After a few earlier words of Bishop Bernard Fellay on 10 April on the Apostolic Exhortation, Amoris Laetita (where he speaks of a boat with a hole below the waterline, which is now prone to sink), the SSPX has now published a more formal statement and published it on its own website (in French). Father Mathias Gaudron, of the district of Germany, has signed this formal statement. (Here is the German version of the statement.)
The statement is entitled “The Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia: the Victory of Subjectivism.” It starts with a description of how some more liberal-minded Catholics have been disappointed with the papal text because it still repeats some of the traditional positions of the Catholic Church on homosexuality and on marriage. However, the text continues: “It [the papal document] has opened a breach which puts into question the whole of Catholic morality.” In Chapter 8, the statement continues, “Pope Francis has now opened the doors which will permit persons in the future to abstain from Catholic morality by citing the new instructions of the pope.” Father Gaudron continues:
This [the papal instruction] does not only repeat the troubling affirmations of the second synod, according to which the remarried divorcees are “living members of the Church,” to which the Holy Ghost bestows “gifts and charisms for the good of all.” (No. 299), but it goes still further beyond it. For sure, the instruction concerning a Catholic marriage and all the ancient norms are still valid today; that is to say, it is still forbidden for those to receive absolution and Holy Communion who live in cohabitation or who are simply united by a new civil marriage, but … now there are exceptions!
Without reference to the “complexity of the different situations,” says Gaudron, the pope proposes to avoid judgments. One has now to regard the general norms in the face of “all the different particular situations.” However, says Gaudron, this might sometimes be applicable to human norms, but not to divine laws. No one, Gaudron reminds us, can dissolve a validly contracted and consummated sacramental marriage – “not even the pope.” And he continues: “These laws do not know or allow any exception and they are valid independent of the circumstances.” It has always been taught, according to the SSPX priest, that “the moral range of an action contains therefore something objective and does not finally depend only [or at all] upon the circumstances or the intention of the subject.” Whatever the circumstances or the intentions, to kill an innocent person deliberately “is always an evil deed,” says Father Gaudron. Applied to a situation of adultery, the priest says: “One might well have a certain understanding for a woman who is engaged in a new relationship because of the infidelity or the hardness of heart of her husband, and one could admit that, in such a case, the fault is less grave, but nevertheless adultery remains an evil act in itself.”
With reference to the pope’s statement that those people living in “irregular” situations are not always to be found in the state “of mortal sin, deprived of sanctifying Grace,” Father Gaudron continues to show how the pope (more laxly) proposes that some such couples now even should stay together in order “to avoid adding a new sin.” The priest continues that such a case could only be admissible if the new spouses live as “brother and sister, in absolute continence,” a rule that has been already approved by the Church. But if there is a couple who, in their subjective understanding, believes that what they are doing pleases God, Gaudron says, “their conduct still objectively contradicts the Will of God.” Therefore, he says, “a true pastor whose mission it is to return the lost sheep to the paths of God, must not simply accept such a situation, nor give them [such couples] the Sacraments, as if this is a couple that has a true Christian marriage.” Gaudron continues: “Yet, this is exactly the end to which the considerations of the pope lead.” The pope says, according to Gaudron, that one is allowed to live in the state of Grace while living in “an objective situation of sin.” In footnote 351, the pope proposes even the “help of the sacraments” in “certain cases,” as the priest then says.
Father Gaudron concludes: “In this allowance, the pope distances himself from Catholic moral teaching” while “having the nerve to justify such sophisms with the help of putative distinctions as taught by Saint Thomas Aquinas.”
Father Gaudron also criticizes the fact that it is now essentially given into the hands of an individual priest as to whether or not such troubled couples may receive the Sacraments. And he continues: “Which priest will now take the risk to give the Sacraments to one couple because of their supposed particular situation, but, at the same to refuse the Sacraments to other couples who are not validly married?” Additionally, in the eyes of Father Gaudron, this argumentation coming from the pope will be more easily applied to other cases, as well: For example, “If a homosexual couple really loves each other and simply does not come to see that their way of life is sinful – could one then not also give them Holy Communion?”
In quoting the pope’s startling words that “no one can be condemned forever,” Father Gaudron concludes that the pope seems to imply that “a couple who lives in a state of sin may not be excluded from Holy Communion forever.” However, Father Gaudron reminds us that the sinner has to stop sinning if he wants to save his soul.
Father Gaudron states that even the better parts of the papal document are not entirely free from error. However, says Gaudron, it is especially with the content of Chapter 8 that Amoris Laetitia takes its place among the most deplorable Apostolic writings to be found in the more recent modern history of the Catholic Church. And, as Father Gaudron comes then to conclude: “One can only hope that the cardinals, bishops and theologians who have, in the last two years, continually defended the Church’s teaching on marriage against its attenuation may now have the courage to go into resistance.”
They, the SSPX, unfortunately will be assimilated within a month.
….and you base that on what….?
More cheap fear mongering.
If you think Bishop Fellay will accept anything less than being accepeted exactly as they are, your sorely mistaken. Hasn’t , isn’t and won’t happen!
Just this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTwrpGZsc0E
What joy would you have if the SSPX did ‘give in’? If you are so certain of your beliefs can you not sit back & wait for everyone else to be wrong? Then you can say ‘I told you so!’ You’ll feel better if you don’t jump the gun when the moment arrives.
I never said I’d be happy or get a kick out of this. I am more Aristotelian in nature. I rely too much on common sense. If Archbishop Lefebvre were alive today, do you think for one minute he would accept the “normalization”? He spoke visceral truths about the sad state of affairs in the Church back in 87′ that to this day, would make any novus ordo cleric and laity cringe upon listening to the Archbishop’s recordings and writings. Fast forward 30 years.
The SSPX accomplishes a lot more from their current position than they will ever be able to do with a prelature. If the SSPX thinks they will be the next free roaming -Traditionalist- Opus Dei, are they are in for a surprise. I pray I’m wrong.
Ask yourself, will the SSPX, once it has been “normalized” and given its prelature and all the jazz, could it ever say to faithful “AVOID THE NOVUS ORDO MASS AT ALL COSTS!”
Do you think any normalized-SSPX bishop would decline a nuncio or a cardenal or a pope’s invitation to concelebrate? (I’m not referring to an ordination nor a consecration. I’m referring to a NO mass)
On a whim (or from pressure) the pope may remove any bishop, or priest he desires. Coincidentally, a “conservative” Opus Dei bishop was recently removed in Paraguay. Something about an ex-SSPX priest.. But I digress..
I pray for the SSPX daily.
SjJnChrysostom
Yes, Archbishop Lefebvre spoke those truths you refer to back in 1987. Yet he signed a protocol for reconciliation in 1988, which he only repented of when he realised that the other party was not truly committed to it. You do the memory of His Grace a very great injustice by imputing to him the intention of cutting himself and his Society off from the Church and the Pope in their time of greatest need. A personal prelature, adequately detailed and protected, will do wonderful things for the Church. Archbishop Lefebvre knew this and hoped for it, even if he was not granted to see his hope fulfilled during his lifetime.
We live in very different times now, times in which many prelates and clerics have been obliged to open their eyes to what is happening in the Church. Thanks to Archbishop Lefebvre, who once stood alone, many Traditional-leaning organisations, even those that may have been instituted originally to harm the apsotolate of the SSPX, have since rallied to the cause of restoring all things in Christ. This is Our Lord’s doing. Where once there was only hostility and/or indifference to Tradition, new lifeboats are appearing everywhere to keep the Church from sinking from those Modernist holes below the waterline. Things are on the turn, despite appearances, and the Archbishop would have rejoiced to see it and take a secured and active part in it. His Grace would have had the hand of Pope John Paul II for a secured personal prelature, despite arguments to the contrary from revisionist interpreters of those difficult early years of isolation. Archbishop Lefebvre was a devout and dedicated servant of God, of the Church and of the Papacy, not a parallel magisterium! It would be a sad day if doctors told their patients not to come to surgery while they were sick for fear of contamination. That is not at all the will of God, it is cowardice and a lack of trust in the Almighty.
Temptation & Fall.
The serpent, which was the most cunning of all the animals God had created, asked the SSPX:
How it is that Msgr. Lefebvre has commanded you to refuse Rome?
SSPX answered the serpent:
-We don’t reject eternal Rome, just the liberal and modernist Rome which destroys the faith, for which we pray to convert and return to Tradition. Msgr . Lefebvre said: “Many of those who have left us to join Rome (conciliar) did not understand exactly what liberalism is and how the Roman authorities, since the Second Vatican Council, are infested with these errors. Had they understood, they would have fled, avoided it and stayed with us. But they do not want to believe in these errors. It’s serious! Because once one approaches these authorities, one necessarily becomes contaminated. These authorities are imbued (…) with the principles of liberalism: necessarily, they act in accordance with their thinking. Therefore, when they begin to formalize relations with us, they impose these ideas, because they are the authorities. They are the authorities, we are their subjects, and hence, they impose their ideas. Until they do not rid themselves of these errors, liberalism and modernism, there cannot be a mutual accord.”
The snake replied to the SSPX:
-By no means will you be contaminated nor will they impose on you their ideas. Msgr. Lefebvre knew well that the day you make the accord it will be because Rome would offer guarantees and assurances in order to accomplish your apostolate with greater efficacy around the world without impediments, as their sign of good will.
And the SSPX saw that the Roman’s tree was inviting and the prelature a delight to the eyes, took the fruit, accepted it, ate of it, gave it also to the faithful to eat and they ate. Indeed, the eyes of many opened and they realized they were clean of battle scars; so they resorted to liturgical pomp in order to cover themselves and justify their recognition, trying to make believe that nothing bad had just happened.
StJnChrysostom
Where is your trust in Our Lord? You clearly don’t recognise that despite appearances, He is still in charge of His Church. Tragic that you have come to such a point of discouragement.
Where is your trust in Our Lady? This has been known for many centuries. Rome WILL lose the faith. Our Lady of La Sallete told us so, “Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Antichrist.” Trust in the Lord, yes. He indeed warned us.
Pearl87
That particular prophecy (LaSallete) is related to the reign of Antichrist and the end of the world. First must come the triumph of Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart; the conversion of Russia, a period of peace in the world and the restoration of all things in Christ. You have your Marian prophecies mixed up. Unless, of course, you would argue that Our Lady of Fatima lied when she said “the Holy Father will do it,” meaning the consecration of Russia, “but it will be late”. See how Our Lady calls the Pope “the Holy Father”. You should follow her example. Oh yes, and little Jacinta said that we should “pray much for the Holy Father”. Now that request today requires a real effort to practice the virtue of charity. Some prefer to judge, condemn and depose the Pope rather than pray for him while respectfully resisting his errors. Where do you stand on this?
Our Lady of La Salette predicted that Rome will lose the faith. Is it for you to know when? Are you the master of what will happen in the end times? What if these are the end times? And what if this pope is a heretic? One can pray for him, but that does not require you to be a collaborator with evil. Abp. LeFebvre tried very hard to work within the bounds of the Conciliar church, until he realized that the goal of Rome was to destroy the Church. Where I stand is in favor of restoring all things in Christ. I won’t bow down to men nor give them the homage due to Our Lord.
Pearl87
Unless you are saying that you reject the Message of Fatima, it stands to reason that you have the LaSalette prophesy placed in the wrong context. If Our Lady of Fatima has promised the triumph of her Immaculate Heart in the near future then how can the end of the world prophecy of LaSalette be for these times? I would caution also that Fatima is a far greater event than LaSalette by reason of the great public miracle that accompanied it and the number of Popes who have spoken of its importance. LaSalette comes a poor second in comparison.
Is it not perhaps the case that you prefer to make LaSalette fit with a sad and condemnatory disposition? Fatima is about hope, about light at the end of the tunnel, about a restoration of Godly peace and order in the Church and the world. Why would you prefer to dwell on the death and destruction prophecy of LaSalette when it doesn’t fit with current events or Scriptural revelations?
As for Archbishop Lefebvre, what he did then and what he may or may not do today, it’s all pretty academic. As I said before, the Archbishop loved the Church and was obedient to legitimate authority in all that was not opposed to the faith. He never held the sedevacantist view or the schismatic view. I think it’s fairly certain that he would be pleased with Bishop Fellay’s efforts. Alas, there are armchair theologians who will never be happy with any small chink of light. They want a big miracle of instant conversion that will simply not happen. That’s not the way God works, He works slowly and steadily through his servants.
Your opinions notwithstanding, I have yet to see an authoritative interpretation of these apparitions in relation to one another. Our Lady of Fatima also gave a secret that has never been revealed, but which she demanded should be revealed in 1960, just before the subversive Vatican II Counsel destroyed the visible Church. She said that the importance of her message would be revealed at that time.
However, it seems to me that you wish to see things in a particular light, exonerating those who are harming the Faith.
I have no intention of exonerating those responsible for the damage to the faith since Vatican II. I merely draw the line at judging and condemning them as formal hereitcs. I have no insight into their souls by which to make such a judgment, nor do I have that authority from God. I will simply say that material heresy is certainly rampant and we must pray and do our part in the Church to bring it to an end.
As for the Marian apparitions we have been discussing: Fatima is by far the most significant for our time, much more so than LaSalette. You say that the Third Secret has not been revealed, however we do know enough about it’s content to state clearly that it refers to a spiritual chastisement, an apostasy of millions from the true faith. The Secret begins with the words: “In Portugal the dogmas of the faith will always be preserved, etc…” This suggests that elsewhere the dogmas will not be preserved. 1960 ties in very well with preparations for the commencement of the Second Vatican Council, which indicates that this Council was to herald the beginning of the chastisement. Additionally, it was during its initial working Session on October 13, 1962 that all the Traditional schemas prepared for discussion and deliberation were binned in favour of new, Modernist ones and all the key Modernists were elected to the Commissions. Note the date. The anniversary of the great miracle of the sun at Fatima!
Will the SSPX condemn this once they receive their prelature:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbpcNrkY0Bk
Is that all our resistance to Modernism is to consist of – repetitive condemnations? That may well work on its own in a healthy spiritual climate, but we are not living in such a climate. There has to be more to the apostolate of the SSPX, and there is.
Yes, condemnation of grave abuses is a duty incumbent upon us all, but there is also prayer and penance for the conversion of the poor souls who commit these atrocities, especially when they hold high office in the Church. And then there is the counter-influence of Sacred Tradition which, if unrestrained and protected, will act as a leaven in the Church and will win many back to the faith of their fathers. We can’t just be a shower of pessimistic hand wringers voicing condemnations and prophesying the end of time. We are Catholics with a battle to fight in the heart of the Church, not from the sidelines.
The truly malicious Modernists in the Church, those who know exactly what they are doing to the faith, are terrified at the prospect of the SSPX being reconciled with Rome without strings. They know what it means for them. Hence, the so-called “Resistance” of some Traditionalists to negotiations between the SSPX and Rome is exactly what they want to see. They share the same narrow agenda as the “Resistance,” albeit from the opposite perspective of keeping their Modernist grip on the Church.
We have to trust more in Our Lord and less in our own morbid suspicions and predictions, otherwise we’ll all end up in schism with the Church. Archbishop Lefebvre spoke of his fear of a schismatic mindset taking hold in the SSPX the longer it was separated from Rome. He was right to fear, as the so-called “Resistance” now demonstrates. Thankfully, this group of disparates is no longer associated with the SSPX. I believe Our Lord rid the Society of them in anticipation of a great work ahead.
Yes Bishop Fellay made that very clear during his litmus test televised-interview with Tim Sebastian.
May God bless the SSPX.
I fear that you are too optimistic about the probable outcome of this “Anschluss”. Abp. LeFebvre told us, “It is the superiors who form the subjects”. It is in vain to hope that the SSPX can restore orthodoxy to the Conciliar church. In the event the SSPX relinquishes control to Rome, it will languish and succumb to the same spiritual illness rampant throughout the Conciliar church.
Once again you quote Archbishop Lefebvre out of context to suit your position. The SSPX is not looking to “form” the superiors in the Church but rather to reform them by correcting their errors as did St. Paul with St. Peter. Grace plays a large part in this of course, which is why our efforts must always be accompanied with prayer and penance, and without bitterness. St. James tells us that “the anger of man worketh not the justice of God”. The SSPX is about helping the Church with truth and charity. It is not in the business of deposing Popes and prelates. If, as you state, it is vain to hope that the SSPX can help restore orthodoxy in the Conciliar Church, then doubtless the Gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church and the SSPX was always just a big illusion.
I don’t think it’s my optimism we have to worry about. It’s your fatalism that is really concerning!
I took nothing out of context, he was referring to exactly this situation. The only way the true faith is saved is through untarnished fidelity to orthodox Catholic doctrine. Mingling with heretics will not promote truth.
We’re going round in circles here so I don’t see any point in prolonging this exchange. Permit me to say in conclusion, however, that the Pharisees once said something very similar to you when they castigated Our Lord for “mingling” with sinners. You must take great personal pride in your fidelity to the faith to feel so justified in condemning the weak. I personally prefer to recall the admonition of St. Paul: Take heed, lest having preached to others you yourself become a castaway.”
Our Catholic duty lies in respectfully correcting our superiors while resisting anything they command which is against faith. At the same time we should pray for their conversion. Bitter rejection of the above is just Protestantism by any other name.
Your remarks are hypocritical and self-serving. Vatican II is Protestantism. Those who oppose Vatican II heresy and its adherents are defenders of the Catholic Faith.
Any subordinate who bitterly rejects the legitimacy of the Church’s hierarchy has cut himself off from the Catholic Church, regardless of whatever delutionary motives he claims to have. This is the teaching of the Saints and Fathers. It was also the teaching by example of Archbishop Lefebvre. Review 2000 years of Church history and you will find only heretics and schismatics doing what you do now. Bitter zeal blinds the soul and dims the mind. Reflect!
Yes, those schismatic Saints, Athanasius and Nicholas. Truly they should have bowed their stiff necks and followed the heretics Arius and Pope Gregory I into the pit of hell. For heaven’s sake, the hierarchy must be preserved above all else!
Athanasius resisted the errors of his superior, he did not reject his legitimate authority and refuse to have any dialogue with him. As for Pope Gregory II, his name is inscribed in the Roman and other martyrologies. I think you must have mixed this Pope up with someone else.
Not so. Athanasius was excommunicated by Pope Gregory I because he defended the faith against the Arian Heresy embraced by all the hierarchy including the pope. You put obedience to men above defense of Holy Mother Church and obedience to God.
Christ gave us the doctrines of the faith. St. Paul told us, ” though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema. For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? If I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.” Anathema. Accursed.
The magisterium of the Church through 1960 years cannot be contradicted. But, do you say, if men in robes tell you to deny Christ then it is duty, because they have infiltrated the highest offices?
It wasn’t Pope Gregory I who excommunicated St. Athanasius, it was Pope Liberius. You’re obviously very well qualified to depose Popes!
Your quotation from St. Paul is exaggerated to fit with your schimatic mindset. Archbishop Lefebvre, like Bishop Fellay now, made it clear that the SSPX always obeys God before men, just as St. Paul admonished. However, neither Archbishop Lefebvre nor Bishop Fellay will go beyond this respectful resistance to the extreme of declaring a Pope deposed. The very idea of such pride in the SSPX leadership is unthinkable.
Now that’s an end to our exchange. I have given you every opportunity to reflect on your harsh position and see some sense, but you clearly have no interest in charitable and objective reasoning. I now shake the dust from my feet!
Wait, my quotation from St. Paul is “exaggerated”? Those words were written to be a clear, unambiguous guide for the faithful. Your position is manifest and I’m sorry to know that you have more loyalty to church officials than to Christ’s Church; that you hate Catholicism so much that you will defend heresy above truth. And your lack of fidelity then shows forth in dishonest accusations. I challenge you to show the quote wherein I demanded that Jorge Bergoglio be deposed. If a heretic is indeed pope, then I am not qualified to suggest a remedy. However, his heresy MUST be acknowledged under pain of the sin of indifference.
Though I may have erred in naming Pope Gregory, yet to fasten on a detail, such as which pope of antiquity performed the excommunication of Athanasius, is an artful tactic, employed to obscure the fact that St. Athanasius WAS excommunicated, and is a saint. You have no response to that. Clearly, you place obedience to men above the love of Christ. You are to be pitied, more than scorned.
” Listen, Meg, God made the angels to show Him splendor, as He made animals for innocence and plants for their simplicity. But Man He made to serve Him wittily, in the tangle of his mind. If He suffers us to come to such a case that there is no escaping, then we may stand to our tackle as best we can, and, yes, Will, then we can clamor like champions, if we have the spittle for it. But it’s God’s part, not our own, to bring ourselves to such a pass. Our natural business lies in escaping.”
St. Thomas More addressing his daughter Meg.
StJnChrysostom
Well presented! I would say that Bishop Fellay embodies precisely that wisdom and diplomacy as advocated in the first instance by St. Thomas. Wouldn’t you?
“Our natural business lies in escaping.”
It is now clear for all to see that this Apostolic Exhortation – Amoris Laetitae – is to become the stepping stone by which ALL sinners will be able to access Holy Communion without need (or guilt) to approach Confession first with due remorse, repentance & a firm commitment to mend their ways. This is abjectly against the sixth & eight commandments & wilfully denies God’s right & purpose in setting out his rules in order that we may attain our heavenly abode. It also transparently demonstrates that anyone who accepts this “papal opinion” and live accordingly has already lost the belief in transubstantiation &, I would contend, in God Himself.
For a Pope, backed by his Hierarchy, to suggest that this is what the Holy Ghost intends to happen, is monstrously demonic & heretical and must be condemned at the highest level. If not, the CC is facing yet another schism. A complete clean-out of the Vatican has now become compulsory. Fr. Amorth your services are desperately required!
We haven’t heard from Fr. Amorth lately. They probably have him locked up in a Vatican dungeon somewhere..
Father Mathias Guadron has got it right : there are no known exceptions to the traditional moral teachings.The new moral theology is based on an irrationality
Father Mathias Gaudron:
However, the text continues: “It [the papal document]has opened a breech which puts into question the whole of Catholic morality.”
Lionel:
He is saying that doctrine has changed based on the new moral and salvation theology approved by Pope Benedict and which is being taught in the pontifical universities and
seminaries for a long time.2
__________________
it is still forbidden for those to receive absolution and Holy Communion who live in cohabitation or who are simply united by a new civil marriage, but … now there are exceptions!
Lionel:
When there are conditions for mortal sin and there are exceptions to knowing or judging mortal sin, it is implied that there are known exceptions to the tradtional doctrine on mortal sin.1
AL is the official approval of the new moral theologybased on hypothetical cases being objectively known exceptions, and the exceptions making the new rule.It supports the errors of Fr. Charles Curran and his moral theology professor Bernard Haring, at the pontifical university Alphonsonianum in Rome.2
___________________
One has now to regard the general norms in the face of “all the different particular situations.”
For Pope Francis and Cardinal Schonborn the change was not made ‘out of the blue’.They used theology to do it.Theology based on a philosophical error.1
____________________
No one, Gaudron reminds us, can dissolve a validly contracted and consummated sacramental marriage – “not even the pope.”
Lionel:
Cardinal Schonborn accepts the new theology.For him there are known exceptions to the traditional teachings on morals and faith.So this is the doctrine of the Church for him.
He means this is the doctrine of the contemporary magisterium.
The reasoning of this theology is irrational and heretical but it is official.
It is a break with the moral theology of the centuries before the Council of Trent.They did not assume that there were known exceptions, people seen in Heaven, who were there in mortal sin(moral theology) or who were not members of the Catholic Church (new salvation theology). 2
_______________________
And he continues: “These laws do not know or allow any exception and they are valid independent of the circumstances.”
Lionel:
An exception would have to be known to be an exception It has always been taught, according to the SSPX priest, that “the moral range of an action contains therefore something objective and does not finally depend only [or at all]upon the circumstances or the intention of the subject.”
It means not only God can judge who is living in mortal sin and will NOT go to Hell but also of us human beings.
________________________
Whatever the circumstances or the intentions, to kill an innocent person deliberately “is always an evil deed,” says Father Gaudron. Applied to a situation of adultery, the priest says: “One might well have a certain understanding for a woman who is engaged in a new relationship because of the infidelity or the hardness of heart of her husband, and one could admit that, in such a case, the fault is less grave, but nevertheless adultery remains an evil act in itself.”
Lionel:
In the new moral theology, the view is, it cannot always be said that a couple is living in mortal sin even though it seems manifest.Since that couple could be one of the many ‘exceptions’ and we humans can judge the exceptions.We know who will not go to Hell.
_________________________
But if there is a couple who, in their subjective understanding, believes that what they are doing pleases God, Gaudron says, “their conduct still objectively contradicts the Will of God.”
Lionel:
The dogma EENS has been rejected. So now when a Catholic marries a Jew or Protestant it is not considered adultery and a mortal sin.Since there is salvation outside the Church ( new salvation theology/Cushingism) and there are known exceptions to mortal sin ( the couple could be an exception for various hypothetical reasons).2.
__________________________
The pope says, according to Gaudron, that one is allowed to live in the state of Grace while living in “an objective situation of sin.” In footnote 351, the pope proposes even the “help of the sacraments” in “certain cases,” as the priest then says.
Lionel:
He means there is no break with the moral theology based on an irrationality (the new moral theology).He assumes we humans can know of Catholics living in manifest mortal sin, but who will not go to Hell.Or he assumes that we can know of people who were living in mortal sin and who are now known to be in Heaven.2
____________________________
Father Gaudron concludes: “In this allowance, the pope distances himself from Catholic moral teaching”
Lionel:
Pope Francis could mean that there are known exceptions to the traditional teaching on mortal sin.Last month Pope Benedict announced via Avvenire that there are known exceptions in Vatican Council II to the 16th century interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
So the new moral theology is that the conditions for mortal sin mentioned in the Catechism edited by Cardinal Ratzinger and Schonborn, refer not to hypothetical cases,known only to God ,but to defacto, objectively known cases which can be identified by us humans.2
-Lionel Andrades
1.
Pope Francis is referring to Cardinal Schonborn as a theologian.So theology is important for him.This issue is theological
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/04/pope-francis-is-referring-to-cardinal.html
2.
Amoris Laetitia is the official approval of the new moral theology based on hypothetical cases being objectively known exceptions and exceptions make the rule : it supports the errors of Fr.Charles Curran
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/04/amoris-laetitia-is-official-approval-of.html
This document is a disaster on a practical level, even though Cardinal Burke claims it is non-magisterial. Faithful priests will be persecuted by liberal bishops such as Cupich if they refuse Holy Communion to remarried divorcees.
+Burke claims. But the reality is, based on what Card. Schonborn said in his presentation of AL: he implied the document is in fact magisterial.
I quote:
“It must be said that the documents of the Church often do not belong to one of the most accessible literary genres. This text of the Pope’s is readable, and those who are not dissuaded by its length will find joy in its concreteness and realism. Pope Francis speaks about families with a clarity that is not easy to find in the magisterial documents of the Church.”- Schonborn, presenting Amoris Laetitia
Of course it is magesterial. What is Burke thinking? At what level, who knows. It will be cited in future editions of Denzinger. Hopefully as a document identified as heresy condemned by the next Pope, or the first one after the current generation of sodomite supporters dies off.
No it is not magisterial, but we live in a world that will spin things the way they want to just as you have done. Having said that, was it wise for the Pope to submit chapter eight without some directions as to what he meant by those troubling statements and sentences this article highlighted? In the final analysis, it is the priesthood that will be the arbitrators of this chapter. Let us pray that the Holy Spirit guides their actions.
It’s not impossible to interpret Schönborn’s statement as CONTRASTING Amoris Laetitia with magisterial documents. In other words, this statement alone does not say one way or the other whether AL is magisterial.
That doesn’t imply anything except that the text is easy to read. You could read it that way but you could also read it the other. Sadly, English relies a lot on how a sentence was spoken to receive context.
Thankfully, Cardinal Burke is right and I might also add that the Pope traditionally indicates when he is speaking with magisterial weight. Typically, exhortations rank the lowest on the Apostolic writings totem pole. The Pope merely shared his thoughts on the decisions of the Synod. You can’t use that as a doctrinal basis for anything.
Hear, hear.
According to this post, the SSPX has stated “It [the papal document]has opened a breech which puts into question the whole of Catholic morality.”
Well, the SSPX KNOWS BETTER. No document, can call into question Traditional Catholic morality AND call itself Catholic. The SSPX, as usual, wants to straddle the fence without getting its stones caught on the spikes.
And this is priceless:
“For sure, the instruction concerning a Catholic marriage and all the ancient norms are still valid today; that is to say, it is still forbidden for those to receive absolution and Holy Communion who live in cohabitation or who are simply united by a new civil marriage, but … now there are exceptions!”
And, “the instruction’ is ‘still valid today; that is to say it is still forbidden…….blah, blah…”
GIVE ME A BREAK! The ‘instruction’ is that everything is an exception.
Again, the panting, breathless wish of the SSPX to rotate in Rome’s (read Masonry’s) orbit is beyond question. The SSPX is JUST AS GOOD as ROME at speaking in CODE.
And Fr.Gaudron ends by saying “In this allowance, the pope distances himself from Catholic moral teaching” HOW CAN A “POPE” DISTANCE HIMSELF FROM CATHOLIC MORAL TEACHING”???
I’m really tired of you coming in here and vomiting bile on everything with your thinly veiled sedevacantism. You exude negativity like a plague, and nothing is ever good enough for you. This is clearly not the place for you. I look forward to your angry email.
I had e-mailed the SSPX General House telling them how much we need them in this dark time. They sent a very forceful response explaining how the leadership is very aware of not compromising or endangering the flock. People who are “Sede” will never be satisfied, until they (SSPX) were to erroneously go that route.
John
The reason for this is that sedevacantists have no trust in God and lack charity towards their neighbour. They are scandalised unto bitterness by the failings of the Popes and prelates of the Church. They don’t want their conversion, they want their utter condemnation. That’s why they choose to accuse the Modernists of formal rather than material heresy. Material heresy allows for a certain ignorance and good will in those whose actions harm the Church and the faith. Formal heresy permits no such indulgence. It is a condemnation based on a forbidden judgment of the souls of sinners. Sedevacantism is an irrational position at odds with Our Lord’s Commandment and consequently counter-productive in the spiritual lives of souls. It eats away at peace and holiness until only bitter zeal is left.
I have never understood why some Catholics feel the need to declare on the validity of the modern Popes. Our Lord does not require, much less permit, such a declaration from subordinates. It is for the Church to investigate and declare on particular Popes once she regains her health. Our sole remit is to keep and uphold the faith handed down. To this end we publicly and respectfully resist the errors of our superiors, which is praiseworthy. Anything beyond that is not of God.
Salza and Siscoe have taken on the SED’s Promoters, errors and fallacies by Name, in detailed, documented and footnoted research all presented in Chapter, Verse, Paragraph, Sentence and Word. A must read. Facts not suppositions, superstitions etc. Devastating to the SEDS. Two options remain. Admit the truth and leave or deny the truth, stay and become even more embittered.
. http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/
HOW CAN A “POPE” DISTANCE HIMSELF FROM CATHOLIC MORAL TEACHING”???
I don’t know, did the three Councils and Popes in union with the Councils ask that question before they anathema Pope Honorius?
C’mon guys. We all know Pope Francis had to gin up this thing before he opens the Communion rail {oops, the Communion walkway…} to the Lutherans. With time for a few more in-flight theology classes, he should have Luthero-Catholicism unification a done deal by his “date” with the Lund Lesbo-Lutherans in the fall.
Unless a miracle occurs and either the Lord intervenes personally or causes cajones to appear between the legs of the Bishops of the Church. He is able to do both of course.
By the way, one Bishop that doesn’t need that miracle is Schneider who emailed me a week ago saying he is working on a response to AL which he hopes will be published. I personally can’t wait!
It seems to me that Francis let the cat out of the bag when he told Bishop Fellay about Benedict XVI’s erstwhile deadline by which he would have excommunicated the society.
Suddenly we have the closest explanation surrounding the reason, necessity even, of the papal abdication.
This is probably it. THE reason for his abdication. He had obviously allowed himself to be talked into this deadline by the same wolves plonking that formal excommunication document before Francis to date and sign.
Thankfully because Benedict declared he will now leave that decision to his successor he found a way to get out of the situation. A situation his weakness allowed him to be forced into in the first place.
We indeed have a God of surprises because Francis himself, almost certainly to the consternation of those expecting to once and for all be done with SSPX, decided not to comply.
The society is in good hands with Bishop Fellay. If it leads to regularisation, with no strings attached, free of diocesan control I pray that might be the spring that will lead to Catholic restoration and the eventual overthrow of the Modernist heresy.
Don’t believe it. Bp. Fellay has furtively been negotiating with Rome since 2006 and had the intention to conclude his betrayal of Catholic doctrine, as defined and defended by the founder of the SSPX, Abp. LeFebvre, with the signing of a “Doctrinal Preamble” in 2012. The three remaining bishops, at that time, wrote a letter of protest to Bp. Fellay, later leaked and published, that expressed strong dissent and pleaded with him to reconsider relinquishing control of the SSPX to Rome. Effectively, that agreement would end all autonomy for the Society to pursue its mission of preserving the faith and assure the assimilation of the SSPX as a branch of the Conciliar church. The publication of the letter from the three faithful bishops was the prelude to a great shake-up within the SSPX, which has decimated the ranks, sent two of the signatory bishops into seclusion while somehow exiling Bishop Williamson altogether from the SSPX. How this could be possible is a mystery, in that the four bishops were all consecrated at the same time and Bishop Fellay was only administratively superior to the others. However, in the manner of a coup, he seized all power, banished those who might oppose his plans and has since exercised a reign of terror against all who stand against his plan. This has led to over 50 priests and countless faithful being expelled from chapels around the world. Bp Fellay has been a poor shepherd and a very indifferent defender of the faith.
No it’s you I don’t believe. Desist from such divisiveness. The whole objective of the SSPX to is to foster, maintain and keep safe tradition and uphold the faith. It does this for the sake of souls primarily but certainly aims for the eventual restoration of the faith to Rome and throughout the Church.
I’ve met Bishop Williamson many years ago. He was patently schismatic even then, years before he had to be ejected. I will not be responding to any further arguments about this because I find it too exasperating when some people don’t know a good thing when it comes along. A ray of light that sheds some hope amidst the devastation and chaos of these times.
As long as there are no strings attached it will be the duty of the SSPX bishops to accept regularisation.
I was not addressing you, but neither will I “desist” to tell the truth. The Novus Ordo church is determined to destroy tradition and they were able to extend their tentacles into the heart of tradition when the infiltrated the SSPX. All you say WAS ONCE true. Today, Abp. LeFebvre would be amazed to see that, of the four he consecrated, one is Judas and the rest are silenced. There are never “no strings” attached to anything with this group of devils. Look at what they have done to every society they made promises to, The Society of St, Peter, the Institute of the Good Shepherd to name two. You want a ray of light? Admit the truth: the heretical Conciliar church will NEVER stop using every tactic available to it to wipe out Catholicism. And Bp. Fellay is either a dupe or a rogue. Either way, he is helping with that agenda.
I sympathize your position. In fact I presented what Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer’s arguments on the position of SSPX leadership at one of Louie’s post at akaCatholic where he accused others commit Calumny against Bishop Fellay. So I urge you to make your points by presenting facts and logics rather than simply saying Bishop Fellay is trying to destroy SSPX. Facts and logics matter. I don’t belong to SSPX or the Resistance.
The problem is, as you can see from these comments, those who argue with me are not interested on proofs – they just want me to shut up. I won’t waste my time making a case when it is rejected out of hand and none of the proofs are even considered. Look at the exchange between Steve Skojec and me. At no time does he address my point about the “doctrinal preamble” that started the dissension within the SSPX. He is content to try to discredit ME personally, and condemn my motives. We must come to truth through our own efforts, else it is not genuine. I would love to lead everyone by the hand, but I believe that it is not my part, nor can I succeed.The Holy Ghost will inform souls who seek the truth in all sincerity.
Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean I’m not after you. Goodbye, pearl87.
(((CONSPIRACY INTENSIFIES)))
pearl87
That’s a load of conspiratorial rubbish!
Bishop Williamson was a loose cannon within the SSPX for decades before Bishop Fellay acted to exclude him from the ranks. If you want conspiracy then consider the priests Bishop Williamson formed in a bitter spirit against Rome while rector of the US seminary. I know a good many of them, all priests of a particularly angry disposition who have since left the SSPX ranting and raving like madmen against Bishop Fellay and Rome. The spirit of Our Lord is not in these schismatic clerics.
My understanding is that the UK branch of the so-called “Resistance” has since separated itself from Bishop Williamson on the grounds that he is not sufficiently anti-Rome. Bishop Williamson for his part is now going around doing his Bishop Thuc, consecrating bishops all over the place, all his friends of course. It’s just like he has returned to his Anglican roots. I also noticed recently that he is promoting Maria Valtorta’s ‘Poem of the Man-God’. Note that it is not the ‘God-Man’ but the ‘Man-God’. Suggests to me that someone is saying Our Lord was man made God rather than God made man. At any rate, this dubious work written from the visions of a dubious mystic has many questionable aspects to it, not least a sensual one.
As for those other bishops of the SSPX you speak of, they are still with the SSPX and still subject to the authority of Bishop Fellay. It doesn’t look to me like they were ever really that keen on Bishop Williamson’s rebellion. They remain faithful to the spirit of Archbishop Lefebvre, as do a majority of priests and faithful. You represent a little marginal group of protesters. Or should I say Protestants? They also reject the legitimate authority of the Pope. Some even claim that he is the Antichrist. Sound familiar?
You clearly know absolutely nothing but what you read on these sites and in the newspapers. I know these facts from personal exposure. Bp. Fellay had every intention of selling out the SSPX and, with it, his flock. The public exposure of his plan, before it was ripe, was the only thing that stopped him. His subsequent behavior has been as irrational as it is shameless and diabolical. Your claim of knowing “priests Bishop Williamson formed in a bitter spirit against Rome while rector of the US seminary” is a complete mental figment. The priests who have left were some of the best, filled with devotion. The fact that you refer to the outcast faithful and priests as “schismatic” is almost laughable, since they are doing their best to defend the faith, just as Abp. LeFebvre did before them. I don’t know your motives but your tone suggests they are anything but charitable, as is common with those who hate the bride of Christ.
Oh, I think 30 years association with the SSPX gives me a little insight into matters. But never mind, you just carry on with your little crusade while the rest of us get on with the practical business of doing what we can to help the Church through this crisis. Can’t say fairer than that.
You can say fairer. Perhaps you could DEFEND the Catholic Church, and not those who want to see it annihilated. You are indeed ignorant of the facts of Bp. Fellay’s duplicity, or else you are covering for him.
If you’re going to publicly attack Bishop Fellay, perhaps you should do so without the safety net of a pseudonym.
I speak the truth. What does it matter who I am, if I speak the truth? When a public person in authority breaks this trust, he is subject to exposure. I, however, am a private person, who wishes others to know that there is more to this narrative. All of these things are well-documented, for those who want to know. But, to you, I should stand forth to become a target of the spiteful and vindictive SSPX pogrom against the faithful? You would like to publicly attack me, is that it? What a Christian sentiment.
A wise man once wrote, “Methinks thou dost protest too much.”
You claim personal experience with +Fellay, which is entirely unverifiable, inasmuch as you are an anonymous person on the Internet, and anonymous persons on the Internet are known for saying all manner of things, both true and false.
I say this as someone who uses my birth name in the daily publication of controversial material: have the courage of your convictions. If you believe there is a wrong that should be set right, demonstrate your bona fides as you share your story. Do not hide in the shadows while hurling unproven invectives.
If the protection of your identity is such a concern, then refraining from public detraction might be the more prudent course. I’m certain there are forces within the Church who might concern themselves with your account of impropriety. Perhaps an investigation is in order? It certainly wouldn’t be the first such inquiry.
That you immediately accuse me of a public attack, though, is perhaps the most telling thing. Thieves always expect that others will steal from them; those who publicly attack others expect the same in kind.
Your words lend themselves more to an appearance of a person given to paranoid conspiracy theories than an honest broker of unpleasant truths. I suspect, if that is the real nature of things, it will be exceedingly difficult for you to disabuse me of that impression.
You are a very angry and unscrupulous person. You clearly are more interested in discrediting me than dealing with the facts. Since your focus is on me, this is a fruitless discussion, especially as you are determined to act as apologist for subterfuge, intrigue, and heresy within Fellay’s SSPX. The relevant facts are all available from unimpeachable sources, for those who look. But I cannot be bothered looking them up for you and trying to convince someone with closed ears.
BTW, your quote is a paraphrase of a character in Hamlet…who was a woman.
The more you retreat, throwing invective all the way, the more you prove my point. I leave it to our readers to determine if I am sufficiently “angry and unscrupulous” to damage my credibility. But mine wasn’t in question here. Yours was.
As for my quote, yes, it was a paraphrase. I could no more be bothered to look up the exact syntax in Shakespeare than you could be to substantiate your claims. Whether the character was male or female, incidentally, has no bearing on the fact that the thing was, as I said, written by a man.
The trivialities we’re now debating tell me there’s not much else here worth talking about.
Interesting that you feel your opinion is so important. I do not. Your ad hominem attacks are a perfect illustration of YOUR character, not mine. However, as you state, the readers will decide if you are in a position to claim that the truth doesn’t matter, but the messenger does.
You might want to look up “ad hominem.” It doesn’t mean what you think it means.
Well, yes it means exactly what I think it means. Perhaps you need to look it up.
Then for heaven’s sake, use it correctly. I haven’t attacked your character in lieu of attacking your arguments, I’ve pointed out that you have no arguments and that your assertions claim a personal experience you’re unwilling to verify.
You’re simply asserting things. You’re not making a case, and you’ve become petulant since being challenged. This is exactly the kind of commentary that ruins otherwise productive discussions.
Everything I have said is true and verifiable, and yes, you have attacked my character. You have compared me to a thief and accused me of paranoia and “conspiracy theory” in lieu of making an argument. Because, ultimately, there is no argument to be made. If what I have written is true, it can be verified with proof. If not, it can be refuted with proof. Your first response, however, was a demand for personal information which is not pertinent to the truth.
No, Pearl. I didn’t compare you to a thief; I made an analogy between the psychology of a thief — who thinks everyone else steals, too — and the psychology of a person who publicly attacks others, and expects the same.
I never attacked you, Pearl. I challenged your assertions. That’s what we do here. We don’t simply take for granted anything that isn’t divinely revealed.
You are displaying behavior characteristic of paranoia. You think I’m after you because I say your public denouncement of Fellay based on “personal experience” should be accompanied by the witness of a public person, not a pseudonym.
For example, I can tell you (and have done over the years) about my experiences with the Legionaries of Christ and Regnum Christi. I can place myself at certain events, recall conversations with notable persons within the congregation, etc. My testimony has credibility because I was an eyewitness, and by putting my name to it, the burden of proof that I was not present and/or do not have first-hand knowledge of those situations is on those who would refute my claims.
Do you see how this works? It’s not hard. You’re making unubstantiated character attacks on Bishop Fellay — which may or may not be true, but I have no way of knowing — and you’re doing so from behind the obscurity of a pseudonym. People who use pseudonyms have something to hide. Sometimes, there’s a good reason, which is why I let some of our writers use them. But when I do so, *I* am vouching for their character. I know their reasons, and I’m putting my own credibility on the line as a proxy. The buck stops with me.
And if you won’t have it stop with you, then stop making claims anonymously. That’s all I’ve asked from the beginning.
You may well backpedal, but your posts speak for themselves and it is not “paranoia” to confront your insults. You have not addressed any of the actual facts to which I referred. The “Doctrinal Preamble” and the letter from Bp. Galarreta, Bp. Williamson, and Bp.
Tissier de Mallerais to Bp. Fellay and the subsequent silencing of all three. The retribution against the faithful who asked questions to their priest, or against priests who asked questions of their superiors. I don’t know if you have belonged to an SSPX chapel, but these problems have been rampant for 4 years now. Perhaps, as I suggested earlier, you are merely running interference for the agenda; the take down of the SSPX. Or perhaps not. However, your unprovoked belligerence towards me seems more aligned with the former.
Nope. No association. But Williamson is a nightmare and Fellay is, in my opinion, a manifestly good and decent man.
Changing my opinion on that is going to take work you’re not willing to do, and in a way, I’m grateful for it. I have enough to read as it is.
I did not address you and was not trying to change your opinion. I think your responses are proof that you have no wish to know, and, for this reason you will not be convinced. A person who approached this question with a willingness to acknowledge truth, wherever it might lead, would be worth the effort to acquaint with the facts. I have no desire to wrestle with closed minds and foregone conclusions. Should you care about Christ’s Church and His Faithful, you will find the answers.
I see St John Chrysostom called Christ the man god
I think the more likely explanation of Benedict’s abdication is the one involving the Vatican Bank and the “gay mafia”:
https://akacatholic.com/money-sex-and-modernism/
I repeat here what I wrote in response to yesterday’s article in First Things by Luma Simms:
The priest who counseled me and my fiance before he officiated at our wedding (I was 19 and fleeing an abusive home) told us to promise obedience “and then follow your conscience.”
I had already decided that pregnancy would ruin my plans to complete my college education, and for a career in teaching, and was already using artificial contraception. I did as I pleased, and with his “permission”! But, after 12 years of Catholic education, I knew the priest was wrong, and so was I.
Clearly, that marriage was canonically invalid. A tribunal declared it null, but only after I returned to the Church 25 years later. Many of my contemporaries also married invalidity, for similar reasons, so the number of annulments granted in the U.S. does not surprise me.
I omitted these mortal sins in confession to that same priest on January 9, 1973, two days before my wedding, and consciously lied again at the ceremony and committed sacrilege then and thereafter by receiving Holy Communion before finally abandoning any pretense of “acting Catholic.”
By the grace of God and the protection of the Blessed Virgin Mary, my life was spared until I returned to confession on May 22, 1997.
THAT, MY FRIENDS, IS DIVINE MERCY.
The long-arcing trend has been for Catholic priests to tell people what they want to hear and for lay Catholics to do as they please, come hell or … well, come hell. Period.
PF and those like-minded in the hierarchy have led, and are leading, millions of souls into hell. They must be stopped.
Excerpt from an SSPX Letter to Benefactors by Fr. Peter R. Scott back in 1995.
You won’t hear the SSPX speak this way anymore.
“The statistics are interesting. In 1968 there were in the U.S. a total of 338 annulments. In 1992 there were no less than 59,030, that is one hundred and seventy-five times as many. Another interesting figure. The total number of annulments in the Catholic Church world wide in 1992 was 76,286, which means that no less than 75% of all annulments were from the U.S., that is from a little over 5% of the world’s Catholic population. Moreover, not only do one in two Catholic marriages here in the States end up with a divorce, but one in five is officially annulled, 90% of the demands for annulment being successful. What do these figures tell us about the seriousness of such annulment processes, especially when the vast majority are granted for purely psychological reasons, namely lack of maturity, as if young age were sufficient to render one incapable of entering into a life long contract? What does that tell us about the authority of Pope John-Paul II, who has several times spoken out against such abuses, but without ever bringing any sanctions against or closing of the tribunals which allow such a fraud to continue?
In fact, an annulment is not created by the decision of an annulment tribunal. The function of the tribunal is simply to establish beyond any reasonable doubt that there never was a marriage in the first place, that is that there never was any true exchange of marriage vows.
Consequently, a decision which is not well founded does not nullify a marriage. It is invalid, worthless. If a person who had obtained such an annulment were to enter into a second marriage, even one blessed by a priest, it would certainly be an invalid marriage. How incalculable are the thousands of such unions, which look on paper to be Catholic marriages, but which are nothing more then officially blessed concubinages?”
^^That is True Charity^^. Not false mercy.
>>StJnChrysostom: “In fact, an annulment is not created by the decision of an annulment tribunal.”
I’m sure you mean that a decree of nullity merely confirms the truth that a particular marriage was canonically invalid. However, this is not really the case. A decree of nullity results from defined legal proceedings — findings of *facts* and careful analysis of *corroborated* evidence of defect(s). In the absence of same, “[m]arriage possesses the favor of law; therefore, in a case of doubt, the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven.” (Can. 1060).
>>StJnChrysostom: “The function of the tribunal is simply to establish beyond any reasonable doubt that there never was a marriage in the first place, that is that there never was any true exchange of marriage vows.”<>StJnChrysostom: “Consequently, a decision which is not well founded does not nullify a marriage. It is invalid, worthless. If a person who had obtained such an annulment were to enter into a second marriage, even one blessed by a priest, it would certainly be an invalid marriage. How incalculable are the thousands of such unions, which look on paper to be Catholic marriages, but which are nothing more then officially blessed concubinages?”
Quick, someone! Break out the smelling salts and cold compresses! This is a new one on me, an outrageous set of conclusions if they weren’t so ridiculous.
We are talking legal constructs here, not magic. A marriage that ends in the death of one of the spouses instead of divorce is *always and forever* considered canonically valid, even if someone could point to a million reasons to the contrary. Tribunals do not conduct autopsies. Again: “Can. 1060 Marriage possesses the favor of law; therefore, in a case of doubt, the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven.”
Similarly, if one of the spouses petitions for an examination of the validity of the marriage but the tribunal errs in decreeing a civilly-ended marriage canonically invalid, the tribunal’s determination stands — unless and until there is a successful appeal. The error — and who says it’s an error? — has absolutely *no effect* on the canonical validity of a subsequent marriage. Nobody is competent to judge a formal tribunal decision but the Roman Rota.
And, while we’re at it, let’s head these doozies off at the pass:
Only a former spouse with a living, breathing ex — neither the widow(er) nor anyone else — can petition the tribunal for an examination of a civilly-ended marriage, because the point is moot if the former spouse is dead! If the surviving spouse has entered a second marriage, or wishes to marry again, the death certificate of the spouse is sufficient proof that the prior bond has ceased to exist and that the widow is free to marry.
[Whew! I still have all my fingers! Thanks, Steve!]
I believe many many first marriages followed your blue print. Let us hope with true charity and hope that many who are contemplating ignoring the teaching of the Church on invalid or irregular marriages and approach the sacraments with blinders, either by ignorance or deceit, will also obtain the mercy of God by his allowance of not calling them to judgement as he waits for them to see their error as you did. That indeed is Divine Mercy! God is good and things will proceeded to produce his will on earth; for he is the only one who produces good out of evil. For that: THANKS BE TO GOD!
“PF and those like-minded in the hierarchy have led, and are leading, millions of souls into hell.” And what authority do you have to make such judgments? Will you nail your theses on the door of your parish church?
I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to imply that I *know* that anyone is *actually in hell.* That said…
A Catholic priest is required to know what is *objectively and gravely* sinful, such as willingly and knowingly defying the Sixth Commandment. The priest, in such a case, must admonish a sinner to confess and repent of that sin, perform penance, and firmly resolve to amend one’s life.
Both priest and sinner deceive and condemn themselves, and the priest’s sin is even more damning, if both find that a condition or circumstance can lessen their culpability and, thus, their punishment. Unrepentant at their particular judgment, both *choose* hell.
Bishop Schneider has effectively nailed his analysis to the Church door, confirming this as the Church’s *unequivocal and the perennial* understanding. However, I’ve understood the matter since childhood and didn’t need to check with anybody.
“I didn’t mean to imply that I *know* that anyone is *actually in hell.” Actually your remark states that, “PF and those like-minded in the hierarchy have led, and are leading, millions of souls into hell.”
So actually, by your literal remark, you do presume to know that people are in hell and that the Pope and the bishops led them there. Rather serious charges.
You cannot place such an onus on the priest you mention. From the Catechism:
“1777 Moral conscience,48 present at the heart of the person, enjoins him at the appropriate moment to do good and to avoid evil. It also judges particular choices, approving those that are good and denouncing those that are evil.49 It bears witness to the authority of truth in reference to the supreme Good to which the human person is drawn, and it welcomes the commandments. When he listens to his conscience, the prudent man can hear God speaking.
1778 Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed. In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right. It is by the judgment of his conscience that man perceives and recognizes the prescriptions of the divine law:
Conscience is a law of the mind; yet [Christians] would not grant that it is nothing more; I mean that it was not a dictate, nor conveyed the notion of responsibility, of duty, of a threat and a promise. . . . [Conscience] is a messenger of him, who, both in nature and in grace, speaks to us behind a veil, and teaches and rules us by his representatives. Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ.”
Therefore, when the priest counseled you, he was right in telling you to follow you conscience as the law of the mind and judgment of reason. You make no indication that the priest had knowledge you were using contraceptive and therefore had no knowledge that your conscience was in any way malformed. The priest is required to know what is a sin, sure. But the priest cannot know a sin that is unconfessed.
If you are equating Bishop Schneider is analogous to Martin Luther, then I side with the Pope; the Pope was right last time after all.
To recap for the sake of clarity, my full remark was…
>>>>”I’M SORRY. [emphasis mine] I didn’t mean to imply that I *know* that anyone is *actually in hell.”<<<>So actually, by your literal remark, you do presume to know that people are in hell and that the Pope and the bishops led them there. Rather serious charges.
You cannot place such an onus on the priest you mention. From the Catechism… [paste here: CCC 1777, 1778 ]<<
So, actually, my apology and correction was inadequate, in your estimation. Terribly, terribly sorry that this necessitated re-catechesis on "conscience."
You may not know that the CCC was not published until the early 1990s, TWENTY YEARS after the time of the subject marriage.
As for your analysis of my interaction with the priest back in 1973, I'll grant that perhaps "you had to be there."
In context:
● Under Paul VI, from the mid 1960s on, there was confusion, turmoil, and wide-ranging, free-wheeling "innovation" in the early post-Vatican-II Church, the most dramatic of which was the unprecedented breadth and depth of open dissent from HV (1968);
● "Dissenting" did not *begin* to describe this priest's disordered personality [discovered later by the diocese] and distorted conception of the rights and responsibilities of Christian spouses;
● Between the priest and us, before the compulsory written "Pre-Marital Investigation," there was a *clearly-communicated* understanding — "[wink-wink] Give the 'right' answers to these questions and then [wink-wink], 'follow your conscience'."
You also seem to think that, in my comments, there is some sort of analogy [or not?] between Martin Luther's and Bishop Schneider's theology [of conscience? sin? papal authority?]. I had no such thing in mind. Far from it.
Martin Luther stands convicted of heresy. Pope Francis plans to join the Lutherans in Lund, Sweden, on Hallowe'en no less, in celebrating the 500th anniversary of the beginning of the Protestant Revolt.
Too bad they couldn't schedule the festivities for April Fools' Day.
I make no allegation that my conscience was in any way “malformed.” I was perfectly aware of the Church’s teaching on contraception.
I ignored my well-informed conscience, and my spouse and I consciously lied in giving our consent to accept children from God. I ashamed to say that this was our attitude and practice before, at the time of, and long after our wedding in 1973.
That alone constitutes “defect of consent” and constitutes grounds for nullity.
I thank God that He preserved my life until I returned to confession in May 1996. God is merciful!
That is very good and it can be considered meeting the standard of “resist to his face” because Pope Francis was pointed out but it should also come from Bishop Fellay who has the duty to resist and correct the Pope as one of the successors of the Apostle. It has to be in a form of open letter to the Pope not in a sermon that say “a hole below the waterline”. We want to hear something explicit and clear.
Why should we care what bishops with no canonical status and magisterial authority say?
Because they’re correct. Or does truth not matter to you?
According to whom? In the whole history of the Church, when has a lay person judge the theological sufficiency of anything? The Truth does matter to me and one of the most basic Truths is this: that Jesus Christ instituted the order of bishops and set in them his authority and power to govern the Church and that apart from these anointed there are no other teachers.
So you don’t care what St. Athanasius said if you lived at the time of Arian heresy? Are you saying you would follow Pope Liberius rather than the Saintly Bishop? And if you lived in the time of Pope Honorius would you follow the Pope or St. Sophronius who like St. Athanasius was ex communicated by the Pope? If you follow Pope Honorius then you would be against Christ and most likely suffer anathema by the Church like Pope Honorius did 50 years after his death. Love of the truth and love of Christ must be above everything.