I assure you, you don't. I attend daily Novus Ordo mass at the local Catholic nursing home and several times a month I attend a TLM said once a weekend at a local Novus Ordo parish. I also occasionally attend the Byzantine Rite. I am a Catholic, period.
By whose authority have you excluded that "small band of traditionalists" from the sensus fidelium? And how do you know that the "axe" isn't an expression of their instinct for what the needs of and dangers to the Church are? Who are you to judge?
Still waiting for Mallett to answer a very simple question that I asked back on page 23 of this thread. Tick, Tock.......
Traditionalists dont get tradition unfortunately, they distort its true meaning. Thats why they couldnt handle John XXIII, Paul VI, even the great John Paul II. In fact Benedict XVI gets the odd kicking (I think I saw that earlier today on this thread). There is one common theme among these popes with the exception of Benedict...they are all saints or blessed. So who is right or wrong in terms of post vatican II theology?
Yes. Your point is? Well, well, what a joyful display of Christian charity. For a minute I thought I was on the wrong forum and had stumbled across one of those sites where proponents of same sex marriage, abortion, euthanasia and just about every other abomination were showing their charitable, tolerant side as they described people who don't agree with them.
Found it Richard. The answer is in some cases yes. From Pope Francis plane press conference in April 2016: Francis Rocca of The Wall Street Journal mentioned the recent Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation and asked whether or not has been any change in the discipline concerning reception of the sacraments by the divorced and remarried. I could say “yes” and leave it at that. But that would be too brief a response. I recommend that all of you read the presentation made by Cardinal Schönborn, a great theologian. He is a member of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and he knows the Church’s teaching very well. Your question will find its answer in that presentation. Thank you. So richard, lets look at what Cardinal Schonborn said as that is what Pope francis tells us to do: Naturally this poses the question: what does the Pope say in relation to access to the sacraments for people who live in “irregular” situations? Pope Benedict had already said that “easy recipes” do not exist (AL 298, note 333). Pope Francis reiterates the need to discern carefully the situation, in keeping with St. John Paul II’s Familiaris consortio (84) (AL 298). “Discernment must help to find possible ways of responding to God and growing in the midst of limits. By thinking that everything is black and white, we sometimes close off the way of grace and of growth, and discourage paths of sanctification which give glory to God” (AL 205). He also reminds us of an important phrase from Evangelii gaudium, 44: “A small step, in the midst of great human limitations, can be more pleasing to God than a life which appears outwardly in order but moves through the day without confronting great difficulties” (AL 304). In the sense of this “via caritatis” (AL 306), the Pope affirms, in a humble and simple manner, in a note (351) that the help of the sacraments may also be given “in certain cases”. But for this purpose he does not offer us case studies or recipes, but instead simply reminds us of two of his famous phrases: “I want to remind priests that the confessional should not be a torture chamber but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy” (EG 44), and the Eucharist “is not a prize for the perfect but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak” (EG 47). I hope that answers your question. Viva il papa!
Do you disagree then that traditionalists gave these popes a right kicking regularly, and yet God has raised them to the altars?
Really? Here's a selection of your comments since you joined the forum on Sunday, all directed at people whose crime is wanting an answer to the dubia submitted by the four Cardinals. I didn't include your opening post announcing that one banned member and one who had declared us all to be spiritually damaging or schismatics (something along those lines) before flouncing off in a huff had been right all along. "It will be interesting to see how this interview of Cardinal Muller will be received by many on the traditionalist front. Now that the highest doctrinal authority under the pope has come out so strongly against the dubia ( and strikingly affirming AL's doctrinal clarity), there is basically nowhere else for them to go. Maybe a period of silent reflection on the blogosphere will ensue." "Are you sure you dont already know what flaunt objective sin means? Surely we dont have to be spoon fed every last word ." "ideology v theology is the mistake most critics of the vatican II popes make. Just look at Brian and Mac" "Oh dear. we cant now accept the plain words of the highest doctrinal authority in the Church." It's bad form to arrive in a room and start telling everyone who's right and who's wrong before you've taken off your coat. I don't know what "traditionalists" you're talking about. It's a broad brush and you wouldn't be the first person to turn a perfectly acceptable description into a cudgel. It's reminiscent of the pro-abortion crowd who describe pro-lifers are "pro-birth" with the inferred slur that pro-lifers' compassion ends with the birth of a baby. That's something I notice about Pope Francis' most ardent cheerleaders - their language and tactics are very similar to promoters of abortion, same-sex marriage, euthanasia, etc. Those popes don't get a regular kicking on this forum. And I don't know what you mean by "and yet God has raised them to the altars". Have you determined that there's someone God shouldn't have "raised to the altars". You still haven't told me who gave you the authority to exclude anyone from the sensus fidelium.
To return to the main issue of culpability which Pope Francis uses to allow in certain circumstances the reception of the sacraments even if an annulment has not been obtained, I draw your attention to a letter of the CDF on homosexuality, written by Cardinal Ratzinger in 1986 and approval by John Paul II: Here, the Church's wise moral tradition is necessary since it warns against generalizations in judging individual cases. In fact, circumstances may exist, or may have existed in the past, which would reduce or remove the culpability of the individual in a given instance; or other circumstances may increase it." This proves beyond doubt that Pope Francis uses authentic pastoral theology in AL, the very same used by St John Paul. There are surely many cases of people in these situations who are not in a state of mortal sin.
If I told you the internal forum has been approved by the Church before 2016 at the highest doctrinal level would it make any difference to your obvious distress?
Here's how I see it. The pope said "who am I to judge" and let that comment sit for 1.5 years. 99.9% of people took that to mean he was talking about homosexual sex. Nobody reads the fine print and I don't recall him ever calling active homosexuals to repentence. Fr Malachi Martin told me to watch what they do and not what they say. In both cases I believe he has failed Jesus Christ teachings on this one issue. Is he ashamed/doesn't believe in the church's 2000 year teaching on this subject or is it all about a "false mercy"?
On April 11, 1973: Cardinal Seper, prefect of the CDF, wrote to the president of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (USA), speaking about "new opinions which either deny or attempt to call into doubt the teaching of the Magisterium of the Church on the indissolubility of matrimony", and closing with the practical guideline: In regard to admission to the Sacraments the Ordinaries are asked on the one hand to stress observance of current discipline and, on the other hand, to take care that the pastors of souls exercise special care to seek out those who are living in an irregular union by applying to the solution of such cases, in addition to other right means, the Church's approved practice in the internal forum (probatam Ecclesiae praxim in foro interno). Then onMarch 21, 1975: Upon a request for clarification of what the "Church's approved practice in the internal forum" is, Archbishop Hamer, the secretary of the CDF wrote: I would like to state now that this phrase [probata praxis Ecclesiae] must be understood in the context of traditional moral theology. These couples [Catholics living in irregular marital unions] may be allowed to receive the sacraments on two conditions, that they try to live according to the demands of Christian moral principles and that they receive the sacraments in churches in which they are not known so that they will not create any scandal. Dont blame Pope Francis. He has only raised what was (as Janet showed) as rather secretive practice (for obvious reasons) to the level of magisterial teaching. Its time to move on, be obedient to the Pope and accept humbly that when we dont have access to all the facts we can get it horribly wrong.
You arrived on the forum to announce to us that Cardinal Muller's statement has put to bed all doubts about Amoris Laetitia. You made that announcement as though it were some new revelation about AL. In fact, Cardinal Muller doesn't answer questions about the Dubia unless instructed to do so by the Pope, so we can assume that the Pope told him to say what he did in that statement. With respect to AL itself, Cardinal Muller's recent statement is in line with what he said in December when he said that the 1994 letter sent to all bishops by then Cardinal Razinger was still Church teaching and that AL had not altered anything in that regard (see report in the Catholic Herald 2 December 2016 http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/new...ot-my-job-to-engage-in-the-dubia-controversy/). In case your memory needs refreshing, here's the 1994 letter from the CDF: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...oc_14091994_rec-holy-comm-by-divorced_en.html Can you tell me where the internal forum addresses the issue I have bolded in the following passage from that letter? "With respect to the aforementioned new pastoral proposals, this Congregation deems itself obliged therefore to recall the doctrine and discipline of the Church in this matter. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ(5), the Church affirms that a new union cannot be recognised as valid if the preceding marriage was valid. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God's law. Consequently, they cannot receive Holy Communion as long as this situation persists(6). This norm is not at all a punishment or a discrimination against the divorced and remarried, but rather expresses an objective situation that of itself renders impossible the reception of Holy Communion: "They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and his Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church's teaching about the indissolubility of marriage"(7). The faithful who persist in such a situation may receive Holy Communion only after obtaining sacramental absolution, which may be given only "to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when for serious reasons, for example, for the children's upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they 'take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples'"(8). In such a case they may receive Holy Communion as long as they respect the obligation to avoid giving scandal."
No, what Amoris Laetitia has done is injected new life into the proposal (killed off by Pope John Paul) to raise to the level of magisterial teaching all sorts of irregular sexual unions including common law marriage and gay marriage. This supposed merciful approach to the divorced and remarried is merely a stalking horse for gay marriage. Actually, Janet didn't add anything to the conversation. She misrepresented herself as someone who had benefited from what was proposed under Amoris Laetitia and referenced out of context something said by Pope Benedict concerning the question of people without faith going through a Sacramental marriage and later returning to the faith when they are in a second union, giving the false impression that Pope Benedict was proposing the internal forum as a solution.
I merely pointed out that before even John Paul II's pontificate, the CDF was allowing this practise. Ratzinger then changed it and now its changed again-proving once again that the popes have every right to alter the discipline of the sacremants-when they can be received and by whom (mortal sinners excluded). Dolours, its really up to you and everyone else here now to face facts and stop relying on "he didnt really mean that" or "he was probably forced to say that". I have shown conclusively how this matter was being done decades ago. Notice how the secretary of the CDF referred to it as "traditional moral theology"-which is what has been stated to those against Pope Francis all along on this thread. We have been treated like dirt basically and yet we have shown the truth of how the Church operates in authentic moral and pastoral theology. Its not silly sound bites but hard facts.
