MALTA, part II - important prophecy fulfilled!

The very holy priest who taught me the faith, was a spiritual director for locutionist Little Mary. He told me 15 years ago this would happen in my lifetime. I believe it. He said we would not be able to publicly attend Mass.

 

I also side with Pope Francis...I believe he is a very good man...the masonic prelates in the Vatican and else where are sowing confusion amongst the faithful. I may not agree with some of his ex cathedra statements but I also don't think he would agree with some of mine. Never the less...he is my Pope.

 

Technically, yes. I suspect a priest would privately still offer the sacraments to the faithful remnant despite such an unjust order.

My pastor, a Benedictine monk, has already stated that he will refuse to offer public Mass if this happens here, and will return to obscurity in the monastery.

 

He has never made an ex cathedra statement.

 

1) More specifically, could he loose his priestly faculties (saying mass) by not being obedient to a wrongful demand from a bishop? Or, once a priest always a priest.
2) With most of us living in liberal Catholic parishes, could a validly ordained priest who follows heresy loose his gift of saying a valid mass? I assume not, since the validity of the mass does not require a priest to be in the state of sanctifying grace.

 

Where did the pope threaten to suspend priests who obey scripture and Canon 915?


https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/m...nion-for-adulterers-were-just-following-the-l

Malta archbishop defends Communion for adulterers: We’re just following the Pope

Maltese Archbishop Charles Scicluna
Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
MALTA, January 19, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) -- A Maltese archbishop is defending guidelines he released last week along with his brother bishops that allow Catholics living in adultery to receive Holy Communion, provided they are “at peace with God.” He says the guidelines are faithful to Pope Francis’s exhortation Amoris Laetitia.

“What we did was put the arguments in order so that they could be followed logically, making it easier for priests to understand what the papal exhortation was asking of them,” Archbishop Charles Scicluna said in a January 17 interview with Times of Malta.

The Maltese bishops have been criticized by renowned American canon law expert Edward Peters. Dr. Peters described the guidelines as the “Maltese disaster," and said they ignore perennial Catholic teaching on marriage and the sacraments.

The Malta guidelines, he explained, amount to saying that "holy Communion is for any Catholic who feels 'at peace with God' and the Church’s ministers may not say No to such requests."

Commented Peters: "In my view the Maltese bishops have effectively invited the Catholics entrusted to them (lay faithful and clergy alike!) to commit a number of objectively gravely evil acts."

But Scicluna, the Vatican's former chief prosecutor of clerical sexual abuse, insisted that he and his fellow bishops were simply following what the pope laid out in his April 2016 Exhortation on marriage and the family.

“I invite people to refer to [our] document, because the guidelines quote extensively from Amoris Laetitia and make constant reference to a discernment process that has to take place,” he said.

The archbishop stressed that the main concern in crafting the guidelines was to be entirely faithful to Amoris, not adding anything to the pope’s Exhortation.

This is why the guidelines quoted extensively from Amoris, he said.

But Peters commented that the Maltese bishops have “fallen completely” for a “false view” that contradicts canon law.

“In Malta now, anyone who approaches for the sacraments should be recognized as being ‘at peace with God.’ Objective evidence to the contrary is simply no longer relevant. Canon 916 is thus eviscerated, Canon 915 is effectively repudiated,” he wrote.

Other bishops who have issued guidelines opposed to Catholic tradition on Communion for the "remarried" include San Diego Bishop Robert McElroy and the bishops of Argentina.

Kazakhstan Bishop Athanasius Schneider has criticized such guidelines as giving the faithful “permission to not observe...the Sixth Commandment.” Clerics who make such guidelines to appease such sinners are in effect saying that they can “continue in the joy of adultery,” he said.

Earlier this week, Bishop Schneider and two other Eastern European bishops launched a "spiritual crusade" calling on Pope Francis to “revoke in an unequivocal manner” such guidelines.

“A practice which permits to those who have a civil divorce, the so called ‘remarried,’ to receive the sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist, notwithstanding their intention to continue to violate the Sixth Commandment and their sacramental bond of matrimony in the future, would be contrary to Divine truth and alien to the perennial sense of the Catholic Church,” they wrote.

The Maltese bishops' guidelines come two months after four Cardinals went public with five yes-or-no questions, called dubia, asking Pope Francis if Amoris conformed to Catholic moral teaching. As a result of the pope's ongoing refusal to respond, they have suggested they may issue a formal correction of the document sometime this year.

 

I honestly don't know the exact answer to this.

 

The confusion that is causing schism, is in allowing divorced and remarried to receive the body and blood of Jesus. Adultery is something Jesus himself explicitly taught was a grave sin. Something his church and all popes to Francis taught. Therein lies the confusion. Unless you are calling Pope Francis a Freemason, this confusion is not coming from Freemasonry. When, if ever, will those who support Pope Francis' teaching on D&R come around? When 1/2 the priests and bishops of the world teach this heresy? When 3/4 of the clergy teach this heresy and kick out those who won't follow along? Never? Everyone will have to choose sooner or later which side of the fence you will stand on. Tradition or Modern teaching.

 

I having been watching this thread from the sidelines, and I just have a question. Are not the cardinals advisors to the pope? With that being said at what point do these cardinals (and I mean all of them) step up to the plate and say that these bishops are not following the code of canon.

 

Fatima,
Once a priest is ordained (assuming the ordination was done properly) he becomes a priest forever. The sacrament of Holy Orders imprints the soul of a priest and changes it forever. It is similar to Baptism in this aspect. A Bishop (or anyone else, even a Pope) can never un-make a priest. So you are right, once a priest always a priest.

What a Bishop can do is revoke a priests faculties. A priest is not allowed to administer the sacraments unless he has faculties (permission) from a Bishop. Priests also cannot just wander around in different diocese and perform marriages, confessions, etc. They need permission from the Bishop of the diocese they are in or from the Pope.

The only exception to this as far as I know is when the Last Rites are administered to a dying person. I believe any priests anywhere may do this. There may be some other minor exceptions to this as well.

Now if a priest has his faculties suspended and he celebrates Mass then Transubstantiation actually does take place but the priest is doing this without faculties (permission) so the act is illicit.

 

Li

Lifesitenews again trying to get traffic from their headlines. Shame.

 

Glad I am not the only one who thought about this. Unity is in the making and it is ALL BIGGER THAN US.

http://taylormarshall.com/2017/01/eastern-orthodox-divorce-remarriage.html

 

Your reading comprehension is poor at best. I posed a rhetorical question. The pope never mentioned suspension of priestly faculties, yet in their enthusiasm to "enforce" the pope's document, the bishops of Malta have threatened to suspend priests who obey their conscience and Canon 915. Heaven forbid other bishops follow their lead.

LifeSiteNews has been absolutely correct in all their reporting regarding AL. They have had the courage to admit hard truths that you have denied.

 

Your post implies that nobody has said much about the Eastern Orthodox approach to divorce and remarriage. If that's your position, I think that's overstated: in point of fact, Pope Francis has called for an examination of the Eastern approach, and that Cardinal Kasper has directly appealed to it.

In 2014, Pope Francis said the following (in a plane interview):

"But also – a parenthesis – the Orthodox have a different practice. They follow the theology of what they call oikonomia, and they give a second chance, they allow it. But I believe that this problem – and here I close the parenthesis – must be studied within the context of the pastoral care of marriage."

In that same year, Cardinal Kasper stated (in an interview with Commonweal) that:

"The Orthodox have the principle of oikonomia, which allows them in concrete cases to dispense, as Catholics would say, the first marriage and to permit a second in the church. But they do not consider the second marriage a sacrament. That’s important. They make that distinction (whether the people do is another question). I’m not sure whether we can adapt this tradition to our own, but we have similar elements."

It's important here to understand exactly what "oikonomia" is before deciding what to think of Pope Francis and Cardinal Kasper's appeals to it. I don't pretend to have a complete understanding of it myself. But my impression is that it works as follows: when an Orthodox marriage collapses, one of the parties can approach the Orthodox church and, if he or she establishes facts that approximate what a Catholic would need to establish to obtain an annulment, the church will allow that party to participate in a matrimonial rite with a new spouse. It is a "matrimonial rite" and not a "marriage" because it is not a sacrament, and because it is penitential in character.

My sense is that 100 years ago, Catholics had annulments and the Orthodox had oikonomia to deal with collapsed marriages, but both approaches were rare events that required the parties seeking them to do a fair amount of work - both in prayer and on paper - to obtain them. That is not necessarily true of either approach today.

 

You seem to have read him wrong. He is very traditional and attends the Latin Mass at a FSSP chapel and does NOT agree with what the pope is doing. He's just indicating what path he thinks the progressives will follow next. He is not approving of it. He points out

the Byzantine Empire made the Orthodox Church the “only institution with legal competence for the celebration of matrimony…As a consequence the Eastern Church had to conform its practices to State and civil legislation (a regretful consequence of caesaropapism). Then once civil legislation began to allow divorce and successive remarriages, the Eastern Church was obligated to recognize these practices.”​

 

Read the rest of the comments under Dr. Taylor's post from oldest to newest. Even Orthodox admit their practices are often wrong in comparison to Roman Catholic.

If this is the price of "unity" with the Orthodox, it will be false unity.

 

I suspect we'll see this spread far and wide and in short order, unfortunately. One suspects this was coordinated by men in Rome:

https://www.ewtn.co.uk/news/commonw...-for-refusing-communion-to-divorced-remarried

Excerpt:

...The German website Katholisches reports that Bishop Mario Grech announced his decision to impose this canonical punishment immediately on returning from Rome.

Comment

Bishop Mario Grech's alleged announcement that he will impose on priests the grave penalty of suspension a divinis for refusing to admit those in "public and permanent adultery" to Holy Communion has very serious implications. The suspension (a divinis) is a canonical penalty provided for by canon 1333. Such a suspension prohibits all or some acts of the powers of Holy Orders, such as celebrating Mass, hearing confession, and the power of governance, such as acting as a parish priest.

It would seem that priests in Gozo are now vulnerable to accusations from anyone that they are not implementing, "Criteria for the Application of Chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia", with devasting consequences for their exercise of priestly ministry.

 

https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2015/12/12/clergy-have-consciences-too/

Clergy have consciences, too
Chicago Archbishop Blase Cupich is not a heretic. Although that adjective is being tossed his way with some frequency these days, there is no evidence that Cupich doubts or denies some doctrine that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith (1983 CIC 751) and so he is not, as far as I can see, a heretic.

But if Cupich really has, as reported here, doubled down on his earlier intimations that, among others, divorced-and-remarried Catholics and Catholics living in ‘same-sex marriages’ should, and must be allowed to, ‘follow their conscience’ even if their conscience leads them to the proverbial communion rail, then he is misrepresenting Church teaching on marriage—which holds marriage to be a permanent union between a man and a woman (1983 CIC 1055, 1056)—and is failing to urge the observance of all ecclesiastical laws (1983 CIC 392), among which laws two are especially relevant in approaching for, and being given, holy Communion, namely, Canons 915 and 916.

As has been explained many, many, many times, Canon 916 impacts the individual considering approaching for holy Communion and directs those “conscious of grave sin” to refrain from approaching for the Sacrament. Individuals must form their consciences in accord with Church teaching and, yes, Cupich alludes to “Church teaching” in underscoring the fundamentality of conscience, but he fails, I fear, to point out, among other things, that conscience is used largely to assess whether one’s concrete action in a given situation accords with Church teaching—not to determine whether one agrees with or accepts Church teaching in the first place.

Canon 915, however, in contrast with Canon 916, directs ministers of holy Communion to withhold the Sacrament, not from “sinners” per se (as if ministers could read souls!), but rather, from those who “obstinately persevere in manifest grave sin”. Now there is zero doubt but that, in Catholic tradition, attempting marriage following a civil divorce and/or entering a “same-sex marriage” is to undertake the kind of gravely wrong public action that triggers ministerial obligations under Canon 915. Thus, when Cupich (and he is not alone in talking this way) says “It’s not up to any minister who is distributing the Eucharist to make a decision about a person’s worthiness or lack of worthiness” he misses the point: a minister is not assessing personal “worthiness” when withholding holy Communion from one’s whose conduct is described in Canon 915, but rather, is acting in accord with an age-old sacramental discipline designed to protect both the Sacrament from the risk of possible sacrilege and the faith community from the harm of classical scandal caused by someone’s public contrarian conduct.

Finally, recognizing the sharp differences between Canon 916 (impacting individuals) and Canon 915 (impacting ministers) allows us to make one last point: amid all the discussion of the primacy of conscience it seems almost forgotten that clergy have consciences, too. Many clerics, Deo gratias, and other ministers of the Eucharist, recognize the significance of their sacramental office and know—as all Catholics should know—that their actions, too, are carried out before a God who sees all. These ministers understand Church doctrine and discipline on marriage, Communion, conscience, and liturgical office, and they wish to act in accord with those teachings and laws, even in the face of growing pressure to disregard these considerations and despite the lack of support some experience from Church leadership.

Their consciences, too, I suggest, deserve respect.

 

I've had a chance to think and pray about this today as I fly out to California to visit my son at the Norbertines Abbey in California.

I suspect the pope's actions will indeed foster unity with the Orthodox, but not in the way you think. This pope's massive overreach in pastoral practice as well as liturgy will be seen in hindsight as so offensive that the Roman Church will take pains to very carefully define the LIMITATIONS of papal authority, contrary to the current WRONG understanding that arose after Vatican I and with the good pope's of recent memory.

As a result of this pope's heresies and authoritarian/thuggish leadership, the Roman Church will finely define the powers of the papacy, and retire orthodoxy and orthopraxis and traditional Roman liturgy such that it will alleviate the fears of the Eastern Orthodox and allow them to unite with us against a common enemy.

And that unity will NOT include second and third marriages or Communion for diverted and remarried, as the current follies so ably illustrate.

 

Prescient. I just never dreamed this satanic agenda would develop so very rapidly and brazenly.


http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2017/01/urgent-bergoglian-doctrine-persecution.html?m=1

URGENT - Bergoglian Persecution Begins: Priest is Suspended a divinis in Colombia for criticizing the new papal doctrine on Marriage and the Eucharist

We will translate the whole document provided by Rorate's Spanish-language partners "Adelante la Fe" as soon as possible -- but the news is explosive. A priest in the Diocese of Pereira, Colombia, was admonished and suspended by his Bishop exclusively because he criticized in public the new doctrine invented by Pope Francis on Marriage and the reception of the Blessed Sacrament.



Father Luis Alberto Uribe Medina is the victim of this startling act by his bishop, Rigoberto Corredor.



Full document in our own translation below:

DECREE no.1977

Of January 16, 2017

By which a priest is suspended


THE BISHOP OF PEREIRA

Considering

Adelante la Fe. | Just to be clear: the "doctrine" the suspended priest criticized was the "new doctrine" for Communion for adulterers "allowed" by Amoris Laetitia, as represented in the audio of one of his sermons embedded in Adelante la Fe.]