I was not referring to the moral action but the “sinfulness” of committing a morally serious action. The sinfulness refers to the way in which the action impacts the state of the soul.
I would say to the woman who had an abortion that the blood of her child is on her hands, and that she needs to repent of denying her child the face of GOd. THat is what POpe Sixtus V said in his APostolic COnstituion (Magisterial Document, meaning a teaching document) Effraenatum:
"Noticing that frequently by various Apostolic Constitutions the audacity and daring of most profligate men, who know no restraint, of sinning with license against the commandment "do not kill" was repressed; We who are placed by the Lord in the supreme throne of justice, being counseled by a most just reason, are in part renewing old laws and in part extending them in order to restrain with just punishment the monstrous and atrocious brutality of those who have no fear to kill most cruelly fetuses still hiding in the maternal viscera. **Who will not detest such an abhorrent and evil act, by which are lost not only the bodies but also the souls? **Who will not condemn to a most grave punishment the impiety ***of him who will exclude a soul created in the image of God and for which Our Lord Jesus Christ has shed His precious Blood, and which is capable of eternal happiness and is destined to be in the company of angels, from the blessed vision of God***, and who has impeded as much as he could the filling up of heavenly mansions (left vacant by the fallen angels), and has taken away the service to God by His creature? who has deprived children of life before they could naturally see light or could be protected by maternal body from ferocious cruelty?"You are right. But, that doesn’t mean that truth is fully understood. The Holy Spirit helps us to expand upon and unravel truth as the ages go by…
The Orthodox Churches do have Apostolic Succession. That has never been a question. They have valid Holy Orders. They can trace their history back to the Apostles.
Thank you for that clarification.The Orthodox Churches do have Apostolic Succession. That has never been a question. They have valid Holy Orders. They can trace their history back to the Apostles.
The confusion for many Roman Catholics comes from our lack of understanding of Apostolic Succession and our lack of understanding of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is a communion of 23 Churches of which the Roman Catholic Church is one and the largest of the 23.
Without going into details, if one studies the history of the Orthodox Churches, one finds that they are in schism from the Oriental Catholic Churches. They were never Roman Catholics. For example, you have Greek Catholics and Greek Orthodox. They share a common rite and a common origin, the Apostle Paul. After the schism, they preserved the priesthood. Because the bishops in the schism were validly ordained, they were able to validly ordain other priests and bishops.
That generation has long died off. The way that the Church looks at the situation is to say that the generation of men involved in the separation were schismatics, not the Orthodox Christians of today. To be a schismatic you must be guilty of schism.
On the other hand, you have a situation where an entire community is in schism, because of the schismatic act of their forefathers. This is the case of Orthodox Christians. The individuals are not schismatic. They did not break off. They are in schism, because they are part of a Church that is separated. One can be separated without being the cause for the separation. The culpable party is the one who caused the separation.
For this reason, the Pontiff lifted the excommunications and anathemas against the Orthodox Churches and the Orthodox lifted the excommunications and anathemas against the Catholic Churches. The legal point here is rather interesting, because excommunication is a disciplinary action intended to heal and to bring back a person who is in error. In this case, the excommunications were ineffective. The Catholics did not move toward the Orthodox and the Orthodox did not move toward the Catholics. From a purely canonical point of view, the lifting of the excommunication is legitimate, because it is not the desire of the Church to alienate, but to unite. If an action does not unite, why persevere in it?
In addition, the Catholic Churches (all 23) agree that the Orthodox Churches can celebrate the sacraments validly and licitly. The validity comes through Holy Orders. The lawfulness comes from the fact that the Catholic Church does not have jurisdiction to deny them faculties. The Church can only grant or deny faculties to priests who are under her jurisdiction. The rule for faculties is that they must be granted by a bishop who is an Ordinary. The Orthodox bishops have Ordinary jurisdiction over their people.
There are major issues that still keep Catholics and Orthodox separated: questions about the primacy of Peter, the Immaculate Conception, and purgatory. Other questions are not as important. In fact, there are some theological differences in the way that Roman Catholics and Oriental Catholics view some things. The Oriental Catholics are more similar to the Orthodox than they are to Roman Catholics. The big difference between an Oriental Catholic and an Orthodox Christian is the communion with the papacy.
Because Catholics (all 23 Churches) and Orthodox have the means and the access to the sacraments, especially the Eucharist and Reconciliation, salvation is always possible for both, if they make proper use of the sacraments and the spiritual life.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Yes, and the early abolitionist efforts were led by Protestant churches. The Catholic Church followed their leadership on the issue some time later, changing its moral position on slavery as a result (according to Noonan). This would may be an example of the Catholic Church benefiting from Protestant example.
As Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger (at the time) explained, the rule is not as black and white as we make it sound.
Doctrines and moral truth is not changeable. What can change are the words that we use to explain them. In addition, disciplines that are instituted by the Church can be changed by the Church. The Church has the power to bind and unbind.
newadvent.org/cathen/14036a.htm
Thank you for your considered reply. Here is a paper by a Catholic who is well respected, even to the extent that he was an adviser to Vatican II. Judge Noonan’s opinion is that the Church has in fact changed its moral position over time. I cite this paper for its conciseness and the reputation and mental vigor of the author. Noonan’s opening paragraph states:Doctrines and moral truth is not changeable. What can change are the words that we use to explain them. In addition, disciplines that are instituted by the Church can be changed by the Church. The Church has the power to bind and unbind.
The problem that you will find is that many Catholics are poorly educated in the faith, often through no fault of their own. They read a doctrine written by a council in the 1500s and read it again in today’s language and believe that there has been a change, because the words are different. The case is that the target audience has changed. The Church adapts her language to the target population. For example, during the Protestant Reformation the Catholic Church came down very hard on heresy, apostasy and she even persecuted heretics or authorized their persecution.
Today, some people are in awe because the Pope is on friendly terms with Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Orthodox and others. The fact is that those statements were targeting Catholics who were breaking away from the Church. Those statements still apply today to any Catholic who is breaking away.
At the time, there was no such a thing as Lutheran church, or Baptist church, etc. They were Catholics who were following Luther, Calvin et al. Luther and Calvin were considered to be Catholics. The Church referred to them as protestants. Today, we would call them dissenters or protesters. What the Church said about heretics applied to them. it does not apply to people who are born 500 years later into a Protestant family. The Church was not thinking about them. She did not think that the heresy of Luther and Calvin would lead to a 500-year separation. No one thought that it would turn out that way. Everyone thought that if they hung in there, things would resolve themselves and life would go on as usual. The Church thought that if it punished by excommunicating, she would bring back her wayward children. Obviously, that did not happen.
The moral truth remains the same. Heresy is an evil to be avoided. What is different is that today we’re talking to the descendants of the heretics. Therefore, we must change our language and understand their situation. They are not the same people and the situation is not the same. They are not rebel Catholics. They are what they are.
To many people who do not stop to think about the history of these statements and who refuse to even consider how badly the Church handled the situation, today’s effort to be more fraternal and more honest sound as if the Church is changing the moral rules, which is not the case. The case is that she’s speaking to a different population.
In closing, I can offer one example from secular history. To the English of the 18th century, there were no such people as Americans. What they saw were terrorists, traitors, and anarchists. They responded accordingly. Today, we do not look at the English as our oppressors nor do they look at us as terrorists. Therefore, we speak to each other differently than we did in the 18th century. That does not mean that the rules that govern regarding terrorism, rebelling, treason and other have changed. Those rules are still there. But the people of England and the USA are not the same people. There is no need to treat each other that way. We do other things that strengthen our unity as two nations that respect each other.
The same happens with the Church and other faiths. She still condemns any Catholic who goes down the wrong path. But she also extends her hand in fraternity to those children of former Catholics and those who were never Christian.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF