Donna has left over concerns that participating in this forum may be sinful, since schism is being promoted and people are potentially excommunication themselves. I struggle with the same concerns. I would never recommend anyone participate in this forum unless they had a deep prayer life. It could be confusing and cause fear otherwise as this place can be spiritually dangerous, IMHO. https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/heresy_schism_apostasy.htm I pasted what seem to be relevant from the EWTN link, but refer to the link for the full document. schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him." [Code of Canon Law c.751] Finally, the person who refuses submission to the Roman Pontiff, whom Vatican I defined as having a universal primacy of authority over the whole Church, is at least a material schismatic. It was thus common in the past to speak of the schismatic Orthodox Churches who broke with Rome in 1054. As with heresy, we no longer assume the moral culpability of those who belong to Churches in schism from Rome, and thus no long refer to them as schismatics. Excommunication When it comes to Catholics who are formally guilty of heresy, apostasy or schism, the Church applies the penalty of excommunication. The 1983 Code of Canon Law, repeating the sanctions of the earlier 1917 Code, states, c. 1364 1. With due regard for can. 194, part 1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication and if a cleric, he can also be punished by the penalties mentioned in can. 1336, part 1, nn. 1, 2, and 3. 2. If long lasting contumacy or the seriousness of scandal warrants it, other penalties can be added including dismissal from the clerical state. This canon is saying that once a person willingly repudiates Christ, embraces a heresy, knowing it to be contrary to divine and Catholic faith, or refuses submission to the Roman Pontiff (or communion with the members of the Church subject to him), by virtue of the law itself they are automatically excommunicated. No ecclesiastical act is necessary and no public notice.
Ha, Ha Ha .... struck a nerve have I ..... GOD SAVE ALL HERE!!! ........ & Merry Ephipany! View attachment 5958
How does one define 'submission to the Roman Pontiff'? Does this imply criticism is illicit? Or does it include a concept of loyal opposition? Perhaps we should have accepted what David and Smudge were saying. Perhaps we must now assert that adulterers, or, more delicately, those in irregular situations, are entitled to receive the Eucharist? If someone in a second relationship asks my (entirely lay) opinion whether the Church is now permitting communion for them, am I bound to submit to the Pope and say 'yes'? I am not trying to be a smart-alec with these questions. I find myself genuinely torn between what I believe is the Truth and my wish to be loyal to the Pope. The way I am trying to resolve it is that if Pope Francis unambiguously declares that unrepentant adulterers may receive the Eucharist, I will reluctantly accept that. In the meantime, I think we are allowed to argue the toss until the ambiguity is removed. The latest news is that this Father Spadaro fellow is apparently claiming that 2+2=5!
No. I think that we all are capable of discussing a matter of grave concern while at the same time making whatever preparations we deem necessary for any coming difficulties.
It appears, PotatoSack, that the definition of schism has been thrown on its head under this pontificate. Clearly, priests and Bishops that he has proclaimed to be great theologians and role models were disobeying previous Popes in respect of Communion for the divorced and remarried. Evidently, many priests were also in disobedience. Janet's own story is an example, if she was receiving Communion outside a valid marriage and she gives the impression that she was. For all we know, Pope Francis was also in disobedience for the same reason. Did none of them automatically excommunicate themselves and, if they did, who lifted their excommunication? Why is it schism or promoting schism to seek clarity from one Pope but not schism to actually disobey another Pope? The entire business stinks of hypocrisy.
It surely is. But I think they know in their hearts what is right as there is where the truth is. I do often wonder are they doing it in doubt and hoping for the best.
My post is mainly referring to Padraig's proclamation that Pope Francis is not the pope of the Catholic church. That to me is schism or promoting schism. And since he is the moderator and owner of this forum...is this forum now being used to promote schism? Based on the Catholic church's definition of schism, what do you think? This is why I have publically urged Padraig to talk to a priest about this, especially before receiving the Eucharist. Can you worthily receive the Eucharist when you do not recognize Pope Francis as the pope of the Catholic church? I don't know, but I personally would be too afraid to potentially receive the Eucharist in such a state and offend my Lord. Padraig, have you talked to a priest about this? If not, how come? Is it because you do not want to be obedient to a priest? Is it because you are afraid a priest would shut this forum down and you would lose this place?
You rule out primacy of conscience or the internal forum, then, for someone in Padraig's situation? How do you know he hasn't already spoken to a Priest? (I, too, have recommended that he speak to a priest.) How could discussing whether the Pope has changed Doctrine and his authority to do so be any more spiritually damaging than a priest giving Communion to a Catholic living in an invalid marriage without commitment to abstaining from sexual relationship with a non-spouse? Those accusing the forum and Padraig of being a danger to spiritual life appear to have been ok with priests disobeying a Pope to the extent of administering what Church teaching said was sacrilegious Communion. That's hypocrisy. I'm wondering whether those applauding the internal forum solution would be as enthusiastic if the sin were paedophilia rather than adultery.
Potato Sack - you are one of the people here whose posts I always take note of. I think you'll find that we will remain safely in the Barque of Peter even if the waters get choppy. There is nowhere else to go, but this forum does help me to clarify my thoughts. I think you'll find that Padraig won't be going anywhere else either, though I should not speak for him. I do hope Donna will reconsider - she is such a thoughtful person and a true Catholic.
When My Spiritual Director was dying of cancer I asked him to recommend another one. He said he could not and when I asked him why not. He said he could not trust any of them and that I shoudl take Jesus Christ as my Spiritual Director from now on. I was unsure what he meant but with the state of the Church now I do indeed understand. So I am doing as my spiritual director bid on his death bed. But I think some of these questions are getting a little too personal and pushy. I would not dream of asking someone else such questions. For, I think obvious reasons. At least I hope they are obvious.
For myself I am perfectly happy and at peace. I prayed a lot about these things and went through a long period of discernment. The problem for me would be not to have done as I have but not to have done it. I had a moral duty to speak out lest souls be lost and I did so. As Scripture says: Ezekiel 33:6 Ezekiel as Israel's Watchman …5'He heard the sound of the trumpet but did not take warning; his blood will be on himself. But had he taken warning, he would have delivered his life. 6But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet and the people are not warned, and a sword comes and takes a person from them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood I will require from the watchman's hand.' 7"Now as for you, son of man, I have appointed you a watchman for the house of Israel; so you will hear a message from My mouth and give them warning from Me.… The difficulty is , I think for some people rather like the person in Ireland who is told in the Middle Ages that Elephants exist. The Irish guy laughed and said that elephants are impossible that they could not exist. But elephants did and do exist. So if I tell you the Church has sunk so low you do not believe me for the simple ideological reason that you do not believe it is possible that it be true. But the elephant is in the room, sitting right there staring at you. I can see it quite clearly as can many others. If you choose to believe that the elephant could not be sitting there because elephants do not exist, well that is up to you. I assure you I can see the elephant sitting in the Vatican quite plainly. Elephants do exist. I hope you discover this before it is too late.
I think, Padraig, the problem is not that you can see and have given voice to the serious matters that must be apparent to everyone. It's the matter of declaring another person to be a heretic, whether they be Pope, Bishop, Priest or humble pew sitter. What they are doing may well be heresy. They could be heretics, but none of us is in a position to make such a determination, never mind say so in public. It is beyond our authority to declare that a Pope has lost his right to shepherd the Church. As I see it, any priest who knowingly gave Communion to people in an invalid marriage in disobedience of a decision announced in a Papal Encyclical supported by Sacred Scripture and Tradition was, by his actions, making the same declaration as you from the date he defied the directive until the date Amoris Laetitia was published. We all could be wrong, but it's simply hypocritical to claim that your disobedience is worse than the Priests' or to suggest that you are in schism but they weren't unless some sound argument can be made to the contrary.
The marriage had failed but I wasn't in a new relationship. I had started wondering if I had grounds for an annulment. It was then I went to see the priest. He helped me understand my situation according to the teaching of the Church. The marriage was judged to be invalid. "Can you quote precisely the words and context of what you have paraphrased from Pope Benedict?" " This really is a cause of great suffering and when I was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, I invited various Bishops' Conferences and experts to study this problem: a sacrament celebrated without faith. Whether, in fact, a moment of invalidity could be discovered here because the Sacrament was found to be lacking a fundamental dimension, I do not dare to say. I personally thought so, but from the discussions we had I realized that it is a highly-complex problem and ought to be studied further. But given these people's painful plight, it must be studied further." Aosta July 25, 2005
Looks like Smudger and David were right all along. Maybe we need to take stock and realize how wrong we can be. If the head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith can say Amoris Laetitia is no danger to the faith and there is no conflict, then I must humbly accept that. Its all in a tv interview he gave tonight on italian tv http://wdtprs.com/blog/2017/01/card...on-of-the-pope-seems-to-me-to-be-very-remote/ I know this will be painful for some of us to accept, but sometimes humiliation can be good for us to grow spiritually. Lets get behind Pope Francis now and end the schismatic talk. Deep down we know separating from him is separating from Jesus. Padraig, get back in the boat quick!!! Ave Maria!
How would Amoris Laetitia have affected your situation if you were not in a second marital union? The current controversy concerns people in second unions receiving Communion. That quotation from the Holy Father concerns people without faith who entered into a Sacramental marriage and later found their faith after they had entered a new union. He made no mention of the internal forum. Your earlier paraphrase of what he said suggested that he was talking about all cases of broken marriage where the petitioner had no witnesses. Here it is in context: http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/b16aosta.htm "Another priest raised the topic of Communion for the faithful who are divorced and remarried. The Holy Father answered him as follows: We all know that this is a particularly painful problem for people who live in situations in which they are excluded from Eucharistic Communion, and naturally for the priests who desire to help these people love the Church and love Christ. This is a problem. Celebrated without faith? None of us has a ready-made formula, also because situations always differ. I would say that those who were married in the Church for the sake of tradition but were not truly believers, and who later find themselves in a new and invalid marriage and subsequently convert, discover faith and feel excluded from the Sacrament, are in a particularly painful situation. This really is a cause of great suffering and when I was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, I invited various Bishops' Conferences and experts to study this problem: a sacrament celebrated without faith. Whether, in fact, a moment of invalidity could be discovered here because the Sacrament was found to be lacking a fundamental dimension, I do not dare to say. I personally thought so, but from the discussions we had I realized that it is a highly-complex problem and ought to be studied further. But given these people's painful plight, it must be studied further. I shall not attempt to give an answer now, but in any case two aspects are very important. The first: even if these people cannot go to sacramental Communion, they are not excluded from the love of the Church or from the love of Christ. A Eucharist without immediate sacramental Communion is not of course complete; it lacks an essential dimension. Nonetheless, it is also true that taking part in the Eucharist without Eucharistic Communion is not the same as nothing; it still means being involved in the mystery of the Cross and Resurrection of Christ. It is still participating in the great Sacrament in its spiritual and pneumatic dimensions, and also in its ecclesial dimension, although this is not strictly sacramental. And since it is the Sacrament of Christ's passion, the suffering Christ embraces these people in a special way and communicates with them in another way differently, so that they may feel embraced by the Crucified Lord who fell to the ground and died and suffered for them and with them. Consequently, they must be made to understand that even if, unfortunately, a fundamental dimension is absent, they are not excluded from the great mystery of the Eucharist or from the love of Christ who is present in it. This seems to me important, just as it is important that the parish priest and the parish community make these people realize that on the one hand they must respect the indissolubility of the Sacrament, and on the other, that we love these people who are also suffering for us. Moreover, we must suffer with them, because they are bearing an important witness and because we know that the moment when one gives in "out of love", one wrongs the Sacrament itself and the indissolubility appears less and less true. We know the problem, not only of the Protestant Communities but also of the Orthodox Churches, which are often presented as a model for the possibility of remarriage. But only the first marriage is sacramental: the Orthodox too recognize that the other marriages are not sacramental, they are reduced and redimensioned marriages and in a penitential situation; in a certain sense, the couple can go to Communion but in the awareness that this is a concession "by economy", as they say, through mercy which, nevertheless, does not remove the fact that their marriage is not a Sacrament. The other point is that in the Eastern Churches for these marriages they have conceded the possibility of divorce with great irresponsibility, and that the principle of indissolubility, the true sacramental character of the marriage, is therefore seriously injured. On the one hand, therefore, is the good of the community and the good of the Sacrament that we must respect, and on the other, the suffering of the people we must alleviate. The second point that we should teach and also make credible through our own lives is that suffering, in various forms, is a necessary part of our lives. I would call this a noble suffering. Once again, it is necessary to make it clear that pleasure is not everything. May Christianity give us joy, just as love gives joy. But love is always also a renunciation of self. The Lord himself has given us the formula of what love is: those who lose themselves find themselves; those who spare or save themselves are lost. It is always an "Exodus", hence, painful. True joy is something different from pleasure; joy grows and continues to mature in suffering, in communion with the Cross of Christ. It is here alone that the true joy of faith is born, from which even they are not excluded if they learn to accept their suffering in communion with that of Christ."
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.
This is not a numbers game Mallet.It wont matter who or how many side with error. When asked if a climate of fear in Rome is intimidating other prelates from supporting the dubia that he and three other cardinals submitted to the Pope to ask if Amoris Laetitia conforms to Catholic moral teaching, Burke replied that numbers are not important, but truth. “I can’t speak for others with regard to a possible atmosphere of fear, all I can say is this, that for me, I know what my duty is as a bishop and above all as a cardinal, who is one of the principle advisors of the Holy Father in his office of preserving and promoting the great tradition of the faith, and that such fear and such intimidation, as it may exist from time to time, simply can’t be a consideration with regard to what I need to do.” The Cardinal related the example of St. John Fisher in England during the reign of Henry VIII who was the only bishop who upheld the truth of the faith regarding marriage. “Some obviously tried to discourage him from doing that, pointing out that he was the only one. And he rightly responded that even if he was the only one, the important thing could only be that he is speaking for Christ and fulfilling his duty as bishop,” he said. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/c...lted-for-defending-truth-adhere-ever-more-str
Thanks. This should be so obvious that it goes without saying. Maybe in simpler times but obviously not now, during this papacy. (Boy, they're really crawling out of the woodwork now...)
That's a subtle statement from Cardinal Muller. He is interpreting AL in light of the constant teaching of The Church from the time of Our Lord, effectively voiding footnotes, verbal 'clarifications' and letters to third parties. Was this not the advice from many eminent orthodox cardinals and theologians from the time AL was first published? I would think Cardinal Muller is concerned to avoid schism. Orthodox as Cardinal Bourke and his colleagues are, their strategy is a risky one. I interpret Muller as proclaiming orthodoxy, in what could be interpreted as a nuanced 'correction' in itself. I would think the hope is that a future pope may straighten things out.
