Bishop Schneider’s answer to The Remnant’s open letter

 

Bishop Athanasius Schneider 3

May 26, 2016

Dear Mr. Matt:
Thank you for your greetings. I wrote an answer to The Remnant‘s Open Letter, which I send to you in the attachment and you can publish. God bless abundantly you and your apostolate for the Catholic faith. With cordial greetings in Jesus and Mary,

+ Athanasius Schneider

Dear Mr. Christopher A. Ferrara:
On May 9, 2016 you published on “The Remnant” website an open letter to me regarding the question of the Apostolic Exhortation “Amoris laetitia”.

As a bishop, I am grateful and at the same time encouraged to receive from a Catholic layman such a clear and beautiful manifestation of the “sensus fidei” regarding the Divine truth on marriage and the moral law.

I am agreeing with your observations as to those expressions in AL (“Amoris laetitia”), and especially in its VIII’s chapter, which are highly ambiguous and misleading. In using our reason and in respecting the proper sense of the words, one can hardly interpret some expressions in AL according to the holy immutable Tradition of the Church.

In AL, there are of course expressions which are obviously in conformity with the Tradition. But that is not what is at issue here. What is at stake are the natural and logical consequences of the ambiguous expressions of AL. Indeed, they contain a real spiritual danger, which will cause doctrinal confusion, a fast and easy spreading of heterodox doctrines concerning marriage and moral law, and also the adoption and consolidation of the praxis of admitting divorced and remarried to Holy Communion, a praxis which will trivialize and profane, as to say, at one blow three sacraments: the sacrament of Marriage, of Penance, and of the Most Holy Eucharist.

In these our dark times, in which Our Beloved Lord seems to sleep in the boat of His Holy Church, all Catholics, beginning from the bishops up to the simplest faithful, who still take seriously their baptismal vows, should with one voice (“una voce”) make a profession of fidelity, enunciating concretely and clearly all those Catholic truths, which are in some expressions of AL undermined or ambiguously disfigured. It would be a kind of a “Credo” of the people of God. AL is clearly a pastoral document (i.e., by its nature of temporal character) and has no claims to be definitive. We have to avoid to “make infallible” every word and gesture of a current Pope. This is contrary to the teaching of Jesus and of the whole Tradition of the Church. Such a totalitarian understanding and application of Papal infallibility is not Catholic, is ultimately worldly, like in a dictatorship; it is against the spirit of the Gospel and of the Fathers of the Church.

Beside the above mentioned possible common profession of fidelity, there should be made to my opinion, by competent scholars of dogmatic and moral theology also a solid analysis of all ambiguous and objectively erroneous expressions in AL. Such a scientific analysis should be made without anger and partiality (“sine ira et studio”) and out of filial deference to the Vicar of Christ.

I am convinced that in later times the Popes will be grateful that there had been concerning voices of some bishops, theologians and laypeople in times of a great confusion. Let us live for the sake of the truth and of the eternity, “pro veritate et aeternitate”!

+ Athanasius Schneider,

Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

39 Responses to Bishop Schneider’s answer to The Remnant’s open letter

  1. JabbaPapa says:

    In using our reason and in respecting the proper sense of the words, one can hardly interpret some expressions in AL according to the holy immutable Tradition of the Church.

    This is a false statement, tending towards schism, and proposing particular interpretations of Magisterial statements as being somehow “justifiably” superior to some contrary interpretations — which constitutes a form of substantial heresy if it should be deliberately and repeatedly proclaimed publicly.

    Amoris Laetitia not only can, but MUST doctrinally be interpreted in a Hermeneutic of the Eternity of the Revelation. Interpretations that deny this, as if worldly contingencies surpassed Eternal Truth, should be radically refused.

  2. JabbaPapa says:

    In these our dark times

    These are the times of our Salvation in Christ — they are not “dark”.

  3. Robert says:

    Jabba
    I am glad that you agree with the Bishop over the schismatic material (double speak) found in AL.

  4. JabbaPapa says:

    False interpretation is schismatic, not the object thereof.

  5. kathleen says:

    @ Jabba

    But it is not deliberate “false interpretation” such as that which heretics preach which is the problem – the Church has long managed to deal with such ‘enemies’ of the Faith by re-stating and clarifying Her timeless dogmatic teachings.
    It is the “false interpretation” of well-meaning and confused practicing Catholics that is the problem here!!

    The ambiguity written into chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia and its footnotes, that not even Cardinal Müller (Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) has managed to dissipate, has led to the main general opinion of ordinary Catholics anywhere thinking that the Church really has changed, or eased up, on her teachings about who can receive Holy Communion! AL does not speak clearly on this point – Bishop Schneider is absolutely correct here – and it has allowed an enormous amount of confusion to ensue. We keep hearing now about more cases of misinterpretations of AL being implemented in parishes around the world.

    The only way this tide of sacrilege against the Blessed Sacrament could be stemmed is if Pope Francis himself, as Supreme Pontiff, were to restate clearly and unambiguously the Church’s unchanging doctrine on this. There has been a tidal wave of petitions from clergy and laity alike, imploring him to do so.
    Result of this?
    Stoney silence… so far (except for a commission to make sure that the AL Exhortation is being taught in parishes!)

    If people are in “spiritual danger” caused by “doctrinal confusion” et al. from some of our ‘shepherds’ and the Pope – on top of the aggressive Secular bombardment our governments are force-feeding us with – then in this sense Bishop Schneider is correct in calling these times “dark”. The light of Truth is being obscured.

  6. Robert says:

    Desolation?
    “..There may be riches and worldly glory.There may be the fullness of power and dominion; there may be purple, and scarlet, and gold, and gems of stone, and pearls, and drink from golden cups; there may be luxuries, sumptuous living, pomp, display, and everything to delight the sensual heart, and yet, where the word, worship, and Faith trampled underfoot, it is wilderness.

    Some set great store on general education, on the achievements of science, on the progress of man in his material and social interests, on the success of reforms in government and laws, on the universal spread of liberty, equality, and fraternity, wrought out by the diffusion of intelligence and right reason. Those claiming to be leaders in this line of thought are everywhere full of prognostications of a great and glorious condition of humanity to be achieved by the new ideas over against what they consider the old nonsense, superstition, and ignorance, which, as they say, have too long held dominion. ..”

    This is darkness and desolation. Behold the spreading of the evils out of Russia in the world, because the above was precisely the wisdom in Portugal 1910! The Wisdom behind the Russian Revolution.

  7. JabbaPapa says:

    It is the “false interpretation” of well-meaning and confused practicing Catholics that is the problem here!!

    That’s a very delicate problem, and BTW one that the Remnant authors appear to have zero real understanding of.

    The Church’s Infallible and particularly her indefectible dogmas are well known and well understood, and nobody except a heretic goes around contradicting them.

    But there is a large body of questions and mysteries concerning which multiple sometimes even contradictory interpretations can coexist within the Catholicity, because no definitive Truth regarding them has been revealed. What the Remnant people fail to understand is that to take ANY position relative to these questions and mysteries and declare *this* is the truth, and anything opposite it false, is precisely what constitutes heresy, even IF the “truth” that they may be proclaiming is itself entirely valid within its own rights ; in great part because to claim that Catholicity belongs solely to one particular group in the Church and not to anyone else is directly constitutive of schism, or at the very least a strong schismatic tendency. Of course, the same is true of certain groups opposed to the views of the Remnant, such as ACTA or whichever other “progressive” “liberal” groups and so on … whereas the Orthodoxy of the Faith is a lot more carefully-minded in the face of extremist declarations issuing forth from whichever fringe groups that flirt with heresy, heterodoxy, or schism.

    To claim that some expressions in Amoris Laetitia cannot be interpreted according to the holy immutable Tradition of the Church is not only objectively false, but it is a dangerous promotion of schismaticism and sectarianism.

  8. JabbaPapa says:

    AL does not speak clearly on this point

    Yes it does — it states very clearly that the provisions detailed in Pope Saint John Paul II’s own post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio are unchanged.

  9. Robert says:

    Jabba
    “..everything to delight the sensual heart, and yet, where the word, worship, and Faith trampled underfoot, it is wilderness ..”

  10. kathleen says:

    @ Jabba

    “To claim that some expressions in Amoris Laetitia cannot be interpreted according to the holy immutable Tradition of the Church is not only objectively false, but it is a dangerous promotion of schismaticism and sectarianism.”

    Who is doing this, Jabba, in your opinion? Not me!
    And having met and chatted with members of the Remnant group (on the Chartres pilgrimage) I can only say that they are a delightful crowd and WHOLLY Catholic in every way, IMO.

    All I am saying is that AL can be both, i.e. “interpreted according to the holy immutable Tradition of the Church, etc.”, AND misinterpreted too… as just one look around you will undoubtedly prove true. That is why a very large percentage of orthodox Catholics, both in the hierarchy and amongst the informed laity, are calling this document (and in particular its ch.VIII + footnote) ambiguous. It can be interpreted both ways. This guy says it pretty well I think:

    https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/lets-be-clear-amoris-laetitia-does-not-and-also-does-open-the-door-to-commu

    Also…

    Me: “AL does not speak clearly on this point”

    You: “Yes it does — it states very clearly that the provisions detailed in Pope Saint John Paul II’s own post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio are unchanged.”

    It does not say that in Amoris Laetitia, I believe. This is what Cardinal Müller tried to clarify some time afterwards. (Unfortunately, I do not think most Catholics have even read JPII’s great Exhortation, Familiaris Consortio!)

    Therefore what then do you call all those who have misunderstood or misinterpreted these great clear teachings in AL? And who are now either telling everyone that the Pope has ‘changed the rules’! (I have heard this said with my very own ears, and so has my team-mate, mmvc.) These are not “schismatics” nor “heretics”.
    These are just the ordinary Catholic laymen getting on with life and struggling to remain faithful to Christ and His Church without a great deal of ecclesiastic knowledge. Not erudite professors, theologians or scholars. They will not have had the time or the depth of understanding to read the whole lengthy AL document, but they will surely have heard of the infamous footnote! That is the sad reality of life – thanks to most people getting their information from the MSM, hearsay or ill-founded evidence.

    And what about the reports of those priests that are already implementing this ‘new pastoral approach’ in their parishes allowing for the divorced and remarried to receive Holy Communion, and thinking they are doing the right thing? I’m not talking about the militant Kasperite followers (who probably know very well that they are disobeying magisteral teachings in doing so), but just well-intentioned priests thinking they have been given a way round to deal with the troubling problem of so many marriage break-ups and broken lives.

    A re-writing of this troublesome chapter in AL, or just one straight-forward clarification from the Pope on Catholic doctrinal teaching on these points could put the whole thing to rest!
    Without it confusion will continue to divide the flock.

  11. johnhenrycn says:

    Comment of the Day award to Kathleen🙂
    Yes, a bit less eisegesis and a bit more exegesis would be a welcome change from The Man in White. When I’m looking for reflections on scripture which more closely express personal interpretations and bias, I often prefer The Man in Black

    “There’s a family bible on the table,
    each page is torn and hard to read…”

  12. johnhenrycn says:

    …meanwhile, the exegesis of crazy Kasper & Co is being implemented in the lovely parish church of St Elizabeth Ann Seton, Northampton MA where I attended Mass last Sunday. Here’s the only Mass Intention mentioned in the parish bulletin for the 8:00 a.m. service that day:

    “Sunday, May 29th 8:00AM Mass at Main Church +
    Christina _______ & Sandra _______ (1st Anniv) by Sharon.”

    [Surnames deleted to protect the deluded, but they’re mentioned on page 2 of the bulletin.]

  13. geoffkiernan says:

    On reading the the initial jabba from Jabba I thought, Come on Kathleen where are you? I need not have worried. Once again she has come to the defense of Christ and his Church. I am too old and tired to fight the good fight as I perhaps once did. But not too old or tired to fight the ‘good’ fight as perhaps I once should have . By prayer! God bless ya Kathleen keep fighting that good fight.

  14. JabbaPapa says:

    It does not say that in Amoris Laetitia

    79. “When faced with difficult situations and wounded families, it is always necessary to recall this general principle: ‘Pastors must know that, for the sake of truth, they are obliged to exercise careful discernment of situations’ (Familiaris Consortio, 84).

    Familiaris Consortio 84. Daily experience unfortunately shows that people who have obtained a divorce usually intend to enter into a new union, obviously not with a Catholic religious ceremony. Since this is an evil that, like the others, is affecting more and more Catholics as well, the problem must be faced with resolution and without delay. The Synod Fathers studied it expressly. The Church, which was set up to lead to salvation all people and especially the baptized, cannot abandon to their own devices those who have been previously bound by sacramental marriage and who have attempted a second marriage. The Church will therefore make untiring efforts to put at their disposal her means of salvation.

    Pastors must know that, for the sake of truth, they are obliged to exercise careful discernment of situations. There is in fact a difference between those who have sincerely tried to save their first marriage and have been unjustly abandoned, and those who through their own grave fault have destroyed a canonically valid marriage. Finally, there are those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children’s upbringing, and who are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably destroyed marriage had never been valid.

    Together with the Synod, I earnestly call upon pastors and the whole community of the faithful to help the divorced, and with solicitous care to make sure that they do not consider themselves as separated from the Church, for as baptized persons they can, and indeed must, share in her life. They should be encouraged to listen to the word of God, to attend the Sacrifice of the Mass, to persevere in prayer, to contribute to works of charity and to community efforts in favor of justice, to bring up their children in the Christian faith, to cultivate the spirit and practice of penance and thus implore, day by day, God’s grace. Let the Church pray for them, encourage them and show herself a merciful mother, and thus sustain them in faith and hope.

    However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.

    Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they “take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.”[180]

    Similarly, the respect due to the sacrament of Matrimony, to the couples themselves and their families, and also to the community of the faithful, forbids any pastor, for whatever reason or pretext even of a pastoral nature, to perform ceremonies of any kind for divorced people who remarry. Such ceremonies would give the impression of the celebration of a new sacramentally valid marriage, and would thus lead people into error concerning the indissolubility of a validly contracted marriage.

    By acting in this way, the Church professes her own fidelity to Christ and to His truth. At the same time she shows motherly concern for these children of hers, especially those who, through no fault of their own, have been abandoned by their legitimate partner.

    With firm confidence she believes that those who have rejected the Lord’s command and are still living in this state will be able to obtain from God the grace of conversion and salvation, provided that they have persevered in prayer, penance and charity.

    ————

    Having pointed this out though, I really must say that the English translation of Amoris Laetitia, particularly in its passages referring to Familiaris Consortio, appears to try and mitigate the Pope’s clear support of the existing norms.

    I have also just noticed that while the original text makes 26 references to the earlier Exhortation, the English translation makes only 24.

    79. «Di fronte a situazioni difficili e a famiglie ferite, occorre sempre ricordare un principio generale: “Sappiano i pastori che, per amore della verità, sono obbligati a ben discernere le situazioni” (Familiaris consortio, 84). Il grado di responsabilità non è uguale in tutti i casi, e possono esistere fattori che limitano la capacità di decisione. Perciò, mentre va espressa con chiarezza la dottrina, sono da evitare giudizi che non tengono conto della complessità delle diverse situazioni, ed è necessario essere attenti al modo in cui le persone vivono e soffrono a motivo della loro condizione».

    The English “while clearly stating the Church’s teaching” mistranslates the original “mentre va espressa con chiarezza la dottrina”, which means “as the doctrine expresses itself with clarity”.

    The English falsely attempts to suggest that Doctrine is not expressed in itself, but that the pastors might perhaps say one thing whilst doing something else.

    So — more evidence that English translations of Church documents simply CANNOT be trusted without constant reference to the original (I usually consult the French ones, which only exceptionally exhibit similar problems)

  15. JabbaPapa says:

    And what about the reports of those priests that are already implementing this ‘new pastoral approach’ in their parishes allowing for the divorced and remarried to receive Holy Communion, and thinking they are doing the right thing?

    This is a far more difficult problem, because whilst it’s not fundamentally confusing for most of the Laity to partly misunderstand provisions in Amoris Laetitia that are directed to their pastors and confessors, these OTOH have no excuse for ignoring the canonical norms nor the provisions of Familiaris Consortio nor the total lack of any permissions in Amoris Laetitia to provide the Eucharistic Communion to adulterers — and nor do those among the Laity who might be Catechists, Acolytes or Lectors, or any others in any form or manner of a Lay Ministry.

    Nor, I believe, do blogs have any right to help increase the confusion of the Faithful in such a manner, because the Dogma that Error has no Rights wasn’t vanished away in a puff of smoke by the “spirit of the Council”.

    —-

    This hasn’t been changed either : http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_14091994_rec-holy-comm-by-divorced_en.html

    With respect to the aforementioned new pastoral proposals, this Congregation deems itself obliged therefore to recall the doctrine and discipline of the Church in this matter. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ(Mk 10:11-12: “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”), the Church affirms that a new union cannot be recognised as valid if the preceding marriage was valid. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Holy Communion as long as this situation persists(Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1650; cf. also n. 1640 and the Council of Trent, sess. XXIV: DS 1797-1812.).

    This norm is not at all a punishment or a discrimination against the divorced and remarried, but rather expresses an objective situation that of itself renders impossible the reception of Holy Communion: “They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and his Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage”(Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio, n. 84: AAS 74 (1982) 185-186.).

    The faithful who persist in such a situation may receive Holy Communion only after obtaining sacramental absolution, which may be given only “to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when for serious reasons, for example, for the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they ‘take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples'”(Ibid., n. 84: AAS 74 (1982) 186; cf. John Paul II, Homily on the Occasion of the Closure of the Sixth Synod of Bishops, n. 7: AAS 72 (1980) 1082.). In such a case they may receive Holy Communion as long as they respect the obligation to avoid giving scandal..

    Most notably : Catechism of the Catholic Church :

    1650 Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ – “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery”158 The Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists. For the same reason, they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities. Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence.

    It is objectively scandalous for ANY Catholic to constitute or support disobedience of CCC 1650, and no defence that “erudition” is required to be cognizant of this basic norm of the principal doctrinal resource of Church teaching can be justified on the basis of some wishful thinking and malicious interpretations of Amoris Laetitia as somehow “authorising” that which it most certainly does not.

  16. JabbaPapa says:

    Furthermore, the phrase “irregular situations” as used in Amoris Laetitia does NOT mean “the divorced-remarried” exclusively in the first place, but it refers also to single parents, the sexually active unmarried, conjugal situations outside marriage, civil unions, the civilly but not religiously married, those married to non-Catholics, civilly divorced persons religiously married to adulterers, and etc etc etc etc.

  17. mmvc says:

    This was posted on 7th May on OnePeterFive and unless it is yet another case of alleged media misrepresention//mistranslation/twisting etc etc of the Pope’s words and/or the good Archbishop is being economical with the truth, it suggests that deliberate ambiguity was at play:

    At a meeting to discuss the apostolic exhoration Amoris Laetitia, Archbishop Bruno Forte revealed new insights into the mind of Pope Francis on one of the most controversial issues facing the Church: communion for the divorced and “remarried.” Forte was the man personally chosen by Pope Francis as the Special Secretary for the synods on marriage and family, and he is widely believed responsible for the insertion of the explosive language pertaining to homosexuals in the 2014 Synod’s mid-term relatio.

    During his presentation, the details of which were published on 3 May on the Italian news website, Zonalocale.it, Forte recalled certain discussions that were had during the Synod.

    ….Archbishop Forte has in fact revealed a “behind the scenes” from the Synod: “If we speak explicitly about communion for the divorced and remarried,” said Archbishop Forte, reporting a joke of Pope Francis, “you do not know what a terrible mess we will make. So we won’t speak plainly, do it in a way that the premises are there, then I will draw out the conclusions.”

    “Typical of a Jesuit,” Abp Forte joked, attributing to that suggestion a wisdom that has allowed the maturation necessary to conclude that Amoris Laetitia, as Abp. Bruno Forte explained, does not represent a new doctrine, but the “merciful application” of that [the doctrine]of all time.

    ….Monsignor Forte ha infatti rivelato un particolare “retroscena” del Sinodo: “Se parliamo esplicitamente di comunione ai divorziati e risposati – ha riferito monsignor Forte riportando una battuta di Papa Francesco – questi non sai che casino che ci combinano. Allora non ne parliamo in modo diretto, fai in modo che ci siano le premesse, poi le conclusioni le trarrò io”.

    “Tipico di un gesuita” ha scherzato monsignor Forte, attribuendo a quella indicazione una saggezza che ha permesso la maturazione necessaria per giungere alla “Amoris laetitia” che, come precisato da monsignor Bruno Forte, non rappresenta una nuova dottrina, ma “l’applicazione misericordiosa” di quella di sempre.

    As Kathleen said above, to many a well intentioned Catholic priest, layman or Bishops’ Conference it matters not one jot that the exhortation didn’t change doctrine. Even the smallest hint of uncorrected ambiguity will be enough of an ‘opening’ for them to ignore doctrine in the name of ‘mercy’.

    Extract from a statement by the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines:

    When the Pope therefore asks for more hospitality, welcome, friendship, even communion and solidarity with divorced and separated couples, with persons in irregular unions, he is by no means condoning whatever may be wrong or worse, sinful. He is asking us to be like the Merciful Redeemer who tells all sinners: “Neither do I condemn you.”

    After collective discernment, your bishops will come up with more concrete guidelines on the implementation of the Apostolic Exhortation. But mercy cannot wait. Mercy should not wait. Even now, bishops and priests must open welcoming arms to those who have kept themselves out of the Church because of a sense of guilt and of shame. The laity must do no less. When our brothers and sisters who, because of broken relations, broken families and broken lives, stand timidly at the doors of our churches – and of our lives – unsure whether they are welcome or not, let us go out to meet them, as the Pope urges us to, and assure them that at the table of sinners at which the All-Holy Lord offers himself as food for the wretched, there is always room. O res mirabilis manducat Dominum pauper, servus et humilis…O wonderful reality that the poor, the slave and the lowly should partake of the Lord. This is a disposition of mercy, an openness of heart and of spirit that needs no law, awaits no guideline, nor bides on prompting. It can and should happen immediately.

  18. Robert says:

    The Papacy is essentially that of Judge. This the charism of infallibility to provide Gods Judgments for the Church.
    Our Lord dealt with individuals, whose circumstances and contrition was known to Him.
    This confusion over individuals and a statement to the Church can only lead to a misunderstanding of Mercy.
    The price for Sin remains the Passion and contrition and reparation remain the conditions for Mercy.

  19. kathleen says:

    Jabba @ 7:53 and following

    Thank you, Jabba, for your interesting and informative responses. Your extensive knowledge of so many languages certainly gives you an advantage over most of us on seeing where translations of ecclesiastical documents sometimes slip up, or where words or references are even omitted. Tut, tut!

    Yes, the relevant passage, no.84 of Familiaris Consortio, has a reference given to it in no.79 of Amoris Laetitia, but it was not explicitly spelt out as the orthodox Catholic cardinals at the Synod on the Family had requested it should be. It is all too easy to simply overlook a referenced number of another encyclical when wading through such a verbose document as AL. In fact we have heard that FC was completely swept off the table during the Synod, much to the good cardinals indignation and disbelief! (Why was their plea rejected? What could the motive behind this be?)

    Of course one should always try to give the Pope the benefit of the doubt and not jump to hasty conclusions when it could simply have been an oversight… but if you take all the known evidence together, including his refusal to give a straightforward endorsement of the Church’s teaching as he has been begged to do (perhaps also pointing to those excellent Church documents and the CCC that you quote from), it is no way surprising, nor even outlandish, to see that many Catholics are beginning to ‘smell a rat’ here! Pope Francis cannot be ignorant of the rampant confusion his Exhortation has initiated, nor of those who are supposedly misinterpreting it.

    This, together with mmvc’s startling revelations coming from Archbishop Forte about insights on the mind of Pope Francis (“typical of a Jesuit”), if verified, that the Pope desired a “merciful application” (whatever that is supposed to mean) of Christ and the Church’s timeless teachings on who may receive the Most Holy Eucharist, it becomes harder and harder – however much we would love to be proved wrong – that Amoris Laetitia could have had an intentional subversive purpose hidden within it.
    (Please note that I only say “could have had”. Who are we to judge his motives?)

    “Furthermore, the phrase “irregular situations” as used in Amoris Laetitia does NOT mean “the divorced-remarried” exclusively in the first place, but it refers also to single parents, the sexually active unmarried, conjugal situations outside marriage, civil unions, the civilly but not religiously married, those married to non-Catholics, civilly divorced persons religiously married to adulterers, and etc etc etc etc.”

    Yes, of course.
    There are many many sinful situations and attitudes (like a contraceptive mentality, being pro-choice, or believing homosexuals have the right to ‘marry’, etc etc.) that one must first recognise, repent from, confess, and then have a sincere desire to turn away from… if we are to return to being in a state of grace.

  20. kathleen says:

    JH @ 23:10 yesterday

    “Comment of the day award to Kathleen”

    Wow – thanks old pal! (blush, blush) Totally undeserved though – honestly. Just ask Toad or our BB. They’d prefer to present me with the booby or “CP&S rebel” award!😉

    And @ 23:45

    Scandalous! What was the priest thinking to allow such a blatantly sinful liaison to be presented as a “Mass intention” in his parish bulletin?
    Just goes to show what a mess we are in nowadays if no-one protested against this sacrilege.

  21. kathleen says:

    geoffkiernan @ 2:07

    Good to have you back with us after your long absence, Geoff.🙂
    Thanks for your kind words. Yup – the power of prayer (especially Eucharistic Adoration prayer and the Holy Rosary) is greater than anything else. It is also something anyone can do anywhere and everywhere. Only when we get to Heaven will we truly understand this wonderful mystery of the good that comes from our regular prayer and penance.

    Just one small clarification: Jabba is also “fighting the good fight” for Truth with great love for Christ, Our Lady and the Holy Catholic Church. And doing so very well, and in many varied areas. Our above debate, and even where we do not see eye to eye, does not take away from that reality.

    That is the wonderful truth about our Faith. We can (and should) air our differences of opinion in charity, without enmity, when we hold love of orthodoxy and traditional Catholic teachings at heart.

  22. JabbaPapa says:

    This was posted on 7th May on OnePeterFive

    A website devoted apparently to the promotion of sectarian I’m-more-catholic-than-the-Pope-ism.

    Father Jorge Bergoglio, considered separately from his Petrine Vocation, has a well-detailed history of winkling out dissidents from the Orthodoxy of the Faith and false self-serving Pharisaic clericalists by means of innocent psychological provocations. Yes, this is certainly quite Jesuitical in the extreme, but his “provocations” are always simple restatements of clearly established Church doctrine or discipline, such as his repetition of Pope Martin V’s definitive clarification that the divorced-remarried are not excommunicated, for example.

    In fact, Martin V went even further, and declared as anathema the notion that the presence of even public heretics at the Holy Mass should be condemned or rejected.

    The Church has long endured the fundamentally uncatholic pretensions of political Monasticism and Gallicanism, even in their less radical forms, but the Catholicity of the Faith has never been so rigidly intolerant as some would have us believe, even though the Deposit of Faith is quite radically STABLE in its Nature.

    St. Thomas Aquinas accepted a certain manner of rigidity in the Faith as being just barely acceptable, because even though, he wrote, adherence to mere rules is far from the Spirituality of the Faith in the One God in our Lord the Christ, in His Infinite Love for we His creatures, a fidelity to the Rules and Laws that derive from the Necessity of that Faith, even though it does not constitute the Faith itself, nevertheless remains Faithful to the fruits of the Faith, and helps to transmit the Revelation itself to the future generations.

    Paraphrased, obviously.

  23. JabbaPapa says:

    This, together with mmvc’s startling revelations coming from Archbishop Forte about insights on the mind of Pope Francis (“typical of a Jesuit”), if verified, that the Pope desired a “merciful application” (whatever that is supposed to mean) of Christ and the Church’s timeless teachings on who may receive the Most Holy Eucharist, it becomes harder and harder – however much we would love to be proved wrong – that Amoris Laetitia could have had an intentional subversive purpose hidden within it.

    Dearest kathleen, the Pope essentially just rephrased the existing provisions of Familiaris Consortio — a document whose extensive pastoral element has been almost completely ignored since it was published.

    The best short analysis of Amoris Laetitia I’ve seen so far (though possibly it’s my own idea, can’t remember, or maybe it was just put into my head) is that it is an attempt towards a pastoral implementation of the teachings of Familiaris Consortio, in the light of a meditation on the Nature of the Sacramental Love and Union of Holy Matrimony, in the face of our Sins in failure to accept the Purpose of the Sacramental Graces received for the Salvation of our Souls in the Communion of Christ’s Desire and Infinite Love.

  24. mmvc says:

    A website devoted apparently to the promotion of sectarian I’m-more-catholic-than-the-Pope-ism.

    Shame about your negative judgement of OnePeterFive, Jabba. I don’t think you could be further from the truth. Steve Skojec and Maike Hickson in particular are amongst the most truly Catholic authors I and many others have had the privilege of reading since the inception of that blog.

  25. JabbaPapa says:

    Who is doing this, Jabba, in your opinion? Not me!
    And having met and chatted with members of the Remnant group (on the Chartres pilgrimage) I can only say that they are a delightful crowd and WHOLLY Catholic in every way, IMO.

    I certainly did not wish to accuse you nor anyone here of adherence to such falsehoods, but this does not mean that such heterodoxy is absent from the world.

    An ardent Remnant contributor promoting radical Creationism to denounce Evolutionary Theory lives quite nearby, I know his name and address, about 150 yards from one of my old ones BTW, and I’d normally affront his errors in a rather personal manner — but the gentleman is very aged, and so I am quite reticent to impose any such theological aggression upon him.

    Young Earth Creationism meanwhile remains quite radically uncatholic, and yet the Remnant promotes it as if it were some manner of indefectible “truth”. Despite the openly direct radical condemnation of the notion by such a Church Father as St Augustine of Hippo !!!

    WHY on EARTH do so many Christians carry on claiming that a story involving a talking snake must be read in a purely literalist manner that is entirely incompatible with the religious instruction that the story actually provides, about the Nature of our Original Sin ????

  26. JabbaPapa says:

    Steve Skojec and Maike Hickson in particular are amongst the most truly Catholic authors

    I certainly do not wish to characterise them as uncatholic — I think they’re mistaken, but then so of course are we all.

  27. Robert says:

    Jabba
    “..
    WHY on EARTH do so many Christians carry on claiming that a story involving a talking snake must be read in a purely literalist manner that is entirely incompatible with the religious instruction that the story actually provides, about the Nature of our Original Sin ????
    ..”

    Oh well what is the difference between the serpent and the swine?

    Mark 5
    12 And the spirits besought him, saying: Send us into the swine, that we may enter into them.
    13 And Jesus immediately gave them leave. And the unclean spirits going out, entered into the swine: and the herd with great violence was carried headlong into the sea, being about two thousand, and were stifled in the sea.

    The Immaculate Conception means Conceived without Original Sin and then comes your problem because her flesh has to be that of Adam doesn’t it? Well how could that be Jabba? Was her flesh and Christ’s that of an Ape?

    So you don’t believe in a Creator but rather a (theoretical) maker (masonic) out of some kind of primeval cosmic soup! Well how do you equate this with the Eucharist? Or is the Eucharist just a symbol? The Apostles CREED couldn’t be clearer.
    Either you believe in the Resurrection of the dead or you don’t?

    John 12
    9 A great multitude therefore of the Jews knew that he was there; and they came, not for Jesus’ sake only, but that they might see Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead.

    John 11
    [25] Jesus said to her: I am the resurrection and the life: he that believeth in me, although he be dead, shall live:
    [26] And every one that liveth, and believeth in me, shall not die for ever. Believest thou this?

    Note Lazarus was raised from the dead 4 days after His burial in the presence of witnesses from the Temple. The question is how was his putrid body recreated and sickness cured!

    Then comes in Our lifetime St Padre Pio whose well attested Bilocution in some cases multiple Bilocutions. How could the same flesh be in more than two places at the same time?

    Mary of Agreda whose Bilocution to the tribes in America was only attested some decade later by Missionaries visiting these tribes. Then we have the multiple miracles of St Vincent Ferrer all attested. The saints performed the miracles of Christ including raising from the Dead!

    What is the difference between Paradise and Heaven? What about Hell?

    Where is Elias? Where is Henoch? Where is Moses? Where is Dismas (since he was promised Paradise?)

    I suppose the Jews didn’t carry in the ark of the covenant the manna that they had received from Heaven at the time of the Exodus? Plus the various bones of the Patriachs and that mysterious blessing. What was contained in the Ark of the covenant Jabba?

    Or was the Ark of the Covenant and the manna and the exodus a religious instruction?

    Also and because it cannot be explained by Science the Star of Bethlehem? But then in the Month of the Holy Rosary October the sun danced didn’t it at Fatima?

    The Resurrection itself a recreation of a broken destroyed Crucified Body!
    Oh you of Little Faith.

  28. JabbaPapa says:

    And so, Roger, you do not read that story involving a talking snake in a purely literalist manner

  29. JabbaPapa says:

    Then comes in Our lifetime St Padre Pio whose well attested Bilocution in some cases multiple Bilocutions. How could the same flesh be in more than two places at the same time?

    Something similar happened to me once — it was most confusing !!!

    — you are confusing my comments about overly literalist interpretations of the story of Eden *specifically* with some imaginary attitudes relative to the Scriptures in general — and anyway, the story of Eden can never be correctly interpreted without considering its most literal meaning.

  30. Robert says:

    As for Genesis and the Fall

    Well daily yearly we have evidence of a complex variety of Life from dinosaurs to a myriad of animal Life not including the incredible creatures found in the depths of the Oceans which defy Mans Science and experience.

    Prove to me that such a creature as a serpent (like the swine possessed) never existed in the Universe anywhere! You appreciate that there are billions and billions of galaxies let alone planets and suns. Clearly Creation is teaming with Life.

    You don’t know! neither does Science BUT if Satan can ridicule and deny then He overturns the Passion and Death of Our Lord doesn’t He? Satan has succeeded in millions in Europe who have not been Baptised and therefor remain under Original Sin Don’t they? In other words Satan is destroying the Sacraments isn’t He and with them the Church?

    The Feeding of the 5000 is an especial target for Satan because Our Lord is Creating OUT OF NOTHING!

    The Adam and Eve and the SERPENT was confirmed by Christ Jabba. Confirmed by the Apostles

    Luke 3
    38 Who was of Henos, who was of Seth, who was of Adam, who was of God.

    Romans 5
    14 But death reigned from Adam unto Moses, even over them also who have not sinned after the similitude of the transgression of Adam, who is a figure of him who was to come.

    1 Corinthians 15
    22 And as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive.

    1 Corinthians 15
    45 The first man Adam was made into a living soul; the last Adam into a quickening spirit.

    1 Timothy 2
    13 For Adam was first formed; then Eve.

    1 Timothy 2
    14 And Adam was not seduced; but the woman being seduced, was in the transgression.

    Jude 1
    14 Now of these Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying: Behold, the Lord cometh with thousands of his saints,

    The Serpent confirmed by the Apostles!

    2 Corinthians 11
    3 But I fear lest, as the serpent seduced Eve by his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted, and fall from the simplicity that is in Christ.

    Apocalypse 12
    9 And that great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, who seduceth the whole world; and he was cast unto the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.

    So either you believe Public Revelation or you don’t?

  31. JabbaPapa says:

    BUT if Satan can ridicule and deny then He overturns the Passion and Death of Our Lord doesn’t he?

    I’ve met him. He’s pathetic.

    Satan’s existence does not require that everything in the Scriptures must be interpreted in the most naïvely literalist uncritical manner. He’d likely love it if it were, because the Revelation is not from literalism nor trite reasonings, but in Christ and in the Divine Love.

    There’s a difference between believing the Public Revelation and interpreting it in the most nitpicking minute Pharisaic manner imaginable.

  32. Robert says:

    [The Moderator – Give this up, Roger. None of the passages that you have cited support your literalistic viewpoint, your reading of them is simply wrong. Any further comments in this vein will be deleted.]

  33. kathleen says:

    Jabba @ 13:38 yesterday

    “The best short analysis of Amoris Laetitia I’ve seen so far (though possibly it’s my own idea, can’t remember, or maybe it was just put into my head) is that it is an attempt towards a pastoral implementation of the teachings of Familiaris Consortio, etc.”

    Er, yes dear Jabba, I think it must have been your “own idea”!😉

    Once again though, I must say that I would love to be proved (or should that be “proven”) wrong on this one, and to discover that Pope Francis is, after all, a real defender of the whole of the Sacred Deposit of Faith and was therefore intending to affirm the Catholic Church’s permanent teaching on marriage in AL. It would lift an enormous cross off the shoulders of all orthodox Catholics who are receiving almost daily shocks emitting from Rome these last three years or so.

    Wishful thinking?

    We are not totally sheep without a shepherd, though. Strong, good, fearless cardinals, bishops and priests (like Bishop Schneider) are keeping the wolves at bay, and assuring that Pope Francis doesn’t go OTT.

    ______

    By the way, if the Remnant followers are Creationists, there is nothing wrong in that; they are not the only ones who are in any case. It is perfectly legitimate to be a Creationist (i.e. a literal taking of the accounts from Genesis) like most of our Catholic forefathers were.

    For anyone interested in the Creationist vs. Evolutionist argument above between Jabba and Robert, it is important to point out that the Church permits belief in either, both instantaneous special creation or developmental creation on certain questions. The only quite unacceptable position is that of “atheistic evolution”.

    The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).

    http://www.catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution

  34. JabbaPapa says:

    By the way, if the Remnant followers are Creationists, there is nothing wrong in that

    There is when they spend so much effort attacking the theory of evolution, early versions of which were BTW explained and defended by Saints Augustine and Thomas Aquinas …

  35. toadspittle says:

    “…or developmental creation on certain questions. “

    Hmm. “certain questions,” sounds a bit shifty to me. What do others think?
    But it’s very nice of the Church to allow us to make up our own minds on this.
    Obviously not important.

  36. toadspittle says:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/08/central-bearded-dragons-change-sex-when-the-heat-is-on-study-shows

    Fie! Bombshell! What next? Is “Global Warming” responsible for Caitlyn Jenner*? It would explain a lot. Truly, The Almighty works in strange ways, etc.

    * No.

  37. Robert says:

    Jabba
    Why would Aquinas deny change in a finite world? Change is evidenced again and again in the Bible. Fact Creation and its Laws have been changed by God (well evidenced in the Bible). The Passion unlocked Heaven for Man (that includes the souls of the dead Patriachs).
    You confuse change with random chance (Evolution). Aquinas obviously saw change with Gods judgements and Anathemas as well as miracles and Blessings. The Heavens change, the weather changes, the Sun spots change etc..etc.. In a Finite world change is a given! Even the Apoclpyse includes change! What else is a miracle if not change?
    But God is omnipresent and omniscient. The existence of common building blocks is a given in Creation. That change is apparent in Creation is also a given.
    We simply look at Our Lord and His miracles and He Created out of nothing when he feed the 5000.
    In the Virgins womb He Created Our Lord (Man the XY Chromosomes are different from a Woman XX ) Adam XY and Eve XX both created full grown!

    Within species there are and have been changes (all of this is explained within the Bible).
    That Creation is teeming with Life should be a given in ways and appearances which are outside of Our comprehension BUT Genesis places Man over these!

    But again to little attention is given to the lessons that Heaven gives us. Fatima and the Vision of Hell and the promise of Heaven. THE CHILDREN SAW THE DEMONS AS FRIGHTFUL UNKNOWN ANIMALS!!! So I really wouldn’t start to say that the serpent as the was couldn’t walk! Nor that the serpent changed into the animal we now know!

    “..Our Lady showed us a great sea of fire which seemed to be under the earth. Plunged in this fire were demons and souls in human form, like transparent burning embers, all blackened or burnished bronze, floating about in the conflagration, now raised into the air by the flames that issued from within themselves together with great clouds of smoke, now falling back on every side like sparks in a huge fire, without weight or equilibrium, and amid shrieks and groans of pain and despair, which horrified us and made us tremble with fear. The demons could be distinguished by their terrifying and repulsive likeness to frightful and unknown animals, all black and transparent. This vision lasted but an instant. How can we ever be grateful enough to our kind heavenly Mother, who had already prepared us by promising, in the first Apparition, to take us to heaven. Otherwise, I think we would have died of fear and terror. ..”

  38. Robert says:

    The Blog is a Bishop doing exactly what he must Do. Defend the Faith.
    Before God He must defend and be prepared to give His Life for the Faith.
    We have the promise of Our Lord given to His first Bishops (the Apostles) the power and authority to preach the gospel (sacred tradition and the Word) was given to all the Apostles including Peter.

    You many not like the History of the Church but the sacrament given to the Bishop is defence of the Faith as handed down from the Apostles. A Pope cannot change the Faith else that would make HIM greater than Christ when He is a servant.

    Now we have had excuses accusations, irrational stand on your head arguments. Its simple to receive the Saraments in Mortal Sin is a dreadful sacrilege. To knowingly permit such a sacrilege is to be guilty before God. Mercy requires contrition and the intention to change,

    What should be causing great concern is the majority we it seems are blind to sacrileges.

  39. JabbaPapa says:

    random chance (Evolution)

    You clearly do not understand the theories of evolution.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s