The following comes from an October 21 Catholic News Agency article by Elise Harris:
Despite pastoral challenges posed by divorced-and-civilly-remarried Catholics, many synod fathers are in favor of current Church teaching and practice according to a new round of small group reports.
“The majority without full consensus affirmed the current teaching and practice of the Church regarding the participation in the Eucharist of those who are divorced and civilly remarried,” reads a new report from group “A” of the four English-speaking synod circles.
The vast majority of the group’s members affirmed the current pastoral practice regarding the reception of communion by divorced-and-civilly-remarried individuals.
Published October 21, the prelates’ observations came in the third set of small group reports released during this year’s synod of bishops on the family. There are 13 languages groups, which include English, Spanish, Italian, French and German.
The strongest advocates of Church teaching and current pastoral practice were found among the Italian and English-speaking groups. Spanish-speaking groups were unclear, and the German group voiced support for change. Although the topic came up within the French-speaking groups, it was not a major point of discussion – rather than focus on access to communion, they touched on the Pope’s revamped annulment process.
In the final week participants have turned to the third part, “The mission of the family today,” which has been the most widely discussed section so far.
In the report for the English speaking group “C,” participants noted that there was general agreement among them that a “more effective pastoral accompaniment” was needed for divorced and civilly remarried persons.
However, the group said there was “little enthusiasm” when it came to the penitential path proposed by the meeting’s guiding document, called the “Instrumentum Laboris.”
In the end the group said they voted to replace paragraphs 122-125 of the Instrumentum Laboris “with an affirmation of the Church’s current discipline” in terms of the reception of communion, and they recommended “the forms of participation mentioned in Familiaris Consortio, 84.”
Group “D” of the English language circles emphasized that life in the Church can’t be reduced to just receiving communion, and cited catechumens – those preparing to enter the Church – as one example of the “huge segments” of faithful who throughout the history of the Church did not receive the sacrament, yet were “clearly considered” full members.
A call was made within the group for a special commission that would study the issue of admittance to communion for the divorced and remarried “over a longer period of time with greater theological precision.”
The “C” group asked that the section of the report dedicated to homosexuality be briefer, and that “a clear statement of Church teaching that same-sex unions are in no way equivalent to marriage.”
Other groups felt that the topic of pastoral care for persons with homosexual tendencies and their families deserved an entire synod meeting on its own.
It all comes down to what the Pope desires. Will he uphold the 2000 years of Catholic doctrine, or will he acquiesce to the heretical nonsense espoused by the likes of the German bishops?
How sad it is that we have given Pope Francis every chance to prove himself a worthy successor to the Throne of Peter, but so far he has shown us otherwise. Rather he has been more like the Peter to whom Jesus rebuked with “Get thee behind me, Satan!” for thinking in the ways of the world rather than of God.
CCC: ” 1650 Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions.
In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ – “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery” the Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was. …….”
CCC # 1650 continued:
“…….. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists. For the same reason, they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities.
Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ,
and who are committed to living in complete continence. “
CCC: ” 1451 Among the penitent’s acts contrition occupies first place.
Contrition is sorrow of the soul
and detestation for the sin committed,
together with the resolution not to sin again.”
CCC: ” 1415 Anyone who desires to receive Christ in Eucharistic communion must be in the state of grace.
Anyone aware of having sinned mortally must not receive communion without having received absolution in the sacrament of penance.”
I believe that I fully understand the Church’s teaching on marriage. But, I still have questions about how it is implemented in the daily life of the people. I’m concerned that everyone who is divorced is treated equally. Should a person who is abused by their spouse be treated the same as two people who just “fall out of love” and want to separate? Should a spouse who has been abandoned be treated the same? There are many reasons for people to break up their marriage, but they are not all equal. If these people then remarry without an annulment, are they really sinners? Does an abused spouse really need an annulment? Should they? I haven’t read much about the Synod that says they are considering the real lives of the members…
Bob One and his qualifying statements and questions .. you will never get it Bob One…its called carrying your cross….
What if the cross they are carrying isn’t the cross that Christ asks them to carry, but the one you want them to carry? What if Christ actually conquered death so that you might not die? Imagine that! That would be Good News!
But what if it was a cross that Christ asked them to carry….this entire Synod was a sham. You are liberal Anon, and every day that passes I pray for a complete split with the liberals in the Church. Go form your own divorce loving, contraception taking, abortion having, gay sex Church…and still pretend you are doing the will of Christ…
Bob One – have you never read the CCC ? ? ?
All of your “wonderings” are answered there.
Everyone is treated equally.
Divorced persons can receive the Sacraments.
Those who are having an ongoing sexual relationship with the valid spouse of another can not receive Holy Communion. – This is called adultery.
Haven’t you ever read Sacred Scripture either? Or do you think God is a Liar ?
JESUS said: Mk 10:6-12; Mt 5:32.
Bob one from what know is that if someone gets an annulment, if they do not commit a mortal sin, they can receive holy communion. If they separate and remain chaste and have not committed adultery can receive. The teachings are clear on those instances. If an unfaithful spouse breaks their family up, if the other spouse is still faithful to Christ and His church, they can still receive communion. What dont you get?
The integrity and validity of the Sacrament of Marriage is what is key here, Bob One. What God joins together, no man can put asunder. That includes the two parties who are married, each to the other, by merely leaving or abusing the other. Much like one cannot erase the seal of Baptism. Once baptized, always baptized. Once a priest always a priest.
To acknowledge that reality is what Catholics need to do as the author is God. That is why marriage should be undertaken very seriously. The bond is REAL. It is life long. That is why it is not a lack of charity to uphold the valid marriage bonds of even one who has been abandoned or mistreated, it is to submit to God’s law and precisely to make clear that the Blessed Sacrament is…
… no prize for good behavior.
No doubt there were many reasons to “break up a marriage” in Christ’s time and yet He spoke as He spoke. His words were contrary to what was allowed due to the hardness of hearts at the time. And the hardness was that of God’s chosen people refusing to submit to Him.
All you have to do to get married if you want to be able to get unmarried, is to marry in SSPX – whose marriages are not valid, and which can be easily annulled in a heartbeat. Go for it AM, lecture us on and on about marriages that can’t be broken up, since your sect generates invalid marriages at every turn.
God bless you for your obvious hatred, YFC. Your method of understanding is that there is no one fit to speak to what the law of the Church requires because all are sinners. Isn’t that handy?
I especially love the derogatory term “sect”. That’s especially stinging.
You are so intellectually dishonest it is borderline entertainment. Thank you again for your on time delivery :)
YFC stalking trad Catholic lady, Ann Malley…again. Misogynism lives.
Inviolable conscience at work, no doubt.
Thanks Steve. Enjoy your weekend ;^)
SSPX marriages are invalid marriages within catholicism. Period. That is not intellectual dishonesty and it is not mysogny – at least not on my part. Are you a misandrist attacking me for saying truthful things?
YFC, you know not of what you speak in practical application. But no matter. Whatever the condition of SSPX marriages, your convenient magical distraction, the truth stands regarding the true nature of sacramental marriage.
What God joins, no man can legitimately break asunder.
So take up your rage with God, my friend. As for what goes within Catholicism, you can push for the official recognition of man/elephant marriage, but such officiating will be null and void for it is an abuse of authority.
You know this as does everyone else. Sell your peanuts elsewhere.
YFC is an invalid Catholic
I’m not an “invalid Catholic”. What a horrible thing to say!
SSPX marriages are canonically invalid, because they lack the proper faculties. Period.
Great and succinct post, Ann Malley. Hits the nail on the head.
The target keeps getting harder to miss, Caritas, as the official proclamation that one must break the law in order to keep it creeps ever closer.
“Great and succinct post, Ann Malley. Hits the nail on the head.”
I agree caritas!
God bless you, Catherine.
In regard to spousal abuse, I believe that the answer regards both the degree of abuse and the proximate psychological cause as it relates to the person’s ability to validly enter into the marital covenant.
It follows from my statement, of course, that there are people who psychologically are not able to enter into a valid marriage unless they are successfully treated by psychotherapy.
So, this is what people are saying, if I can sum up the comments to my questions; at least this is what I am hearing. You go married. Your spouse beats you and your kids. Buck up and carry your cross, or get a divorce, but don’t remarry because a marriage is forever and you will be committing adultery. If you can show that your spouse intended to abuse you prior to the marriage, then you can get an annulment and everything is fine. Am I hearing this correctly?
I’m neither a canon lawyer nor a priest, but it’s my general understanding that spousal abuse, itself, does not invalidate a marriage. Rather, the question that must be asked is whether there was something about the abuser for which a) he was not mature enough to enter into the marriage or b) there was something about his psychology that was completely incompatible with marriage.
How about if the abuser deliberatly supressed his violent inclinations until after the wedding then began to beat her and/or her children. I would hope a tribunal would see that as a valid reason for annulment.
I’m speaking above my knowledge base, but certain types of intentional premarital deceptions are grounds to invalidate a marriage. I suspect that the situation that you spoke of would be grounds to invalidate one, but this is only my best guess.
As i understand it, if a stay at home mum is in an abusive marraige, she can seek a civil divorce, just for protection purposes and still receive holy communion. Just as long as its for that purpose and knows that she is still married through the church. She can not remarry but if her case proves that in some way her marraige is not valid due to valid reasons, of no fault of her own, she can seek an annulment and remarry. I think that’s how i understand it. Not sure. The church has a process to make sure.
Civil divorce NEVER triggers Church sanctions including inability to receive communion. So if nothing else, Pastors should proclaim that fact. You should never ever stay in a marriage if you or your children are at risk.
Whether the Church is as compassionate as the state…well that is a question for the Synod Fathers and the Pope.
CCC: 1649. Abeca you are correct.
And YFC, this is all covered in the CCC, and I fully agree
that the total lack of some Priests and Bishops to encourage laity to read the CCC is EGREIGIOUS if not a dereliction of duty.
In the future, please encourage people to read the Bible and CCC so they will know the truth.
Those who are divorced can receive the Sacraments. Those who are civilly re-married can not unless they repent and live in complete continence (as brother and sister). CCC # 1650 & 1651.
Civil Divorce, of itself, is not a sin. But permanent spousal separation is typically a mortal sin. If so, the person would be unable to receive communion until they confess the sin.
Regarding Society being more compassionate than the Church on divorce, you’ll have a tough time making the case considering how much social wreckage has occurred due to no-fault divorce and its effects on children.
Steve S. Are you saying that if a woman or her children are abused and counseling or prayer can’t stop it and she leaves him to save her life OR she is abandoned, that she is committing a mortal sin? That sounds like something a renegade Mormon cult leader in the hills of Utah would argue, not a Catholic.
Divorce is a grave sin.
This is why I used the words “is typically a mortal sin”. Mortal sin requires both grave matter and knowledge and consent. Therefore, there’s a possibly that the rare situations that you described might not have a mortal character.
One woman called into a Catholic radio program to say that her current husband, whom she married in the Catholic Church fairly recently, now tells her that he does not want any children nor even to adopt any when Catholic marriage vows include openness to children. It seems she has reason for an annulment according to all that I have read, and she should not have to waste her time with this man if she wants to find someone else to start a family. These are the types of situations that I hope the Holy Father is considering expediting.
Yes i agree Ann T.
Of course I meant that she should get the annulment and find another man who wants to marry her BEFORE she starts a family. Not doing so would just make things worse.
Whether her husband harbored such an intention at the time of consent must be proven to a moral certainty for a decree of nullity (based on the ground “partial simulation contra bonum prolis) to be granted. If the intention was formed only after consent, it does not serve as a ground for nullity.
Caritas it doesnt make sense. What about what the bible says? One must be open to life, one must be fruitful, go out and mutilply. Just wanted clarity.
It makes sense, Abeca, for the bond of marriage is formed at the time of the marriage. One cannot legitimately have retroactive nullity, otherwise there would be no point in taking of the vow of fidelity in sickness and in health.
Otherwise, as applied to other situations, a person could be led to believe that the development of psychological impairment during the course of marriage as a grounds for annulment. I.E. My spouse can no longer make decisions legitimately and therefore he/she couldn’t have given consent at the time of our marriage.
A man is suppose to love his wife as he loves his own body. He is to die of himself as Christ died for His church. So if a husband violates those key teachings can makes their wife vulnerable to many things and therefore sets off back to Adams sins who didnt protect Eve nor honored God in His role as protecting what God gave to him. A woman created from Adams rib. Therefore a man pushing his wife towards divorce commits a grave sin and I trust in God’s mercy and in His holy word that speaks to a husband’s role as heads of the family. As protectors. We pray for God’s mercy and justice! Divorce continues because of their hardened hearts and its a consequence of sin.
Caritas, part of the problem with the marriage schema is that it holds the innocent party hostage to the intentions of the other party, and the only “out” for the innocent party is if the bad intentions happen to span the hour long service of the wedding itself. So if the same bad intentions develop a month after the wedding the innocent party is stuck for life.
Can you imagine Jesus telling a parable about 2 couples, one whose husband was cheating on her during the engagement & the other who cheated on her after the wife was pregnant? What do you think Jesus might say in such a parable?
…what God has joined together no man shall put asunder, YFC. Since Jesus Christ is God, that’s what He’d say.
There is no being held hostage. Please try to refrain from presenting false, sentimental narratives that negate the words of Our Lord. No doubt there were similar family issues at play during Our Lord’s earthly lifetime and yet He did speak the way He did. That’s likely why the Apostles responded that it is not expedient to marry.
God bless you for your efforts just the same.
The Church has provisions for deception which would invalidate a sacrament (i.e. a penitent who is not sorry for his sins). Deception which doesn’t pertain to sacramental validity, however, doesn’t invalidate a sacrament. Are you saying, then, that valid sacraments can be revoked?
Remember: Jesus brought us the New Covenant because he calls us to go far beyond the minimalist standards of the Old Covenant.
I’m not actually expressing an opinion about the validity of a marriage at all. I assume a sacrament is valid. What I am saying is that it is silly to bind an innocent party to an obligation they have not broken but was broken by other people. THe innocent party should not be bound by the sins of another party. I can’t imagine Christ, who after all said, “Who sinned, this man or his parents<" would be so cruel.
Silly is what you’re being, YFC.
The sacramental marriage bond, as you well know, is the bond that is not broken. That bond can be sinned against, obfuscated, but not broken. Much like one can run away from home, but cannot, no matter how hard they may try, scrub the DNA from their system.
So imagine all you’d like, but it is not your imagination or ours that speaks to the truth of marriage. Christ’s words do. The cruelty is in perpetuating a human ideal of sentiment in place of reality.
Please stop what? You want me to stop understanding that Christ would not have allowed an abused woman out of her marriage, unlike the Catholic Church of 2015? You want me to stop reminding you that SSPX marriages are never valid in the first place? What would you like for me to stop doing, Ann Malley?
YFC, you are missing a very fundamental thing here. Have you ever studied God’s covenant with Israel?
Do you understand Ephesians 5:22-32?
I know many women who’s husbands left them for younger women. They live as widows.
Steve is correct. YFC addresses what many are facing today. I recall when I was studying my scriptures on that particular verse of what our Lord said. I recall that he was addressing the men. Men had hardened hearts. Women where treated like property. A man can decide to send off their wife and men also were unfaithful. So one has to understand that it was the men who wanted divorce and women where left volnerable to many things. So our Lord was speaking to the men with hardened hearts. Women delt with alot of injustices.
YFC saying that a marriage in an SSPX chapel is invalid beyond laughable he has about as much authority in this matter as a PF Chang waiter.. You YFC believe in 2 sodomties wild lust for each other as a valid marriage.
Remember folks YFC know more than all the early Church Fathers, Councils and Popes on this subject
What I would like is for your dog and pony show of distracting from the issue at hand to stop, YFC. Your pandering to division and what you think is cruel is cruel…albeit on a certain level, it is humorous.
As for what is valid in any circumstance, you obviously do not know. Not regarding the SSPX and not regarding what you project on Our Lord with regard to what constitutes a valid marriage.
Contrary to popular opinion, He can and has spoken for Himself.
And, Abeca, men suffered injustices, too. Sorry. It was a woman caught in adultery. That would indicate she was cheating on her husband. Painting women as the only ones who have ever suffered in marriage doesn’t help anyone – especially women.
Don’t be fooled by people who would rather attack me personally instead of actually asking themselves whether SSPX marriages are valid. Don’t take my word for it, do your own research here: https://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2013/08/15/are-sspx-sacraments-valid-part-ii/
And those who promote the acceptance of sodomy in the Church by whatever means necessary are actually not working for the Kingdom of God or the integrity of marriage. Don’t take my word for it. Read your own posts, YFC.
The only attack on you is the one you daily mount against yourself by pretending your God given power of logic and reason is otherwise absent.
God bless you once again for providing your own fire and fuel, YFC.
Pope Francis will work His own will. This change is the main aim of His pontificate.
Forget about the book of etiquette (i.e. the CCC) the words of our Lord are loud and clear in the Holy Bible. If you ever read or heard those wonderful words, you may note that they are unconditional. He the Creator of the world who made the rules, knew exactly what He was talking about and He made it very unconditionally clear. We are to obey Him and Francis cannot change our Lord’s words otherwise Francis commits heresy. Can a heretic then be a pope? Find the answer in ancient Roman Catholic doctrine.
The CCC contains the Doctrine of the Faith. And for Jean to state it is merely etiquette or anything less than Doctrine is heresy in itself.
Catholics can NEVER forget Doctrine of the Catholic Faith.
The CCC references Sacred Scripture throughout and also in the footnotes..
Here are quotes from our Pope regarding the CCC:
“What Catholics REALLY Believe SOURCE”
They’re going to try to get around this by pushing conscience as the last word whether it has been formed correctly or not. Pope Francis won’t try to change doctrine but let you do anything according to your conscience (Cupich). In other words again, Martin Luther said for each of us to be our own pope. Do what you want. Very sad.
It’s just the new method, Elizabeth. Evangelization by manufacturing seeming invincible ignorance wherein the shepherds pretend that they have no way of knowing or judging which pastures are good for the sheep. There is no attempt to lead or shelter anymore – no more sacrificing themselves – but rather just mitigating and doing damage control as negotiations continue with the assorted wolves who will demand the payment of a certain percentage of sheep so that the “shepherd” can keep his job and not be eviscerated with the flock.
“In the past, the process consisted in presenting propositions, upon which the fathers of the Synod would vote, thus allowing their state of mind to be made clear, which was a precious aid. The absence of propositions along with that of discussions and corresponding votes seems to discourage open debate and confine the discussion to small groups…” –Letter of the 13 Cardinals to Pope Francis, Card. Gerhard Muller et al, Oct. 5th 2015.
I have mentioned before the Delphi Method—a system perfected in the 1980’s by US Jesuits, borrowed and re-invented from/by Alinsky and his social operatives, in which opposing ideas and their adherents are marginalized and eventually eliminated. The Sin-Nod has perfected and applied the method here.
[In very few words, the Delphi Method is a highly-contrived system of conducting a meeting with the ostensible appearance of openness and the invitation of countering views, which are solicited in highly-controlled small groups; but the leader and his committee actually control the true discussion and final decision-making.
Reporters from each small group will tell the opposition people, “Your views will be included in the final report.” Those views will be noted, opponents identified, and their view ultimately excised and eliminated; and because most people cant take on a full group of people, and would look like a kook if they did—the Delphi Method successfully eliminates opposition thought by steam-rolling the pre-planned…
the pre-planned outcome.]
When faced with the Delphi method, Muller did exactly the only thing left to him and the 13 cardinals (since the 10 members of the [appropriately-named] steering committee were nearly all progressives, and only 3 are somewhat traditional-oriented): That is, write a clear opposition statement. You are being steam-rolled, but you don’t have to be mum about it.
The Catholic Faith is being steam-rolled: some episcopal conferences will follow traditional marriage guidelines; others will further diverge. Some regions will follow Christ’s teaching—which teaching even the Pope has no authority whatsoever to change—and others will (as predicted at Fatima) cease to exist.
Just as an example of how foolish-looking one looks when openly “taking-on” an entire group who is being “opiated” with the Delphi Method, look up this previous encounter documented in Cal-Catholic Daily:
“Catholic Protestor Interrupts Eco-Conference at Diocesan Headquarters,” Aug 10th, 2015, CCD.
The guy tries to stop the secularist-atheist agenda of climate-change-as-Gospel-teaching at an Orange diocese conference, and is eerily drowned out by everyone suddenly (and oxymoronically) reciting aloud the Our Father. .
. Not the way to do it. Accept the fact that you are out-controlled, and the sheeple will go along with the autocrats. But Our Lord warned us well:
“But the gate is narrow and the way is difficult that leads to life, and there are few who take it.” Matt. 7:14
Man-up (and BTW women today are better about ‘manning-up’ anyway) and face the inevitable.
“Opiated” is the key here, Steve. For increasingly many prefer being drugged and/or blindfolded to avoid seeing or having to manfully engage in battle that which they find scary or not nice. Pain, you see, even that of having to look at a figure of Christ on a crucifix is too icky and, well, it might turn people off of the Church.
We were once called the sleeping Giant. Now we are the lobotomized Giant, happily cutting away at our own brain so as to not care or know when evil comes and overruns us all. We won’t even have to be led to slaughter.
Yes Steve, it is called disintegration all through deception.
Leigh, That book of etiquette is just that. It says little about our Roman Catholic Faith compared to the Catechism of the Council of Trent. Have you ever heard of it? If so, have you ever researched and found it? If so, have you ever read it? If so, have you ever noticed the amazing difference between it and the CCC regarding Roman Catholic dogma? There is no comparison, the CCC doesn’t even come close to the level of content and details of dogma written in the Catechism of the Council of Trent. For those who’ve been urged to not research such an old ‘fuddy-duddy’ book by modernists/liberals, you ought to ignore them and try and learn something about our Roman…
Well thank God this mess is over and the African Bishops held their ground on Church teaching over the German speaking crowd i.e. Kasper and Co. And as a parting shot at the conservative bishops yesterday, Pope Francis called them all types of lovely names, hard hearts, head in the sand just to name a few, simply for standing up as Roman Catholic bishops should. I find his comments totally shocking and disgusting, this is a Roman Catholic Pope speaking like this????? The African bishops are to be praised for their brave and heroic defense of the Holy Faith against the Germans and how sad to say the Pope himself.
Europe is being invaded as we speak by over one million fighting age Muslim “MEN” women are nowhere in sight this is a planned operation by Radical Islam to take over all of Europe, not by firing a single shot, simply by sheer numbers and this Pope says Europeans should open their doors to the Islamic invaders, is Francis all there? I think not, the time has come for his ouster, for Europe itself will cease to exist as a Christian continent!! The Hungarians had the foresight to close their borders for they remember well when the Ottomans were at the Gates of Vienna in 1683 and were soundly defeated by the the Grace of Our Lady and Islam retreated from Europe. Now they are welcomed with open arms like a Trojan Horse, the Europeans have…
The Europeans have no idea what horrors are instore for them in the name of Jihad!! It is almost as if the Germans, Danes, Dutch, Belgians, French, British, Norwegians, Swedes are in a state of sleep and when they do wake up it will be to late, the church bells will be replaced by minarets and the Islamic call of the muezzin. The fruits of Vatican II that all religions are the same.
Well said Janek. It doesn’t take a mystic to see what is coming, just common sense, open-mindedness, and a review of history since it often repeats itself. It unfortunately does repeat itself on account of those who are closed to studying it and don’t learn valuable lessons from history.
Then there is this V2 position that all religions are the same or equal, let’s see that is all part of their ecumenism belief. Well that is hardly the case. All the pagan religions gods are not the same as our Blessed Trinity no matter how you cut and dice it. Their gods are completely different characters from our God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. So then ecumenism is the worship of false gods. Seems to me our God the…
There are no pagan gods.
….there are demons who seek the worship that is due to God, Anonymous. Those are the pagan “gods” being referenced. Please stop attempting to circumvent the first commandment by pretending God was redundant.
All the gods of the Gentiles are demons.
If you take issue with that reality, Anonymous, take it to prayer.
There is only One God, the Blessed Trinity. No demon is a god.
Very good, Anonymous. All the gods of the Gentiles are demons.
That is not what it says in the Bible.
Then there is this V2 position that all religions are the same or equal,– that is all part of their V2 ecumenism belief. All the pagan religions gods are not the same as our Blessed Trinity no matter how you cut and dice it. Their gods are completely different characters from our God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. So then ecumenism is the worship of false gods. Seems to me our God the Father had something to say about that in His 1st Commandment! It appears there is ample evidence from the Assisi multi-religion prayer gatherings with the purportedly “saint-hooded” V2 popes, broke God’s 1st Commandment.
Bruce, Vatican II does not say that all religions are equal. Please read the documents thoroughly.
More self-affirming dissembling: Vatican II does not teach say that all religions are equal…”
Well, that’s a self-deceptive point of view.
Well, yes, V2 can be said that it does make all religious equal: Read Lumen Gentium #26: Muslims, those whom we used to call “pagans” (=those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God”), and in fact any who do not know Christ or the Gospel or God, but who act through “the dictates of conscience” are all equivalent to believers:
“Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.”
Lumen Gentium #16 goes on:
Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.”
“Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life.”
Any fair reading of these passages properly understands that other religions are equivalent to the once-great Catholic Faith, as long as one follows “the dictates of conscience.” And this is just about exactly what P. Francis…
…told the atheist Scalfari in his 2013 interview: “We will all meet in heaven.” Indifferentism pure and simple, and one of the greatest destroyers of souls.
The citation is/should be Lumen Gentium #16 above.
God bless you, Steve Phoenix, you’ve declared it official pinata time. Although, in light of the recent Sinod (no misspelling), perhaps the usual bugs won’t crawl out of the woodwork to take a whack. Perhaps Francis has given the the impetus to read what you just wrote and try to understand what it actually says instead of what they’re told it says.
I’m not holding out too much hope in that department, however. The sheep have really become accustomed to AstroTurf. Giving them real grass to chew on is going to upset a few stomachs.
Steve Phoenix, this is your spin on Lumen Gentium. Pure spin. Elsewhere, LG insists that if you have been evangelized, then their are no excuses. Please stop spinning Church documents. Nowhere does LG or V2 say that all religions are equal.
Vat II-It says what it says. It does not say what you say it says.
Interesting, YFC, because it appears the current model being put forward inside the Church is to obfuscate doctrine so that nobody really knows anything. So no truth outside the Church and no truth inside! Just the so called rights of those in error.
Thank you again for the on time delivery :)
Vatican II does not teach that all religions are the same or equal.
Sorry to say yes they do, just like Pope Francis said “there is no need to evangelize” anybody remember he said God is not Catholic!!
Neither of those things you wrote are true in the slightest.
Unintentional self-mockery: “Vat II-It says what it says. It does not say what you say it says.” Does that mean “it is what it is?”
But V2, specifically Lumen Gentium does teach that all have a share in “the people of God”, that is the Church, so long as they “strive to live a good life” and “follow the dictates of conscience (#16): that ‘is what it says :) ,”
. Indeed, LG 16 starts by saying “those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God” specifically including Jews, Moslims, and “those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God.”
You are absolutely self-lampooningly right: “V2 says what it says.” And anyone with ordinary reasoning can see its…
..anyone with ordinary reasoning can see its contradictions and endorsement of indifferentism. And that is why so many young people DO hear the message and walk on the Catholic Church: just another sect: “it is what it says.”
If you think the Catholic Church views other religions as equal, you have never attempted to marry a non-Catholic in the Catholic Church.
You can make all the mockery you like of Vatican II, but it does not say that all religions are equal. Just because the Church has a relationship with others does not make them equal or identical. Please stop spinning Vatican II to try to make it say things it does not say.
Bruce, all the countries cited above have all but abandoned the Catholic, Lutheran and Anglican churches, one would think that of all the groups that would be in total opposition to the Islamic INVASION are the feminists, gays and liberals, all of these groups would be annihilated by Sharia Law when it comes to Europe. Islam has no room for “tolerance” a word liberals love to use. Does one really think Muslims would join in Oktoberfest drink beer and eat pork, go to the Raves in Berlin, go topless on the European beaches, attend rock concerts, and Gay pride events?
OBTW, for the naïve in mind and heart, Allah is also a pagan god, he is no where near close in character to Our Heavenly 3 Persons in the Blessed Trinity, NO WHERE EVEN CLOSE. Stop being lazy, read up about Islam, there are books on the market today that report the ugly truth about Islam/Muslimism. If you’re a sympathizer for them and promote them being here, beware they intend on converting YOU to Islam and it’s Sharia Law. They’ll be friendly at first, but once their numbers grow, they’ll insist on their own governments, then succeed our own. Then its accept Islam or die. It is that simple. Some Europeans are finally waking up, unfortunately the foolish liberals think those awaken are haters. That couldn’t be farther from the…
Allah is the God of Abraham.
An anonymous commenter claims “Allah is ‘the God of Abraham'”. Then, an explanation is necessary as to why the Ka’abah (“Cube”, from which we get the English term) Stone, and Shrine, pre-existed Muhammed.
When Muhammed and his militant followers seized Mecca and the Ka’abah Shrine, its interior had, and still contains, a series of polytheistic fetish symbols and figurines inside. This is because it had already existed for centuries as a shrine of a pre-monotheistic cult. This is also why the interior of the Ka’abah stone is never permitted to be photographed.
No, the god of this shrine, Allah, is NOT the God of Abraham. Open your eyes.
A non-voting observer at the recent synod raised an interesting idea in a discussion about the difference in an all male religious group looks at things differently than regular folks. As an example, the writer suggested that when an immigrant enters our country illegally, they have committed a sin but we don’t think of it as a new sin for every day they are in the country illegally. Yet, when a divorced person marries again, without an annulment, he/she is perceived to be committing a new sin each day of the marriage. This should have raised an interesting discussion.
YFC and Anomynous,
Ever hear of the old saying “Actions speak louder than Words”? Go back and read in credible publications what actions the V2 hierarchy/magisterium, all the way from the very top has done! Why not start with the World Religions of all kinds at the invitation of JP2 meeting and praying to their many gods together in Assisi around 1986. That in itself says it all. There is no need to collect further evidence, although it exists. You guys really need to research and study the 10 Commandments and St Paul’s Epistle to the Romans Chapter 1 verses 24-31, in a truly Holy Roman Catholic Bible because if you don’t, how will you know and admit your wrong, amend your homosexual lives and be worthy to enter God’s Kingdom?…
Doug – what does Vatican II have to do with Romans? Nothing.
You asserted that Vatican II taught something that it does not, then you send us on a goosechase for sources you don’t cite, and the only reference you DO cite isn’t even related AT ALL to your point.
If you think Vatican Ii taught that all religions are the same, please cite the exact lines in Vatican II that support your supposition. You didn’t, because you can’t.
Lumen Gentium #16:
“Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.
“Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. ”
“Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life.”
Whether one is a Jew, Muslim, or practices what we used to properly call pagan religions, as long as one follows “the dictates of conscience” and “strives to live a good life”, they are equal to the Catholic practitioner of what once was called the True Faith. Vatican II definitely teaches that all religions are more or less equal to the Catholic Faith.
Now Our Fellow Oxymoronically-Named Catholic (nor Bob One, nor the Anonymous Novus Ordo Ducks) wont admit this fact, but anyone else reading these passages objectively gets the point: all religions are equal. Vatican II said so.
I think if you read the whole document, you will be able to understand it better.
It says what it says, Anonymous. That’s the problem. And folks have been “understanding” for decades.
So here is what the Council of Florence, taught on achieving salvation by “following the dictates of conscience” and believing other belief systems:
Council of Florence, DS 714: “[The Church]firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41],..”
So here is what Augustine (d. 431) about other faiths as ways to salvation:
“No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church man can have everything except salvation.” (Sermon to the People of the Church of Caesaria)
Ann Malley argued that not only can they be saved but they can live in a state of grace. Thank you for explaining this to her.
50 years ago this week, Oct. 28th, 1965, one of the last documents of V2 was completed, Nostra Aetate, and it explicitizes the indifferentism of Lumen Gentium:
“Likewise, other religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing “ways,” comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites. The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.” NA #2
In the next line (NA #2), it tries to “square the prior 3 sentences with Catholic teaching, such as in Mortalium Animos (Pius XI, 1928), that all must come to the Catholic Faith:
“Indeed, she (=”the Church”) proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself.”
But the prior 3 sentences contradict the 4 one: classic V2 ambiguity. Which is it? One can practice “sincere reverence” to other sects, since they contain “what is true and holy”? Or should we try to help bring them to “The Way, The Truth, and The Life?”
Well, the biggest practitioner of V2 says such…
Well, the biggest practitioner of V2 says such proselytism is “such solemn nonsense.”
There is your answer, according to V2. Any sect is good enough, as good as the once-proud True Catholic Faith.
Here is what S. Pius X says about alternative faiths as a means to salvation:
“Where is the road which leads us to Jesus Christ? It is the Church. It is our obligation to recall to everyone, great and small, the absolute necessity we are under to have recourse to this Church in order to work out our eternal salvation.” – “Supremi Apostolatus,” #654; “Jucunda Sane,” #668
And here is what V2 says (LG #16) about salvation only possible through the Church that Jesus Christ established:
‘ But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, ..”
Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life.”
All these, including many others it enumerates in #16, “are linked” (#15) to the “People of God”.. There is by no means an explicit need to be a member of the Catholic Church: V2 “says what it says.”
Please continue on and read paragraph 17.
Maybe Satan did those things to scare people away from the Church.
YFC, My answer was very clear. Your all mixed up and you just don’t get it. I learned a long time ago not to waste time and argue with those who aren’t willing to listen and think. You just don’t get it.
Everyone, its amazing how so many haven’t the ability to reason even when the evidence is right at the end of their nose. Evidence repeated over and over again. Maybe they need to take a step back to see more clearly. We all need to pray to God to show us the truth as there is to much deception spawned by the devil in this world we live in. Christian permissiveness is one of those great deceptions, along with those who are pushing to accept that sin.
Doug don’t even bother with YFC he spins his own truth
Anomynous, Yes and if you truly believe Allah is the God of Abraham where in tarnation did you ever come up with that fool-hardy belief? Where in a truly Roman Catholic Holy Bible like the Douay-Rheims or Douay-Chandler versions does it say that Allah is the god of Abraham? Where does it say that in the Catechism of the of the Council of Trent? Bet you’ve never looked into these precious documents maybe because you don’t want to accept the truth as it violates your mission to deceive, or maybe because you don’t want to go after the most credible documents a Roman Catholic can cite, that I have cited but you twist the facts with your wild goose chasing comments.
Anomynous, If you want to believe Allah is god, go ahead, break God’s 1st Commandment, its your soul. God the Father and God the Son made it very clear that there is only one God. They could have made it very clear in the Holy Bible, that God’s name was also Allah, but they didn’t did they! That is because God doesn’t go by that name! Read a Roman Catholic Douay-Rheims Holy Bible (the most accurate English translation) about the character of God the Father, then find an accurate English translation of the Quran and you will notice Allah’s character is intrinsically evil, God our Father’s character is the opposite, all Pure and Holy unlike us. The God’s words in the 1st Commandment state their will be false gods = pagan gods…
Anomynous, Mohammed, the pagan prophet has deceived billions of people. He doesn’t accept our Lord as the second person in the Trinity, so he doesn’t believe our Lord is not God, but just a false prophet, putting Him on par with Mohammed himself. If Allah was our God the Father, and Mohammed had a direct line to Allah, than why would Mohammed deny our Lord as the second person in the Blessed Trinity? Don’t you think Allah would have revealed to Mohammed that Jesus was the son of God? Mohammed denied Jesus is the Son of God so it is only logical that Allah is not the one and only true God. Allah is only a pagan god, another form of the devil. God proclaimed Jesus was His Son at the Transfiguration to Peter, James, and John. Why…
Well put, in response to the claim, “Allah is ‘the God of Abraham’”. Then, an explanation is necessary as to why the Ka’abah (“Cube”, from which we get the English term) Stone, and Shrine, pre-existed Muhammed.
When Muhammed and his militant followers seized Mecca and the Ka’abah Shrine, its interior had, and still contains, a series of polytheistic fetish symbols and figurines inside. This is because it had already existed for centuries as a shrine of a pre-monotheistic cult. This is also why the interior of the Ka’abah is never permitted to be photographed.
No, the god of this shrine, Allah, is NOT the God of Abraham. Open your eyes, New Churchers.
#85, Synod document on Marriage: “Finally, there are those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children’s upbringing, and who are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably destroyed marriage had never been valid.” It is therefore a duty of the priests to accompany the interested parties on the path of discernment according to the teaching of the Church and the orientations of the Bishop.”
So when the Vatican II “dictates of conscience” (LG 16) come into conflict with objective doctrine, what do you think liberal Cupich-type prelates will dispense?
I have been recently studying the famous photo of the 3 seers of Fatima (Latin Mass, Fall 2015) : 3 dark-eyed, gravely serious children, 11, 10 and 9 years old. If one hadn’t been told they had seen a vision, you would have known it just by looking at the momentously serious, transfixing gazes of the 3:
This is the image I am referring to:
So was it all a dream, as some would say? “Prayer and do penance!” (= the heart-rending cry of the Angel of Mercy).
So we Synod folks, now we can have fun, and play, and marry and divorce and remarry (and marry..and divorce…just like a Hollywood star), and it can be with a man or a woman, or any combination thereof? No dull prayer and even duller penance?
So why are these 3 children as serious as the grave? Please explain to me.