Bishop McElroy of San Diego is holding a Diocesan Synod on October 29 and 30 in response to Pope Francis’ document Amoris Laetitia (See September 29 CalCatholic article, San Diego Synod delegates told to ‘think big’ ) The following comes from a post on the Diocese of San Diego website:
On Aug. 20, delegates met at the Pastoral Center. Their topic was to explore the challenges marriages face today and to propose ways the diocese can support them.
The day began with enthronement of the Book of the Gospels. Bernadeane Carr, STL, director of the Diocesan Institute, served as the theologian for the day. She reflected on Psalm 128:1-6, along with quotes from Pope Francis.
Fr. John Hurley, CSP, the synod’s coordinator, led the day, along with Deacon Ralph and Peggy Skiano from the Diocesan Marriage and Family Life Office. They encouraged the delegates to think “outside the box” to develop proposals that were relevant, achievable and measurable.
Bishop McElroy joined the group before lunch and at the end of the day.
“Marriage is foundational and must be transformational. As culture changes, we must adapt so that the beauty of marriage can be transformational in the context of our culture,” he told the group.
The 130 delegates are divided among five Saturdays (through Oct. 1) to answer the Bishop’s five challenges. The remaining ones are to bring spiritual depth to family life; to nurture and form children, to serve divorced Catholics and to invite unmarried couples to the Church. The proposed goals from the Saturdays will be shared at the Diocesan Synod General Assembly on Oct. 29 and 30.
At the synod, the 130 delegates will reflect on the goals submitted by the five working groups and whittle them down to five goals that will be submitted to Bishop McElroy. Afterward, a committee will be formed to implement them.
The bishop is approaching this all wrong, as leftists always do; but perhaps that is intentional with the aim of either appearing to be doing something meaningful without doing anything meaningful at all or diverting from genuine pastoral improvement and growth in holiness.
Vatican II said the liturgy is the source and summit of Christian life. Get that right, and everything else will fall into place. Lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi. Save the liturgy, save the world.
Why is the bishop not focusing at all on liturgy? Hmm….
Hey Bishop, forget about adapting to evil. How about showing some leadership and rejecting the cultural sewer of the day? Your charge is to lead, do your job!
“…Save the liturgy, save the world.”
And it is a blessing that God chose certain avenues to save the liturgy. Even though many would feign that these individuals are non-Catholic, merely for adhering to what the Church has always taught and that Oath Against Modernism that overtly forbade the gross attempt to interpret words, phrases, and concepts in a different manner for the purpose of subverting the truth. Even the doctrinal truths that made it into the documents of Vatican II, an otherwise “pastoral” council.
That said, the bishop is not focusing on liturgy because he is focusing on supporting his chosen position. Much like others do not focus on the accurate application of canon law in order to support their chosen…
… not the fullness of truth.
Hmmm is the operative query for us all.
Your grammar prevents me from even understanding what you are trying to say. Your sentences lack a logical grammatical structure. Your second paragraph is a grammatical disaster zone. And what does “overly forbade” even mean? Either something is forbidden or it is not. You can’t “under forbid” or “over forbid”. Have another cup of coffee and get back to us?
” And what does “overly forbade” even mean?” = It means you need a conversion plus a new eyeglass prescription.
Speaking of DISASTER ZONES …..It looks like our roaming troll “OVERTLY” neglected to clean or put on proper reading glasses.
So what does “overty” forbade mean then? Can something be covertly forbade?
overtly
[oh-vurt-lee, oh-vurt-lee]
Spell Syllables
Examples Word Origin
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
adverb
1.
openly; publicly.
**********
That means that the Oath Against Modernism, which was firmly in place prior to Vatican II, prohibited, in a very public manner, the reinterpretation of Church teaching to mean something different. So putting Vatican II “pastoral” non-binding speak into play while removing the Oath Against Modernism gave way to all manner of gross misinterpretation. (Kind of like leaving the door open when one knows the day the thief is coming to the house.)
Seeing as clarity goes against the grain of your apostolate, I understand your pretense of confusion. But thanks again for the attempt at…
… good theater. It lets me know I’ve reached you ;^)
Bishop McElroy told the group:
“Marriage is foundational and must be transformational. As culture changes, we must adapt so that the beauty of marriage can be transformational in the context of our culture.”
Does that mean “blessing” same-sex “marriages” – as has been proposed (and is being done) in some dioceses in Europe?
“Marriage is foundational and must be transformational. As culture changes, we must adapt so that the beauty of marriage can be transformational in the context of our culture,”
Heresy?
There is no such thing as same sex marriage in the Catholic Church. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman. It is permanent and exclusive.
Because of statements like this coming from the Bishop is yet another example why the church is where its at. Souls are being jeopardized by those in powerful positions, this isn’t a popularity contest.
The end results are already written!
The bishop is right in that marriage must be transformational for the culture, not transformed or deformed by it. All are welcome into the church for conversion from sin to the way of Jesus. Sinful behavior can be pointed out and distinguished from the person’s call to holiness in Jesus. A sinful state can preclude full participation in the activity of the church, but it neither excuses nor bars a person from worship at Holy Mass. Unrepented, unconfessed, ongoing mortal sin keeps a person from Holy Communion, but repentance, confession, and change of behavior rectifies it so one can receive Jesus sacramentally.
“Marriage is foundational and must be transformational. As culture changes, we must adapt so that the beauty of marriage can be transformational in the context of our culture.” I don’t read anything here where he says “marriage must be transformational for the culture,” as you paraphrase it. Frankly, either way, it’s a bunch of psychobabble. And while I am well aware of the controversy about communion for the remarried, I didn’t see anything in this report about Mass participation.
That’s why I stated what I did, Ralph, because, his statement was not clear.
Respectfully, then, you would have made your point better by saying he was not clear, rather than saying he was right. And why give him the benefit of the doubt anyway? It is his responsibility to make clear statements. Unclear statements can never be presumed to be right. My point isn’t to pick on you, but McElroy fails all of us, we should cut him no slack IMO.
B. McElroy should not even be a priest, much less a bishop. Marriage is not “transformational in the context of our culture.” Did Christ say this? Do you even know the Bible? Look at what Christ said to the immoral woman at the well, you know, the one with five husbands (and she was living with yet again another man), “Go, call thy husband.” John 4:16. Of course, she answered that she had no husband, and Christ effectively told her to follow Him to receive life giving water and salvation. B. McElvoy offers nothing but his “blessing” on mortal sin. He is anathema.
Yes, as Queen Hilary says, Religions must change their teachings to keep up. Glad to see Bishop McElroy is towing the Party Line and staying in line with the Agenda so he will find favor with The State.
The Bishop is Wrong! How could a bishop makes a statement like that without Discernment? God is Truth,whatever had said is IMMUTABLE through out TIME and Space unto Eternity! If what God has said could be changed, He is NO GOD!
Well said: lame-guage (language) that the good bishop is using (“marriage must be transformational”–he doesnt define meaning; he doesn’t identify how or for what end “transformation” functions) is classic progressive change-agent jargon. Everyone assumes different meanings for “transformational” . Kind of like Vatican Two-face.
The best way to understand this lame-guage is that Modern Churchman McElroy wants to redefine marriage, but covertly: Successive matrimony (when partners grow bored with the union), same-sex marriage (good for PR); or perhaps multiple-partner marriage (why not?). Sounds like PF’s Amoris Libido to me.
Anyone who pretends not to understand what McElroy says is disingenuous, like Campion. Anyone who is married knows how much a person changes, is transformed, because he is married (in the traditional sense–to a woman–which I am sure is also the working definition McElroy is employing here): how much a person no longer thinks for himself, but now thinks and considers his spouse and his children as they come into the world. Reading this article, THAT is what is immediately understood by anyone who has rudimentary reading comprehension skills. I say, these dissenters and anti-clergy ranters have to try harder now to pull disingenuous stunts like Campion’s.
Just wondering what you think he means by this phrase: “so that the beauty of marriage can be transformational in the context of our culture,” he told the group.”
Your comment, “jon” is disingenuous. Marriage is only transformational to the two people involved and in the manner described by Christ and by the Father. Homosexual people cannot marry in this way and are not transformed according to the gifts of the Spirit. Their “gift” to each other is sodomy, a sin that cries to Heaven for vengeance. The only thing that such married people earn is Hell. Similarly, people divorced and remarried and stubbornly demanding to receive the sacraments bring judgment on themselves. B. McElroy brings evil to such people instead of forgiveness.
It is very apparent to anyone that because marriage transforms the couple to order themselves in love for one another, THIS ought to transform society for the better, for all in a society is affected by this very basic and fundamental institution. Therefore, contrary to SChris, marriage is not only transformation to the couple who are married, but also affects their children, their friends, family, and those around them. The goodness of marriage permeates all of society. THAT’S how basic and indeed “transformational” it is for society.
One more left-wing Bishop. When Francisco I is finished with US they will all be just the same. Little boxes on the hillside, all made out of tricky-tacky, all just the same.
You, and B. McElroy have it exactly wrong, “jon.” But, it does not matter in that you will never listen to what the Church teaches, not some wingnut local bishop, and what Christ says. Of course we can all benefit from a wonderful man/woman marriage, that is fruitful and blessed. This transformational nature, however, can not ever, never, include homosexuals or remarried and remarried, etc. That woman at the well will likely not be saved if she goes back to her live-in lover. Notwithstanding Amoris Laetitae, you cannot be in mortal sin due to your sexual perversity and be in a position to receive Christ in communion.
Who said anything about homosexual “marriage”? I didn’t read that in the article! I didn’t hear this Bishop say anything about homosexual unions or “marriages” being transformational. It’s not even in the agenda of this diocesan synod!
This post has been edited to conform to the comments policy. -ADMIN
What on earth is “enthronment of the Book of the Gospels”?
In the “‘New’ New Order ” of the New Mass—nowhere even in Bugnini’s 1969 “model liturgy”—more recently the modern liturgists have created a liturgical action of bringing in the elevated Book of the 4 Gospels and placing it on an elevated holder in the center of the altar.
It is a mainly Protestant-inspired action, since the liturgy of the Eucharist is rare or non-existent in most Protestant sects. Now at diocesan convocations of the Progressive Church, they often contrive this para-liturgy, instead of a ‘boring’ Mass, even a New Mass. Sat through them glaze-eyed many times.
My understanding was that this ritual action was a bleed-over from the Byzantines, not the Protestants, and long predates the Protestant Reformation.
Yes, Fr. Michael, I am aware of the liturgical action within the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom of the Orthodox & Byzantine Churches (“The doors! The doors! Let us be attentive!”), but that is within a Eucharist.
Somewhere in the 3rd or 333rd or so revision of GIRM (#172-173 in the 2006 revision), the liturgists decided to accord a more prominent place, not to the traditional Catholic Lectionary, but to a procession and enthronement of the new Book of the 4 Gospels. They may have justified it as being in the Eastern Liturgy.
The event mentioned here however is a paraliturgy, without the Eucharist, which is entirely new to Catholic liturgy, and actually not part of the “Novus Ordo Mass” original to Missal Romanum of…
..1969, but has been grafted in a new non-Eucharistic paraliturgy, very much like the Protestant scripture service (Presbyterian; Baptist; Congregationalist). However, an Enthrobnement service excludes the “divisive” Liturgy of the Eucharist where some may not communicate (as there are many non-Catholics involved in diocese and chancery events, as you must know, now) and hence why I have found it very much like the Protestant services.
They can claim Eastern Rite justification all they want: as you know, in true East and West liturgies, everything culminates in Consecration and Eucharist.
Campion is WRONG AGAIN! The Book of the Gospel WAS ENTHRONED up at the High Altar during the major councils of the Church such as Trent and Vatican II! JP2 asked Churches in Rome to enthrone the Gospel so that people may venerate it during the Jubilee Year 2000! THIS IS NOT NEW TO THE LIFE OF THE CHURCH! Contrary to Campion’s error, the fact is that it has been long-standing custom in the Church to enthrone the Gospel appropriately in gatherings that are not necessarily Eucharistic!
This must be refuted. The Book of the Gospels was processed and enthroned during the important Councils of the Church such as Ephesus, Trent, Vatican II and others. This custom has been part of the tradition and custom of the Church.
Please provide your original reference (s)/ citations that ‘there was a liturgy of Enthronement at “Ephesus, Trent, and Vatican II.”‘
Nowhere in the post 2006 GIRM (#172ff) does it refer to the Book of the Gospels being enshrined in an elevated way on the altar during the liturgy: When it is processed into the church, it is then “slightly elevated” by the deacon.
In fact, Card. Arinze some time ago, on entering a sanctuary where the Gospel Book was stood up like some display thing, actually proceeded to the altar and pushed it flat (the Book is supposed to be flat, to avoid obscuring the importance of the altar and the Eucharist). Everyone gasped: but his point was the Book is not to exceed the importance of the Eucharist.
Fr. Michael, I reviewed the 1975 GIRM: This is all it says about the Gospel reading: “Marks of reverence are given to the Book of the Gospels itself.” Also: “”The liturgy itself inculcates the great reverence to be shown toward the reading of the Gospel, setting it off from the other readings by special marks of honor”. (#35) Do these words justify a paraliturgy or a completely new liturgical action? No. The Novus Ordo fan will say “yes”.
Now, my point, to show the “liturgical drift” that has occurred since 1969, that one can make up any mini-rite within the Novus Ordo Rite, such as this, “Enthronement of the Gospels, which appears no where in the 1969 nor 1975 1st 2 GIRM editions, and no where in the 1969 Apostolic…
Constitution “Missale Romanum” which authorized the 1969 Mass—not an “Enthronement Rite”, or as here, a paraliturgy of readings.
What next? Well, let’s just imagine: How bout “Yoga Stations of the Cross” (oops: there already has been one); we know about Clown Masses, and now know why (art imitates life in the N.O.); and so on. Infinite change seeking some sort of meaning.
Ladies and Gentlemen: The procession and enthronement of the Book of the Gospels is NOT some invention by modern liturgists. In the Divine Liturgy of the Orthodox churches, prior to the “Little Entrance” or the first procession the priest takes the Book of the Gospels that had been “enthroned” or sitting on the altar, and gives it to the deacon who then carries the Book of the Gospels around the Church accompanied by incense, candles, fans, etc, with much ceremony because to honor the Gospel is to honor Christ! The Concilar fathers took this beautiful ritual from the Orthodox Church and I would venture to guess “reclaimed” this procession and made more apparent and visible the…
This comment has been edited to abide by the comments policy. -ADMIN
“enthronement” during the entrance procession in the Roman rite. In the Ordinary Form of the Roman rite, the Book of the Gospels is then placed or “enthroned” atop the altar, fittingly enthroned there.
The point is that this procession of the Gospel book and its enthronement is not some “Protestant-inspired action.”
This comment has been truncated to abide by the comments policy. -ADMIN
I would venture to guess that the folks who only attend the Extraordinary Form would not have the occasion to see the Book of the Gospel enthroned on the sacred altar. Usually, as I’ve seen in the EF, the Gospel is sitting on the credence table together with other liturgical accoutrements: candles, book stand, bells, chalice, Epistle book, burse, all sorts of other items. Hardly an “enthronement.” Folks, not to “dis” the EF because I am devoted to the EF myself, but things aren’t always better prior to Vatican II. Without the Council, we wouldn’t see the Gospel book “enthroned” properly. Long live Vatican II!
Might I suggest that those seriously concerned about this so called Synod obtain a copy of the Fall 2016Edition of The Tradionalist -CXPeditor@Gmail.com.
This current issue has an article worth the study: The Aposotolic Exhortaion Amoris Laetitia: A Theological Critique. written and signed by 44 recognized Theologians from aout the world, undoubtedly speaking for hundreds more.
These Theologians were willing to put their necks on the line.
We can leam much from their thinking.
“As the culture changes, we must adapt” = WARNING: Buyers, beware of the slick art of confusion, especially, when being presented with a NEW WIDE GATE.
Matthew 7:13-15 Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it! Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Sounds and awful lot like what Hillary said: ““Rights have to exist in practice — not just on paper,” Clinton said. “Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs, and structural biases have to be changed.”
The fix is in. Wouldn’t be surprised if the bishop and his associates have already written a draft of the final synod report. The whole process suggests a foregone conclusion. My heart goes out to the earnest, faithful Catholics who will be delegates to the synod. They are being used.
It’s called the Delphi Method, and it makes a pretense of open, sincere, widespread consultation and public participation that generate a consensus document but, unknown to the participants, the conclusions were preordained and the method was structured and managed to produced the desired, preordained conclusions. Artfully deceptive.
Right. Folks, to think like Sawyer and WHamilton which assumes the worse in people is actually something that CS Lewis had written about in “Mere Christianity”: of thinking that white as black, and that black ought to be a little blacker than it appears. Folks, these two commenters have already assumed the worse in people, and to assume the worse in a bishop and fellow-members of the Church —WHEN THEY HAVEN’T GOT ANYTHING TO SUBSTANTIATE THEIR CLAIMS—is breathtakingly alarming. They have thought of white as something black! And as CS Lewis wrote, it is “the first step in a process which, if followed to the end, will make [them] into devils.”
Well said. thank you
….and it’s been used before. That’s why sticking to Catholic Faith and Morals, and practice, has been successfully smeared as being schismatic or disobedient or unCatholic.
Those who weren’t clued in before separate themselves from those who had insight from the beginning.
You keep wanting to slip in things that are not the same. “sticking to Catholic Faith and Morals, and practice, has been successfully smeared…”
Faith and Morals are NOT the same as Practice. Practice can be changed. Faith cannot. By slipping in “practice” into that formula, you are confusing the faithful. I thought you claimed that you were opposed to confusing the faithful?
Definition of “confusing the faithful ” = deceptive paid trolls who have an agenda. These revolving trolls actually help to keep others in the state of serious mortal sin by publicly promoting the immorality of same sex unions while simultaneously claiming to “practice” the teachings of the Catholic Faith.
There is NO such thing as a free lunch. Just ask George Soros or John Podesta about paid infiltrators. On second thought, don’t bother. Like our paid troll, they will all DEFLECT and DENY and then blame others.
Catherine has now lied 16 times by saying that I am paid, and by calling me a “troll” besmirches my character.
My post has NOTHING to do with same sexu unions, folks.
This comment has been edited to abide by the comments policy. -ADMIN
Looks like you have your own operative-agent-online-stalker, too, Ann Malley! That’s a sign of “having arrived!” :)
Wonder who the true reactionary is now?
AMalley: by dissenting and deriding the legitimate clergy of the Church, and its efforts to strengthen marriages and families, YOU ARE NOT sticking to Catholic faith and morals. It is not traditional nor faithful to debase the legal clergy of the Church.
Yeah like this guy won’t throw in with the mob when the persecution begins.
As most here have correctly stated, this Bishop is preaching heretical ideas. Catholicism is NOT a living faith, subject to the vagaries of time, place or social/institutional development. It’s a hermetic set of precepts that were given to us – as a gift of immeasurable worth – purchased at great price and were not intended to be subject to change over time. If the Bishop wants a secular “faith,” I’m sure the Episcopalians would be willing to take him in…
Fwiw, the process the Bishop is advocating is how civilizations eventually die.
Let’s go back to where we were in 1959 and start over!
I read the article. I searched for any small nuance that would make this Bishop of heretic. Couldn’t find any! Relative to this article and a couple of others currently open for comment one must marvel at the hatred that so many have for the Holy Catholic Church and its leadership, whether Bishop, Sister or Nun. In this case the Bishop is calling for leaders of the Church to gather and discuss how gather in those who are in irregular marriages. How can we be more welcoming? How can we go from being overly judgmental and yet cling to the teaching of the faith? That is not a horrible objective. People in irregular marriages can be in full participation in parish life, except for communion, as I understand the rules.
The Catholic faith is a journey. We are all sinners. We come to Christ at different stages of our life, our culture, our beliefs. Different things initially attract people to the Church; how welcoming it is, the quality of the music, the sermon that touches the soul, the search for a God, wanting to do good for others, needing a community of supporters. We enter as young children, young adults, mid-lifers, and elders. Some are returning after being away for years, but all are welcome. The fullness of faith will hopefully grow and blossom and that at some point in our life we can say “Amen.” Have we won the race, have we fought the good fight, have we kept the faith? That is the question this Sunday.
Bob One, you sound very sincere, but I don’t think many of today’s bishops are sincere, in their jobs, for Christ! To follow Christ is very hard! Many people do not fully realize that! To follow Christ becomes even harder, when a person wants to follow Him, but has no solid, realistic help, from the Church, and is only given silly little things, that are practically useless! Plus, our sinful secular world is no help at all! Many of today’s top clergy, are very weak and unmanly– not full-grown men, tackling grown-up, hard life problems, “fighting the good fight,” with many struggles, going through it all with Christ, like the rugged Christian men of old, such as St. Paul! Those Saints were REAL MEN!!
P.S. Many of the liberal-leftists want “Mommy,” the government– to do the hard work for them, or else make up big lies and excuses, and descend to the depths of immorality, because the real world is so hard! But the world has always been tough, this is a place of trials and suffering– yet Christ is here, to help! The churches used to help form good, rugged , fully grown-up men, who faced life’s realities, didn’t sugar-coat or lie or tell half-truths, about the hard realities of life– and these men were ready to “fight the good fight,” with Christ at their side– like St. Paul, and all the other Saints!
I recall, long ago, a popular priest giving a wonderful sermon, telling married couples who had problems– “when the going gets tough, the tough get going!” He also used to say, “when life gives you lemons– make lemonade!” As St. Paul said, pray, and God can bring great good, out of the worst situations! What is God’s Divine Will for you, for this marriage, for this situation? Pray to know it, to accept it, and for grace to follow it successfully, to lay aside your own will, as God knows best, and if you do as He says– all will truly be well, in the end!
P.S.2 The rugged men of old, many of whom were saintly, and followed God’s Will– knew they had to do something that many in today’s materialistic, self-centered, babyish, liberal-leftist world, do not like to do– DENY THE FLESH, DENY YOURSELF FROM SELFISHNESS AND SIN, AND HURTING OTHERS– AND HUMBLY SERVE GOD!! Take care of yourself in a normal way– and then, always think of others, sacrifice yourself out of love, and serve others, and be content, with all of life’s sorrows and crosses, as well as life’s joys! That is life! And God is eternal, over all things!
Blah, blah and blah. There is no gifts that such people can bring. Christ called the immoral woman at the well to realize that she was living a life of gross immorality and could not be saved if she persisted in her sins. Did Christ say, “you know, you can be a helpful and active member of the Church, just don’t come to communion.” No. Christ is Truth and He told her that He could give her living water, there was no other way and is no other way today. People is “irregular” marriages have a way to be saved and the Church should show them to it, not pander to something that will not turn out well in the end.
I disagree with Bob One most times but on this one I join him and say: verbum sapientae (wise words).
I have always so deeply appreciated Christ’s HONEST approach, always telling people the Truth, about Life, even if it is hard to bear– and next, providing the GRACE to do as He says to do! Otherwise, led on by lies, half-truths, and cruel deceptions– people’s lives eventually break down, and it is horrible! The next evil that California’s future children will sadly face, is the evil of “recreational marijuana,” if it is voted for. LIES, LIES, LIES!! And future children’s lives, all senselessly destroyed!!
Yes, Bob One, we have often heard of “The Journey” explanation of the Catholic Faith. Here are two of your fellow travelers, Sr. Julia Walsh FSPA and Sr Priscilla Torres, OP, “journeying” on the Faithful’s dime(s)—many of them likely—through the Southwest USA, protesting immigration enforcement.
Sr Julia Walsh, who write the account, carries her giant butterfly emblem (you have to see this to appreciate the insanity) and her “hope rock” (could I make this up?) to Eloy Detention Center, where migrants who may be a danger to themselves or others are detained awaiting a hearing.
https://globalsistersreport…
https://globalsistersreport.org/column/horizons/migration/hope-rock-42821?utm_source=Horizons_Oct%2021%2C%202016_mobile&utm_campaign=Email%20Horizons%2010-21-16&utm_medium=email
The two good sisters on their “journey”, thinking all the people should be released, swelling further the impossible flood of hundreds of thousands of undocumented people overwhelming the US. No explanation how we can survive this. No matter. Carry a “hope rock”.
I hope you support them and their journey abundantly with your funds, Bob One.
The holy state of matrimony was created by God and given to men and women. It is one gift that was not destroyed by original sin. Marriage does not change and indeed cannot change. A man and a woman are free not to marry, but if they choose to marry then they must marry as God intended marriage to be. Marriage is a partnership of the whole of life, ordered toward the mutual good of the spouses, and the procreation and education of offspring. When it is celebrated between two validly baptized persons it has been raised by Christ to a sacrament.
So doesn’t that mean that Christ, by raising marriage to a sacrament, mean that it was changed?
It was not changed, but restored from the Mosaic distortion allowing divorce as it was from the beginning, that was neither abolished by the flood nor destroyed by original sin.
Sorry, what? Did Moses take a sacrament and distort it?
Matthew 19:7,8
“Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
I see what you are saying Fr. Thanks for the clarification.
Marriage cannot change to suit the times. Marriage remains ever the same no matter how the culture might change. Marriage gives stability to the world. “To them that are married, not I but the Lord commandeth, that the wife not depart from her husband, and if she depart, that she remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband. And let not the husband put away his wife” 1 Cor. 7:10-11 Even in situations where a person is subjectively certain in conscience that his/her first marriage was not valid, it is not permitted to enter into a new marriage without the nullity of the first marriage being established lawfully and with certainty (Tribunal process) Can. 1085, par.2.
From your lips to God’s ears, Anonymous 10/21/16. Very well written. I may use it, with attribution of course :) ..
I am happy to know that you like what I wrote. I am a Rome trained canon lawyer. Marriage does not and indeed cannot change to suit the times or the changing culture. Marriage was established by God and is ever the same. If we have spouses who have divorced and remarried without obtaining an annulment they may not receive Communion, but they can participate in the life of the Church through prayer, personal sacrifices, and almsgiving. For those couples who are living together and not married, although free to do so, we must invite them to sacramentalize their marriages. God bless you Campion.
The mainstream is endlessly infatuated with the idea that church and parish life exist as license and mandate for parties and play, endless exploratory conferences, experimentation, sentimentality, socialization, self expression, childish theology, left wing political posturing and career opportunities. Et cetera. All in the name of progress. And the bishops revel in stoking it. People need to shut up, get on their knees and pray and lead quiet and devoted lives. And quit talking about the culture.
In this regard Ralph, you go against the teachings of the Church, more specifically her teachings articulated in Apostolicam Actuositatem–Vatican II’s Decree on the apostolate of the laity. Read what the Decree says: “The temporal order must be renewed in such a way that, without detriment to its own proper laws, it may be brought into conformity with the higher principles of the Christian life and adapted to the shifting circumstances of time, place, and peoples. Preeminent among the works of this type of apostolate is that of Christian social action which the sacred synod desires to see extended to the whole temporal sphere, including culture.”
The laity’s charge is shaping the temporal world, including its culture, into the…
image of Christ. If you merely pray without helping the people and the society around you, then–as St. Paul would say—your FAITH IS DEAD!
Your caps light is on. But, sorry, I disagree. Actually I see people like you as personifications of the problem, the inability to discern that psychobabble helps nobody and certainly not society in general. These endless programs are just Keystone cops running in all directions. No Catholic has any obligation whatsoever to support incompetency.
Ralph, Thank God and thank you, for the clarity and wisdom.
Ralph, let’s hone in on what the real issue here that I’ve commented on. You said we should quit talking about culture. The Church says WE SHOULD! Culture is important in a society. We as Church have lost the culture war in this society. Culture is part of society, and an important one. To shut up about it is to signal defeat.
The psychobabble didn’t prevent the loss in the culture wars, did it? In fact, all the kiddie theologian psychobabble helped the Church to succumb to the culture. But keep up the psychobabble, after all, the definition of insanity is to repeat the same action over and over and expect a different result. Pray that more people shut up and join monasteries. Work to replace the NO with the TLM. And that gosh darn caps light of yours.
Bishop McElroy has it back to front. The Culture changes to harm the Church, the last hope of Western civilization. Likely he has not even heard of Kulturkampf. This was the war declared by Prussian premier von Bismarck against the Catholic Church in Bavaria (Southern Germany). Bismarck imposed public schools for all so that Catholic schools could not keep spreading the Faith. The change in Culture is against Christianity and all the good it brings to the faithful. That Pope Francis stands with Bp. McElroy does not mean anything for our Pope also has a lot of priorities back to front, unfortunately.
JESUS did not change His teachings to ” Adapt to the culture”.
Everyone needs to read a Catholic “Bible” (starting with the New Testament),
and the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition” of 1997 which contains the Doctrine of the Faith.
Learn your Faith. Clearly some Bishops and some Priests are not teaching the Faith.
Francis, Cupich and McElroy – Birds of a Feather. Enough said.
Add to that the new Superior General of the Jesuits, Antonio Sosa Abascal of Venezuela. He is a liberation-theologian-quasi-Marxist:
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/10/exclusive-marxist-revolutionary-new.html#more
Ever wonder why the mass defections to evangelical Christianity—or atheism, as with most young people? The Church in its present state and form will be decimated further by these people.
I would like for the Bishop to read then respond to all the comments made about his statement on this website. “Listen to the sheep Bishop”.
Joe, you will not get the responses you request, for a number of reasons. First, keep in mind that you and the others on this site represent a very small minority of Catholics. The other 99.999% would disagree with our writers. The Bishops think that we are the cooks, not them. The Bishops believe they are preaching correctly and trying very hard to make the Church relevant in the current culture. They are dealing with a population of young people who think the RC is close to a hate group because they have been trained well by the other side. Let’s give the Bishops a little slack.
A scientific analysis of Cal-Catholic readership by Bob One?
Presumably Bob’s views do not represent a micro- representation of what most Catholics believe.
Is it no wonder, the many Saints that visited hell or had visions of hell, saw a multitude of bishops there? Seems like many more bishops & clergy are on that path if they do not repent. Only God knows their hearts but their actions & words are scandalous. God help us.
Here is one of the synod’s advisory theologians, Dr. Emily Reimer-Barry on the Catholic Church’s “woman problem:” (Interview, US Catholic, May 2014):
‘One thing I’m concerned about is that there is sometimes a silencing of women within the tradition, or a reluctance to recover difficult stories of women from the tradition.”
” We see this not only in sexual ethics, although that’s where we see it the most, but we also see it in issues like how many female saints there are and why we praise those saints. Are we focusing too much attention on women’s virginity in our theology of saints? What’s a better way to talk about devotions to saints—holy people within our religious tradition—in a way that empowers young girls and women…
Interviewer: “You’ve been critical of “sacrifice” language. Why is that?”
(ERB:) “My concern is that sometimes the language of sacrifice is emphasized to the point that we lose sight of the importance of caring for oneself and of what it means to see oneself as a beloved child of God or to see oneself as having inherent dignity.”
“Without trying to say that sacrifice is, in and of itself, problematic, I think we need to talk about that tension. Giving of oneself is, of course, important. But in a gift exchange, there should be some mutuality. There should be a sense of feeling affirmed and valuable even as one is giving.”
https://www.uscatholic.org/articles/201405/mixed-messages-what-do-women-hear-church-28862
Does anyone…
https://www.uscatholic.org/articles/201405/mixed-messages-what-do-women-hear-church-28862
Does anyone have any illusions about where this “synod” is going? Kind of like the famous “Robber Synod” (449AD)?