Cardinal Coccopalmerio Explains

[JPUSC]

The whole concept of sacramentality is up for grabs. The incarnation isn’t far behind.

 

[JPUSC]

I thought this article was scandalous. I feel like I am pretty well informed about the faith, but I think of all the headlines that will come and the people that will be led astray by this interview. I am saddened that this has happened. I will continue to pray for those who are telling the faithful that a sin is no longer a sin.

 

[twf]

And the Lutheran Eucharist is 75 percent the body and blood of Christ, while that of born against is only about 50 percent.

To be fair, I believe Cardinal Ratzinger once spoke of the possibility of Lutherans having a true, but not truly sacramental, spiritual encounter with the Lord when they receive their communion in good faith. Lutherans sincerely believe in the Real Presence. No, that doesn’t mean that the sacrament is truly confected, but the Lord, I think, accepts their sincere faith.

 

[Origen52]

This article contains an insight into another reason why the church wants to liberalize church teaching. 5 billion Euros is a big incentive.

christiantoday.com/article/germany.steep.decline.in.catholic.church.attendance/90826.htm

 

[JPUSC]

This article contains an insight into another reason why the church wants to liberalize church teaching. 5 billion Euros is a big incentive.

christiantoday.com/article/germany.steep.decline.in.catholic.church.attendance/90826.htm

Yup.

ibtimes.com.au/catholic-church-owns-billion-dollar-german-media-firm-selling-porn-1299772

 

[Mongo]

To be fair, I believe Cardinal Ratzinger once spoke of the possibility of Lutherans having a true, but not truly sacramental, spiritual encounter with the Lord when they receive their communion in good faith. Lutherans sincerely believe in the Real Presence. No, that doesn’t mean that the sacrament is truly confected, but the Lord, I think, accepts their sincere faith.

I wouldn’t doubt that any Protestant has had an encounter with Jesus. However, that is beside the point. The bishop suggested degrees of ordination, kind of like circles of truth. There are some who hold to a faith that is very near the truth, and there are some with a lesser degree of truth. Those who are closer to the fullness of truth have a greater degree of ordination and those with lesser have lesser, but all have ordination because all have truth.

 

[Richard_White]

That was one of the most confusing interviews I have ever read, especially the parts about those unmarried couples who are cohabiting, and the reflections about ordination.

“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.”

I don’t think anyone is suggesting that cohabiting couples must be shamed as public sinners. The fact remains that they are living in fornication, and marriage is certainly possible. There is nothing whatever wrong with having a pastoral dialogue and reflection with them. The purpose would be to bring them out of their current state of living and presumably into a valid marriage, not to bring them to communion while still cohabiting.

As to the comments on ordination, I am nonplussed. Is there a middle state between validity and invalidity? Partially ordained? We admit three stages of ordination: deacon, priest, and bishop, but not partial stages of validity.

Indeed. The amount of runaround present in this interview is almost outrageous. I couldn’t even finish reading all of it because it was boggling my mind and not flowing rationally at all.

The bottom line is that with some things there are indeed gray areas that need to be addressed with pastoral care. However, with situations such as this, we cannot simply let people do whatever they want. Catholic writer Matthew Kelly said in one of his books that “God meets us where we are, but He loves us too much for us to stay that way.” When we turn our lives to God, we need to be completely and utterly transformed into Christ, reforming our lives with His help. We cannot serve God and mammon. In addition, Jesus also said that if we must, we must leave, father, mother, sister, brother in order to follow Him. This will also include an objectively sinful conjugal relationship.

May God bless you all and grant the Church’s leadership His Light on these matters.

 

[JimG]

"Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful." Familiar is consortio, John Paul II

That is pretty definitive.

Definitive indeed.

The Holy Spirit does not change his mind and contradict existing doctrine after 2,000 years.

 

[FollowChrist34]

To be fair, I believe Cardinal Ratzinger once spoke of the possibility of Lutherans having a true, but not truly sacramental, spiritual encounter with the Lord when they receive their communion in good faith. Lutherans sincerely believe in the Real Presence. No, that doesn’t mean that the sacrament is truly confected, but the Lord, I think, accepts their sincere faith.

I agree. Not to out-Francis Francis, but I am ok with Christ being present in their bread and wine. That is how I ‘discern’ it anyway, so there.

 

[Mongo]

I agree. Not to out-Francis Francis, but I am ok with Christ being present in their bread and wine. That is how I ‘discern’ it anyway, so there.

Whether you’re ok with it or not is irrelevant to whether it is true. You and the cardinal are tossing out the whole tradition of the church when it comes ordination, the church, apostolic succession, and the Eucharist.

 

[Rau]

To be fair, I believe Cardinal Ratzinger once spoke of the possibility of Lutherans having a true, but not truly sacramental, spiritual encounter with the Lord when they receive their communion in good faith. Lutherans sincerely believe in the Real Presence. No, that doesn’t mean that the sacrament is truly confected, but the Lord, I think, accepts their sincere faith.

To which Lutheran Church are you referring?

 

[Ginny89]

Things are moving with all the dizzying speed of an October Revolution. We have now passed from Communion for remarried divorcees to Communion (in some cases) for cohabiting couples who could marry but choose not to, and on to partially valid Protestant ordinations.

Next on the list is - and I speak with the Voice of Prophecy - Communion for homosexual and lesbian couples. And then Communion for anyone who in any way is breaking the 6th and 9th Commandments and who feels he/she is not really able to keep them just yet…
.

Funny! I remember some completely rubishing the idea of a “slippery slope” just a few weeks ago on this very subforum and becoming livid that anyone would accuse them of supporting positions that go there. Well, it looks like we didn’t have to wait that long, did we?

Just in case it is lost on some, “funny” here does not mean light-hearted and humorous, but strange and ironic.

 

[Ginny89]

It is indeed possible. But if they are saved it is in spite of their erroneous understanding of Christianity (in the Catholic faith, which represents God’s true intentions for mankind), not because of it.

And one has to ask; what is “informal communion”? One might say “not in full communion” for example for those in the sspx who hold true to what the Catholic faith taught up to the 1960s, but reject much of the events since then. Their canonical situation is difficult, but they hold to the faith as it was understood before Vatican II so could not be called heretical. However, when you’re talking about protestants in the Anglican church, who deny the very Sacraments themselves, the euphemism “in informal communion” seems an inappropriate way to avoid pronouncing the truth that they established a worldly church in opposition to the Church Christ founded.

I feel like the whole thing comes down to the church overeaching into areas beyond her purview. The church teaches that we can hope and it is possible. But it is not revealed to us as a matter of fact how God saves anyone other than through the means he has clearly revealed to the church.

When we start talking about “levels of communion” or ordination, we are pretending to know things that have not been revealed to us.

We know that Jesus saves through the church. We know that he is able to save those outside the visible barriers of the church. BUT we haven’t the slightest clue just how he does that and in exactly what situations he does that (just who would benefit or not); so our job is to teach the whole world that they should be catholics! The rest is a mystery that is known only to God.

 

[Ginny89]

The Pope could - humanly speaking - make a clear and unambiguous Magisterial pronouncement tomorrow and break the back of all remaining resistance, as convinced Catholics would feel obliged to acquiesce to such a pronouncement (or blow their brains out if they could not handle the mental contradiction). The majority of the hierarchy and the vast majority of the laity would support him, as would the near-totality of secular opinion.

Just saying, I wouldn’t blow my brains out. Neither could I acquiesce. That’d be impossible as it would require me to reject my own reason and hold true to it at the same time. Or maybe I would blow my mind as you suggest. But I think I would do the next best thing and adopt the only worldview that allows me to hold a contradiction: the contraAristotelian Eastern World-views like Buddism. At least they dont take as absolutely true the fundamental foundations of human reason which is our basis for claiming objective truth of any sort. Or maybe I’d just stop thinking altogether. Just to live in peace. But I already tried that since the synod and I did not find peace. But if the church formally contradicted herself, who knows. Maybe the reason for the lack of peace will have been resolved and one could then change courses without experiencing the same protest or pain.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

Just saying, I wouldn’t blow my brains out. Neither could I acquiesce. That’d be impossible as it would require me to reject my own reason and hold true to it at the same time. Or maybe I would blow my mind as you suggest. But I think I would do the next best thing and adopt the only worldview that allows me to hold a contradiction: the contraAristotelian Eastern World-views like Buddism. At least they dont take as absolutely true the fundamental foundations of human reason which is our basis for claiming objective truth of any sort. Or maybe I’d just stop thinking altogether. Just to live in peace. But I already tried that since the synod and I did not find peace. But if the church formally contradicted herself, who knows. Maybe the reason for the lack of peace will have been resolved and one could then change courses without experiencing the same protest or pain.

I guarantee, on the graves of my ancestors, that the Pope will never, ever, *ever *make a magisterial pronouncement that in any way contradicts the perennial teaching of the Church. Ever.

Which is why I’m not unduly concerned. This current drama has one peculiar characteristic - everybody you notice is speaking unofficially. Nobody is abrogating or replacing the Church’s Magisterium (perhaps, just perhaps, because they don’t believe in it). In consequence everyone is making their own position clear on crucial points of Church teaching without that teaching being affected in any way.

Personally I think it’s an excellent state of affairs. Everyone is standing up to be counted, each going to his place. This is clearing the air in a way we haven’t seen in decades.

 

[Mongo]

What is the difference if the church only has divorce and remarriage in its praxis? If the church practices something, that implies that it also believes it. If it allows divorced and remarried people to receive communion, it implies that there is no barrier to communion. Praxis and doctrine can’t be divided.

 

[Stat_Crux]

What is the difference if the church only has divorce and remarriage in its praxis? If the church practices something, that implies that it also believes it. If it allows divorced and remarried people to receive communion, it implies that there is no barrier to communion. Praxis and doctrine can’t be divided.

Exactly. The biggest criticism Our Lord had of the pharisees was that they professed to keep the letter of the law, but actually ignored the substance of why it existed. The Church cannot say one thing and do another, or we’d be just as hypocritical as those Christ condemned.

 

[Pulvis]

I guarantee, on the graves of my ancestors, that the Pope will never, ever, *ever *make a magisterial pronouncement that in any way contradicts the perennial teaching of the Church. Ever.

Which is why I’m not unduly concerned. This current drama has one peculiar characteristic - everybody you notice is speaking unofficially. Nobody is abrogating or replacing the Church’s Magisterium (perhaps, just perhaps, because they don’t believe in it). In consequence everyone is making their own position clear on crucial points of Church teaching without that teaching being affected in any way.

Personally I think it’s an excellent state of affairs. Everyone is standing up to be counted, each going to his place. This is clearing the air in a way we haven’t seen in decades.

And the Documents coming out of Vatican Council II did not specifically prescribe most of the novelties that were sold as the “Spirit of” the council. But they happened all the same. So pardon me if I do not share your optimism.

Hold Fast my friends, it is getting nautical on this Barq.

 

[twf]

To which Lutheran Church are you referring?

Does it matter? We’re talking about subjective hypotheticals.

That being said, I have heard it argued that, prior to the introduction of women bishops in recent decades, the Lutheran Church of Sweden may have preserved apostolic succession.

 

[Rau]

Does it matter? We’re talking about subjective hypotheticals.

That being said, I have heard it argued that, prior to the introduction of women bishops in recent decades, the Lutheran Church of Sweden may have preserved apostolic succession.

It matters because on a many matters, referring to the belief or similar of the Lutheran church is a meaningless statement. There are many variants with radically different beliefs, even within the one branch of Lutheran church eg. ELCA.