There are coming to us now different reports about Pope Francis’ Santa Marta homily of today which are very troubling. He mentions the Pharisees’ question about divorce and whether it is permitted and then comments on the reaction of Our Lord (Mark 10:1-12), as follows:
Jesus does not answer whether it is permitted or not. He does not enter into their [the Pharisees’] classic casuistry. Because they [the Pharisees] thought of faith merely in the framework of “one may not” or “one may” – up to which point one may, up to which point one may not. Thus logic of casuistry: Jesus does not enter into it. And He Himself poses a question: “Now, what did Moses command you? What is written in your law?” And they explain the permission which Moses gave to write a divorce certificate and to dismiss a woman from marriage; and it is they who went into a trap, yes. Because Jesus calls them “hard hearted”: “only because you are so hard hearted, he has given you this law,” and He spoke the truth. Without casuistry, without permissions. The truth. [my emphasis]
Pope Francis also mentions the adulteress with whom Jesus repeatedly spoke and whom He did not condemn. Pope Francis explains that Jesus “puts aside casuistry.” It is in this context that the impression arises that Christ Himself ignored His own teaching.
What is stunning in these comments is the following fact: Mark 10:1-12 does make it very clear that Jesus Christ instructed the Pharisees about the right way. It reads:
He set out from there and went into the district of Judea [and] across the Jordan. Again crowds gathered around him and, as was his custom, he again taught them. The Pharisees approached and asked, “Is it lawful for a husband to divorce his wife?” They were testing him. He said to them in reply, “What did Moses command you?” They replied, “Moses permitted him to write a bill of divorce and dismiss her.” But Jesus told them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother [and be joined to his wife], and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” In the house the disciples again questioned him about this. He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” [my emphasis]
Pope Francis claims in his homily that Jesus Christ did not give a clear answer to the Pharisees, but Our Lord did. He did explain this law against divorce later more in detail to His own disciples, but He did not leave the Pharisees’ question unanswered.
Moreover, Pope Francis, in his homily, says that Our Lord “always speaks the truth” and then he mentions that Jesus did tell His disciples about the prohibition of divorce. Francis adds:
“This is the way of Jesus – it is quite clear – it is the path from casuistry to truth and mercy. Jesus leaves aside the logic of casuistry. To those who wanted to test him, to those who thought of this logic of ‘it is possible’, he termed them – not here, but in another passage of the Gospel – hypocrites. Even with the fourth commandment, they denied assistance to their relatives with the excuse that they had given a good offer to the Church. Hypocrites. The casuistry is hypocritical. It is a form of hypocrisy. ‘You can – you cannot’ … which then becomes more subtle, more evil: I? I can up to this point but from here to here, I cannot. This is the deception of casuistry.” [my emphasis]
While there is always a lack of clarity in Pope Francis’ speech that makes it hard to see, distinctly and reliably, what he means, he appears here to demean those faithful who wish to abide by the Law of God with regard to marriage and divorce, implying that these are the real hypocrites. The pope also implies in today’s homily that Our Lord did not give to the Pharisees a clear law. Moreover, this last quote implies that these faithful questions about what is forbidden and what is allowed are already in themselves effectively evil. The simple setting of boundaries and limits is here called a “deception of casuistry.” But, we have to remember that that is exactly what God has given to us in the form of the Ten Commandments and His Moral Precepts – so that we may have, under Grace, a life more abundant. God’s Laws are acts of love.
The twisting and perverting of the inerrant Word of God. Not the first time he’s done this. Events are picking up speed at an alarming rate. We are approaching the climax of the battle. 13th of May 2017, which is a Saturday, by the way. With all the rumors going around about him talking about an acceleration of his agenda, about Vat III and other such non-sense. Even the rumor about Card. Tagle becoming the next CDF Prefect, or even the next Pope, are more then troubling. I would be more then happy to dismiss this kind of rumors, but lately rumors turn out to be true more often then not. It’s the final assault on the City of God. Great times to live in! Keep the Faith! Pray more ardently everyday!
I think the climax will occur on Friday, October 13, 2017. Three days of darkness comes to mind. The miracle of the sun may have a clearer meaning on that day.
The date of Noah’s Flood (17 day of Iyyar) falls on May 13 this year. Very suggestive coincidence.
Very interesting. But from where have you gotten your calculations?
From the calendar, where else?
In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month — on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights. Genesis 7:11
2nd month of the Hebrew calendar Iyyar
Check the Hebrew Calendar for when the 17th of Iyyar falls in our Gregorian Calendar. Conferete, frate.
Why would you even call yourself Vlad the Impaler?
He kept the Sultan at bay and kept the Balkans Christian. His methods were a bit rough but worked well.
His methods were barbaric.
No doubt but he was very “uplifting”, and his enemies learned to stay away as they “got the point”.
Not only that, the flood was 150 days, 5 months. It’s 5 months from May to October. I think it will be the flood of apocalypse chapter 12.
I am thinking along with you. Know that the woman clothed with the sun is in the sky on 23 September 2017, right before that. Apocalypse chapter 12.
Avoid that kind of thinking. When those things come it will be a surprise. Leave that kind of thing for the Jehovah’s Witnesses! 🙂
“Motus in fine velocior” – “Motion accelerates when the end is near.”
John 13:27
And after the morsel, Satan entered into him. And Jesus said to him: That which thou dost, do quickly.
I believe that you are right to feel troubled by the rumors about Cardinal Tagle. If Tagle becomes Pope, then in my view it’s devastation for the Church. He has already publicly celebrated, as bishop and as cardinal, the so-called “Filipino Mass” (Misa ng Sambayanang Pilipino)–and that more than once I believe before huge crowds. This Mass was designed, written, and choreographed by Fr. Anscar Chupungco OSB. Chupungco was Bugnini’s disciple. But the “Filipino Mass” never received approval from Rome. In this Mass, for example, the communicants consume the Sacred Host before the priest does. I believe this manhandling of the Holy Mass goes far beyond Bergoglio’s puppet Masses and tangos before the high altar, back when he was still in Argentina.
I’m very troubled to hear that communicants receive Communion before the priest. I wouldn’t even know where to start with this. The sacrifice is completed with the consummation of the victim by the priest (i.e. when he consumes the Sacred Host and drinks the Sacred Blood). So for someone else to receive communion before the priest is more then an abuse. There is something very wrong there, just I can’t really explain it. Offering, sacrifice and consummation, by the priest and priest alone. That’s Holy Mass. After then comes the rite of Communion. That’s what is most clear in TLM. The rite of Communion for priest is clearly distinguished there from that of the laity. Something which NO blurs the distinction. I would be more then grateful if someone could explain from a theological and liturgical standpoint this fact!? Does it bring into question validity of Communion, since the sacrifice is not complete!? Don’t know, just throwing it out there.
It perfectly symbolizes the church of man. Christ, in Persona Christi, comes second after man.
That it certainly does.
You got it! Good observation. This is totally Protestant’s style!
A Dominican priest and professor of theology at the Pontifical university here raised the same points that you have, but to a small circle. He too raised the same troubling questions and he too remains uncertain about the precise answers. On the part of the laity, I believe it’s enough for us to look at the trajectory of these things, or as the Gospel puts it, at the “fruit”. What kind of faith, shown by what kind of reverence, does it encourage or discourage? It was in Cardinal Tagle’s archdiocese, on his home grounds, under his watch, that the large scale sacrilege occurred when Pope Francis celebrated Mass outdoors for a crowd of millions in his visit to the country early in 2015. During communion, Eucharistic ministers allowed all and sundry simply to grab the Sacred Host and pass it hand-over-head to people back in the crowd. Afterwards, street cleaners found muddied and trampled Hosts all over the field. Then, when this was pointed out, the president of the Catholic Bishops Conference here publicly defended both the practice and what happened on that day. The defense presumably had the backing of most of the bishops. The priest to whom my wife and I go, who also celebrates the TLM, quietly offered a Mass of reparation. But those who should have taken responsibility did not, and even defended themselves. God bless you, Fr.PD. As you say, we must keep the Faith, and pray ardently!
Fun fact: when your bishops conference made that public statement, they were responding directly to our report. It was the first time we were ever mentioned on television.
Thank you, Steve, and all the people at 1P5. This site is playing an incredible role in these times!
Bishop Schneider spoke of the abuses done to the Holy Eucharist coming directly after the global practice of Communion in the hand spread causing the Sacred particles to drop on the floor and be trampled underfoot and the world wide increase of stealing of the sacred Hosts. What is sacred anymore?
Very good point. I doubt if the
usurpers of Holy Orders care that the words of Christ are done exactly as He passed them down to them to do. Perverting the Holy Sacrifice is odious to God. Is this the beginning of the total corruption of the Holy Sacrifice when the Bible tells us there will be the “abomination of desolation”? When being desolate, we are deprived of the actual and real presence of Jesus Christ in the consecrated bread and wine, that would be an abomination standing in the holy place at the altar .
The Church was devastated when the heretics and apostates in roles of authority and teaching became the majority and began their diabolical agenda to ruin souls and usher in the Masonic-planned (influenced by Satan) New World Order, a long-running plan that had taken over the secular institutions so all they needed to do was infiltrate the one institution standing in their way-the Catholic Church.
This is seriously sinful. Fooling around with the Sacred Liturgy is no small matter, maxime for a bishop and a cardinal.
I think everyone should read Revelation.
I would be more THAN . . . .
Sorry, pet peeve :/
In my opinion, at the next conclave a Pope of a similar claibre will not be elected. Too many cardinals will be fed up of chaos and will want a Pope who will fulfill the offiice of Pope and begin to put things in their proper place. We ought to pray intensely for this intention, and esepcially the Rosary, as you mention that it is a century from the Fatima Apparitions of Our Lady.
I seem to recall another Jesuit who, just the other day, said that the very words of Christ need to be re-interpreted.
Didn’t see that one. What a coincidence!? Unleashing the hounds of Hell upon the Bride of Christ.
Here it is, the general of the jesuits who claims: “Jesus Too Must Be Reinterpreted”
http://magister.blogautore.espresso.repubblica.it/2017/02/22/marriage-and-divorce-the-general-of-the-jesuits-jesus-too-must-be-reinterpreted/
Sorry for being vague. I meant the connection, not the article. Read his declaration of apostasy yesterday.
Why does this have the feel of the comments of these two men having been well timed / coordinated?
More likely cause it is. If you look at the patterns lately, it’s always well planned ahead and implemented with great speed.
Does that means they have the same sufler, whisperer, who is indeed very fast and can easy be in a minute on two different places?
Good point.
Yes, he said that there were no recording devices back then, so we cannot know what He really said.
There were plenty of recording devices back then. They were called MEMORY. When someone who is God Incarnate, whom you love and revere says something you REMEMBER it and later on you write it down. Are these Jesuits stupid?
A good example of this is all the sermons St. Francis de Sales gave to the nuns under his care. They actually took dictation while he was speaking to them, and we have these treasures today. Like ‘short-hand’ and excellent memories were invented yesterday!
My husband and I had a good chuckle when we read his comment. It’s better than crying at this point. Perhaps that new Jesuit head does not believe that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead either. ‘Cuz, you know, those neanderthals that lived 2000 years ago probably couldn’t tell a dead person from a sleeping one. Lazarus was likely just playing Scrabble in the tomb while waiting for Jesus to get him out. Yeah, that’s it.
And maybe the Apostle’s, well they all got martyred for love of Christ. But you know, maybe they just did not have enough charisma and diplomacy to dialogue with the Romans, meet them halfway and save their necks. Those pickled, pepper-faced slaves of superficiality brought it on themselves, yes they did. You can’t trust funeral-faced Christian witnesses if there ain’t no RECORDING DEVICE!
‘Are these Jesuits stupid?’
I was always trying to figure out what was wrong with them. You clarified that for me. And also almost fell from my chair laughing when i read that. Thank you!
It would be nice if it was legitimate for Cardinal Burke and co. to use this homily as a reply to dubia. Obviously, they have to wait for the official (non)reply, but hey a man can dream!
Don’t mean to spam, but I’m full of ideas at the moment. I think the Pope might be using a new version of the Bible his Holiness is working on. Let’s call it Novissima Vulgata, for lack of a better terminology. They must’ve removed that passage from the Gospel in which our Lord reinstates marriage as willed by God. Because my version of the Vulgata, and even the Nova Vulgata, has the words in there. We’re getting a new Bible, maybe. More new things to play with! Oh, not to forget about a Novissimus Ordo. Everything is made a new, and not by Christ coming in his glory.
Who would have thought, when we saw the Buona Sera Pope coming out at the balcony for the first time, would be the instrument of such devastation!? The purification of the Church is reaching critical mass. Let them talk heresies! Let them come out, so that we may know them! Who’s a wolf and who’s a shepherd? Rambling off.
“Who’s a wolf and who’s a shepherd?”………….the veil is absolutely lifting, so that WE KNOW who’s who. The dear Lord is showing us. I’ve said all along that this is a good thing. Sometimes the veil is lifted to such a degree that we can actually see (and feel!) the fierce spiritual battle ensuing. The battle is so intense at this point, that it’s spilling out like molten lava from an erupting volcano.
It’s a very Lutheran thing : take out and add in to the Scripture.
Let’s take a step back. None of this stuff that PF comes out with contains the wisdom and depth of what one expects to come from the mouth of the Supreme Pontiff of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Period. These third rate bouts of verbal diahorrea every morning – what’s with this man?! Can you imagine reading anything from St Leo the Great, Pius X, Leo XIII or St JPII that sounded even vaguely close to this kind of rambling nonsense? My ‘Catholic sense’, whatever that may be worth, has not once – NEVER -detected the charism of Peter in either his words or actions. I’ve never gone (and would never go) as far as to say he’s not the Pope (i simply feel it’s just too far above my pay grade) but something, as we know, is fundamentally wrong for sure. God help us. And quick.
PF is depending upon individual mental unremarkableness in saying these things. At Mass this morning, no one brought up PF or another way of listening to Jesus’ Words. Jesus’ Words are clear and the poor priest at my parish said them very clearly. All the pew sitters heard them clearly. If an individual chooses not to hear the Word of Jesus and act on it, they are not going to hear Him. No one at the parish I attend has been running off to commit casuistry, hypocracy, or adultery because of what PF is promulgating. The one who continually confuses reality must depend on human mental unremarkableness and people’s ability to forego reason and truth to idolize a position. Has PF brought a group of persons together at the Vatican who have had to divorce and live in solitude for years as a Catholic Faithful to hear what they say about the Gospel? No, he probably hasn’t. Nor will he. But Jesus does. PF does not confuse Jesus and Jesus is still very clear to His Faithful Ones so they aren’t getting unnerved about this pope.
I am awestruck by the Holy Father’s Orwellian redefinition of “casuistry”. Neither Jesus nor (arguably) the Pharisees here are deploying casuistic arguments; that is, the application of theoretical rules to particular instances. They’re both being completely general: on one hand, Moses permitted this; on the other, What God has joined together, let no man separate.
It would be entirely casuistic if they had entered into a discussion about, say, the concrete pastoral situation of a woman in an abusive marriage, or about a marriage that had “died”, if such a thing were possible. But who does that kind of thing?
Exactly, Pope Francis uses the word casuistry to describe moral norms based on objective absolutes like: Thou shall not commit Adultery. However, this is not what casuistry is, casuistry is the application of the moral law to particular cases on an individual basis. It has a legitimate use and an illegitimate use. Amoris Laetitia engages in the ill use of casuistry in the extreme by calling for the ‘discernment’ of individual cases regarding a moral absolute, and proposing that one may discover that they are allowed to break the moral absolute depending on their particular circumstances.
Father, is it correct to say then that Pope Francis is engaging in casuistry (for some reason he always finds a term to use (correctly or incorrectly to characterize the current debacle. I actually did a 5min research into the word and immediately saw that he is probably using the wrong word to describe us who are faithful!)
2ndly is mortal sin the only thing that can prevent us from receiving communion? I know our Faith says if one is conscious of mortal sin they may not receive yet, I find no where, where it is stated, that *only* the concsciousness of mortal sin excludes one.
All that pope Francis has advocated for IS casuistry!! He wants discernment, he wants every single case to be looked at and decided according to casuistic arguments. I believed that PF was very very smart (sly) but now I start to doubt that.
Yes me too, his use of casuistry as an offence against us when, in fact, he is the one who is and has been casuistic is alarming, not because he once again is trying to insult us but because, this time, he is showing he is extremely poor in expressing himself accurately. Who makes an argument and then within that same argument uses a word as an insult but uses it so improperly that the word, in truth, describes the speaker and not the ones who are being spoken too??????..I would laugh if I wasn’t so hurt by all that has happened.
My English is not so good, you verbalized exactly what I wanted to say!! It is really scary but at the same time ridiculous.
Can someone tell me if these words of the Pope are on the Vatican website?
I did not find it. La Stampa has its own report on this homily here: http://www.lastampa.it/2017/02/24/vaticaninsider/eng/the-vatican/do-not-think-of-faith-only-in-terms-of-can-or-can-not-zumu7XwiwZYaVCFEsP4D7L/pagina.html. Radio Vatican had a report on it, but the link is broken.
It seems to be here, in Italian only: http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/it/cotidie/2017/documents/papa-francesco-cotidie_20170224_giustizia-e-misericordia.html
Radiovaticana in Croatian have this on their site from today:
http://hr.radiovaticana.va/news/2017/02/24/papa_franjo_pravednost_je_milosr%C4%91e_kazuisti%C4%8Dka_logika/1294839
The title says literally this:
“Pope: In God righteousness is mercy. Do not give up before the casuistical logic.”
The first sentence:
“Christian in its path should be like Jesus, righteous by mercy – says Pope”
(I still have to read the whole article. But we have it already here. No, no, but merciful in His righteousness. God can never be merciful before or without His righteousness first. When He is punishing, He do that in His Godly righteousness too. However, His punishment is than just denying of His grace, but again, in His Godly righteousness.)
Pope tweeted (https://twitter.com/Pontifex/status/834379729373380609):
“Jesus entrusted to Peter the keys to open the entrance to the kingdom of heaven, and not to close it.” (!?!)
But Jesus said:
“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,[h] and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16,19)
“Jesus always includes. He never excludes!”
Remember that one?
We should add that in the Litany of the Most Holy Name of Jesus.
Jesus, inclusive God, have mercy on us.
Yeah. There are also ‘all’ instead of ‘many’. About the chose ones we should not even speak a word…
All that poison came from that “liberacion theology”.
Hell maybe exist, but is probably empty, they think.
Actually he is correct on that one. One is either included in the sheep group or included in the goat group. 🙂
A pope who lies and distorts the Scriptures
That seems to be about right.
Like I said before, his reading skills is terrible. He seems to be missing chunks from his Bible. Another Lutheran trait.
What Pope Francis is asking us all to do is accept him as THE single interpreter of the Scriptures and to ignore any and every interpretation we have ever heard before, especially those that come from the perennial teaching of the Church. I think overall, this is his general theme in his pontificate, that HE is somehow empowered or has been chosen to bring to the Church and the world interpretations, explanations, perspectives and ideas that no one else in Catholic history has been granted the authority to provide.
We have discussed here his aberrant mangling of the words of Jesus in paragraph 161 of Evangelii Gaudium. And just as no prelate or priest has confronted him on that passage, he expects no one to resist him on these. And as has been demonstrated, he is probably right.
Fundamentally, it appears Pope Francis sees himself as a sort of “savior”, reaching out to what he sees as benighted, fearful, simplistic, ignorant and wooden Catholic masses who need to be rescued from their stodgy, dead, stifling, oppressive and silly religion.
Now this all may seem quite exciting to him, but for those of us that are converts, and understand the teachings of the denominations which we joyfully left behind, we see exactly that what this pope may think is cute, novel, thrilling and refreshing is simply standard, old, well-worn, foundationless, built-on-sand Protestantism, normally of a liberal Lutheran bent.
Folks, I am finished trying to figure out the Catholic Church. What I have studied in the history and doctrinal teachings of the Church and what I have come to love I simply do not see reflected in the culture of the Church today except for spots here and there. What I have seen of it since my conversion is beyond troubling. Our books say one thing. Our prelates say and live something else. And the masses seem to be in total disarray.
Who can deny that the commonly accepted understandings have changed on the following topics?
Hell, Islam, Communion, Other religions/Religious indifferentism, Universalism, Freemasonry, Socialism/Communism, EENS, Capital Punishment, Just War, the status of homosexuals and the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture.
And now….marriage.
No wonder many Protestants believe the Catholic Church stands for nothing, believes in nothing and will fight for nothing. Until the leadership decides to abandon the “Thou shalt not condemn” model begun with John XXIII’s opening speech to V2, the Church will be known for nonsense, chaos and absurdity.
Are Catholic prelates truly going to sit back and watch the Pope dismantle the Catholic Church?
Or…do they all or almost all WANT him to?
Well, you’re right! True Catholicism, for the most of us, is found only in the books, as a culture that is. As a faith, as The Faith, to be more precise, for now it dwells in just a few. Wicked times we live in. I’m a revert to that faith, to be honest. And, by the grace of God, I was lead in the right direction and discovered the beauty and majesty of the Catholic Faith, her traditions, rituals, the entire package. I feel you in this times, that it is easy to fall into despair. That is the devil’s temptation in us. Do not let him win. There is such a thing as Hell, and people go there, by the droves these days. Don’t be one of them!
I appreciate the sentiment but I’m not in despair about the Church per se, tho I have lost basically all respect for the leadership who simply lives in slince.
I’m reading St Peter Damian’s “Book of Gomorrah” and he issues a severe criticism of the same culture of tacit approval for heresy and evil back then as now. So it isn’t new…
To my knowledge St. Catherine of Siena says basically the same thing about the silence.
But to your point. Here is where the rubber meets the road. We may not like them, we may disapprove, they may even be flaming heretics, yet they still bring Christ in the Eucharist, they still can absolve you of sins. Would you refuse absolution from one of these in your last moment?
No, but that is not the question at all, at least for me.
The issue is one of evangelization.
I really do not believe many Catholics understand just how devastating this stuff is for the spread of the Gospel. As long as the Church is led by communist sympathizers and secularists, the longer the Gospel will be suppressed.
My primary concern is with my Protestant friends and family. I want the Catholic faith to be KNOWN. At this point…it is obfuscated by a secularist and inward-looking culture the liberal leadership has fostered for decades.
I relate with you on many levels. I am a convert, then left about 5 years later due to philosophical disagreements, but the Good Lord, in His great Mercy, pulled me back and now I consider myself a revert. I am one, of only four, Catholics in my family and extended family. I personally saw the “faith” I came from, as a child, to be deficient. In discovering Catholicism for the first time, I saw the fullness of the True Faith. Then again when I reverted a couple of years ago. One of the reasons I chose Catholicism was because it wasn’t Protestant, or at least I thought. Like you, I studied and read, and discovered just how the leadership was fervent in their determination to make Catholicism somehow equal to Protestantism, watering down the True Faith to the level of the reformers. To hear some of the things coming out of the Vatican these days, about Luther in particular, has me very concerned. But, Christ gave us His Holy Spirit, to be our Advocate, and by His power to keep the promise that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church. That right there, is, in sort of a way, my saving grace when it comes to standing firm in the Faith handed down by the Apostles, sharing the knowledge of past holy Popes, i.e. Gregory the Great, Pius V, Pius X, Leo XIII, to name a few. Leaning upon the tenants of the Council of Trent, which to me is the last Great Council of the Latin Church, especially when it comes to evangelizing. I have often commented in the past on FB, that we need to get back to teaching the Catechism of Trent or at the very least the Baltimore Catechism. Everything was very straightforward in those teaching tools. Many good and holy Catholics were brought to the Faith through them, whether revert or convert. Let us stand firm in that Faith of Christ given by the Apostles, and keep speaking it’s Truth. Praying with and for you brother.
I wish I could give you fifty upvotes for this post. Amen, amen and amen!
If all I have in this world, is a known heretical priest; I would agree.
But….if I choose a priest purposely because he is a heretic…..that is a mockery to our Lord.
To purposefully be in communion with a heretical priest is an abuse of our Lord, in my mind.
This is not about choosing. I was merely proposing the hypothetical situation, in which one is near death, and the only priest around is, let’s say Card. Kasper.
I really cannot answer that one in all honesty.
Then I’d confess to Kasper. I didn’t leave Lutheranism behind to drag it with me.
The Church is clear; a confession before a heretic priest is still a valid confession.
If I may add, our Lord would not allow such a situation as this.
The Church survives for even one holy priest on this earth. And I don’t see how the Lord would put such an evil cardinal as this as the last one on the earth. Not possible.
At what point does it become a mockery? At what point does it become sacrilege? Would I receive Holy Communion and the Sacrament of Reconciliation from Judas after he betrayed our Lord? I don’t know. I might take my chances confessing my sins directly to God and asking/ begging our Lord for the gift of perfect contrition. It worked for the good thief as he was dying on the cross. It seems to me that we are going beyond dislike, disapproval and/ or disagreement with doctrine. It seems that we are entering into the realm of diabolical and pure evil. I do not mean to be disrespectful. With respect to RTHEVR’s point about evangelization ….. where does one begin? Except to say that as long as one is not advocating “traditional Catholicism”, many of my Protestant friends think Francis is the “cat’s meow”. Why? Because he is a Protestant, just as they are.
Well, the good thief had the Saviour next to him. There is indeed the possibility of perfect contrition, which is a gratuitous grace from God, but if you have the possibility of absolution, perfect contrition does not grant forgivness. One of the conditions of aquiring forgivness outside the Sacrament is that you have a firm amendment of going to Confession first chance you get.
Thank you for your response, Father. You have answered well. I guess it is a matter of choosing carefully the priest one would go to for the Sacrament of Reconciliation (as others have said in their comments). I think many of us are suffering, priests and clergy included. Each day is a new scandal and a new heresy under Francis. If push came to shove on my deathbed and it came down to a heretic, sodomite and/or pedophile priest as the priest of last resort, I will ask God for the grace to receive absolution from Judas, the betrayer.
There is a caveat though, which has been bugging me since I heard of it. During the French Revolution, before her execution, Maria Antoinette, refused to confess to a priest who had sworn allegiance to the state, and since she was refused a faithful priest, she went to her death unconfessed. Since she was a faithful catholic she was definitely aware of what she was doing, but it does beg the question.
Oh, you mean like the faithful underground Catholics in China? After Francis agrees to the conditions the communist government demands for the ordination of clergy (and other matters to be sure)? Like that type of swearing allegiance to the state? I know, I know, it hasn’t happened (yet) … but are any of us here taking bets that that (a deal between communist China and the Vatican) will be next?
Yes, that (the Maria Antoinette situation) does beg the question.
Not I, I will leave their Sins, errors, heretical views up to God.. I have my own soul to worry about.
St. Peter Damian had to confront the rot of sodomy among the clergy almost 1,000 years ago, and it is no different today. Just days ago, former priest and dissident “Catholic” theologian Gregory Baum revealed his long-time practice of homosexualism. We should not be surprised that the same demons of sodomy that plagued the Church in St. Peter Damian’s day are still with us in the post-Vatican II era. St. Peter Damian was not exaggerating in the least when he said that the evil spirit of sodomy leaves nothing untainted and nothing foreign to filth. Today’s Sexual Transhumanist attack on school children, marriage, and adoption — in short, its attack on being Human — would’nt be possible if the social pathology of homosexualism had not been de-listed from the catalog of psychological disorders in 1973. Clearly, human civilization has no yet suffered enough to realize that unnatural sexual fetishism must be rooted out if Human marriage, families, and the unique union of fathers, mother, and children are to survive.
The road to hell is paved with the skulls of Bishops.
I am convinced that there are a great many holy people in the Church and there are some of them in every parish. That is my experience as a priest. So, we should not despair and be confident that the Lord is doing his work. Let us recall that when St. Paul had a poor response in Athens, he went to Corinth, and he had a vision where the Lord told him that He had prepared a great people for Himself there.
We live in a time where great saints are being forged in the heat of this spiritual battle. In my mind comes the image of Our Lord sleeping in the back of the boat during the great storm. But he does work in mysterious ways behind the scene, even while seemingly asleep. With one word He will calm these treacherous seas and these heretical winds and in the treasury of the Church will be found a great treasure, represented by the saints of these days: and maybe one or two beautiful dogmas as well.
May God shower you with graces in your ministry!
Pope Francis definitely thinks he is the new Martin Luther. Yet, regardless of the mess in our Church, we, who are soldiers of Christ, were born into this age for a divine purpose and that purpose we must meet and be soldiers for the just cause. We need you and the future generations need you. Always echo the true teachings of the Faith regardless of the mess around us for the Faith belongs to us and the Lord, in his time, will expel the heretics and blasphemers.
Thank you for that wise and beautiful truth filled statement .
If that is true then he is absolutely spot on.
He just needs to run off with some apostate nun now for himself. Plenty of single old hags in pantsuits on the market looking to consummate their apostasy.
I share your disappointment. The human part of the Church has never been in such a deplorable state ever!! But still the one, catholic and apostolic Church is also HOLY, because she is the bride of Christ. Holy Spirit, lead us!
I can only say THANKS for your words. Let’s remain close to Jesus through this storm.
Thank you, RTHERV. This is a great assessment of the situation…from another convert here.
It is heartening to hear another concert articulate my dismay and doubt.
There is no question in my mind that Bergoglio is a Protestant. There are many faithful bishops in the Church and they must take action now. Bergoglio must be removed from the Chair of Peter!
If someone is married and spouse has left and married again without a annulment and the other spouse is suffering being faithful to Christ and their wedding vows living out in chastity waiting and praying for spouse who is living in adultery to come back and reunit, is the pope telling the faithful spouse, it’s ok to commit adultery now, you don’t have to be faithful to your vows to Christ, you can find a new partner and commit fornication, bible doesn’t say it bad, just find someone new and thank God, you don’t need to be faithful anymore if your spouse commits adultery or divorces you or sleeps with someone else, what you do is do the same thing your spouse who left you is doing, marriage isn’t a sacrament anymore but just a saying until one becomes unfaithful and you do same once that happens, don’t worry God is merciful . Is this what he is trying to tell us?
Actually, the thing you talk about, the reunion of the spouses, is what Hermas is talking in his II century writing, that the spouse is obliged, in justice, to stay faithful to the one that had left, because if heshe comes back and asks for forgiveness you are obliged to forgive and take himher back. I actually know of such a case. After many years separated they got back together and now are back on track. Not to mention much more faithful to God. So, if you say, my partner left me, time to get another one, forget it. You may be placing yourself in the impossible situation of grating forgiveness to your spouse in such an eventuality.
He is telling you to “move forward”. You can have sex with whomever you want, as long as you fight for wealth redistribution in-between. Don’t you remember what he said? – Most catholic marriages are invalid. Many co-habiting people have real marriages, while most sacramental marriages are invalid. Now, forward!!!
Yes, exactly that. And more and worse…just let your logical imagination run.
The man is an expert pretzel-maker.
Every homily is a fresh scandal.
Popes come and go. The Church remains. Non praevalebunt.
The popes come and go but the many bishops and priests, who are teaching a twisted gospel do not…the teaching is incorporated into the church. MOral relativism is alive and well and being taught by too many in the Catholic Church for money and human respect. Pray for our priests and bishops.
Read this article if you have the time. It’s not too long.
http://tinyurl.com/jbp7mq9
Yes. It will take time to get over this situation. However, in the past there have been very bad situations in the Church, but great reforms took place. Reform in the Church is the work of saints and achieving holiness by cooperating with the grae of God and doing his will daily will also help, offering our lives as a sacrifice to the Lord (Rom 12,1).
He has presented the Gospel passage in a way that directly contradicts what it says. Isn’t this itself a form of “casuistry”?
No. It’s lying
“Casuistry is reasoning used to resolve moral problems by extracting or extending theoretical rules from particular instances and applying these rules to new instances. The term is also commonly used as a pejorative to criticize the use of clever but unsound reasoning (alleging implicitly the inconsistent—or outright specious—application of rule to instance), especially in relation to moral questions (see sophistry).”
Now you tell me. Who is guilty of casuistry?
Thanks. Just ready to look up that word. Wow! He is talking about himself it seems!
It’s pretty hilarious that the Jesuit Jorge Mario Bergoglio is fond of using the term “casuistry” as a way to insult others. Is he completely unaware that the term “jesuitical” is defined as “practicing casuistry or equivocation; using subtle or oversubtle reasoning; crafty; sly; intriguing — like a Jesuit”? Is he further unaware that he, with his weasley writings and speeches is the purveyor par excellence of jesuitical casuistry?
Good point. The Holy Father is guilty of casuistry in both senses:
1. The use of clever but unsound reasoning, especially in relation to moral questions; sophistry.
2. The resolving of moral problems by the application of theoretical rules to particular instances.
Indeed X. Zaq Lee, Pope Jorge denies what he affirms and he affirms what he denies, which is the life of internal contradiction, bending one’s own mind into an unending circumstance of cognitive dissonance, truly hell on earth, as an iota of a precursor of that which is to come, in the Transcendent realm of Almighty God and His eternity, for all those who so choose to deny Him here, Christ will deny them before the Father. What Pope Bergoglio does, as he denies objectively that which he affirms in praxis, is to project precisely who he is onto the other, who is authentically practicing the One True Faith. In caritas.
he’s being so jesuitical he’s denying that tactics he’s using
I suppose St. John Paul was guilty of casuistry then, when he issued Vertiatis Splendor. The Francis cabal DESPISE the concept that the is such a thing as an intrinsically evil act that is always wrong and can never be justified. They see that encyclical as the ultimate betrayal of the “Spirit of Vatican II” and undoing it is what this entire pontificate has been about from Day 1. That’s why the dubia are framed around Veritatis Splendor. The 4 Cardinals know exactly what is going on.
“The sexual act must take place exclusively within marriage. Outside of marriage it always constitutes a grave sin and excludes one from sacramental communion.”
CCC 2390. But to Pope Francis, “classic casuistry.”
does he even know what casuistry means?
The pope seems to know words that I have never heard of, but he sure has to market a dictionary to find out what casuistry means..
LOL Jafin, becaue….errr….ummmm..I was getting ready to look that word up.
I’ve had to look it up a couple times before remember what it means… he really doesn’t understand the meaning or is totally delusional (deranged as the case may be)
Seriously, does anyone have a coherent meaning of “heresy” anymore?
Nowadays it means: “criticizing the Pope”; everything else is dialogue.
That word (heresy) does not exist more, since IIVC. They have now another one, which sounds very cool,- modernism.
And there is a big plus is with that new one, if you’re one of them, they will not kick you out of the Church, but rather elevate.
of course he does. Jesuits invented Casuistry
I guess it’s some kind of Jesuit intellectual property rights to redefine their own words without prior notice.
Especially now, when they are ‘in charge’.
Good one!
I find it ironic how Pope Francis is accusing people of casuistry…
It seems he does not know what it means
Gaslight and projection
I find it ironic that he calls others hypocrites! He is the hypocrite of all time.
It’s quite a spectacle to witness so prominent a Jesuit so roundly condemn casuistry, the system promoted by the early Jesuits for applying moral law in specific cases. Moreover, Amoris Laetitia is just one big paean to casuistry without the solidity of unchanging moral law to back it up. This Bergoglio is seriously confused or deliberately trying to confuse. Either way, the Church deserves better.
From what I read above, it seems clear that Pope Francis is either incredibly uneducated about this gospel, or intentionally teaching the opposite of what Christ intended. This is really getting out of hand.
The Pope reflects the exact same tradition and approach that has been demonstrated by the leaderships of the liberal mainline Protestant denominations, the same groups he appears to use as a model for his new “Church”.
Catholics find him novel and either like him for it or not, but for us ex-Methodists and ex-Lutherans, he is about as cutting edge as a dull hoe.
For us converts, it is supremely boring stuff. Disturbing, but not novel, cutting edge, new or unusual. In fact, the Pope’s “teaching” {is that what it is? because it is really hard to tell} is just plain old news, the theological equivalent of the leisure suit. Outdated, passe, boring and as embarrassing as your cat’s-eye-glasses-wearing frumpy old maid aunt saying “Far out, Man!” in 1972, the same era from which this Pope seems to dredge all his theology as he appears to desperately seek to be the Cool Kid on the block.
When will he just get with it and go whole hog and appear at the portico in a tie-dyed robe, toking on a dooby?
What is happening to the Catholic Church isn’t something odd.
Sorry folks, but this isn’t unique or even Catholic stuff. It’s boring old Protestantism of a breed and type that is dying all over the world.
What exactly would a False Prophet look like anyways? Fulton Sheen answers with the following:
“The False Prophet will have a religion without a cross. A religion without a world to come. A religion to destroy religions. There will be a counterfeit church. Christ’s Church [the Catholic Church] will be one. And the False Prophet will create the other. The false church will be worldly ecumenical, and global. It will be a loose federation of churches. And religions forming some type of global association. A world parliament of churches. It will be emptied of all divine content and will be the mystical body of the Antichrist. The mystical body on earth today will have its Judas Iscariot and he will be the false prophet. Satan will recruit him from among our bishops.”
PF = pope francis
FP = false prophet
‘buona serra’
As usual, this pope’s words are a disgusting scandal.
How long, oh Lord? How long? Rise up and save us dear God!
Some day I think there might be a celebration of Biblical proportions for the pontificate of Jorge Bergoglio.
Why?
Because thru it some Churchmen will see the utter folly of the approach that has been used over the last 50 years, wholly condemn it realize that they must go another way, the old way, the way that is hard and narrow but leads to the truth.
Jesus said, as you quote above that one may not divorce his wife.
We have been so battered that instead of exclaiming: liar!, we continue to look for anything which would in some way make sense of a Vicar of Christ who constantly contradicts and rejects Christ. It doesn’t work.
I don’t blame you, but to the contrary – I thank you.
In the state of permanent shock, I am making an observation.
The evil of this man is hanging over my head like a ominous, thick black cloud.
Is Francis about to annul the wonderful two millennia old marriage of Christ to His church?
The white pope and the black pope conspiring to reinterpret Christ for the New Age.
And inaugurate the great Divorce.
Pope Francis is a theological nightmare, incoherent, illogical, contradictory, heretical, an aggressive persecutor of the orthodox. It is ‘Spadaro speak’ whereby 2 + 2 now equals 5. Why has this nightmare descended upon the Church? It must be a chastisement upon the good for the good not being good enough during the years of JPII and BXVI. We must pray and fast harder to see an end to these evils days, for the Pope’s conversion or resignation. “O God, end these evil days in way and in your day.”
Yes it is a chastisement., a poison inflicted on the Church so she might vomit forth the heretics in her midst.
“Casuistry: The use of clever but unsound reasoning, especially in relation to moral questions; sophistry.”
Is this not the classic example of the pot calling the kettle black?
The Roman Catholic Church is in the hands of a raving psychotic totally disengaged from objective reality. He is enabled by clerics equally fueled by narcissism. One would think we are the North Korean Katholic Kirche. It is at least that dangerous.
He needs to be placed in a facility.
Fortunately , until now the Catholic Church officially has not allowed divorce for adultery, but it is coming, and practically here already, just as in most of the protestant world.
I am betting that someone in The Vatican soon will say: “ Jesus gave an exception for adultery in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. !”
Most English Bibles will indeed use the phrase “…, except for adultery” or ”…except for immorality…”
The Catholic world has kept the prohibition on divorce, essentially by saying Jesus was discounting unlawful marriages, like incest, etc. But this is a stretch, fortunately though it has kept intact the desired prohibition on divorce.
The problem with all the English translations is: none of the ancient texts has a comma before the word ”except”. When dropping the uncalled for comma , it causes the meaning of the passage to change immediately :
“WIFE except for adultery…” means “a wife who is innocent of adultery” or a “ wife outside of adultery”
Whereas the phrase “whoever divorces his wife, except for adultery…” actually gives one permission to divorce for adultery, as many believe Jesus was permitting.
Jesus did not give an exception for adultery or anything else; this would be contrary to his whole speech saying in effect: “Moses got it wrong.”
Further proof comes by the disciple’s surprised reaction – ”… it’s better not to get married!” they say. But that makes no sense! They would not have expressed surprise if Jesus was giving them and exception that they already had from Moses.
Old Syriac is a closer language to Aramaic than Greek , so I am proposing that the Old Syriac maintained the original meanings a little better, especially in Matthew’s gospel, which has a strong underlying Jewish style . These Old Syriac versions apparently precede the Peshitta much like Old Latin versions preceded the Vulgate.
In the Old Syriac versions, Matthew Gospels does not say ” …, except for adultery…” like most English translations . That phrase has caused all sorts of trouble, especially for protestants, most of whom allow divorce for adultery. The phrase “except for adultery “ is improperly read and translated when Bibles are translated from Greek.
A truer meaning instead implies that the wife is INNOCENT, and Jesus is giving a warning to men not to divorce them, thus exposing them to the possibility of adultery later on. And, if they did get rid of her, and take another, then they themselves were guilty of adultery.
This interpretation makes Matthew’s gospel entirely consistent with the Luke and Mark’s versions, which do not have “the exception clause.”
An English translation of the Old Syriac version of Matthew can be found here:
Evangelion Da-Mepharreshe by F. Crawford Burkitt
Matt 5:32 “ …But I say to you He that dismisseth his wife concerning whom there hath not been alleged adultery, he causeth her to commit adultery….”
Matt 19:9-10 “…But I say to you He that leaveth his wife without word of adultery, and taketh another, doth indeed commit adultery against her.”
So we can see above in Mr Burkitt’s translation from the Old Syriac, there is no phrase “except for adultery” and the wife is entirely innocent.
The Syriac of the Sinaitic Palimpsest by Agnes Smith Lewis (London CJ Clay & Sons 1896) also supports the innocent wife:
Matt 5:31-32 “…..It hath been said, Whosoever shall leave his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: but I say unto you. That whoever putteth away his wife, against whom adultery hath not been alleged, he causesth her to commit adultery. And whosoever taketh a forsaken one commiteth adultery. “
Matt19:9 “ …but from the beginning it was not so. I say then unto you, Whoso shall put away his wife, when there is no adultery, and shall take another, commiteth adultery.”
Curiously, even Tatian’s Diatesseron can be used to support the innocent wife and no exceptions for divorce model, although the case is a bit weaker because it is from an Arabic translation:
DIATESSERON 25 35 Jesus said unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts gave you leave 36 to divorce your wives; but in the beginning it was not so. I say unto you, Whosoever puts away his wife without fornication, and marries another, has exposed 37 her to adultery.
No commas in the phrase : “his wife without fornication” which can be taken to mean his wife is without fornication, i.e she is innocent.
Jesus’ lesson is NO DIVORCE, no exceptions.
Looking into this further our British translators above still translate “porneia” as “adultery” , which can’t be right. In the first place, no one “puts away” his wife for adultery — he has her stoned to death. Divorce is not the penalty for adultery; death is.
But even more to the point, why would the Greek translations use one word for adultery —porneia— at the beginning of a sentence, and then use another word —moichetai for adultery at the end of the very same sentence? It doesn’t make sense. Jesus must have meant two different things here for the Greek writer to use two different words. I propose that porneia refers to something other than adultery. Something far less serious. Something far less serious that He WASN’T making an exception for, even though Moses and the Pharisee did. Look at Deuteronomy 24 again. Does it seem like the author is talking about adultery here? Doesn’t look that way. So again, I propose that Jesus is saying: “Forget about that loophole that Moses gave you, the one that allows you to divorce your wife for just about any little thing you can come up with. Stay married!”
Who are we to believe? Jesus Christ, John The Baptist, St Paul, all Holy Saints and all his predecessors for 2000 years or Pope Francis? I’m going with Jesus Christ and his friends…
The Pope’s fundamental job is the same as Jesus Christ’s mandate to Peter, “confirming the brethren in the faith” not to disorient, confuse, destabilize and mislead.
John 10: 1-15
2 Timothy 4:3
Pope Francis needs a vacation. I’d recommend a good traditional seminary where he can learn his vocation.
A Pope who lies about what Jesus said! Sad!
FrankenFaith. I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it.
Patricia, that’s a near quote from a US Supreme Court justice in a case involving pornography (as compared to art). But I suppose it works just as well for Francis and the 6th Commandment.
Yes! From Justice Potter Stewart’s concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (1964).
Francis cannot be trusted with passing on the faith. What now?
The Pope’s main role is to guard the Catholic Apostolic Faith – the Faith which came to us from the Apostles. He is to feed the lambs (us) and feed the sheep (the Bishops).
But he is not doing that.
Well there is no where to go. The Catholic Faith is divine. We wait.
Does anyone hear the whisper of the serpent in the Garden of Eden, “Did God really say?”
It’s always the same sin. When a person sets up their own judgement based on their own reasoning, over in place of God’s laws, its the Garden all over again.
All I can say is Catholicism in Argentina must be in the bottom of the well, that’s where it jumped to get away from his this buffoon…
Look over there…look, look……those damn Pharisees again! No no….don’t look over here at Jesus’ words….let’s not be rigid….look at those damn Pharisees. Let’s not spend too much time ‘discerning’ what Jesus really meant. When I read this gospel reading today I asked Our Lord out loud “How could you be any clearer Lord?” And I wondered how it was going to be spun by Francis. Now we know. In another Gospel, regarding adultery, Jesus says BUT I SAY TO YOU. That is a moment of profound seriousness and importance and a moment when he wants those who are listening to be absolutely sure of what he is saying so that they can understand and assent to his words. In other words LIVE by them. These tactics are the very same ones that the leftist progressives have used to promote abortion, euthanasia, gay ‘marriage’.
Get rid of the Novus Ordo mass, then there will be stability.
In places like France the Novus Ordo is doing an efficient job of getting rid of itself.
Some say Hell is filled with nice people with the best intentions.
“The road to Hell is paved with good intentions” can be true when it comes to making a “Hell on earth,” but the actual people in the actual Hell are there because of bad intentions.
Casuistry. You keep using that word. I dinna thin’ it means what you thin’ it means.
An essential part of any revolution is the demonization and denigration of those who would oppose it. Propaganda, in other words. This has been a constant theme since Day 1 of Francis’ pontificate; the ridicule and abuse spewed forth at faithful Catholics who insist on the importance of Catholic doctrine, and who attempt to live it out. This more than any footnotes or ambiguous phrases which come from his pen, tells us his real agenda.
When faithful Catholics are the target of the almost daily Francis-shtick coming out of Casa Santa Marta, you know what his agenda is, right? It’s the destruction of all that faithful Catholics hold dear.
He’s the funniest kind of pope, whose teaching will lead the faithful to Hell. Is that the best we can expect from the papacy? How can Francis escape the charge of repeated heresy, and how can he be the pope?
You all are forgetting the passage where Jesus says divorce is justifiable in the case of adultery. Also Jesus did not address the issue of an abusive relationship or the incompatibility of the partners. It would appear that he would have taken a reasonable stance in those instances and probably would have allowed divorce in those special circumstances.Francis is not far off the mark on this issue.
Read Ephesians.
The relationship between a man and his wife is a mirror of the relationship between Jesus and his Church and Jesus Christ is not a bigamist.
If a man can divorce his wife then Jesus can divorce the Church.
I invite you to read my post above on this very subject.
The Church can allow for physical separation of spouses in abusive or exploitive situations, but the marriage bond still exists.
The man trumpets blasphemies cloaked in flowery ambiguity. How long until Holy Mother Church vomits this heretic from his throne into the street? In truth, God does not give us a pope we might want, He gives us a pope we deserve. How many times do we let the cries of our Mother fall on deaf ears?
“Penance! Penance! Penance!
Pray to God for sinners!
Kiss the ground as an act of penance for
sinners!”
He continues to make a mockery out of Who he represents.
He is walking a very fine line here. It is dishonest in what he states, and I do not know if there is anyone in authority that can and will say so; calling him out by name and refuting these unquestionable lies.
As the Vicar of Christ, the Successor of Peter, he has shown himself to be derelict in his duty to defend and promote the faith. There will be more to come, I fear. He is on the move!
Again the same old strategy of ambiguous statements which put people in doubt about Jesus’ clear teaching on the indissolubility of marriage and on the divorced remarried being in a state of adultery. Try as he might the clarity in Jesus’ teaching on this topic cannot be questioned since that would be unreasonable at the best and ungodly at the worst.
Is there a precedent in the Church for a Pope to lead with such intentional lack of clarity? Such leadership styles are roundly mocked in the corporate world, where I spend my days, as they inevitably lead to chaos and failure. The greatest leaders lead from a position of clarity of objectives so that their followers may not collide with one another in pursuit of their objectives, etc. In other words: common sense.
There is one scenario in the corporate world where ambiguity is sometimes used: when a leader is intentionally fomenting chaos. It’s a sick management style, but we occasionally hear about this as a way to distract from the leader’s weaknesses or lack of vision. Or perhaps the leader doesn’t see a conventional way of driving the organization to some unattainable goal so figures perhaps a bit of anarchy in the ranks might shake loose some alternative approach that was heretofore hidden.
He (Francis) is a heretic. Pray for his conversion, he is an enemy of the Church.
As bad as this is…as a simple layman I cannot and do not understand his Jesuit doublespeak…we are being shepherded by a confusing man lost somewhere in the VII twilight zone …I cannot bear to listen or read his words…it is the duty of every faithful priest bishop and Cardinal to depose this confusing convoluted garbage…how long O Lord?
It is Satan speaking.
Question: how do you know PF is teaching error, heresy, and scandalizing the faithful?
Answer: his lips are moving.
Can someone please define “casuistry” for me? I need to try to work out what he means when he uses the term. Because I think maybe it does not mean what he thinks it means.
As I understand casuistry, it is the application of general moral law to a particular real life case. Thus you have the unambiguous commandment: “Thou shalt not kill”. But, in a particular case of being attacked by an unjust aggressor, you are allowed to defend yourself, up to the point of killing the aggressor if there is no other way of protecting your life (e.g. wounding him, running away). Plainly, permission to commit such an incredibly grave act as killing someone cannot be granted lightly. The reasoning behind such a ruling should be clear and consistent with Scripture, previous rulings and other sources of spiritual wisdom.
That sort of case has been discussed and authoritatively ruled on long ago. Casuistry is a perfectly acceptable and indeed unavoidable process for spiritual advisors. It acquired a bad reputation when some counsellors seemed too ready to find a subtle justification for any decision pleasing to a wealthy or powerful patron. But abuse of a process does not mean it should be completely abandoned.
As for Pope Francis’ ramblings above, we are in an impossible situation. Misquoting Bill Clinton, it all depends what you mean by “truth” and “mercy” and “casuistry”. In many of his speeches and writings, “mercy” seems to be like the old Monopoly “get out of jail free” card. In stark contrast to St Thomas Aquinas’ definition of mercy, it overrides any need for justice or repentance. What if the “Truth” arrived at after a period of discernment is that you should refrain from marital relations with your remarried spouse? What if the unhappy parishioner feels this ruling lacks “mercy” in their particular case?
It’s got a secret definition only a Jesuit may know …
Pope Frances is really scrambling up the concept and practise of Mercy: what he’s preaching is “Charity Malpractise”. 🙁
If one perverts the Word of God, it reveals a preference for such.
He said pretty much the same thing last year on this Gospel reading but the Catholic news world did not pick up on it except for a small blog call Non Veni Pacem.
He thinks Jesus is agreeing with Moses despite the very expicit rejection.
So now he is not even capable of reading beyond a few verses? Or are verses 9-12 cut out from his lectionary?
When are those cardinals going to formally denounce this heretic?
“There are coming to us now different reports about Pope Francis’ Santa Marta homily of today”
…let me know when the homily is confirmed as true/otherwise it’s simple gossip
There were two links provided in the post. Here’s a third: http://www.lastampa.it/2017/02/24/vaticaninsider/eng/the-vatican/do-not-think-of-faith-only-in-terms-of-can-or-can-not-zumu7XwiwZYaVCFEsP4D7L/pagina.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
And if you speak Italian it’s on the Vatican website.
It would have taken you just as much time to find any of this out as to leave a snarky comment. Sorry, but my patience for this kind of thing is wearing a bit thin.
Thanks Steve. I had corresponded w a reputable Trditionalist blogger and she was non committal in verifying the Homily. Based on that, and to avoid the google wastelands, I thought I’d likely receive a thoughtful and accurate response here. I look forward to reading the link you provided.
Here is it now in English, but ‘slightly’ changed of course. Don’t worry, they read your portal too.
http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2017/02/24/pope_francis_in_god_there_is_both_justice_and_mercy/1294715
But not all of them, as I a few minutes ago already commented to Maike below: (It’s just unbelievable to must see how different are the meanings and the words of the very same homily in different languages! But I know that already. Since at least, a two years ago.)
…
(From my comment below):
Radiovaticana in Croatian have this on their site from today:
http://hr.radiovaticana.va/new…
The title says literally this:
“Pope: In God righteousness is mercy. Do not give up before the casuistical logic.”
The first sentence:
“Christian in its path should be like Jesus, righteous by mercy – says Pope”
(I still have to read the whole article. But we have it already here. No, no, but merciful in His righteousness. God can never be merciful before or without His righteousness first. When He is punishing, He do that in His Godly righteousness too. However, His punishment is than just denying of His grace, but again, in His Godly righteousness.)
Doesn’t anyone ever correct this man when he broadcasts his heresies? Is every priest and bishop in Rome a coward?
Many of us are trying to bring this gentleman to correction, but apparently he is without eyes to see or ears to listen.
As for the cowards — they are legion. Those who aren’t cowards are working behind the scenes, as is the practice in the ecclesiastical jungle.
But its not the cowards I’m as worried about as the atheists — and that is indeed what we are dealing with.
No, he goes uncorrected because the apologists simply reinterpret and restate what Francis says into “a more orthodox and Catholic” vernacular and blame any unorthodox or heretical statements from Francis on errors in translation and on media spin and media agenda. As for the priests and the bishops:
they think if they ignore it (the problem), then it will go away
they agree with Francis and want to see his agenda/ changes implemented
they are afraid for their positions and they are afraid of retaliation
they think if they keep a low profile and silence, that will keep the scandal contained
they are confused and have no idea what to do or how to respond to the situation
Perhaps we should just insist that were there is any ambiguity then what he is saying is entirely consistent with Tradition and established doctrine. So as a statement we interpret only that PF asserts that divorce is forbidden and anyone who claims or suggests other than this is a hypocrite.
Silence implies consent. So until there is a clear statement otherwise all we do is assert this and call out any prelate or bishop who seek to teach anything contrary.
I don’t believe this article is fair to Pope Francis. The Holy Father is correct that in Mark 10:1-12 Jesus does not directly answer the question of the Pharisees: “Is it lawful for a husband to divorce his wife?” The answer of Our Lord implies that divorce was lawful under the law of Moses, but Moses only allowed divorce because of the “hardness of the hearts” of the people. The article, however, makes this misleading assertion: “Pope Francis claims in his homily that Jesus Christ did not give a clear answer to the Pharisees, but Our Lord did. He did explain this law against divorce later more in detail to His own disciples, but He did not leave the Pharisees’ question unanswered.”
Unfortunately, the article does not quote this passage from the Vatican Radio summary of Pope Francis’ homily:
“Jesus always speaks the truth,” “He explains things as they were created,” the Pope underscores again, the truth of the Scriptures, of the Law of Moses. And He [Jesus] does this also when his disciples question Him on adultery, to whom He repeats: “Whoever repudiates his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her, and if she has repudiated her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”
Here is the Italian:
“Gesù dice sempre la verità”, ”spiega le cose come sono state create”, sottolinea ancora il Papa, la verità delle Scritture, della Legge di Mosè. E lo fa anche quando ad interrogarlo sull’adulterio sono i suoi discepoli, a cui ripete: “Chi ripudia la propria moglie e ne sposa un’altra, commette adulterio verso di lei, e se lei ha ripudiato il marito e ne sposa un altro, commette adulterio”.
If Pope Francis describes Jesus repeating to his disciples the truth He announced to the Pharisees then it’s clear that the Holy Father understands Jesus teaching the same truth to his disciples that He taught the Pharisees. So Pope Francis does indeed believe Jesus gave a clear answer to the Pharisees because he describes Jesus repeating the same truth to his disciples.
I am very sorry, but I found this portion of the article misleading and unfair to Pope Francis who was clearly affirming what Jesus teaches in Mark 10:1-12.
I am weary. We are now going on almost four years of: “Francis wasn’t interpreted correctly or Francis wasn’t quoted correctly — the media isn’t being fair to him or a whole series of authors, bloggers, writers, etc. have been misleading in their portrayal of what he has said.” I am done apologizing for the man.
I do not recall such utter chaos, confusion and ambiguity on the part of any pope in my lifetime. Another “little problem” is that what Francis actually says sometimes gets revised to a more politically correct and acceptable version of what Francis should have said on what are supposed to be word for word “official Vatican transcripts.” That happened when Francis claimed the majority of marriages are invalid. So various news media have him on tape saying something very different than the supposed official transcript.
To say the least, it is deceptive and unbecoming of the office and title of pope. I have said this before, and I will say it again, we are being “gas lighted” repeatedly by this man who speaks with the forked tongue of a serpent. I am not sorry. It is crazy-making. Any “benefit of the doubt” evaporated a long time ago.
I was only replying to this particular article not the totality of Pope Francis’ pontificate. Both the article and its title were unfair to the Holy Father who was affirming the truth of what Jesus teaches in Mark 10:1-12 about divorce and remarriage. We should be happy when the Pope affirms the truth.
Robert, if you read below, there are links as well as discussion about what the transcripts said by Steve Skojec and Ivan mi je ime. The question was asked about “differing reports.” They weren’t just looking at the English and Italian translations, but also a Croatian translation. I disagree with you. I think the title and content of the article are entirely fair.
Yes, I suppose we should be happy when Francis affirms the truth. But I have a question: should I be happy only ten of the M&Ms in my bag of M&Ms are poisoned and the other ninety M&Ms are healthy and good to eat? Truth mixed with untruth. Poison mixed with chocolate. I don’t know about you, but I would toss the entire bag of M&Ms as unfit to eat.
Thank you, Susan, for your honest reply, but you haven’t persuaded me. I read the summary of Pope Francis’ homily in Italian and then someone sent me the article we are discussing. The article seemed designed to put what Pope Francis said in the worst possible light. That is also poisonous. If Catholics would spend half as much time praying for Pope Francis as they do criticizing him we would all be in better shape.
Pope Francis could make the case clearly. It is an issue of central importance to the Gospel.
CCC 1697
PF could make the case clearly but that’s not merely as much fun as
confusing the heck out of everybody ….on matters of enormous importance
…eternal happiness with God in Heaven or eternal damnation in Hell….not
to mention the happiness in this life from following the Natural Law.
You are welcome. More honesty: If Francis is portrayed in the worst possible light, he has himself to blame because he is placing himself there. The new theologies of “make a mess” and “the God of surprises” are indeed poisonous. I don’t blame others for speaking the truth about untruth. I blame the one who speaks untruth. Just as the sons of Noah tried to cover the nakedness of their father, so too, many are trying to cover the nakedness of their spiritual father. I feel like the kid in the Emperor’s New Clothes. Can only a child see and speak what the adults refuse to see: that the emperor has no clothes and the entire affair is a scam and a scandal?
Except he does answer the Pharisees. After asking them what the law of Moses said, they answer him. He then says that it was not that way from the beginning, and therefore, “What God has joined, let no man put asunder.” If you open the image at the top of this post in a new tab, you can see the footnote at the bottom of it. It says in that footnote that Jesus affirms the indissolubility of marriage.
If you want to make the case that it would have been fairer to say, “Pope Francis says Jesus did not say whether or not divorce is forbidden”, OK. I would accept that this is the arguably more technically correct headline. But the fact is, Jesus DID say it is forbidden, so we’re having a semantic argument at that point over which way the pope digressed and/or contradicted what Jesus actually said.
There is another point in the homily, which I saw after this was published, in which the pope said Jesus affirmed that divorce and remarriage was adultery. Which only means that within the context of his own remarks, the pope contradicts himself.
The confusion he generates is never-ending.
Dear Steve,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I found this longer text regarding the Holy Father’s homily here:http://www.osservatoreromano.va/it/news/giustizia-e-misericordia-ita
Yes, of course, Jesus does answer the Pharisees, but He does not do so simply by saying that divorce is lawful or that is not .Our Lord reminds them that Moses only allowed divorce because of the hardness of their hearts, but it was not so in the beginning. I don’t see Pope Francis contradicting any of this. In fact, Pope Francis repeats several times that Jesus teaches the Pharisees the truth about marriage. Unfornately, Maike Hickson tries to make it seem that the Holy Father does contradict what Jesus teaches in Mk 10:1-12. I don’t see that at all.
Oremus pro invicem.
Malachi 2:13-16
“And this again you do. You cover the Lord’s altar with tears, with weeping and groaning because he no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favor at your hand. You ask, “Why does he not?” Because the Lord was witness to the covenant between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. Has not the one God made and sustained for us the spirit of life?And what does he desire? Godly offspring. So take heed to yourselves, and let none be faithless to the wife of his youth. For I hate divorce, says the Lord the God of Israel, and covering one’s garment with violence, says the Lord of hosts. So take heed to yourselves and do not be faithless.”
Jesus is LORD! The LORD Hates Divorce. Got it? That does not mean that due to certain heinous conditions that a man or a woman cannot separate from their spouse, they can, as the Sacred Scriptures confirm. Yet, that does not mean that the Lord God is pleased with the situation, no, He makes it abundantly clear that He hates it. So, let all those who are the cause of the separation quake in fear for the Lord God is the avenger of the Just.
Thank you.
Dear Robert Fastiggi. Let us quote from your Italian source: “Ma «Gesù — ha spiegato il Papa — non risponde se sia lecito o non sia lecito; non entra nella loro logica casistica, perché loro pensavano soltanto alla fede in termini di “si può”” That is what I quoted, too, and that is not correct! Jesus did answer the question of the Pharisees.
Also: He does not condemn the sinner He meets, but He tells them to sin no more: “And Jesus said: Neither will I condemn thee. Go, and now sin no more. ” (This He said to the adulteress who was to be stoned, but He intervened.) “He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them; he it is that loveth me. And he that loveth me, shall be loved of my Father” That means, Christ is with the sinners, but He tells them to keep His Commandments. The point of this homily of Pope Francis is that he puts into doubt those who WANT to know the Commandments, depicting them as “hypcrites.”
Dear Maike,
Yes, Jesus did answer the Pharisees, but He did not directly enter into their question whether it was licit or not because He knew the Pharisees were testing Him (see Mk 10:2) This is the point Pope Francis was making, but you seemed to miss it. Pope Francis is correct in how he describes Jesus’ reply to the Pharisees. Jesus replies to them by teaching them the truth about God’s plan for marriage “from the beginning of creation” (Mk 10:6). As for the woman caught in adultery, Pope Francis repeats Jesus’ words to her to go and sin no more: “Io non ti condanno, non peccare più”.
I think I’ve made my point, so I would prefer to leave it at that. I’m sorry that we cannot agree on what the Holy Father said and intended in his homily. Oremus pro invicem.
Dear Robert, God bless you, too!
The fact is that Pharisees believed it was lawful to divorce, not the opposite. One may think that, if our Lord did not answer them too directly, was because He realized it would be too hard for them to hear (He rebuked them often but not all the time). After all (and this is one part of the Gospel that I think was not quoted by the pope), it is written that the disciples were anxious to get a confirmation of what they understood He said, and after that they exclaimed “if this is is how man and woman are linked to each other, better not get married at all ! “
Delighted you used the word “asunder”…..so dramatic, so full of
serious meaning…..so much better than the whimpy “devide” or
“separate”
I try to stick to translations close to the Vulgate. The image on this post is of my personal New Testament, which is the Challoner-Rheims translation. I’m not much of an exegete, but it is my favorite translation. Closer to the Dhouay text, but more readable.
Thank you for the information….I use Douay-Reimes but a more
readable translation would be helpful.
Dear Robert Fastiggi, please see here what I wrote in my article, too: “Moreover, Pope Francis, in his homily, says that Our Lord “always speaks the truth” and then he mentions that Jesus did tell His disciples about the prohibition of divorce.” I do not deny that Francis repeated what Christ then told His Disciples. The point is that Francis claims Christ did not tell the Pharisees that truth, which is not true.
But again, as others have said here: why do we have to spend so much energy trying to figure out what the pope means and really said? The duty to speak clearly is on his side!
Dear Maike,
Thank you for your note. I understand your desire to defend your article, but I think my criticism still stands. Pope Francis was correct in noting that that Jesus in Mark 10:1-12 does not respond directly to the question of the Pharisees: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” Our Lord responds by teaching them the truth, and the Holy Father repeats what is found in Mark 10: 5-9. This is very clear in the longer summary of the Feb. 24 homily given in L’Osservatore Romano:http://www.osservatoreromano.va/it/news/giustizia-e-misericordia-ita If you read carefully Mark 10:1-12, you’ll see that it is only in Mark 10:10-12 that Jesus tells his disciples that a man who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery and a woman who divorces her husband and marries another commits adultery. Pope Francis was accurately describing what Jesus teaches in Mark 10:1-12. I did not find anything unclear in how the Holy Father described Jesus’ response to the Pharisees because the Pope was basically repeating what Jesus says in Mark 10:5-9 to the Pharisees. For your point to hold you would need to say that Jesus did not give a clear answer to the Pharisees.
I did not need to spend much time in trying to figure out what Pope Francis meant in that part of his homily because he was basically repeating the words of the Gospel.
Let us pray for each other and for Pope Francis.
All know that we do not get to Heaven by deeds. So if good deeds do not lead to Heaven, maybe bad deeds do not lead to Hell? Faith, Love and Hope are what lead to Heaven, and the lack thereof, to Hell. Here Pope Francis uses the word “casuistry” which has heavy overtones of Scholastic philosophy, and Aristotelian categories. He obviously rejects that whole approach. In so doing, it seems Pope Francis is almost Buddhist, or Taoist in his philosophical approach. Area without edges. “Good” and “Bad” without clearly defined boundaries. Since all Catholic doctrine has been developed and defined using the Scholastic approach of St. Thomas Aquinas, it seems there is a conflict. How do we know things? Do categories really exist out there in daily life, apart from our efforts to verbalize about it? Maybe Pope Francis is laying a foundation for shared faith with the Oriental thinkers. Perhaps we have confined God too narrowly?
Enough about the dubia etc. Who has doubts about what goes on? Time to call a spade a spade. It’s heresy day. Only useful to say: if you fail any question you are out. But the good priests and prelates seem frozen in time. One big worry: SSPX about to regularize into what?
A ship steered by a person unfit to do so that raises the ante daily. And you accept his authority to regularize you? I understand the canonical argument but practical sense it does not make. The other argument I.e. that they can fight from the inside sounds good but once you are in a new method of seduction and division will be felt. Men are weak.
And when weakened the club will be used because once in with their new house in Rome etc. they are not going out into the desert again and the system knows it. The chances of a denunciation of Bergoglio are then dramatically reduced. Ungrateful ones biting the hand that feeds you! The evil ones are more astute.
Mysterium iniquitatis.
“Pope Francis also mentions the adulteress with whom Jesus repeatedly spoke and whom He did not condemn.”
Because Jesus said “neither do I condemn you.” doesn’t mean Jesus was necessarily forgiving her, as most people claim.
Jesus was not giving the adulteress a free pass. She was guilty, and she deserved the penalty. Jesus acknowledges her guilt in a roundabout way by requesting those without sin cast the first stone. Jesus acknowledges she has sinned and deserves to be punished. What Jesus actually did is to stay her execution. …set the punishment aside, by reminding her executioners of their own sin. By doing so, he gives her the opportunity to repent and sin no more., and as also, to her accusers He gave the same opportunity.
The greatest mercy would be the Lord calling Francis home.
Jorge is so confusing. I don’t know what he said….and in a strange way….maybe that’s good!
Even when he’s teaching heresy, it’s still confusing and LAME….which is good!
Yes he did.
Never seen anything like it.
All throughout her life, Sister Lucy dos Santos—the last of the three Fatima children, who died at age 97, in 2005—spoke of a coming “diabolical disorientation.” It continues to descend and deepen. Pray for Francis, that he may escape the theological miasma he seems engulfed in. .
The Whore of Babylon
http://www.call2holiness.org/WhoreofBabylon/WhoreofBabylon.htm
The Rest of the story
http://www.call2holiness.org/iniquity.htm
The Dictatorship of Mercy strikes again.
When I began reading this article, I assumed BerGOGlio adopted Saint Augustin’s interpretation of Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. I was wrong. If those rumours are true, BerGOGlio denies that Jesus forbade divorce. That being the case, I am of the opinion that, at long last, BerGOGlio became a *formal* heretic and thus lost his office as Pope.
Every time I write a comment here I recall the words of President Reagan, “There you go again!”. I never see my remarks here after I write them, and I never hear or read any responses. I don’t know why. Are my comments deleted? Who knows? Anyway, here I go again.
When I was a young priest in our diocese who used to stand up at every deanery meeting or diocesan priest meeting and tell us two things. The first was that priests should allowed to get married. The second was that we don’t have any of the “ipsisima verba” of Jesus and so we can’t use Jesus’s words in the Gospels to prove anything. In other words, he wanted to reduce moral theology to “I should be able to do whatever I want right now!” Privately I used to call him “The Whiner”. Well he became involved with a woman of the parish and broke up her marriage to a fine man and then “married her” himself in a garden ceremony with a priest friend officiating. It was rumored at the time that the bishop attended. After his wedding, being in need of a little cash once he left the parish trough, he put an advertisement in the local papers announcing that he was available to officiate at weddings and that he had all the authority he needed to marry any Catholic in a valid ceremony. Well, at least the man was consistent, and even logical given his first premise. Once we convince ourselves that neither Scripture, nor Church, nor Social Propriety can stand in the way of my wanting to do exactly as I please, then, as my gandma used to say, “Katie, bar the door!”
I see your comments, Monsignor. Even if nobody else does, I know you exist!
The proper understanding of the text involves Jesus correcting Moses and calling to mind that divorce was never God’s plan from the beginning. It totally excluded and remarriage after divorce is adultery. It is as clear as day. The fact that Jesus would dare to correct Moses is an extremely important matter, as Moses is the lawgiver and there is no greater authority in Judaism, so that it is an example of Jesus expressing his divine authority. It has nothing to do with casuistry. The concept of casuistry is generally associated with byzantine discussions about minor matters, such as the application of the sabbath rest. In this case, it is not a minor matter. Also, the fact that the apostles were discussing what Jesus said among themselves and they asked him to clarify it, is also very important. They considered his posistion very extreme. Jesus is laying down a divine truth here with absolute clarity.
I am not sure that casuistry was about minor matters. It is more to do with analysing a situation and then finding some wonderful excuse for doing something that is normally regarded as sinful. Thus Pascal drew attention to a certain Spanish Jesuit who said that if a man slapped your face it was quite okay to kill him if you had the good intention of defending your honour. I detect a similar casuistry in Amoris Laetita!
Pope Francis has a curious attitude to the subject of sins. He seems to regard the teaching of the Church which forbids you to do something as merely some arbitrary rule invented by the Church – akin say to the requirement of a Club which insists that members wear a tie on the premises. He seems to ignore the anthropological and natural law arguments that sin is not just breaking God’s law but actually has evil consequences for the sinner and those around him. Divorce is surely a prime example of this.
Obviously There is a need to reform or Abolish the Jesuits as evidenced by Francis and the liberal fool Venezuelan head of the order.Time for retired Pope Benedict to step in and the majority of Red Hat Cardinals declare a need to correct Francis and the wayward Jesuits. Otherwise a SCHISM will come to the church. Francis very sadly reminds me in tragic terms of Infamous Bishop Spong of the now dying Anglican Episcopal . Spong so undermined basic Christian beliefs and morals there the Anglicans have collapsed in recent decades.The rump not Rc faith is headed for the same dismemberment so evident in Liberal Protestant sects like the Anglican Episcopal dying sect.. SHAME on Francis and the entire Jesuit leadership if you could call it that.
John 14:15 ” If you love me, you will keep my commandments.
Gal 1:8 “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed.”
“We shall find out at the day of judgment that the greater number of Christians who are lost were damned because they did not know their own religion.” – St. Jean-Marie Vianney
The proposition that the commandments of God are impossible to observe even for a man who is justified and established in grace was solemnly condemned by the Council of Trent.