Yesterday, 31 March, it became widely known that Pope Francis has chosen Anne-Marie Pelletier, a French Professor of hermeneutics and biblical exegesis, to write the meditations for the Stations of the Cross at the Colosseum on Good Friday which will be read by the pope himself. The author of this year’s Via Crucis Meditations was the first woman to receive, in 2014, the Ratzinger Prize which was established in 2010 by Pope Benedict XVI, and with the help of his own monetary donation. Pelletier is not the first woman, however, to have been asked by a pope to write the Via Crucis Meditations; she is the fourth woman to have been asked to do so, after Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI had appointed already three other women for that task.
However, what is yet more significant is that Professor Pelletier is an ardent progressive defender of the “remarried” divorcees, and thus of the habit (or acts) of adultery. She had participated in the highly controversial May 2015 Day of Study at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome organized by the German, French, and Swiss Bishops’ Conferences. This conference — whose talks have been subsequently published — prepared the way for the 2015 Synod on the Family and presented, among other themes, liberalizing ideas with regard to the “remarried” divorcees and homosexuality.
The title of Professor Pelletier’s talk at that gathering was “Concerning the Reception of Matthew 19:3-12”; this Scripture passage deals with the words of Jesus Christ concerning the fact that Moses had originally allowed divorce because of the “hardness of hearts” of his people. As Pelletier argues, also today, the customs of our times have changed in an analogous way. There is now, professedly, to be on the way an “ideal of temporary loyalty.” [my emphasis] It is in this context that Pelletier claims there are people who
warn against the violence which would be done to those persons in the situations in which they live – if these spouses were to be put into a fixed and conclusive category as “adulterers”; and if there is also depreciative talk about those persons who still insist upon practicing and retaining their sin; and who are, therefore, exposed to a canonical order that disallows them to live out the sacramental rootedness of their identity [sic]. [my emphasis]
Pelletier doubts whether one should call “each conjugal separation a sin.” She proposes to listen to the “sense of the faithful” (as was highly recommended also by the German bishops) and claims that those “remarried” couples are unfortunately in an “impasse” and do not find forgiveness. The French professor then proceeds to make her own special ideas even clearer:
Should not the Church simply take the risk in accepting that spouses who have come into conflict with the canonical law claim their right to ask for forgiveness, even if they do not claim the right for forgiveness? In this way, the Church would act according to the justice which Christ teaches, beyond the temptation into which His interlocutors [the Pharisees] tried to lead Him. [italics in the original; emphasis added]
Professor Pelletier effectively argues here that, if the Church were to accept and forgive “remarriage” after a civil divorce, it would act according to Christ’s Own Justice! Moreover, Pelletier also proposes an “actualization” of the passages of the New Testament, since some people’s lives have changed so fundamentally. She claims that the language of the Biblical texts has “to be translated again and again into the present,” adding: “They refer to life conditions which are simply not any more valid because of the social and cultural changes.” (As if human nature were not still the same even as it is today!)
Pelletier also comes up with the self-contradictory claim:
Exactly because the votum of Jesus – in favor of marriage and against divorce – is so clear, it is also open. […] This openness is not relativism, but the capacity to deal with the future.” [emphasis added]
The French professor also claims that the “teaching, morality, and law of the Church have to be constantly on the course of reform, since it is accountable for discovering anew, and under the markedly changing conditions, what marriage – in Jesus’ sense – means hic et nunc.”
As if this kind of speech was not yet enough, Pelletier also proposes the problematic line of argumentation that, since God can dissolve a marriage, the Church has now the permission to do the same:
But according to the New Testament, God Himself can dissolve a marriage – if the bond of the faithful with Him which has been concluded in baptism cannot at all be saved otherwise [sic]. Consequently, the Church has to make use of her power to bind and to loosen, and to do so in more cases than [were done] in the past – for the sake of the Faith. [emphasis added]
Professor Pelletier continues her argumentation in claiming that the earlier Catholic moral teaching which had “interpreted the 6th Commandment expansively [sic] and in such a way that any sexual intercourse outside of a validly contracted marriage is judged as being licentious” is “a rather rigid interpretation.” In her eyes, some of these divorced spouses who enter a new “relationship” are not culpable because they purportedly did not receive the grace to abstain from sexuality after a divorce. (We do wonder whether they asked for it.) In thus exculpating such a sinner, she explains: “Whoever does not have the grace, cannot immediately be called an obstinate sinner with reference to the indissolubility of marriage.”
And this intellectually promiscuous Professor now receives the honor of writing the Via Crucis Meditations? This, too, is mercy?
Comrades, yet another star of the relativist-evolutionary-Modernist school of exegesis gets given a central role by Mr. Mercy and his Malevolent Missionaries of Manipulation (aka the Deceit Fathers).
Let no-one even try to argue that these people are any longer (if they ever were), Catholics. They are not. Liberal progressives, liberal protestants, willing tools of the devil, unwitting tools of the devil, Masons, atheists: who cares what they are? Catholic they are not and Scripture tells us we MUST NOT follow them.
Matthew 24:24: For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect.
2 Peter 2:1-3 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there shall be among you lying teachers, who shall bring in sects of perdition, and deny the Lord who bought them: bringing upon themselves swift destruction.
And many shall follow their riotousnesses, through whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you. Whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their perdition slumbereth not.
Luke 6:26 Woe to you when men shall bless you: for according to these things did their fathers to the false prophets.
1 John 4:1 Dearly beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits if they be of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
Jeremiah 23:16 Thus saith the Lord of hosts: Hearken not to the words of the prophets that prophesy to you, and deceive you: they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the Lord.
Matthew 7:15 Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Ezekiel 13:9 And my hand shall be upon the prophets that see vain things, and that divine lies: they shall not be in the council of my people, nor shall they be written in the writing of the house of Israel, neither shall they enter into the land of Israel, and you shall know that I am the Lord God.
. . .
“For he said, Surely they are my people,
sons who will not deal falsely;
and he became their Savior.
In all their affliction he did not afflict,
and the angel of his presence saved them;
in his love and in his pity he redeemed them;
he lifted them up and carried them all the days of old.
But they rebelled
and grieved his holy Spirit;
therefore he turned to be their enemy,
and himself fought against them.
(Isaiah 63,8-10)
http://www.jgray.org/codes/cic17lat.html
According to the old law, priest were to be formed using the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas. The 1983 code of canon law no longer has Aquinas in it. Not only were modernist put in place during the council after being condemned before it, but the new canon completely removed Aquinas. So if the Angelic Doctor of the Church is no longer refereed too and modernism is the new accepted theology/philosophy, how can one say that modernist are not Catholic? Additionally, we have had 5 consecutive modern popes and currently Francis who is writing papal documents promoting modernism. Honestly, what is Card. Burke supposed to do? Correct the 1983 law, past 5 popes, VII, remove all the modern clergy? Oh, and gut the seminaries of teaching modernism? And now we hear whispers of married priest and women deacons and it will not stop because this is the new church. Of course we could go to any of the assemblies that gather outside of being in full communion, but why would and should we? This is the Church Christ built.
We are to stay with TRADITION – to what has been passed on by the Apostles. So says Scripture itself and so say the Fathers.
It’s really not that difficult.
Good point. Who is outside the Catholic Church? Is it the Modernists, or is it us. We, are the remnant.
(Forgot to post the canon law number)
1917 code of canon law (http://www.jgray.org/codes/cic17lat.html)
Can 1366
We should just declare the obvious. Bergoglio is the first Protestant elected as Pope. How? Only God knows for sure. But it is his clear his comments, encyclicals and actions are anything but Catholic let alone display any meaningful understanding or belief of the OTF. The Truth still lies in scripture, apostolic traditions and truths defined by the magesterium. All else is nonsense and novelty…..even from a “Lets Play Pope”
Good Catholics, how long are you going to persist in denial about this regime? Complicity by tacit defense is its own kind of wrong. If you can’t do better, at least remain silent about this pontiff and this nonsense, its creating a vast, worldwide bad example. We may never know how or why, nor may history finally. I have investigated enough crime scenes in my line of work to know that, all CSI shows to the contrary. The Vatican is a crime scene, that is all we need to know. It ought to be circled with yellow tape.
The Pontiff is doing the damage.
Remaining silent is not much of an option. There are souls that may be saved by being warned, so out of charity we have a responsibility it seems. Also, many of us are now disconnected from the church, in a way, since the NO Church is not always a viable option any longer. People need community of some kind. This is not an issue for everybody. I agree, the Vatican is a crime scene and years from now Pope Bergolio may be criticized for being “too conservative”. Once you allow tinkering, where does it end.
Bp. Williamson, looking more and more justified each day. Let’s hope Bp. Fellay will wake up and realize any compromise with the heretics in the Vatican, would be fruitless, destructive.
Oh please, let’s not get into this argument yet again. As an SSPX layman, I trust Bishop Fellay. As long as the arrangement protects the Society’s stance first of all and secondly its property and money, I and all other SSPX Catholic faithful I know are for it.
Greetings, comrade Josyp Visiaronovich. Do people really presume to be sufficiently familiar with the subject as to think that Bishop Fellay is naive? A priest whom I know was originally ordained as a priest of the SSPX. He eventually left and entered the FSSP. He told me that he was assisted in his decision to leave the SSPX after he had asked Bishop Fellay; “Is there any chance of a reconciliation between the Society and Rome?” Bishop Fellay’s response was; “No! Most of my priests would never permit it.”
I don’t remember the quote verbatim, but back in 2013, Bishop Fellay stated, in effect, that the installation of Bergoglio had paved the way for the arrival of Antichrist. This strongly implied that the Society had completely abandoned any hope of re-integration, and they were resigned to remaining in the wilderness in perpetuity. Some even posited that Bishop Fellay had effectively given the kiss of death to the Society. Yet, here we are, four years later, and we can hope to see the establishment of a personal prelature in the near future. Surely many of those priests who, twenty five years ago, would never countenance any kind of rapprochement with Rome are still alive and kicking, and Bishop Fellay must be completely confident that there is no risk of a mutiny among his priests.
One suspects that they see quite clearly that history is on their side. As everything else, (or most of it) unravels, the SSPX will offer a ready-made haven of orthodoxy where many will be able to seek refuge. Deo Gratias.
What are criteria for The Ratzinger Prize? Surprised she is a recipient
According to its own website (http://www.fondazioneratzinger.va/content/dam/fondazioneratzinger/statuto2.pdf) the aim is to promote theological writings with relation to the work of Professor Joseph Ratzinger. This foundation is especially supportive of theological texts on Patristics, Holy Scripture and Fundamental Theology. The website says about the Ratzinger Prize: “This prestigious award is given to scholars that have stood out for their scientific research in the theological field.”
“Scientific research”
I wonder where Science stands in Mrs Pelletier’s works.
One thing is clear: Being a heretic of the first order is not a limiting factor.
Somethings that come out of this papacy are worth, for the sake of sanity, little more than a sigh and an eye roll ?. This, and the news that the Pope is moving the Corpus Christi procession to Sunday, are sad to say, typical
Yes, another longwinded explanation that can essentially be boiled down to ‘Jesus’s words don’t really apply to the present day because of context…’
Modernism 101. Why should we bother with any religious practice or teaching at all then if it’s all up for grabs because of “context”?
What Pelletier actually said is that the modern world has ‘dementie’ or given the lie to the words of Christ ie. he was a liar. Further that in ‘marriage’ fidelity is now successive fidelities.
How come Bergoglio never, even accidentally, through some oversight, invites a Catholic to speak, preach, compose a document, head a dicastery, etc.? The Conga line of gay couples, trannies, eugenicists, abortionists, and Communists continues unabated.
Like the Jesuit Venezuelan head who insists that Jesus really did not mean his REPEATED condemnation of Divorce through out his teachings. Time to declare a SCISM and denounce Amoris Latita and its author in the church by the college of Cardinals majority and I hope Pope Benedict retired as well.
Are you sure that a majority of cardinals will support this?
I strongly doubt it.
I hope so. A few more yrs of Francis and the church will Disintegrate as Spong and Tuitu did with the splintered Dying Anglican Episcopal.church.
So you admit Christ is against divorce, but He also allows it? Wow, for a Professor, you sure are dumb. That, my dear children, is called “cognitive dissonance” and is typical of the pseudo-intellectual Modernist.
My thesis today is entitled: “Modernism – a psycho-spiritual disease.”
Exhibit A as to why the church desperately needs to reground its theology in solid scholasticism.
I am loathe to believe any news that is published with the date of April 1st! Its as likely to be credible as anything Frankenpope says on every other day of the year.
Is this really surprising to anyone? Just another brick in the wall, that will divide the Church. That wall is being built by master masons.
I was married in the Catholic church 30 years ago. I left the faith during that time and had gotten a divorce. I married my current husband in a Protestant church since I had not gotten an annulment. I came back to the church along with my husband with God’s Grace and a holy priest. He said that I had to get an annulment after all of those years so our marriage could be blessed. We waited 2 years for the annulment, Praise God! During those 2 years we could not receive communion since we were in a state of mortal sin. The holy priest, who is our pastor, said that we would hunger for the Eucharist. That is indeed what happened! The good Lord allowed the annulment only one day from our original date and our marriage was blessed on Pentecost! We have been on fire for the faith ever since we came back in 2012. I have to believe that without the absence of the Eucharist and the hunger it allowed, our lives may have been different. I pray that the Holy Father never allows divorced couples who have remarried to receive Communion without an annulment first.
Donna:
“I pray that the Holy Father never allows divorced couples who have remarried to receive Communion without an annulment first.”
Appallingly, Francis has and is.
May Christ, who created the sacrament for our benefit, continue to bless you and your husband with the graces of Holy Matrimony.
In his address to the Colloquium; “The Source of the Future” (for the tenth anniversary of Summorum Pontificum), Cardinal Robert Sarah quoted from a statement made in his diocesan newsletter, (1968) by the Bishop of Metz: “The transformation of the world, (change of civilization) teaches and demands a change in the very concept of salvation brought by Jesus Christ; this transformation reveals to us that the Church’s thinking about God’s plan was, before the present change, insufficiently evangelical ….. No era has been as capable as ours of understanding the evangelical ideal of fraternal life.”
So, in effect, he supposes that those who were initially charged with the responsibility to “teach all nations” didn’t properly understand what they were teaching. They simply weren’t as smart as we are! Such hubris can only stem from the fact that, the more stupid we become, the more enlightened do we consider ourselves to be.
As Cardinal Sarah says: The Gospel and revelation themselves are “re-interpreted”, “contextualized” and adapted to decadent Western culture ….. “
That’s just an excellent piece by this God’s good Cardinal.
Jesus instructed the people that Moses allowed for remarriage due to their hardness of heart but then says five very important words….BUT I SAY TO YOU…..
But this deceiver feminist , has the unmitigated gall to essentially remove God from his place and says to the people…….BUT I, PROFFESSOR PELLETIER SAY TO YOU!!!
“The idea of putting magisterial teaching in a beautiful display case while separating it from pastoral practice, which then could evolve along with circumstances, fashion, and passions, is a sort of heresy, a dangerous schizophrenic pathology.” – Robert Cardinal Sarah
If one divorces praxis from doctrine one departs from the one, holy, catholic and apostolic faith.
Saint Michael, by the power of God, defend us in this spiritual battle.
So, according to Mrs Pelletier Jesus is guilty for not having given the divorcees the graces they needed to abstain from sex.
Because of the “context” Saint John the Baptist and St Thomas More lost their heads. Mrs Pelletier and the Pope should apologise to them.
What context? Since the beginning of the mankind until its end, men and women are cheating and divorcing. Our times are not different from Jesus’ or Moses’ times in this regard.
Mrs Pelletier opportunately forgets what Jesus said about the mosaic law: “Because the men’s hearts had become hardened”
Yes, indeed, hardness of heart is the feature of the times being. However never Jesus hinted about a possible comeback to what Moses allowed.
Short and sweet: She doesn’t care if people end up displeasing God all
their life and go to hell. Because when it comes to the final choice they will realise that realistically they made theirs long ago- aided by the sly serpent, as always whispering excuses in their ear which they willingly swallow to continue in sin.
After four years of treating the world’s media to the shtick of his Maundy Thursday foot-washing variations (prisoners, women, Muslims, refugees – with extra points if at least one person ticks all four boxes), perhaps it’s been decided that the novelty value of those particular precedents has got just a little bit too shticky and that Holy Week 2017 deserved a new humble flourish. What could be better therefore than a well-placed female heretic composing the Good Friday meditations? And not just any old heretic but one whose ‘progressive’ speciality consists of enthusiastically advocating communion for the divorced and remarried, one of Francis’s very own causes célèbres. And that’s not even including whatever he and his cabal have devised for this year’s Maundy Thursday ceremony…
With the depths now being plumbed, I confidently expect the pope’s new Best High-Priestess Friend from Sweden to play a prominent role in 2018’s Holy Week ceremonies.
This wasn’t an April Fool’s joke, was it?
What a slap in the face of catholic spouses who have unjustly been abandoned by their husbands/wifes who deliberately wanted to “remarry” someone else… and who themselves stayed faithful to their sacrament of mariage… who never stopped to love, to pray for and to forgive their spouses who betrayed and denied them… just as Judas and Peter did on Good Friday… I know a lot of them, and I am one myself, for 32 years now
It is indeed a slap in the face to faithful spouses. Thank you for your faithful witness.
This Pope is nothing but confusion,we have not had a bad Pope in over a 100yrs but we have one now,this Pope is horrible he hates Conservative Catholic he questions young people who like the Tridentine Mass,he questions everything conservative He calls us RIGID,this Pope is a very Liberal leaning person which is not good for Christs Church,Francis is a Dictator Pope an he loves the Left an the Left is German Bishops,He is taking all there advice an they are leading him the wrong way…
Sorry, Perfessa. Read Ephesians. The relationship between a man and wife is a mirror of the relationship between Jesus and the Church and Jesus Christ is not a bigamist.
If a man can divorce his wife, Jesus can divorce the Church.
So now we can ask a legitimate question; ‘Is the Pope Catholic..?’
I say that her being a woman is irrelevant. I’d actually love to see a meditation written completely from the point of view of Our Holy Mother as she accompanied her Son on the Way of Our Redemption.
But that she is a progressive and pro-AL ——– utterly unacceptable, horrific, a slap in the face of those who love tradition……and a signal, I fear.