A
Cardinal Burke: synod did not, and cannot, approve 'internal forum' approach for divorced/remarried Communion
- Status
S
Seamus_L
Guest
Glad we have Bishops like Burke, Sarah, and Schneider speaking out boldly.
P
pnewton
Guest
Cardinal Burke and Father Spadaro are more than welcome to do all the op-eds, clarifications, interviews and teaching they see fit. I will wait for the Holy Father’s presentation of the synod results.
No, the synod cannot open any door. That was not their job. Now we wait (or not).
No, the synod cannot open any door. That was not their job. Now we wait (or not).
S
sarah_j
Guest
Yes, thank God for them!
This morning I was reading an article on some recent statements of Bishop Schneider
regarding the subject of this thread.
The good bishop doesn’t beat around the bush.
When clergy stand up for the admittance of divorced and civilly remarried Catholics to HolyCommunion, they in fact solemnize their adultery and their sin against the Sixth Commandment.They give to such faithful the message that their divorce and the continuous violation of their sacramental bonds can become ultimately a positive reality. In other words, such clergy are liars.
However, in order to cover their evident lie and contradiction to the Word of God, they protect themselves with the masque of using the concept of “Divine mercy" and sentimental expressions like: “to open a door", to “be pastorally creative”, “to be open to the surprises of the Holy Spirit".
To such a theoretical and practical behavior one can apply the following statement of George Orwell: “Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind".
scribd.com/doc/291360122/The-unchangeable-truth-about-marriage-and-sexuality-by-Bishop-Athanasius-Schneider
L
LongingSoul
Guest
‘such clergy are liars’? What is he trying to achieve?Yes, thank God for them!
This morning I was reading an article on some recent statements of Bishop Schneider
regarding the subject of this thread.
The good bishop doesn’t beat around the bush.
When clergy stand up for the admittance of divorced and civilly remarried Catholics to HolyCommunion, they in fact solemnize their adultery and their sin against the Sixth Commandment.They give to such faithful the message that their divorce and the continuous violation of their sacramental bonds can become ultimately a positive reality. In other words, such clergy are liars.
However, in order to cover their evident lie and contradiction to the Word of God, they protect themselves with the masque of using the concept of “Divine mercy" and sentimental expressions like: “to open a door", to “be pastorally creative”, “to be open to the surprises of the Holy Spirit".
To such a theoretical and practical behavior one can apply the following statement of George Orwell: “Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind".
scribd.com/doc/291360122/The-unchangeable-truth-about-marriage-and-sexuality-by-Bishop-Athanasius-Schneider
I would ask this Bishop if he remembered the days when alcoholics were denied the sacraments and Catholic burial.
We read in the Canons of the Apostles (Can. xli, xlii): “A bishop, priest or deacon who is given to drunkenness or gambling, or incites others thereto, must either cease or be deposed; a subdeacon, reader or precentor who does these things must either give them up or be excommunicated; the same applies to the laity.” Now such punishments are not inflicted save for mortal sins. Therefore drunkenness is a mortal sin.http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3150.htm#article2
Those many good Priest that ignored this teaching and administered the sacraments to alcoholics… were they liars too? Does the Bishop even consider that things about the human condition come to light that can make those ‘obstinately persisting in mortal sin’ be seen as wounded by humanness and the culture deserving of inclusion rather than exclusion?
This change in the Churchs approach came from good Priests and Bishops in parishes who could see with their eyes and sense with their hearts that there was a condition present that warranted allowances. They were acting with the compassion of Christ and were proved to be true.
How can he categorically call Priests ‘liars’? I don’t know.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
What in his words or actions leads you to believe he thinks there is an open door?
S
sarah_j
Guest
Obviously I can’t speak for Bishop Schneider, but he appears to be warning
faithful Catholics that there are some within the Church who are teaching in error.
And, most importantly, that Catholics shouldn’t let themselves be taken in by those
erroneous teachings… even if they are espoused by bishops and cardinals.
Over the past several years there emerged within the Church a party, mainly composed of priests and even of some bishops and cardinals. This party has the aim to achieve a change in the practice of the Roman Catholic Church, in a practice which is already two thousand years old and according to which the reception of Holy Communion on behalf of divorced who live with a new partner and are civilly remarried is not possible, because this would be against the will of God, since the word of God says: “The adulterers will not inherit the kingdom of God".
The mentioned party uses different arguments. The arguments which they use remind us of the typical attitude of the early Christian Gnostics, for whom there would be definitely a contradiction between doctrine and practice.
…**No Catholic who still takes seriously his Baptismal vows, should allow himself to be intimidated by these new sophistic teachers of fornication and adultery, even though - sad to say - these teachers hold the office of a bishop or cardinal. **
scribd.com/doc/291360122/The-unchangeable-truth-about-marriage-and-sexuality-by-Bishop-Athanasius-Schneider
J
JurisPrudens
Guest
What’s the alleged problem? Gambling and drunkenness are mortal sins. I see no contradiction.
P
phil19034
Guest
Anyone who thinks Cardinal Burke is wrong… read all of 2 John (it’s short)
The below is from 2 John 8-11 (RSV-CE)
8 Look to yourselves, that you may not lose what you[c] have worked for, but may win a full reward. 9 Any one who goes ahead and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God; he who abides in the doctrine has both the Father and the Son. 10 If any one comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into the house or give him any greeting; 11 for he who greets him shares his wicked work.
*The below is from 2 John 8-11 (NABRE)
*8 Look to yourselves that you[f] do not lose what we worked for but may receive a full recompense. 9 Anyone who is so “progressive”[g] as not to remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God; whoever remains in the teaching has the Father and the Son. 10 [h]If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him in your house or even greet him; 11 for whoever greets him shares in his evil works.
The below is from 2 John 8-11 (RSV-CE)
8 Look to yourselves, that you may not lose what you[c] have worked for, but may win a full reward. 9 Any one who goes ahead and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God; he who abides in the doctrine has both the Father and the Son. 10 If any one comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into the house or give him any greeting; 11 for he who greets him shares his wicked work.
*The below is from 2 John 8-11 (NABRE)
*8 Look to yourselves that you[f] do not lose what we worked for but may receive a full recompense. 9 Anyone who is so “progressive”[g] as not to remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God; whoever remains in the teaching has the Father and the Son. 10 [h]If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him in your house or even greet him; 11 for whoever greets him shares in his evil works.
P
pnewton
Guest
He wasn’t posting here for one thing. The CAF staff considers it taboo to call Catholic clergy names. Maybe the word “liar” means something more loose and nuanced than it its actual meaning. Again, another irony.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
People who persisted in drunkenness were excommunicated and excluded from Catholic funeral and burial in a Catholic cemetery at one time. Then came the advances in understanding of the human condition and addiction was recognised as a contributing factor that can reduce or prevent true consent to sin. The language of the day and the Church changed to reflect this.What’s the alleged problem? Gambling and drunkenness are mortal sins. I see no contradiction.
Aquinas - "Such a man is a drunkard properly speaking,’’
Now, rather than being excommunicated, addicts can be included in reception of the sacraments subject to the internal forum.
This change was possible because a condition previously unknown fully by society made the allowance possible.
The general rule of course remains that drunkenness is a mortal sin and precludes one from the Eucharist until he is absolved in confession.
M
Megan7
Guest
Thank you, Abyssinia for the thread & link:thumbsup:
God bless Cardinal Burke! He is always in my prayers!
+PAX
P
phil19034
Guest
This is NOT the same thing.
- getting drunk and/or gambling are grave sins, but they are NOT always mortal sins.
- we now know that alcoholism is a disease and we treat as such.
- According to Jesus Christ (not the Bishops), marrying another person is adultery.
- According to God the Father (not the Bishops), adultery is against the Ten Commandments. It’s not even a derivative of one of the Commandments, it’s spelled out crystal clear and is the exact name of the commandment “Thou shall not commit adultery.”
- Are people claiming that getting a divorce & remarriage without an annulment is a disease, like alcoholism? Is someone claiming that the 2nd marriage is happening against the person’s will? Is someone claiming that the person isn’t PURPOSELY getting married? Are they not CHOOSING their own personal happiness over God’s Law?
However, when one divorces & remarries without an annulment, they are committing adultery. This is Dogma. Preventing the divorced & remarried from receiving communion is part of doctrine. It’s not a simple discipline. There is no way around it. Objectively, the only way a person could remotely not be guilty of adultery would be if they do not have the mental capacity to understand what the sin of adultery is.
For a priest or Bishop to say “you can receive the sacraments now” means that the priest or bishop feels that they person is too stupid to grasp their sinful situation. So instead they want to placate to their ignorance.
What about Mercy one might ask… The Church already has Mercy in place. It’s called an annulment. AN ANNULMENT IS MERCY. Now… if you want to talk about using technology to make the annulment process smoother, I’ll all for it. Use Skype, use databases, pull resources on a Province or National Conference level. But do NOT undermine the Sacrament of Marriage and our intelligence by saying that lay people are too stupid to understand the sin of adultery.
BTW - I might be mistaken, but I believe the excommunication you refer to in the above canon applies if the person is drunk at Mass, not in general.
God Bless
L
LongingSoul
Guest
The commandments obligate all men. The sacraments obligate Catholics. Now the issue that Pope Benedict raised when he was head of the CDF, that could be further studied, was that of sacraments celebrated without faith. The sacraments are sacraments of ‘faith’ afterall.
If a well recognised theologian could suggest such a possibility should warrant further study, isn’t it possible that faithlessness might be recognised as affecting sacramentality?
People that convert in faith, after having created a marriage and family in the prior state, are possibly no different to atheists in the same situation.
Of course discerning a defect of faith is different to detecting defects of form or matter. It couldn’t be a strictly administrative process because matters of faith belong in the faith community and the internal forum.
I advance these thoughts as a response to Pope Benedicts question mark regarding the issue of sacraments celebrated without faith.
M
Memaw
Guest
Anyone that comes forward to receive Our Lord in Holy Communion, MUST be in the state of Grace, free of Mortal Sin!. Doesn’t matter who we are or what our past sins are, we are only hurting ourselves and dishonoring Our Lord if we receive Him in the state of serious sin. It would be a sacrilege! I wouldn’t wish that on ANYONE, ever!! Bishops and priests do not have the authority to go against Church teaching anymore that us laity do. God Bless, Memaw
P
phil19034
Guest
I could be wrong, and I don’t have access to sources, but I believe that Pope BXVI concluded after years or prayer that there was no way to around it.
Maybe someone else knows for sure.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
How would you explain the changes in the Church over the last 2000 years, Memaw? How can it be that a thing could in one era be believed to be a part of a heresy, in another era, be released from that charge? I’m only in my 50’s but in my lifetime even, I can remember how things were when I was young and how they are now and there are so many changes that people could not have imagined or accepted back then. Do you think that everything that has changed since the 1st century represents a step away from Christ?
L
LongingSoul
Guest
This was what transpired in a meeting with the Clergy of the Diocese of Aosta in 2005.
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.
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.
w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2005/july/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20050725_diocesi-aosta.html
It gives insight into the demeanour of the Pope towards the question. It doesn’t portray a man angrily standing for the absolute truth of the current limits. It portrays a man who feels compassion for people in this situation and open as can be to ways to heal it.
C
Convert1
Guest
I agree, completely. Thank you for your post.
J
JimG
Guest
He was here posing a question, far from certain, about a potential new ground for invalidity. Now, if the prior marriage is found to be invalid, that is, null from the beginning, the problem is solved because there is no adultery. However, that would require a finding of nullity.
What I have been reading from some sources, though, seems almost to ignore the status of the first marriage, opting rather for a “penitential path.” But a penance cannot invalidate a valid marriage. So the question remains, will a new process, whatever it may be called, be able to resolve the status of the prior marriage. The Church does not consider itself able to sunder a valid marriage, only to recognize the fact of a nullity from the beginning.
- Status