What did the Pope say? :)

Well, Pope Francis seems to be saying the sspx is nearly back.

Pope Francis and the sspx seem to be moving along nicely.
For my own marriage, nearly 20yrs ago, we did apply to our local Bishop and received permission.I believe that has always been standard procedure.

Step by step: Vatican issues Marriage Pastoral Guidelines for SSPX - See more at: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2017/04/step-by-step-vatican-issues-marriage.html#more

 

No one has ever said that...that your opinion. That has never been said or implied. You base your statements on presuppositions.

 

Josephite, don't let them lead you into this kind of silly statement.... As has been said many times, even Cardinal Burke denies that accusation.

As I haven't noticed anyone posting a recent interview between Edward Pentin and Cardinal Coccopalmerio (who published a booklet to clarify the Amoris difficulties), I'm doing so here. Pentin, who is clearly a critic of Francis, in this interview challenges the Cardinal in the same way some on this forum would and the result should help anyone who is genuinely concerned about the encyclical. The interview is at:

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-new...s-his-positions-on-catholics-in-irregular-uni

 

No one has ever said what? What presuppositions?

 

Again, I am not sure we are on the same page with what actual grace is. It is a free gift from God for all his children on earth. It is given and accepted by some, it is given and rejected by others. All receive actual grace from God all day long. We all reject some of the graces and hopefully we all accept some of his temporal grace. Until and unless one repents of his/her grave sins we cannot enjoy the beauty and blessings in living in his sanctifying grace. and ultimately heaven.

The issue being discussed is whether living in cohabitation brings actual grace and leads to sanctifying grace. Pope Francis indicated that it does, as he declared he believes "it is a real marriage". This is simply not true and this is false mercy. It is half truth, because yes every soul receives actual grace (which is temporal) but at best it is, once again, confusing language as it indicates fornication is somehow a virtue and it surely does not lead to sanctifying grace necessary for salvation.

 

Here is an amazing witness to the faith from a divorcee that explains really well how grace acted to bring him to conversion, very appropriate for meditating this week prior to the Passion. A great witness for remarried divorcees to live like brother and sister. Unfortunately it is in Italian but you can google translate and get a good sense.

http://www.lanuovabq.it/it/articoli...-amore-coniugale-e-non-sono-un-eroe-19445.htm

The first paragraph from my translation:

'I have learned that the Sacrament earns you eternal Communion' 'I encounter my wife in the Eucarist' 'To love is to give and forgive without expecting anything in return' 'there is no freedom outside the fidelity to the marital covenant' 'Even of the doctrine is put into discussion, Christ is clear in his teaching and sanctity is not just for a few'. These are a some of the statements of the powerful testimony of Emmanuele Scotti, a regular Christian (actually before his separation he was a 'lukewarm faithful'), that separated from his wife with about thirty year of age and a little child son. And in this interview...tells us how after many years he has discovered how Christ mantains his promise of given via the Eucharist the divine love in order for us to live like he loves us.

 

[from the same interview in lanuovabq.it]

"Q: People speak now of having mercy towards those who made a mistake when they got married and now live in a new union, and maybe with children. It has been said that these people should also be able to receive Communion. What do you think? Is this mercy?

A: I cite blessed Paul VI: 'To diminish in no way the saving teaching of Christ constitutes an eminent form of charity for souls' ( Encyclical Humanae Vitae, 29: AAS 60 (1968), 501., also quoted by John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio n.33). The teaching of the Church, in her perennial Magisterium, is always been clear in this regard, and I abide by it even if today it is being called into question also within the ecclesiastical hierarchy. I shall also say, personally, I find unacceptable the idea that sanctity should not be attainable for some people, and that for them the only way to salvation, in a legalistic sense, is to adapt the law to their needs. In my own life I have proved that the Lord does not withdraw his promise when confronted with our weakness and our sins, and if we ask Him, he gives us the grace to live in conformity with truth of the sacramental bond wanted by Him."

I don't know if you ought to call this sanctifying grace or just grace but this is really grace at work in a broken family.

Grace does not move us to be faithful to our fornication habit (cohabiting couples). A fidelity that does not remove us from sin does not come from God. God's grace would move a cohabiting couple to, at the least, live like brother and sister if they are to remain in the same house until they marry.

 

Josephite, please be careful here about calling someone a heretic for the good of your own soul and others. It is a more complicated issue than it at first seems. There is material heresy and formal heresy. Two very different things. A Catholic can say something heretical without being a heretic if they don't know any better. The Pope is not a theologian as he often says. Prudence and charity say we should give him the benefit of the doubt. It is not the job of the laity to brand anyone a heretic.

 

I don't think Josephite was actually calling the Pope a heretic. I think it was a tongue in cheek sort of post to point out that we may all receive many graces even if we are sinning, even mortally and that these graces build and lead us to the correct path. I don't think her opinion has changed of Our Holy Father. Correct me if I am mistaken Josephite? We all have such differing views, some of us our critical of Our Holy Father, some of us see only love and mercy. However we are all trying our best to keep on the right path

 

This is clearly not what the Council of Trent taught:

Council of Trent 6th session CHAPTER XV.
That, by every mortal sin, grace is lost, but not faith.
In opposition also to the subtle wits of certain men, who, by pleasing speeches and good words, seduce the hearts of the innocent, it is to be maintained, that the received grace of Justification is lost, not only by infidelity whereby even faith itself is lost, but also by any other mortal sin whatever, though faith be not lost; thus defending the doctrine of the divine law, which excludes from the kingdom of God not only the unbelieving, but the faithful also (who are) fornicators, adulterers, effeminate, liers with mankind, thieves, covetous, drunkards, railers, extortioners, and all others who commit deadly sins; from which, with the help of divine grace, they can refrain, and on account of which they are separated from the grace of Christ.

 

Maybe I'm mistaken Sgcatholic, but I thought maybe the last line of your post "with the help of divine grace" was Josephite's point with regard to St. Augustine. It was grace that led him to leave his sinful life to follow the path of Christ. I cannot speak for Josephite but that is how I interpreted her posts.

 

An interesting interview. I have highlighted certain parts. What do you all think? Is the Cardinal being faithful to the teachings of the Catholic Church?

Cardinal Coccopalmerio Explains His Positions on Catholics in Irregular Unions

VATICAN CITY — Rather than admonish cohabitating Catholics as “public sinners,” the head of the Vatican department for interpreting Church law has said it’s more important to look “beneficently upon” the couple in the hope that through encouragement they will eventually marry.

And in a Feb. 21 interview with the Register, Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerioalso insisted his interpretation, published in a recent booklet, of Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia (The Joy of Love), Pope Francis’ recent apostolic exhortation on marriage and the family, does not breach canon law or Church doctrine.

He said allowing some remarried divorcees to receive the sacraments if they desire to change their sinful situation but cannot amend it because doing so would lead to further sin was fully in line with Church teaching.

Cardinal Coccopalmerio, the president of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, also spoke about a recent Vatican talk he gave in which he advocated for a “less rigid” understanding of the priesthood, one that essentially rejects an objective and metaphysical notion of priesthood in order to draw nearer to Protestants.

Your Eminence, would you please help our readers understand your intention in writing this booklet?

I wanted to understand exactly what the eighth chapter [on “Accompanying, Discerning and Integrating Weakness”] meant and then explain it to others. So I read these parts of the eighth chapter, reading but [also] to lead people to understand the sense and the logic of all the points, according to certain subjects which seemed to me more important. The most difficult is to see what the document says of the faithful who find themselves in irregular conditions — to see how is it possible, if it is possible, to admit these faithful to the sacraments, both confession and the Eucharist, and for what motives.

So it interested me to see what the document says and then explain it to others — to make just a reading of the steps [this requires] to be a little clearer than the document. The document is very rich and puts together many things, which it is important to keep apart, to examine with more analysis, more analytically.

Did the Pope review the publication before it was published?

No, no, no. I gave the book to the Pope after its publication. But I spoke with the Pope at other times about these questions, and we always thought the same; also during the synods. I gave the Pope the book after its publication, as a gift.

As you know, there has been a vast chasm in interpretations. We have the German and Maltese bishops in agreement on one side. On the other side, there is Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia and also Bishop Steven Lopes of the Anglican ordinariate, among many others. How does your book clarify things in the face of these interpretations?

We have to distinguish the cases quite precisely, those unions that are not legitimate, are not regularized, because marriage is indissoluble. There are faithful who find themselves in this situation. They are aware that this situation is not good. They want to change, but they cannot do it. Because if they did, if they were to leave these unions, innocent people would be hurt.

Think of a woman who lives with a married man. She has three little children. She has already been with this man for 10 years. Now the children think of her as a mother. He, the partner, is very much anchored to this woman, as a lover, as a woman. If this woman were to say: “I am leaving this mistaken union because I want to correct my life, but if I did this, I would harm the children and the partner,” then she might say: “I would like to, but I cannot.” In precisely these cases, based on one’s intention to change and the impossibility of changing, I can give that person the sacraments, in the expectation that the situation is definitively clarified.

But in such cases, in which you say it is better for a woman to continue in her sinful situation, how is that coherent with St. Paul and the Catechism? Both say it is never permissible to deliberately do evil for the sake of a greater good. How do you reconcile these things?

Let us say, if you agree, that if she leaves this situation, it will harm people. And then to avoid this evil, I continue in this union in which I already find myself.

But this union is a situation of sin.

Yes, however …

Isn’t it better to try to stop the situation of sin completely?

How can you stop the whole thing if that will harm people? It is important that this person doesn’t want to be in this union, wants to leave this union, wants to leave, but cannot do it. There are two things to put together: I want to, but I cannot. And I cannot — not for my own sake, but for the sake of other people. I cannot for the sake of other people.

If the two can live together as brother and sister, that’s great. But if they cannot because this would break up the union, which ought to be conserved for the good of these people, then they manage as best they can. Do you see? That’s it. And it seems this whole complicated thing has a logical explanation, motivation. If others depart from other points of view, they can also arrive at other conclusions. But I would say there would be something missing of the human person. I can’t damage a person to avoid a sin in a situation that I haven’t put myself into; I already find myself in it, one in which I, if I am this woman, have put myself into without a bad intention. On the contrary, I’m trying to do good, and, at that moment, I believed myself to be doing good, and certainly I did do good. But maybe if, already at the beginning I had known, if I knew with moral certitude that this is a sin, maybe I would not have put myself in that condition. But now I already find myself there: How can I go back? It is one thing to begin, another to interrupt. These are also different things, no?

(cont'd)

 

Firstly Fatima you said a small grace is actual grace. As my reply to Sg catholic was in fact concerning the Holy Father. Was your statement that.... "However assuming that living in fornication, adultery or sodomy is a grace is heresy".......Is that statement a reference to the Holy Father or not?

Secondly in my reply to you I state,

So you are probably right if he said or implyed...... living in fornication, adultery or sodomy is a grace, than thats heresy!!! and going by that he is a heretic.
And you did not correct that assetertion so I believed you were referring to the Holy Father as a Heretic!

Then you go on to state............ Grace in the act of mortal sin?????? What!!!! This is so contrary to what with commandments of the Father and the Gospel teachings of Jesus, the writings of his apostles, 2000 years

So you are claiming that what the Holy Father has said is contray to Catholic teachings and is therefore a heretic!

Then in reply to you I try to satiate your desire to ram home your claims and disdain for and about the Holy Father and so I agree [facetiously, for all those wondering], hoping you will see how complicated, erronous and bias your claims are by stating ......

I'm not arguing with you.
He is obviously a heretic!

He didn't quantify what grace it was, and of course the small graces that even St Augustine recieved even though he was still cohabitating with mistresses were really not graces as St Augustine continued.... as you put it "in the act of mortal sin??????"

So I agree no graces were given by God, because these sinful fornicators continued in their acts of Mortal sin.

And I expect that all the graces were actually given in one heap, when and only at the moment of repentance and conversion. Point taken.

Then your next post above you do not clarify your thoughts on the Holy Father, however what you state is a complete turn about from your previous posts because you actually state what I have been saying all along! that is that small graces [actual graces] are given freely by God all day long!

But in the same post you then contradict yourself and repeat the nonsence ........that the issue being discussed is whether living in cohabitation brings actual grace and leads to sanctifying grace?


Hold on! God gives graces, like you just admitted! sin does not! and Our Holy Father never said that sin gives graces?



So we are not discussing that cohabitation brings actual grace. We are discussing whether the grace of fidelity [an actual grace given by God not by sin] can lead to futher small graces that can bring the sinner to repentance and thereby to sanctifying grace and in the case in question...... to sacramental marriage!

 

What is the situation with regard to the first marriage, which remains valid? Have you also thought about the situation of the other person and the validity of their first marriage, as it seems that is ignored in this discussion?

He was abandoned by the wife, no? I use this example. He was abandoned by the wife, and then this woman came to his aid.

Regarding cohabitating couples, do you believe they should be given Communion in some cases?

No, I only say what is said in the document of the apostolic exhortation. We see this couple that is cohabitating or only civilly married — cohabitating, let’s say. It’s not the Christian ideal. Let’s admit that it’s not the ideal, a good thing, not a legitimate union. But let’s see also that there is good. They really love each other. They are not yet married because they don’t have sufficient means for the future. They are people who do good in the community in which they find themselves. All these things are positive.

We have to recognize that and have a pastoral dialogue with these persons and say: Let’s reflect on this together. Wouldn’t it be better to marry? What are the obstacles? Can we help you as an ecclesial community? All this to bring them, step by step, to a canonical marriage. We can’t say: “You are public sinners. Shame on you.” Let’s begin by saying: “You love each other. You have reasons for not marrying; at least you feel these reasons are important for you. You are also good people, respected by everyone.” These things are important. Let’s say it. Let’s underline these things. Let’s have a discussion, in order to arrive at the maturation of a marriage in the Church.

Isn’t it better to simply say this situation is sinful, that it is better to be married and not to continue living together?

If these two love each other, they want to be married. They don’t do it now for reasons that, for them, seem important. Why do you have to tell them to separate? Rather, you should say: “Let’s go together toward a canonical marriage. It will be in a year? Okay. Let’s go.”

Should they be able to receive the sacraments before they marry, in your view?

I don’t necessarily have to give Communion to them. There may be particular cases. It’s not a case of permitting Communion. It’s only a case of looking beneficently upon them. The people who find themselves in these unions have positive elements.

You say Communion can be given, despite living in situations not in line with traditional matrimonial canons, if they express the sincere desire to approach the sacraments after an appropriate period of discernment. But your pontifical council explained in a 2000 declaration why Canons 915 and 916 prevent the admission of such couples to holy Communion and makes the point, in legal language, that it can’t be changed because Jesus said so.

I know the canons by heart. I know them very well. Who is in serious sin cannot receive the Eucharist without first going to confession or having the desire to confess if he is now unable to confess.


But let me read part of this, because it is important. It says: “Any interpretation of Canon 915 that would set itself against the canon’s substantial content, as declared uninterruptedly by the magisterium and by the discipline of the Church throughout the centuries, is clearly misleading. One cannot confuse respect for the wording of the law (Canon 17) with the improper use of the very same wording as an instrument for relativizing the precepts or emptying them of their substance.”

Is this declaration still in force, and, if not, why not declare it no longer in force?

It is always in force. Who is in grave sin and says I have no intention to change: These are the Canons 915 and 916. But if someone says: “I want to change, but in this moment I cannot, because if I do it, I will kill people,” I can say to them, “Stop there. When you can, I will give you absolution and Communion.” Or also, I can insist on this intention of yours and say you are not in sin because you have the serious intention to change but at this moment you cannot do it. There are two things to put together. Understand? This person is already converted, is already detached from evil, but materially cannot do it. It’s a matter of caring for these situations. You rush to say it, but if a light doesn’t turn on, then you can understand the other interpretations. Don’t worry.

Canonists say these rules, 915 and 916, were changed in certain interpretations of Amoris Laetitia.

They haven’t changed. It hasn’t changed absolutely anything. I say this in the book to whom you cannot give absolution and Eucharist. Those are the canons. To the one who says, “I’m in grave sin, but I don’t want to change” [absolution is not possible]. When someone comes to confess and says to you, “I committed this sin. I want to change, but I know that I am not capable of changing, but I want to change,” what do you do? Do you send him away? No, you absolve him.

So they can receive the sacraments?

The sacraments are absolution and the Eucharist. The person does the same things, but he sincerely wants to change. Do you see there is an impossibility in this case? One cannot change immediately.

Do they have to change their style of life before receiving Communion?

No, they have to change their intention, not their style of life. If you wait until someone changes their style of life, you wouldn’t absolve anymore anyone at all. It’s the intention. I want to change even if I know I am not able. But I began to walk. I’ll take little steps. I will pray five minutes more so that I can. The important thing is take a step. If someone does nothing, I can’t absolve them. If someone says, “Yes, I want to. I will do what I can, the least thing,” then he is already on the road to conversion.

The discipline is coherent with the doctrine, according to you?

Perfectly. The doctrine says who is converted can receive the absolution of sins and the Eucharist. Absolution of sin means the Eucharist; the two go together. Who is truly penitent? Who undertakes to do all that they can? If someone does just one thing out of a hundred, that is already something important. This is the thing to understand.

(cont'd)

 

How do you recognize a true penitent?

You have to pay attention to what the penitent says. If you know — you can tell if he is misleading you. But someone who comes to confession, already by the fact that he comes to confess, means he has the intention to change. In this moment, in this world, where confession is absolutely of one’s free will, if someone comes to confess, it doesn’t make any sense that he comes and doesn’t want to change — I come but I don’t want to change. If I come to confess, it’s because I have a positive intention, even a small one, but serious, to change. You have to put all your attention on this intention. I’ll do all that I can.

For the divorced and remarried, their status and receiving Communion is very public, a possible source of scandal for others. What do you say to this point?

I say in the book, it’s necessary to instruct the faithful that when they see two divorced and remarried that go to the Eucharist, they ought not to say the Church now says that condition is good, therefore marriage is no longer indissoluble. They ought to say these people will have reasons examined by the ecclesial authorities on account of which they cannot change their condition, and in the expectation that they change, the Church has placed importance on their desire, their intention to change with the impossibility of doing so. Therefore, it’s one of those cases in which it is possible that the Church says go to the Eucharist. Do you see? There it’s necessary to instruct the faithful. There ought not to be the possibility of, as is said, of scandal, of false judgment. It’s necessary to instruct the faithful. Do you see? I wrote all this.

In these sinful situations, they can in certain cases receive the sacraments, but won’t the public read this as the Church condoning their adulterous situation?

Not if you instruct the faithful and say it is not like that. Someone can think what they want. But if you stand by what the Church says, which explains it to you, you can’t anymore think differently. If you are a person who doesn’t understand, or sees only certain things and not others, okay.

With regard to the indissolubility of marriage, to you, this remains the same?

The same, even more so.

Some divorced and remarried continue to live in sinful situations if they desire to do it, but some have given their lives for the indissolubility of marriage as Christ taught, like St. Thomas More. Was their martyrdom in vain?

Let’s stop, because I know I won’t be able to explain it to you well. These people — take the women I spoke about in the book — say to everyone that marriage is indissoluble: “I am in a bad situation. But I would like to change it precisely because marriage is indissoluble. But at this moment I can’t do it.”

If you continue to say that marriage is not indissoluble, it means we haven’t understood each other; but this woman continues to say that marriage is indissoluble. But how can she leave the union? He [her civilly married spouse] will kill himself. The children, who will take care of them? They will be without a mother. Therefore, she has to stay there.

But these cases are very rare.

That is great if they are rare, but they do exist. I have experienced them personally.

But if they are so rare, why didn’t the Pope simply write a note to all the bishops saying in these cases to apply the Church’s doctrine differently?

He’s written [about this].

But there wouldn’t have been a need for the two synods.

If I read the document to you, I would show you the various passages. I didn’t write all of this; it’s in the document. I have to go now. More than this, I can’t tell you. Don’t be anxious. Marriage is indissoluble. These persons are in irregular situations. They want to change, but they can’t.

One last topic: At a recent plenary meeting with the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, you reportedly encouraged the members to push for a less rigid understanding of the priesthood, essentially telling them to give up on an objective and metaphysical notion of priesthood. Your notion was that as we have an understanding of different levels of communion with the Church among the baptized, we should have different degrees of the fullness of priesthood, so as to permit Protestants to minister without being fully ordained. What exactly did you say, and why did you say it?

I was saying we have to reflect on questions. We say, everything is valid; nothing is valid. Maybe we have to reflect on this concept of validity or invalidity. The Second Vatican Council said there is a true communion even if it is not yet definitive or full. You see, they made a concept not so decisive, either all or nothing. There’s a communion that is already good, but some elements are missing. But, if you say some things are missing and that therefore there is nothing, you err. There are pieces missing, but there is already a communion, but it is not full communion. The same thing can be said, or something similar, of the validity or invalidity of ordination. I said let’s think about it. It’s a hypothesis. Maybe there is something, or maybe there’s nothing — a study, a reflection.

Is the goal intercommunion?

No, it’s just a reflection that one might make. The consequences are not taken into consideration. It’s only a reflection.

Edward Pentin is the Register’s Rome correspondent.

 

What that line means is this:
With the help of divine grace, one can refrain from becoming fornicators, adulterers, effeminate, liers with mankind, thieves, covetous, drunkards, railers, extortioners, and all others who commit deadly sins.
But if we do not co-operate with such grace, then on account of committing those deadly sins, we are separated from the grace of Christ.

"That by every mortal sin, grace is lost"

 

Ok super serious question... Am I the only one who starts singing this in my head every time I read the title of this thread?

What does a Pope..... errrrrr Fox say....

 

I don't very often disagree with you, and when proper distinctions are made I doubt we disagree, but a well catechized faithful lay Catholic can state unequivocally and with no qualms of conscience, this pope is indeed a material heretic. The evidence has become overwhelming.

 

Finally.

 

In traditional Catholic theology, the term material heresy refers to an opinion that is objectively contradictory to the teachings of the Church, and as such heretical, but which is uttered by a person without the subjective knowledge of its being so.

No Material Heresy. Our Holy Father has subjective knowledge. Your statement won't fly. Either say it or move on. You can't be in the middle.

You understand exactly what I am saying.