If Pope Francis allows.....
#21
[size=10pt][size=10pt]Roman Catholic bishops’ olive branch to divorcees[/size][/size]

Archbishop and bishops urge parishes to open doors to those not in “conventional family situations” ahead of Pope Francis's gathering to discuss lifting remarried divorcees’ exclusion from Holy Communion

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion...rcees.html


Why do divorcees need an olive branch from the Church when it was their failed marriage to begin with?
Reply
#22
Why did Jesus stop the stoning of the woman caught in adultery when it was her adultery that got her into that situation in the first place. ???
Reply
#23
(12-30-2013, 07:14 PM)Asperges me Wrote: Why do divorcees need an olive branch from the Church when it was their failed marriage to begin with?


Communion being given to divorced people isn't the issue.  The issue is giving Communion to divorced people who marry someone else without obtaining a decree of nullity.
Divorces, generally speaking, are much easier to get these days without the consent of one of the spouses.  There are faithful Catholics who are divorced, and they weren't the spouse who wanted the divorce.  If they don't marry again and remain chaste, then they are doing what they should.
Reply
#24
No one has ever said the doors are closed to these people. They can, and should, meet their obligation to go to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

The problem isn't sin, it's the loss of what the Mass IS, and the necessity of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament as spiritual food. They are starving themselves because of a lack of teaching. They have in their heads they don't "get the piece of bread", as if it's some esoteric sign of acceptance as mere human beings. NO, it is first and foremost a fact that if we more strongly considered the Real Presence we would sin LESS. Further, we would humble ourselves and rectify ourselves in order to receive HIM.

The problem is not sin, for that is going to remain in some capacity. The problem is lack of teaching to keep people motivated to not sin.

If they'd teach without equivocation on the issues of God's Love as manifested, present, truly, in the Blessed Sacrament, and not allow such wishy-washy understandings as concerns the modern Novus Ordo mindset, we'd see less of a problem.

And this is not even JonBHorton saying this, but merely the teaching of Bishop Alexander Sample in the Lighthouse Media production of his talk on the Mass, and a few others such as Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Cardinal Burke, etc.

The Protestant Deformation was not caused by bad exegesis, it was caused, ultimately, by lack of belief in the Real Presence. So too, today, the issues we see are lack of belief in the Real Presence. As a friend told me, He is not a system, He is a PERSON. Lose sight on the PERSON of Christ, in total, in the Blessed Sacrament, and everything becomes a banal, community gathering. In this mindset, of course they're upset and excluded. But in the understanding of the Sacraments and necessary maintenance of communion with Christ's Mystical Body, it's not an exclusion, but a call to repentance.
Reply
#25
Here's a video about this topic, in part:

Bp. Schneider:

Start the latter at 5:25 for the sermon.
Reply
#26
I would see it as sad confirmation of my reaction to the Crisis. Then I would continue to develop my spiritual life at the CMRI chapel I attend.
Reply
#27
(12-30-2013, 08:14 PM)jonbhorton Wrote: Here's a video about this topic, in part:

Bp. Schneider:

Start the latter at 5:25 for the sermon.


Thanks.
Reply
#28
(12-30-2013, 07:42 PM)triumphguy Wrote: Why did Jesus stop the stoning of the woman caught in adultery when it was her adultery that got her into that situation in the first place. ???
Where was the guy she was commiting adultury with?
Reply
#29
(12-30-2013, 06:28 PM)Tim Wrote:
(12-30-2013, 06:12 PM)Oatmeal Wrote:
(12-30-2013, 09:55 AM)Tim Wrote: First if Pope Francis were about to put this in law, I'd watch for lightening because it can not happen.

tim

Hours after Pope Benedict's resignation...

[Image: article-2276884-17841A9A000005DC-22-634x...0212050049]

I agree it won't happen, but I think the notion of annulments being handed out at the parish level by clergy is a real possibility.  If your pastor won't grant an annulment, you can just "shop" around for one that does.  There ya go.  Heresy Without Heresy™, brought to you by the Spirit of the Second Vatican Council.

You know Oatmeal, I've thought about this, and I think that lightening is saying something a little different. If God Almighty was angry with Pope Benedict XVI, it would have hit him on the head. It hit the Vatican instead, which I believe is filled with many that work for destruction of the Church. If I were one of them masons, sleeper commies, gay lobby, modernists, americanists, or their useful idiots, I'd run.

tim

I agree Tim. We had a good, holy Pope & the Roman Curia inside of the Vatican ran him off. I don't think that made God too happy, nor do I believe that He would miss re. the Lightening bolt.
Reply
#30
(12-30-2013, 03:42 PM)Tim Wrote:
(12-30-2013, 02:08 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(12-30-2013, 09:55 AM)Tim Wrote: First if Pope Francis were about to put this in law, I'd watch for lightening because it can not happen.

tim

I don't see it happening but if it did it wouldn't be a huge surprise. Just as we seem to think Modernist clergy "conservative" when they have totally unorthodox theology but uphold Catholic teaching on morals, eventually we should expect the bad theology and philosophy to led to error in morals too.

If even the Pope can undermine traditional theology as we have clearly seen since Vatican II, but we can make the distinction between his personal error and the Church which cannot err (and the personal infallibility of the Pope in certain specific circumstances when he teaches as the successor of St Peter) one shouldn't then  our reaction to moral error should be the same.

If the theological errors of the Pope's since Vatican II are tolerable, then moral error should not be an issue. The Church teaching cannot change, but that does not stop churchmen from making it seem like it has.

If people want to support the SSPX then they should to do so because they are in the right, not because the Pope is in the wrong.

So much for my wise remark. This entire era from the Protestant Revolt through the Renaissance to the French Revolution, down to modernists in the late 1800's through both world wars and the Russian Revolution, Vatican II and the monetary crisis today is God's permissive will.  So I'd stay where I am and pray as I do.
Thanks to the SSPX for their best efforts but they are not the Calvary and there is no Roy in hiding. We are about to get are very deserved whooping.

Pray the Rosary, now !!

tim .

For the record, this wasn't supposed to be a thread derailer, but the point, I think is clear.

Even if the comment was in jest, there are a large number of trads that are simply reactionary.

Many of us react and do not consider the actual issues any deeper than the surface. That was really the point. If we grumble but are happy to accept the theological and philosopical errors of John Paul II, Benedict XVI and the clear indifferentist statements of Pope Francis, then why should we not just as contently accept if the Pope were to offer an erroneous moral teaching.

Let's be fair, the SSPX is not any more than a small lifeboat, as the analogy has gone. There are plenty of sinners who support the SSPX, and there are plenty of holy faithful who do not. Our support of any traditional group or lack thereof should be based on what they do, and not be mere reaction. The solution to the crisis has to come from the top (the Pope), and won't emanate from any particular traditionalist group.

I'm an SSPX guy, of course, but I would never suggest that they are the only legitimate group -- rather, if you're going to be in my camp, know why you're here; and if you are not, consider why you are not.

Indeed, Oremus! Perhaps in the new Rosary Crusade.

(12-30-2013, 03:52 PM)Clare Brigid Wrote: I would recommend that traditionalists examine their consciences concerning their readiness to criticize the magisterium.  Essentially, they give priority to their own theological conclusions when they criticize the magisterium.  That is not Catholic.  Their fundamental error is explained in this fine blog post, Why I Left the SSPX Milieu.

I might reply that it is very easy to make such pious understatement. A heavy dose of distinction is seriously needed. Any particular pope is not the "magisterium". The Church's teaching authority is the Magisterium. Each Pope participates in that authority in so far as he teaches as the head of the Church and in conformity with tradition and the preceeding magisterium. Vatican I and St. Vincent of Lerins are pretty clear on that.

When I say that particular popes taught serious theological and philosophical error, I am not criticizing the Magisterium. Not in the least. God forbid I should question for a moment that divinely-instituted teaching authority! What I criticize is the personal theological and philosophical errors of these men, and I don't do so because of my own personal theological opinion, but on the basis of what the magisterium has already taught clearly.

As an example, the papal statements on the Jews since Nostra Aetate, for instance, directly contradict the previous teaching of the Church. When John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis say that the Old Covenant is still valid and salvific, they are implicitly calling Christ and St. Paul liars, and directly contradicting 1900 years of magisterial teaching. They may intend no harm, an may not even seriously sin given their flawed formation. Nonetheless, they deny the traditional magisterial doctrine that the Jews (followers of the Pharisaical religion, not the race -- cf. Rom 11) are reprobate for having rejected the term (final cause) of thier covenant which was only to prepare them for Christ. Thus the Jewish religion after Christ is a false religion, not our "elder brothers in the Faith", and visiting a synagogue is equivalent to false worship.

The magisterium is not a weapon against itself, nor is the magisterium a weapon against Christ or St. Paul. Thus either the magisterium can change (and thus it is not infallible -- a heresy), or these Popes taught error (or committed error in action) in this regard, and thus were not teaching (or acting) with magisterial authority.

That isn't asserting my own theological opinion on the Jews (I am not even qualified to hold a theological opinion!). Rather it's seeing that two mutually exclusive truths cannot both be true. Either the Old Covenant was fulfilled, or it was not. Either what St. Paul says is true or it is not. When it comes to a clear 1900 year old magisterial teaching, I rightly assert that the contrary is error, and those teaching it are in error.

As for examining consciences, indeed! We need to do this, because it is only when we step back to consider why we are traditionalists, look at the arguments, and really try to determine if we are reacting, or if we are rationally considering what we are doing, that we grow in wisdom.

For my part, the more in depth the study, the more clear the serious errors of Vatican II and the teachings which have issued forth since then.

As a final point, let me again say that (as should be clear from my lack of mention of the SSPX), this isn't a matter of advocating one group over the other, but realistically examining the state of the Church in order to determine how we have to practice our Faith. When we could rely on the great majority of priests, and especially the Pope to teach the orthodox Faith, we could blindly obey, and reduce our behaviour to formula. That is not the case today, when the majority of priests and the Pope are not teaching the orthodox Faith, but some elements of the Faith mixed with inculpable or culpable error. If serious study leads one to an Ecclesia Dei group, rather than the SSPX, so be it.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)