be like pointing out to a political liberal that Donald Trump is actually trying to improve the country; it would be a futile effort because the recipient would have long closed their mind.

Best ask the modern day Pharisees.

For your information, I assist at an SSPX Chapel where the exclusive Bible used is Douay Rheims. I, like many other traditional Catholics who have resisted the heretical teachings of the Second Vatican Council, continue to acknowledge that Pope Francis is, indeed, the pope––despite his disgraceful and seemingly heretical teaching––ergo Amoris Laetitia.

While I myself concur that modern Rome stands in contradiction to the past, the distinctives of Catholicism both agree on are not seen in the record of the NT church of Scripture (Acts onward, which helps to show us how the NT church understood the gospels) and stands in contrast to it.

Meanwhile, if you do recognize modern popes as being so, then they enjoin submission to V2:

YPope Paul VI, in closing V2 stated,

"the teaching authority of the Church, even though not wishing to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements, has made thoroughly known its authoritative teaching." (https://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/speeches/1965/documents/hf_p-vi_spe_19651207_epilogo-concilio.html) And that "it has as much authority and far greater importance than the Council of Nicea". Elsewhere he has called it "the greatest of Councils", and "even greater than the Council of Trent."[10] Perhaps the most clear cut statement is to be found in a letter to Archbishop Lefebvre demanding his submission to the post-Conciliar Church: (http://www.the-pope.com/wvat2tec.html)

You have no right any more to bring up the distinction between the doctrinal and the pastoral that you use to support your acceptance of certain texts of Vatican Council II and your rejection of others. It is true that the matters decided in any Council do not all call for an assent of the same quality; only what the Council affirms in its 'definitions' as a truth of faith or as bound up with faith requires the assent of faith. Nevertheless, the rest also form a part of the SOLEMN MAGISTERIUM of the Church, to be trustingly accepted and sincerely put into practice by every Catholic.(Epistle Cum te to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, 11 Oct, 1976, published in Notitiae, No. 12, 1976.)

But as a evangelical who is a former active Catholic (who remained therein for 6 years after I became manifestly born again thru tearful repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus to save me on His account and credit), I am quite aware of the dissension in Catholicism, and was presenting what your church says. And which Catholics tell us we need to submit to, rather than deciding what is valid teaching based upon our judgment of what authorative texts say.

Which is why some modern RCs call V2 dissenters "Protestant," for they are basically acting like Protestants by deciding what is valid teaching based upon their judgment of what authorative texts say.

And the SSPV go further than the SSPX, whom they denigrate as "resist while recognize" schismatics, for they find it impossible to obey modern popes in the manner certain classic popes enjoined, and thus they reject the former as being popes at all.

For such teaching states,

Epistola Tua: To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment , and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation.

Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor.... Similarly, it is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them; and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future council, or to a Pope who is better informed.

On this point what must be remembered is that in the government of the Church, except for the essential duties imposed on all Pontiffs by their apostolic office, each of them can adopt the attitude which he judges best according to times and circumstances. Of this he alone is the judge. It is true that for this he has not only special lights, but still more the knowledge of the needs and conditions of the whole of Christendom, for which, it is fitting, his apostolic care must provide. - Epistola Tua (1885), Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII; http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage_print.asp?number=403215&language=en

"It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors ." - VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906.

Nor can we pass over in silence the audacity of those who , not enduring sound doctrine, contend that "without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to concern the Church's general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals." But no one can be found not clearly and distinctly to see and understand how grievously this is opposed to the Catholic dogma of the full power given from God by Christ our Lord Himself to the Roman Pontiff of feeding, ruling and guiding the Universal Church. (Quanta Cura. Encyclical of Pope Pius IX promulgated on December 8, 1864; http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanta.htm)

For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty.

Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord. - CASTI CONNUBII, ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI; https://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19301231_casti-connubii.html

...when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed ; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey – that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority ; we do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope.

The Bishops form the most sacred part of the Church, that which instructs and governs men by divine right; and so he who resists them and stubbornly refuses to obey their word places himself outside the Church [cf. Matt. 18:18]. But obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces. - (Pope Saint Pius X, Allocution Vi ringrazio to priests on the 50th anniversary of the Apostolic Union, November 18, 1912, as found at http://www.christorchaos.com/?q=content/choosing-ignore-pope-leo-xiii-and-pope-saint-pius-x

to scrutinize the actions of a bishop, to criticize them, does not belong to individual Catholics, but concerns only those who, in the sacred hierarchy, have a superior power; above all, it concerns the Supreme Pontiff, for it is to him that Christ confided the care of feeding not only all the lambs, but even the sheep [cf. John 21:17]. - Est Sane Molestum (1888) Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII; http://www.novusordowatch.org/est-sane-molestum-leo-xiii.htm

Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent... if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians. - PIUS XII, HUMANI GENERI, August 1950; http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

The authority (of papal encyclicals) is undoubtedly great". It is, in a sense, sovereign. It is the teaching of the supreme pastor and teacher of the Church. Hence the faithful have a strict obligation to receive this teaching with an infinite respect. A man must not be content simply not to contradict it openly and in a more or less scandalous fashion. An internal mental assent is demanded. It should be received as the teaching sovereignly authorized within the Church." - Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, esteemed Catholic theologian and professor of fundamental dogmatic theology at the Catholic University of America, who served as a peritus for Cardinal Ottaviani at the Second Vatican Council. Extract from the American Ecclesiastical Review, Vol. CXXI, August, 1949; http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/encyclicals/docauthority.htm

My apologies. I thought you were a practicing modern Catholic.

My apologies. I thought you were a practicing modern Catholic.

orry, I assumed that you knew as the regular RCs do, that I am not (thus my requests for clarification from the RM), but see the prima NT church of Scripture to be the model.