The following comes from a June 17 posting on the Canon Law Blog by Ed Peters. Peters is the former canon lawyer for the San Diego diocese.
Peters is responding to the news reported widely on June 17 that Pope Francis said a majority of sacramental marriages are invalid. After criticism of this, John Allen defended the pope’s statement in a June 17 post on Crux.
In a day fraught with canonical confusion may I offer a few observations on some journalistic issues I noticed along the way?
First, I find John Allen’s pooh-poohing of widespread concerns that Francis’ remarks, yet again, needed to be “walked-back” by Vatican spin doctors off-putting in several respects. Ignoring Allen’s patronizing tone and his
caricaturing of Vatican critics as emitting “howls of outrage” over mere “retouching” of the pope’s words, from several passages let’s consider these.
Allen writes: There’s nothing objectionable about a pope correcting what he said, as long as we’re sure it’s actually the pope making the corrections.
Of course there is nothing objectionable about correcting mistakes: the objection is to pretending the mistakes were never made. No matter who is doing the pretending.
The alternative would be for a pope to never open his mouth until his utterances have been vetted by a team of theologians and spin doctors.
A false dichotomy: our only choices are to keep a pontifical editing intervention team on call 24/7 or to suffer a pope who never opens his mouth except to read a prepared manuscript? What about simply having a pope who understands the main issues coming before him, defers on those he is not equipped to speak on at the time, and thinks about his response to others before he discusses them? Is that so utterly unimaginable? Oh, and by the way, spin doctors are not involved in simply reporting papal utterances; they only get involved when deliberately re-writing them.
Pope Francis is hardly the first churchman to suggest that incomprehension of permanent commitments in the modern world may render many marriages contracted in church “invalid” by the traditional test of informed consent.
No, Francis is not the first churchman to make this suggestion and, given the widespread lack of canonical understanding among prelates these days, he will doubtless not be the last to leap wrongly from one’s deficit understanding of certain aspects of marriage to the nullity of one’s attempt marriage—an error Allen incorrectly describes as “the traditional test of informed consent”. (Francis’ leap, which Allen apparently shares, fails for having its having omitted the canonically crucial middle term, as discussed here.)
Second, a Vatican spokesman said Friday it’s normal practice for the pope or his aides to review transcripts of his impromptu remarks, and to make small changes before releasing an official version.
Small changes? Are we tweaking a pope who said Minneapolis when he meant Minnesota or, to use Allen’s example, simply repairing a pope’s confusion about the date of some meeting? Good grief, the pope said “the great majority of our sacramental marriages are null”; but he is now reported as saying “a part of our sacramental marriages are null.” This changes his statement from one portending shocking problematics into a truism that any sapient observer could utter or agree with. Small changes, my foot.
By the way, the notion of “impromptu” or “off-the-cuff” remarks conjures in my mind, say, a busy man who, being stopped on his way to lunch and engaged in conversation with a friend, says something he wishes he had phrased differently. But does that fairly describe Francis’ recent marriage remarks? He was the guest of honor at a major clergy conference, speaking with fellow clerics into recording equipment during a scheduled Q&A, all the while surrounded by experts and advisors. If even that setting qualifies remarks as “impromptu”, then I can only imagine that everything a pope says outside of a prepared speech read from a teleprompter must be malleable as “off-the-cuff”.
In this case, Francis and his advisers probably realized that the phrase “vast majority [of our sacramental marriages are null]” could be taken to suggest that faithful Christian marriage today is a near-impossibility …
Nooo, the pope’s advisors probably realized that the pope’s phrasing could be taken to suggest that Francis thinks “the vast majority of our sacramental marriages are null”. That’s what provoked the fire storm.
As a result, they walked the quote back to make it clear that what the pope really meant is simply that because of cultural pressures, many couples don’t fully understand what they’re getting into at the beginning. Phrased that way, most spouses – this one certainly included – would probably concur.
Nooo, the pope’s advisors watered-down the pope’s words into a safe platitude about many couples not ‘fully understanding’ what marriage is at the beginning—as if, you know, that is essentially the same thing as saying that most of their marriages are null.
And so on, and so on…
Meanwhile another veteran Catholic journalist, Phil Lawler, makes several good points along these lines with which I largely agree (especially where he quotes me). I pause, though, over Phil’s suggestion that the Crux reporter who claimed that Francis referred to certain priests as “animals” might not have understood the pope’s jumbled remarks correctly. Apparently, suggests Lawler, the pope “intended to say that some priests treat children (or possibly their unwed mothers) as ‘animals.’ He did not aim that insult at the priests themselves.”
Sorry? Would I console my insulted friend by saying to him, “No, no, Phil, I did not say that you were an animal. I said you treat some people as if they were animals. Okay? Feel better now?” Ummm, no, I would not feel better, not if the description were still false or unfair.
Well, enough journalistic musing. Back to canon law.
And here we go again! Anyone seen the article: Enough is Enough, Pope Francis should resign? Why does he seem to want to challenge, well….everything? Now a slap in the face of marriage. NOTE to Cardinals: HELP! Some in the pews want the confusion & agitation to stop. Start a recall. He may be modern, popular but he is a disruptor in a world that needs peace. Not the man for the job. Enough!
I agree! I also fear that personally, Pope Francis is perhaps, sadly, a modern Jesuit leftist- liberal, at heart, but very well-meaning! All good, orthodox, faithful Catholics– clergy, nuns, or laymen– are ready and eager, to transmit the Catholic Faith correctly, as best they can, to all around them, at any time! If they make a mistake, they are eager to look up the question, and fix their error! They are devout Catechists! Pope Francis is good at showing God’s love, mercy, and care, for all the world, in public— but beyond that, he is not a very good, devout Catholic Pope! What a poor Catechist! He needs our prayers!
Pray for the Pope. Yet another conservative Catholic Church group, https://www.remnantnewspaper.com, examines our dear pope’s confusing off the cuff comments. See the article of June 6, 2016 (left side-bar) entitled: ‘The Undertaker Pope: ‘A brief study of an Infallibly Politically Correct Pontificate’ by a Christopher A Ferrarn. One of the statements made is: How is it possible that a conclave could have placed such a spectacularly unsuitable man on the Chair of Peter?
As the Pontificate is entering it’s 4th year, the articles with ‘explanations’ are now ‘questioning how could he’. Troubling.
Continued….Troubling but the USCCB is too. Has the USCCB allowed massive government funding to negate their conscience, due to a conflict of interest?. See 6/21/16 article @ https://www.churchmilitant.com, by Michael Hichborn, title: USCCB confirms funding request to congress includes contraception & condoms. The CRS & USCCB requested– $330 MILLION for USAID and $5.67 BILLION for PEPFAR. This is an example of bad works/seed mixed in with the good works/seed. Can any church request funding at these massive levels and stay unrepentantly faithful? The devil is really in the details. May God deliver us all from the eternal abyss. PRAY!
If the incapacity to understand all of the ramifications of one’s decisions renders one’s decisions null and void, then there is no such thing as a truly human act, in which case nobody is really responsible for anything, and we are all mere flotsam and jetsam floating in the cosmic soup. Since we are made in the image of our Creator, I wonder if He — let’s call Him “God” — realized the full import of His decision to create us. Probably not. In which case, there really is no God, at least no infinitely wise and good entity. So, what’s the point? Let’s all just go out and get drunk!
All through the ages, people have made either wise or unwise decisions, when it comes to the heart, and deciding to marry someone. A Catholic needs to fully understand his/her Faith, and just what the Sacrament of Marriage means, before entering into it! If the Pope thinks many Catholics are not well-educated in their Faith, and if he thinks that many have falsely entered into marriages that are null, not truly Sacramental– then, the Pope should get busy, and start a big worldwide program, to help Catholics with this issue! It is very cruel, to call someone’s marriage in the Church “null,” as it hurts the feelings of millions of the Pope’s well-intentioned Catholics! Very bad idea! So CRUEL!!
All the popes, throughout all the ages, have always taught their Catholics to avoid the Mortal Sin of sex outside marriage, and to lead a good, decent, CHASTE life, if unmarried! No Holy Communion, if one has committed this Mortal Sin– one must run to Confession immediately, and get the help of a priest! “Shacking up,” cohabitating, is totally IMMORAL, before God, and the Pope should know that, and tell his Catholics, worldwide, how to lead a good moral life, and be good Catholics! That is his JOB!!
St. Augustine would have a big HORSE LAUGH at the Pope, for telling Catholics that cohabitation is a good thing!
P. Francis’ remarks were not “impromptu”, but given at a formal occasion: he thought about what he said, he said it, and what he said revealed his thinking: that many sacramental marriages he thinks are null.
bb It is the same liberal theology-thinking that we almost never form mature informed consent. [The attempted correction from “many” marriages to “some” later on didn’t repair the damage: there is something gravely wrong with this pope’s thinking and teaching.]
So, since he holds that most marriages are invalid sacramentally, those of us who doubt the validity of some Novus Ordo Masses, some ordained Novus Ordo priests, and some Novus Ordo bishops, have justification for our belief.
Given the general laxity in administration of the sacraments along with the obvious corruption of the priesthood, I’m sure there are “some” (but probably “many”) priests whose ordinations are invalid. As these priests become bishops, this will spread.
In this case, the Pope is absolutely right. Most Catholics have zero understanding of sacramental marriage, or even sacraments for that matter. Many Catholics are on their second (or third or fourth) civil marriage. These are not valid marriages; they are null–exactly as the Pope has said. The number of annulments granted shows clearly that even many first “marriages” are null. And only a tiny percentage of marriages are brought before the tribunal—think of the millions of marriages that are never judged by a tribunal but are actually invalid! The fact that the vast majority of Catholic support gay marriage attests to the fact that marriage is understood by Catholics as a right granted by the State, not as a sacrament.
One…
From The Remnant: As one good priest noted in a private email just this morning: “What a dreadfully irresponsible statement! How can the Pope possibly presume to judge the state of mind of millions of couples who are carefully prepared for marriage, and so assert (not just suspect or surmise) that “the great majority” have null and void marriages because they don’t know what they are doing or promising? I would think many of the couples I’ve prepared for marriage would feel pretty insulted by Francis’ condescending and sweeping generalization.
Continued…..
“…millions of couples who are carefully prepared for marriage.” Riiiiight. If only this were actually the case.
Continued from The Remnant: “Pardon me, but, er, . . . Who is he to judge? This kind of statement could well encourage liberal marriage tribunals to be ever more lax in handing out decrees of nullity. Indeed, Pope Francis ties himself in knots here by saying that plenty of “faithful” cohabiting couples are truly married in God’s sight and so have the grace of matrimony! But aren’t they part of that same defective culture which he says invalidates “the great majority” of church marriages?
Continued….
Continued from The Remnant:
“In other words, incredibly, we have a Successor of Peter insinuating that you’re more likely to be truly married if you’re a couple who’ve never made any marriage vows, and so don’t even consider yourselves married, than if you are married in the Church and have made marriage vows! I’m sorry, but with all due respect to the Holy Father, this is craziness.”
THE END.
I daresay I concur with Dave N. up there. He’s got this thing interpreted rightly. Folks, you just don’t like it that Francis is right on this one, because face it, you don’t really like Francis now do you? You didn’t like him from the moment he emerged from that balcony. The fact is that the MAJORITY of Catholics indeed do not understand what makes for a sacramental marriage. The majority don’t know the canonical requirement of the form of marriage. Many even support gay marriage. So, yeah, the Holy Father was right. Now, does this necessarily invalidate their marriage? That’s for a Tribunal do decide. But this statement of Francis is one of those non-Magisterial occasions that Catholics don’t have to agree with the Pope…
But with a speech, an Encyclical, homily: you have to adhere to those papal statements.
Sorry, but a homily that deviates from clear doctrine is not something that needs to be adhered to. Listened to. Yes. But the necessity of proper discernment is always present. Especially when, as you say, there are so many Catholics who do not know the canonical requirement for marriage, or even support gay marriage.
Priests are not formed in a bubble wherein they are dropped into the populace like pure doses of medicine. Far from it. Sadly, demonstrably, many prelates show themselves to be wholly ignorant of the Catholic Faith and what being a Catholic priest means.
Does that invalidate their ordination? Well, that’s to be decided. But is that the state of reality on the ground – absolutely. And that’s why we’re having to…
deal with this mess.
But many just don’t like Catholic doctrine which is why they’re enjoying the muddying of the waters and the addition of the convoluted wherein God’s mercy and grace are treated as a magic pill.
Perhaps we should take Francis’s logic and extend it logically to other scenarios. And hey, having priests who don’t believe in the Catholic Faith could surely explain a flock that knows zero – even though they’re supposedly formed by the Church.
“It is generally admitted that the mere fact that the pope should have given to any of his utterances the form of an encyclical does not necessarily constitute it an ex-cathedra pronouncement and invest it with infallible authority.” https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05413a.htm
Ralph, what you posted doesn’t contradict what I said. Why don’t you check out Lumen Gentium, paragraph 25: “This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.”
Based on Lumen Gentium which I cited above, any authentic magisterium of a pope should be adhered to. That includes Encyclicals, homilies, speeches (formal). It won’t include airplane press conferences, remarks at a breakfast table, or sleep talking. Ok? I hope that’s clear to you Ralph, because just because a teaching is not infallible, it doesn’t mean you don’t have to adhere to it. That position is unCatholic.
You’re wrong again Ann Malley: When a pope delivers a message in a homily touching on a matter of faith and/or morals you bet that you have to adhere to it. Period!
When a pope delivers a message in a homily touching on a matter of faith/or morals you bet that, if whatever is said doesn’t adhere to Catholic doctrine, you’d better not adhere to it.
Period!
Your position Ann Malley contradicts Lumen Gentium paragraph 25. Read it above. Listen to the Magisterium. WHy does the Church insist on this? It’s the Catholic faith: that the HOly Spirit guards the Magisterium of the Church from error on matters of faith and morals. PERIOD!
Jon, She is right. See my post on the rules, facts whatever you want to call them…that clarify your post.
FTP
If the Pope called up a close friend or family member, from the Vatican, who is either not Catholic, or is living out-of-wedlock, with a girlfriend and kids– that he could and should go to Mass and receive Holy Communion– what would you do or say, as a good practicing Catholic? And what would you expect a priest to do or say, at the local church, when your close friend or family member shows up for Mass, and tells this incident to the priest?? We all have a responsibility to God!!
THat’s a silly hypothetical scenario Linda Maria.
Jon, this is NOT a silly hypothetical scenario! The Pope has upset a great many good Catholic clergy and laymen, with his whimsical, unpredictable phone calls, giving misinformation and false guidance, in regards to the Catholic Faith which he is supposed to be leading! Does that not concern you? It concerns a great many good Catholics, Jon!
Linda Maria, who the Pope calls on the phone is his private affair. WHat he tells them over the phone is hearsay. OK? It might do you good spiritually and personally to avoid gossip, news-reports of this sort that paint a bad picture of other people, especially of our spiritual leaders. I can tell you probably relish reading about bad accounts like this because you have developed a hatred toward Francis. Repent Linda Maria. Repent.
jon, you’re judging with wrong judgement. If you want to follow Francis then you should back off and mellow a bit. Perhaps your developed hatred for the truth has skewed your vision.
Whatever the reason, you’re overstepping the very authority you are supposedly telling others they must obey.
Jon, CORRECTION. Speaking ‘ex cathedia’ is exceedingly RARE. From ‘Catholic Answers’ RE: Petrine Authority — Papal infallibility, which applies only to solemn, official teachings on faith and morals, not to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith and morals. A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he ‘solemnly defines’ is considered to be infallible teaching. Did you know the most recent ‘ex cathedia’ was by P.Pius XII in 1950? P.Pius defined the Assumption of Mary as as Article of Faith to be held by the whole C. Church. Key points, RARE, not since 1950! So we treat P. Francis’s statements with due respect, they ARE NOT ‘ex cathedia’ and (obviously) not infallible.
Continued….Also important to remember, we are not sitting in the pews saying ‘yes’ to everything. We have a God given responsibility to guard against anything and anyone (even a pope) that speaks against Catholic Doctrine as Linda M. has already advised. It’s God’s law that rules over His church. Be faithful to that above all else. This could be very important to remember in the near future.
You’re totally wrong Pew. You do not have a God-given responsibility to guard against the Pope making sure he adheres to Catholic doctrine. First off, that responsibility belongs to the Magisterium, which is the pope himself and the bishops….NOT YOU, not anyone in the laity. This is Catholic dogma. The Magisterium is the guardian of the deposit of faith, and they apply it for our time. You’re totally mistaken. Our responsibility as laity is to adhere to the shepherds, to be faithful, to follow. And if it were to happen that they teach falsehood (which is an impossibility as the Church believes that the Holy Spirit guards the Church from error on matters of morals and faith), but hypothetically if it were to happen, it is God who…
will judge them. Not you.
You are wrong again, jon. We have a God given mandate to judge with right judgement. Your overreach into declaring everything a Pope says or does as worthy of belief and subsequently being mandated as a must-do is not supported by Catholic doctrine.
As to your assertion of judging, nobody is judging the person of the Pope, but rather lawfully discerning that which the individual is required to do in following what he says.
Unfortunately, like many, you fall into the stereotype of the Pope being incapable of sin or shortcoming. But while you seek to give assurances to those who you would encourage to follow that which is ambiguous at best, you discount the reality that every one will be accountable for their actions as compared with…
…Continued, with Jon’s words below, “You’re totally wrong Pew. You do not have a God-given responsibility to…….blah, blah…” Just so you KNOW Jon, I am VERY comfortable asking God (and the many other kind/reasonable people here on Cal. C.) to decide the merits of my post VS letting you alone be the JUDGE/JURY. So thanks for sharing your perspective BUT I’m sticking with Church Doctrine & Dogma, like I always have, THANKS BE TO GOD. And may God deliver us all from evil.
Continued…..err the post went up vs down so it should say…..Jon’s words above…….
Ok Ann Malley: prove it. Show me where I said that “everything a Pope says or does as worthy of belief and subsequently being mandated as a must-do.” SHow us here where I said that. Quote the date and time, just as I identified the date and the time where you said that Vatican II is flawed. By saying that, you have cast doubt on the efficacy of the Ordinary Form of the Mass which comes from the Council, which you are calling flawed.
… what they “knew” and could “see” was true.
Enabling confusion and error under the pretext of false obedience is to sin and lead others into sin, jon. By your logic, Christ should have just lied at the behest of the High Priest, said He wasn’t the Son of God, and then gone home.
Take off the VII blinders and give over the Protestant fallacy of what the Papacy is. Perhaps then you’ll understand your fellow Catholics in their support of truth. That last is how Catholics actually assist the Holy Father and lend him the strength to do the right thing even though the world, the flesh, and the devil would have him to otherwise.
Jon. sometimes very insecure young people look desperately for security in the wrong places. Some desperate youngsters in countries led by charismatic, EVIL dictators, will follow the dictator they admire– with BLIND OBEDIENCE, even committing MURDER, if the dictator orders them to do so– because such insecure people are extremely cowardly and immature, and afraid to become mature adults, with good, mature moral judgment– and the MORAL COURAGE to simply do as they must do! NO– for these big babies, they love the CONVENIENCE of their false security! They also fear martyrdom, for right actions!
Jon, it is much better, to learn COURAGE, and to stride courageously right through a situation, ignoring all else, letting the chips fall where they may, enduring even martyrdom, if one must! That is the route taken by mature, good Catholic prelates, such as Cardinal Sarah and Cardinal Burke! And NO– mature Catholics DO NOT “RELISH” such things as the news reports of the Holy Father, calling up lapsed Catholics in immoral life situations, giving them misinformation and lies, over the phone! It is a BIG WORRY!!
Jon, you sound like a “Yes”-man to the Pope! Is that what you truly are? Not the same, as being a true Catholic! Try being a priest, or a prelate– and see just how they might feel, on-the-job! HORRIBLE!! I notice excellent men of God, such as Cardinal Sarah– are NOT “Yes”-men, to the Pope! Their allegiance is only to God!
Maybe Jon believes in the current Pope’s 45-day fast-track Catholic annulments. Then, when the next Pope comes along, and changes all that, Jon will agree with the next Pope, on his wishes. Then, the Pope after that will say this thing, or that thing– and Jon will agree. A “Yes”-man, “kissing the Pope,” to get something?? Is that what you call, “Catholic Political Correctness??” What does GOD have to say??
Jon, regarding your quotes from “Lumen Gentium” — We all know well, that many statements, upholding traditional Church teachings, and practices, in Vatican II– were discarded, in real-life, after the Council! The Church has severely degenerated, in the years since 1965! She is not the same Church, at all! And her Popes, too, are not the same! Look at the progression of post-Conciliar Popes– Bl. Pope Paul VI, then Pope St. John Paul II– (skipping poor Pope John Paul I!)– and next, we have Pope Benedict XVI, and now– sorry, but what do we really have?? A REAL Roman Pontiff?? The Church has degenerated!
Jon, I don’t think Pope Francis is interested even to follow his own Vatican II documents! Sorry to discourage you, but it’s true! He will be a source of agony for you, I bet, in the end– because he is simply not going to follow the “rules” you logically expect of him– you won’t be able to follow him, in the end, as he is too “wild,” for a Pope, and definitely unpredictable! He is not logical, Jon, for ANYONE– neither the liberal leftists, nor the faithful orthodox! He simply does not act like a Pope (liberal or orthodox!) He does things on his own terms, and to heck with all else! You’ll be upset!
Yes, Linda, you nailed it, spot on again; “jon” is a yes-man to the present pontificate; because the people he really hates are “conservative” (I prefer “ordinary”) Catholics like us. There is something heady about wrapping oneself in the papal flag as holier than thou: in his own words:
“What I am is a faithful Catholic obedient to the Pope, his bishops, his priests. I am actually a true blue traditional Catholic, more faithful than the trolls who seem to inhabit here, spewing disobedience, scandal, and woe on unsuspecting readers.”
6/11/2016, 2pm, ‘Anti-death penalty advocates not happy with Calif. bishops; 6/8/2016
So Campion: I “hate” conservative Catholics? You sure about that? I actually love Pope Benedict, because I am a traditional conservative Catholic. More traditional and MORE conservative that some who inhabit this blog here, spewing all sorts of disobedience and doing so for the sake of “tradition”. Well NO. It is not Catholic nor traditional to be trashing our spiritual shepherds cowardly and anonymously on a blog site creating scandal.
You preach following doctrine only to pretend that one can follow a Pope to oppose doctrine. You’re a Simon-Says-Now advocate who, sadly, attempts to give the Papacy more power than is due.
The only one trashing spiritual shepherds are those with the collars and grace of ordination who toss off their duties to mislead the flock into all manner of nonsense that makes a joke of the magisterium.
Unfortunately, many children who grow up in a family wherein the father is an abuser seek out similar mistreatment in adulthood. But being accustomed to being lied to, manipulated, and led away from that which is healthy is not true fatherhood. It is that same aberration that Christ came to dispel, jon.
…or would you accuse Christ…
….of trashing the “spiritual” leaders of His time. All He did was speak the truth and yet it enraged the Pharisees and the High Priest. It enraged them to such a degree that they arranged for Christ’s crucifixion unless, of course, He would LIE about the truth.
Looks like you’re imitating your fathers, jon.
Well yeah Linda Maria: I’d rather ride in the barque of St. Peter and his successors that on your little unreliable tugboat. In Peter’s barque, wherever it may lead at certain moments, I can be SURE that I am going to Christ, because Christ has chosen Peter. CHrist did not choose YOU. So, yeah, you bet. I am with Peter’s successor, the Vicar of Christ, not with you.
Jon– you can see, that there has been a progressive slide into disobedience to the true Catholic Faith, since Vatican II, in many prelates, to include Pope Francis! He is unpredictable, and not as anyone would expect him to be! How can you claim to rely on such a man who seems to get so lost at times, in regards to the Faith, which he is supposed to be leading? I think you will get very seasick on his unpredictable barque, and be very upset with him, someday!
Some prefer to sing and cheer while the Captain of the Titanic leads us right into the iceberg, Linda Maria. As if willfully putting God to the test is some proof of Faith.
Some confused support with never questioning, never challenging, never clarifying. St. Paul would have been shouted down as a naysayer for challenging St. Peter in scripture. Even Christ would have been called out as evil.
Remember how the guard back handed Christ in outrage just because truth was spoken to the person of the High Priest? It’s human respect, Linda Maria, and a complete abdication of intellect, will, and the requisite of suffering persecution by one’s own community. Go along to get along is the mentality of some with obedience being used as the…
… excuse to commit war crimes.
Wishing you the best, jon, but sadly every time it is presented to you, you reject it outright.
What you can’t get your mind wrapped around Ann Malley and Linda Maria is that the authority and responsibility of applying/interpreting the truth for our time is given by God to the Magisterium (the Pope and the bishops), not to you nor to your version of the “truth.” Ok? If I believe in the words of the popes and the bishops I CAN BE SURE that I am hearing the truth. I will not rely on a bunch of lay people, who are not ordained, who did not receive the anointing of the Holy SPirit to teach and guide the Church. OK? Hem and Haw all you want. But the plain fact is, you and Linda Maria ARE NOT ORDAINED, so your claim to know the truth falls flat!
Francis was incorrect in his assessment of the validity of “all” or “most” or even “a great number” of Catholic marriages. This was another verbal ambiguity that was dropped in the hopes of using it in the future to further cement the evil of A.L. and its litany (e.g., fn 351), of unCatholic statements and sentiments. The Pope is not a stupid man, only a crafty, political one. Every Catholic who is in their majority, who attends a Pre-Cana instruction of some kind, and who marries in a Catholic Church by a priest has a valid Catholic marriage. Oh, there may be a fraud here and there about the commitment to be “open” to Children, but that is it. And, Francis knows it; he had a darker purpose for his words.
i found the video of the pope’s presentation and noticed that it contained quite a bit of off-the-cuff commentary. it was interrupted by a lot of laughter and applauses. the atmosphere was very informal and his style was completely avuncular and at ease. i don’t defend his statements, but i don’t think we’re looking at heresy. not out of the question that some transient alzheimers is at play.
Sorry, but no comfort in defending the statements by saying the pope is losing his mind. The statements are being condemned as a disgrace by some of the most qualified orthodox Catholic theologians on the plant. That you don’t think they’re heresy is pretty worthless. Our Lady of Fatima said the apostasy would start at the top. We’re looking at it.
Ralph why are you so pent up about this informal statement by the Pope? It is not magisterial (like a formal speech, or an Exhortation, or a document, or a homily). It’s off-the-cuff!
Jon manages to contradict himself at least twice in such a short response–1st, only a tribunal can decide validity (Jon says), but the Pope can decide anyway, without any facts, that the majority of marriages are invalid (I thought it was a tribunal that had to decide); and 2nd, yet also the Pope is right, even when making a clearly utterly false statement, because he didn’t make such a clearly false statement within an encyclical.
Jon cant admit that this statement of P Francis invalidates any encyclical involving his teaching office on marriage and on sacraments, since it reveals a deeply defective thinking about Christ, grace, sacrament, and objective truth.
You’re wrong again Justin K. as usual. First off: the Pope did not “decide” on anything by that remark. Secondly, Francis’ remarks here doesn’t invalidate anything!
The point made was about your intellectual and logical contradictions, O jon, in your assertions, which it is apparent, you cannot even see yourself.
But, after all, defective-thinking birds of a feather, flock together!
Yeah, the obligation to demonstrate where a commentor has contradicted himself rests on the person making the allegation.
But really O Justin, what underlies your words is actually dismay and perhaps a bit of dislike and I might even venture to say a slight hatred towards the Holy Father. I detect that. Rather than giving him the benefit of the doubt, people like you are oh-so-ready to nail him. Yes, nail him.
It’s (jon’s rational contradictions) been shown but he can’t see them..it is futile, like talking with a madman.
Yeah right. Check my comments below which address your alleged contradictions.
Much like papal comments do not deprive the state of the right to enact corporal punishment, jon. You’re really riding the rails of Simon-Says-Now and helping only to confuse yourself.
No Ann Malley, your very disobedience has confused you.
The Catholic divorce rate is about 21% depending on the survey you use. So, maybe it isn’t 50% but only 20+%. Big deal. All you have to do is look at our culture to know that people don’t enter marriage with the same thoughts as we did 50+ years ago. Then it was for life, come hell or high water. Today, its lets try it for a few years and see how it works out. I am amazed at how people expect the Pope to only say scripted things that have been vetted by 20 agencies. Let’s let him be himself and pastoral in his approach. Catholicism is not about rules and regulations and laws, but about loving God, helping our less fortunate neighbors, and living a good life that reflects the love of God.
So, you agree with this pope that most marriages are invalid? Amazing.
Barring certain evidence to the contrary, we are never to doubt the objective conferring of grace in a sacrament: that was the reason against the Donatist heresy, which would have caused all Christendom to doubt any sacrament as validly effected.
Great. So according to your own words (“we are never to doubt the objective conferring of grace in a sacrament”) is it still salutary to attend even your typical Novus Ordo Mass not offered ad orientem, in the vernacular, with some adlibs from the priest, contemporary music, and even a jig or two. You are not to doubt the objective conferring of grace in a sacrament if the intent of the priest is to offer Mass. Period.
And this:
“You are not to doubt the objective conferring of grace in a sacrament if the intent of the priest is to offer Mass. Period.” -Jon the Pious
You contradict yourself completely: the pope said most sacramental marriages are invalid. We can therefore question ALL sacraments, since he doubts them himself. This is a trap of your own making.
Gotcha! I knew you’d cave. You see, all sacraments of the Church are efficacious in conferring God’s grace, yes, even the typical Novus Ordo Mass which many here despise. By castigating Francis on his casual remark, you have in effect upheld the efficacy of all the sacraments of the Church. Good! I have proven my point! And thank you for proving it for me, albeit unwittingly!
You yourself O Justin had said that “we are never to doubt the objective conferring of grace in a sacrament: that was the reason against the Donatist heresy.” All sacraments are presumed valid, including your typical Novus Ordo Mass! O Justin has affirmed this himself!
Who is stating that the NO is invalid outside the straw man in your own mind?
Just for the record O Justin, I am pointing out that the possible presumption of the Pope for his remark (the presumption being the ignorance of the majority of Catholics concerning sacramental marriage) is most likely correct. His conclusion, as I pointed out also in my comments above, is up for a Tribunal to decide. Thank you for upholding the New Mass.
Also for the record O Justin: it is actually Dave N’s remarks that I was agreeing with. It’s all recorded and documented up there.
Ann Malley: You ask “who is stating that the Novus Ordo Mass is invalid?” YOU did. Check your comment for the post on the article “SF archdiocese appoints mentor for new priests” specifically the comment you made on June 8, 2016 at 11:49am. You wrote: “Again, accepting VII is accepting that it is demonstrably flawed.” By calling flawed the documents of the Council, which includes Sacrosanctum COncilium, you are casting doubts and aspersions on the Ordinary Form, which sprung from the Council. You’ve lost credibility, Ann Malley.
jon, there you go again overreaching to speak beyond what is written.
I have never said the NO is invalid. By calling flawed the documents of the council, I point to the reality that they are not clear and consistent with the teachings that came before. This is called objective observation, jon, not overreach. And not your wishful thinking.
And while you assert that I have lost credibility, you have never had any credibility to lose. The reason? You base your rhetoric on error and the supposition that the Pope, at least by what you write here, is some living Oracle instead of one tasked with a job that has defined limitations and requisite obligations.
So as usual, your assertions regarding myself are false. Just like your…
…assertions that JPII and BXVI sought to change doctrine is in error.
Try harder next time ;^)
I don’t have to try harder Ann Malley. I have succeeded in proving your disdain for the NO Mass. YOu’ve agreed many times with Linda Maria who is on record for calling the new Mass “garbage.” And did you correct her? No. You praise her. The fact is, O Justin has contradicted himself, demonstrating the validity of the Mass.
Actually “Bob One” you are wrong again. The Catholic Church is only about providing a path for salvation of Mankind. Period. There is nothing in sacred scripture about the Church’s purpose being “pastoral” in nature. In fact, that is a problem for many red-blooded Catholic men who wish to do the kind of battle with Satan that is called for in being a priest (versus becoming a Nancy-boy priest at the seminary, where they take away your masculinity and power). Christ commanded his Apostles to “teach[] them to obey everything I have commanded you.” Matt. 28:20. Priests need to be warriors.
Some of these commenters are astonishing. WHen it comes to certain authentic Magisterial statements by the pope (authentic such as homilies, speeches, documents) on topics these commenters do not agree on (for whatever disobedient, stubborn, sinful reason of theirs), they disregard those authentic teachings (like the death penalty). But when the Pope utters a clearly non-binding, non-Magisterial, off-the-cuff remark, these same folks hem and haw as if they have to obey no matter what! These folks have to face the fact that they are enslaved by the sin of disobedience, which I would judge to be mortal in their case, especially in light of what Our Lord has said in Luke 10:16.
If people like FromthePew disagree with the Pope they will cry “not ex-Cathedra!” “not infallible!” If they agree with the Pope they will equally cry: “ordinary magisterium!” “definitive teaching (Fides et Ratio)!” “faith and morals!”
Who would argue that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (which isn’t even an encyclical, much less an ex-Cathedra statement) isn’t an infallible teaching?
Dave N, Your words, “If people like FromthePew disagree with the Pope they will cry……” is FALSE speaking up for myself. Do you have a C. Catechism? See part III OFFENSES AGAINST TRUTH. Part 2476 describes the sin of CALUMNY/SLANDER as those who, by remarks contrary to the truth. harms the reputation of others & …….false judgements concerning them. May God forgive your lie about me. As Pope Francis would say, WHO ARE YOU TO JUDGE?
Dave N., For the record: Speaking ‘ex cathedia’ is exceedingly RARE. From ‘Catholic Answers’ RE: Petrine Authority & Papal infallibility, which applies ONLY to solemn, official teachings on faith & morals, not to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith & morals. A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he ‘solemnly defines’ is considered to be infallible teaching. P. Francis’s statements are given due respect, but not infallible. NOTE: P. Francis (& his various vatican speakers) have stated MANY times; He makes exhortations….no changes to doctrine. From their mouths.
People, it will benefit all of you to read Lumen Gentium, paragraph 25: The Pope’s words, even when not ex-cathedral must be adhered to by the members of the Church. When the Holy Father delivers a homily, gives a formal address, writes a document (Encyclical, Exhortation), these express his will and judgment. Members of the CHurch are obligated to adhere to them.
Jon, Speaking ‘ex cathedia’ is exceedingly RARE. From ‘Catholic Answers’ RE: Petrine Authority — Papal infallibility, which applies only to solemn, official teachings on faith and morals, not to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith and morals. A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he ‘solemnly defines’ is considered to be infallible teaching. Did you know the most recent ‘ex cathedia’ was by P.Pius XII in 1950? P.Pius defined the Assumption of Mary as as Article of Faith to be held by the whole C. Church. Key points, RARE, not since 1950! So we treat P. Francis’s statements with due respect, they ARE NOT ‘ex cathedia’ and (obviously) not infallible. So we are all on the same page.
Pew, the authentic teachings of a pope, whether it be from a homily, speech, a document–and all these are not infallible statements–must be adhered to by all Catholics. This is straight from Lumen Gentium #25. Your persistent point about “infallibility” is really moot. MOOT!
NOT MOOT. Words below refer to ‘ex cathedia’ & are from: LG#25, @ catholicsensibility.wordpress.com
And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(Cf. Lk. 22, 32.) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(Cfr. Conc. Vat. I, Const. dogm. Pastor Aecrnus: Denz. 1839 (3074).)
All the summaries RE: LG affirm that LG did NOT change or add anything to doctrine! It repeats (in rather hard to understand phrasing) the doctrines & dogma of the C. Church. Did you know, this part of section 25 refers to ‘ex cathedia’ ? The ‘definitive act’, used in LG25 = ‘solemnly defines’ used in ‘ex cathedia’. I hope this helps clear up confusion. Scholars smarter than myself have all agreed this to be the case and it is widely accepted by the C. Church. Of course, you are free to take it or leave it. There are many other points, but I am out of time & room. Perhaps looking at some of the many summaries/cliff notes of LG will help?
It is moot Pew because what Lumen Gentium paragraph 25 is saying, among other things, is that even if the pope is not speaking ex-cathedra, not speaking definitively (as he would in a speech, in a homily, in an Exhortation), Catholics must adhere to his words!
Read it for yourself: “This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his…
“…from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.”
So Pew, JP2’s, Benedict’s, and Francis’ words on, say, the death penalty, calling for its abolition, MUST be adhered to per Lumen Gentium paragraph 25.
I can’t imagine the burden it must be to be you, jon, being the smartest guy in the room and always having to prove you are right.
It is not difficult gravey in this crowd to be the smartest, most orthodox, most traditional and most conservative, and most respectful of the Magisterium.
Be careful, jon, lest you take the greatest fall from your perceived glory seat. Respect for the magisterium is to desire that it be consistent and clear. Much like respect for the papal office is to expect that it be held with dignity, reserve, honor and true humility. Not fall into the state of whited sepulchres.
Respect for a title alone is hollow, much like upholding doctrine that has been gutted is no sign of faithfulness.
..and the most humble!
Jon, somewhere above you said, “You’re totally wrong Pew. You do not have a God-given responsibility to…….blah, blah…” Just so you KNOW Jon, I am very comfortable asking God (and the many other smart, kind, reasonable people here on Cal. C.) to decide the merits of my post VS letting you think you are the JUDGE/JURY. So thanks for sharing your perspective BUT I’m sticking with Church Doctrine & Dogma, like I always have. For your information, my experience up until now has been, most of the good folks on Cal.C. KNOW & DEFEND Church Doctrine, Dogma, the C. Catechism & in a kind helpful way. THANKS BE TO GOD for that! I am sorry to report, there are a few exceptions to that norm. I will pray for them.
Pew the reason I know for sure that many of the folks who inhabit here DO NOT know, defend, and love the Church’s doctrine is because they do not defend, love, and obey the Magisterium, because Pew, it is the Magisterium that is the authoritative and legitimate guardians of the Church’s doctrines and dogma. The authoritative guardians are not you or others who trash anonymously the ordained ministers of the Church.
Jon….Bear with me. MANY here, let’s say 90% of us KNOW, LOVE, RESPECT the Magisterium. Has it ever occurred to you, “the Magisterium is the authoritative & legitimate guardians of the Church’s doctrines & dogma” (your words) does not preclude us in the pews (& this site) from a discussion, airing our concerns, sharing? I LOVE this site BECAUSE it is (usually) so Catholic. Many of us in this crazy world DO NOT HAVE that bond with family & friends, so many have sadly fallen away. To me, this is a little bit of heaven. It is rather sad that you see danger & demons where there is a haven & friends. PAX.
Pew, I’m sorry to have to inform you, but YOU and I, and the rest of the lay folks here, ARE NOT the Magisterium. I hope that is clear to you. This bit of heaven you talk about is riddled with people who spew disobedience against bishops and the Holy Father and who denigrate the Ordinary Form of the Mass. And you call this “heaven”? Interesting. If that is heaven for you, I hope never to end up in your version of it.
Noble effort to try to reason with King Lear aka “jon,” but that person doesn’t abide by rules of reason, non-contradiction, or fact. Most people who go to Cal-Catholic want to understand matters even if they don’t necessarily agree on them.
But, good effort, jon is dedicated to self-promotion as “true-blue Catholic” (his words) and despising all of us here as unintelligent “trolls”, his word for us.
Campion. Thanks for your kind words and explanation. This site is (mostly) a treasure trove of goodness in a weary world.
Campion, what do you mean “noble effort to try to reason with jon”? The only contribution you have made to this discussion is to say that, first, we can doubt the validity of Novus Ordo Masses because of Francis’ words. Now, that is one of those irrational, illogical assertions I have heard in the wake of the Pope’s words. Your point is totally wrong-headed. It’s as if you don’t even know what makes a Mass valid vs. what makes a marriage valid. Secondly, your other non-contribution here is to erroneously say that I hate conservatives. I totally demolished that statement of yours by revealing that I am indeed conservative, more conservative I say than many trolls here.
More self-promotion of Jon the Pious, the “true-blue”, the glorious; more vilification and loathing of others as “trolls”, thus why I don’t responding to jon, the pope of Cal-Catholic (and Seal Rock et al.).
Let me fine-tune your words Campion. It’s not so much “self-promotion” as defense. I am defending the Magisterium against unfair, erroneous trolls who spew disobedience and cultivate disrespect against our Holy Father, bishops, and priests–and for what? All in the name of “tradition,” all in the name of the “truth.” Well, tradition and the truth are not necessarily served well if in the process of doing so the guardians and the defenders of tradition and the truth–namely our bishops, priests, and pope–are being trashed. The Church is not being built-up by trashing those who lead it. You’re actually becoming tools of the devil by sowing doubt in the minds of the faithful concerning their spiritual shepherds. I am merely…
…here to call you out on it.
I am wondering if even the Pope has forgotten the Church’s teachings, on the Sacraments– which are supernatural, not “worldly?” A Sacrament directly conveys Christ’s Sanctifying Grace, a participation in the Divine Life of Christ— to the recipient! It sanctifies the properly-prepared recipient! A Sacrament is “an outward sign of an inward grace.” It is OBJECTIVE, and although one must be properly prepared to receive it, and be filled with Sanctifying Grace– it exists apart from the recipient. So– the Sanctifying Grace is there– but if the Catholic Marriage is null, the parties are not going to receive the graces, and benefits, of this Sacrament! Well, what do they do, with null Catholic marriages, at the Tribunals? I…
I will continue, with my above post. I don’t know what they do, in Canon Law, with annulled marriages, at the Tribunals! The Catholic Sacrament of Marriage, is supernatural– it is not like a worldly, civil marriage! So, maybe in annulments, the couple is declared to have simply incorrectly received the Sacrament, or did not actually receive it at all — as a True Marriage was not present, in the first place. A very complex issue! I know of even Catholic priests, from good Catholic homes, in which their parents were married in the Church, decades ago — and maybe one spouse lost the Faith, but the other spouse prayed for them, and their marriage still was strong! Big problem!
If the Pope gets too picky– we will sadly see, that all through the ages, a great many Catholics have not received Sacraments too well, at certain times. How many kids in my Confirmation class, worthily received this Sacrament? And then, later left the Church, as soon as they could, when they got older! They did as they were told, while under their parents’ guidance, when young! Some later returned to the Church– but it was too late, of course, to receive Confirmation again! You just do the best you can, at whatever point you may be, in life!
About 25 years ago, I knew a Catholic lay leader, who separated from his wife, a Catholic school-teacher– and they had three boys. He was invited to be a lay deacon– but first, he had his marriage problem to fix! He said that in all honesty, he and his wife had decided on just a permanent separation, as he believed an annulment in their case, to be a lie! A social convenience, that he refused to lie about, on the annulment forms! He said that when they were young, before Vatican II– they got married, with the best of intentions, and were deeply in love. But they had heated disagreements, and so they decided just to live apart. He never became a permanent lay deacon. Life can be so complex!
By pointing out how wrong Francis is to cast doubt on the validity of Catholic marriages (which I concur belongs to a Tribunal) the folks here (who are always ready to trash the Holy Father) have in effect upheld Novus Ordo Mass, the Ordinary Form, the Mass of Paul VI which these same folks are always oh-so-ready to denigrate, to call “invalid”, to call “garbage”, and who mock those Catholics who love and revere the New Mass. They have been caught in a contradiction in which they have unwittingly—inspite of themselves—upheld the New Mass. The truth and grace of all of the sacraments will always win out in spite of its detractors here.
Yet another conservative Catholic Church group, http://www.remnantnewspaper.com, examines our dear pope’s confusing off the cuff comments. See the article of June 6, 2016 (left side-bar) entitled: ‘The Undertaker Pope: ‘A brief study of an Infallibly Politically Correct Pontificate’ by a Christopher A Ferrarn. One of the statements made is: How is it possible that a conclave could have placed such a spectacularly unsuitable man on the Chair of Peter?
Appears that many good Catholics in the pews are struggling to understand the Pontificate as it enters it’s 4th year.
Yeah, it’s pretty predictable what the Remnant Newspaper is going to say. This is the same denigration and disobedience exhibited against the Magisterium, without even figuring the context of Francis’ words.
Only GOD knows the context of P. Francis words and what is in his heart. To many of us, P. Francis is confusing & possibly contradictory to Traditional Catholic teaching. My opinion….the ‘Remnant’ people do seem to try not to SPIN things but relate the facts along with concerns so many of us have And God knows there have been many opportunities in the last 3 years to explain away our concerns. So maybe being ‘predictable’ in this regard is a good thing.
As a practicing Roman Catholic and counselor who has counseled many couples, I view Pope Francis’s comments as rational and consistent with my experience of many married people who subscribe to the “provisional culture.” The marriage hits a bump and one party immediately wants a divorce. If one takes time to read Amoris Laetitia, it is obvious the Pope supports traditional marriage as well as the Church’s teaching on birth control. Many of the posts here are the typical, knee-jerk reactions by fundamentalist-type Catholics who take always take a literal approach and for whom the sky is always falling. Pope Francis is truly Catholic and recently professed his great admiration for Pope Benedict XVI –hardly a liberal!
Dan, the Church has not been teaching the Catholic Faithful their religion very well, worldwide, since Vatican II! “Catholic identity” has been lost– and many so-called “Catholic” schools, from kindergarten through graduate school– do not teach nor support our Church’s Faith and Morals! So many Catholics are not really committed to the practice of their Faith and Morals, at all– including many clergy and nuns! As for the secular world– the “Me Generation’s” selfish “provisional” concepts– are self-centered, shallow, and immature! But followers of Christ are not supposed to be of the secular world, they are supposed to be a special people, following Christ’s teachings! Continued…
One Priest’s Concern About Recent Remarks by the Pope
https://m.ncregister.com/blog/msgr-pope/one-priests-concern-about-recent-remarks-by-the-pope#.V27PzPRHbCQ
Dan, Thank you for your work & insight into Catholic marriage. Best wishes with your ongoing work. Evidently, couples NOT in trouble aren’t seeking your advice. So your experience may be one sided. My family has so many long term married Catholic friends & family. Praise God. Celebrating 20, 30, 40, 50, 60+ years of Catholic marriage. So the Popes words were STARTLING to us who are very committed & very Catholic. Have you ever worked with ‘the anniversaries for married @ church’? That shows both sides of this coin.
PS Continued to Dan, And RE: Dear Pope Benedict (a future saint) Oh how I miss him @ the helm of the good ship Catholic, almost EVERYBODY loves & respects him! I only wish your thinking on that proved P.Francis is (your words) hardly a liberal! But sadly, doesn’t compute. P. Francis has exposed himself too many times with thinking aligning more to his background from a failing socialist country. We love him anyway. He has tough shoes to fill. Just don’t think he is the right man for the job he was given. God knows why is enough for me.
Continued— What we really need, is a strong, “practicing Catholic” Church, worldwide, led effectively by the Holy Father, and all his priests and prelates! At the time of Vatican II, the prelates wanted “individual freedoms,” instead of “individual commitments,” to Our Lord and His Church! And next, they gave up on governance of the Church, worldwide, stating that the times of the 1960’s and beyond, were “too hard” for them– plus, they despaired at clergy leadership, stating that there were too many past abuses by clergy, in the Church! They said (and keep saying!) “wait until a better era” — but tomorrow may never come—- so tragic!
Isn’t it great, Dan, to have a beautiful, holy, and true religion– Catholicism– on paper, or in a book!— but if it is not sincerely believed in, nor practiced, it is a very tragic situation!
LM, Dear God, please can’t we have the Heavenly Church here on earth now? Is God testing all? A lot seems to be marred & failing. This sad story is about our USCCB. See 6/21/16 article @ https://www.churchmilitant.com, by Michael Hichborn, title: USCCB confirms funding request to congress, with contraception/condoms. CRS & USCCB requested– $330 MILLION for USAID and $5.67 BILLION for PEPFAR. A TRAGIC example of bad works/seed mixed in with the good works/seed. Can any church request funding at these massive levels & be unrepentantly faithful? Troubling. May God deliver us all from the eternal abyss. PRAY!
Confusion is a hallmark sign that something is not right. Pope Benedict XVI would not have written Spirit of the Liturgy or given us Summorrum Pontificum unless he saw terrible suppression, poor catechesis and liturgical abuses taking place. I have witnessed the placing of a filled garbage bag on the altar and this can NEVER be defended. Last week in our diocese the deacon asked the un-ordained people to put their hands up to bless the priest. Half of the people, who do not know any better also raise their hands up like they are at a Harvest Crusade. There is nothing wrong with taking the time to read the reasons why many things have declined. The same kind of spin doctors who hijacked Vatican II are now spinning their webs on CCD…
Subject: LES FEMMES – THE TRUTH: Guest Post: A Case for the Hijacking of Vatican II – by David Martin
https://lesfemmes-thetruth.blogspot.com/2016/06/guest-post-case-for-hijacking-of.html#more
“It’s important that people have the inside scoop on Vatican II and that they understand Pope John’s true intentions for the Council, lest it appear that heresy and modernism are being “canonized.” Modernists were beaming over John XXIII’s canonization because they were seeing this as a plug for Vatican II, but we need to distinguish between the Council he initiated and the Council that actually ensued.”
Linda Maria: by your comments you appear to long for the “good old days” and want Catholics to get ” in line” with respect to belief and practice. Not even Our Lord could accomplish such a feat – and He is God! No – God permits freedom and humans have to make choices. Also, the “good old days” were not that great!
Dan– Our Lord came to save us poor, suffering, misguided, sinful “sheep,” who were so lost, and could not find their way home! He knew He must rescue them from their self-delusion! No, you are completely wrong, I am not desiring the so-called “good old days!” What I think most of us know, if we give it careful thought– is that WE CANOT RELY ON OURSELVES, Dan, for Salvation! Only CHRIST!! And to give the poor sheep so-called “hippie freedoms,” is to give them all a DEATH SENTENCE!! Mankind needs a Church (which Christ gave us)) with CORRECT TEACHING and GOOD DISCIPLINE (not cruel, just intelligent!) to help the poor sheep get on the right path, to SUCCESS!!
Dan– I think one of the big problems here– is that kids a long time ago, grew up with a REALISTIC understanding of life, and that obedience to your Mom and Dad (and to God!) is a MUST — and taught COURAGE to do right, when life gets rough! I knew a priest long ago, who used to say, “when the going gets tough, the tough get going!” He said that is good advice, for married couples facing challenges. People once grew up knowing their RESPONSIBILITIES, and you have a little reasonable freedom to relax and play– AFTER you have done your long, hard, day of work! The Church has the DUTY from Christ, to teach and guide people correctly, and help them live right– and die right, in Christ!
About 30 years ago, we had some neighbors, a nice, well-educated couple with three children, to include a new baby. Both the mom and dad had good jobs. One day, the mother told me that she feared her husband might be immature. Finally, she stated– that she had caught her husband in the basement, with marijuana! She became angry– and he said that this was “his personal choice,” and to leave him alone! She told him, that he had better get rid of this drug, this instant– because he had big responsibilities in life– and to start off with– his wife and three children upstairs! I will continue…
I will continue. So, this man was a father of three (all under age five!), with a lovely wife, a fine, well-paying job, a nice Protestant church, and many other good things! Was he going to irresponsibly, selfishly– throw all of that away?? All for his babyish “personal choice,” to sneak down into the basement, and smoke marijuana (and where did he get it, anyway??)? The wife cried her eyes out, and called her mom, and her minister. At year’s end– the couple divorced, the dad moved out (with his baby-drug)– and the lady moved in with her three kids, (and three pets, too!) to her mom’s house. Very, very sad modern tale, of irresponsible “Me-Generation” failures!
Of course, this couple had tried counseling, first, to try to save their marriage– but for the husband, his new, babyish “personal choice,” of sneaking down to their basement to smoke marijuana– was more important to him– than to decide to give it up, grow up to be a real MAN– and have the joys of what could have been a happy, responsible marriage and fatherhood, and a happy home life, until life’s end– like it was supposed to be! After his divorce, he was “free,” to do as he wished! All that irresponsible “baby freedom”– for what?? And the wife needed her husband, and the kids needed their dad!
Babies smoke marijuana?
Anonymous– what would YOU do, if you had a mom or dad, that was involved with dope? VERY sad! Are they going to be mature enough, to raise a child responsibly? And if you were a devoted wife and mother… oh, what a loss! And this lady also was active in her (Protestant) church! What a HUMILIATION!! This neighbor man should have understood the sacredness of his responsibility, when he took his Marriage Vows, with his wife! I felt very sorry for her, and her children!
Linda Marie: YOu are always right! God Bless you!