Friday, December 16, 2016

CLARITY AND AMBIGUITY: IN THE PASTORAL REALM, WHICH WILL WIN?


A simple clarification about the "internal forum" and when it can be used in certain situations would be very much appreciated by this priest.

Life is messy and in the pastoral realm, some slack has to be cut for those who have exhausted the external forums of the Church to deal with pastoral irregularities.

We must keep in mind also, that many, many, many people today present themselves for Holy Communion who are clueless of the moral law and don't believe any type of sexual sin should keep them from receiving. Others simply do not understand or accept the gravity of receiving Holy Communion knowing they are in mortal sin.

Clearly though, there are many who do and frequent confession if they feel they have received Holy Communion unworthily. There are also those who are overly scrupulous about the distinctions between mortal and venial sin and see all sin as mortal. In the other extreme we have the unscrupulous as well.

What Pope Francis has created in terms of his willingness to offer Holy Communion to those whose marriage is not recognized by the Church is to open a conundrum for bishops and priests to properly advise the laity what are their options.

I do not believe that a person who should be excluded from Holy Communion commits a mortal sin when the highest authority of the Church has sanctioned it. It will be that highest authority that will have to answer to God for leading anyone astray.

36 comments:

TJM said...

Clarity. That's why mainline Protestant religions are dying in this Country. They stand for nothing and the Pope appears to be trying to emulate that "success" story.

Gene said...

TJM, You are correct. That is exactly why I left protestantism only to find myself in the middle of a huge deja vu.

Dialogue said...

Father McDonald,

I agree. It is because almost everyone at Mass receives Holy Communion, despite an obvious lack of proportionate recourse to the Sacrament of Penance, that it is hard to understand why the Holy Father raised this issue to such public heights. For better or worse, everyone--including priests--was already doing what he now suggests they should do. The only difference is that now he has placed himself on record as standing in direct opposition to his predecessors. So, if his goal was to help couples, then he has made no difference at all. But if his goal was to cause confusion, then he has succeeded. Bless his heart.

Gene said...

This Pope is a living, breathing, walking around argument for the Sedevacantists. Their finest orators and scholars could not formulate a more cogent argument than Francis himself.

DJR said...

Gene said... This Pope is a living, breathing, walking around argument for the Sedevacantists. Their finest orators and scholars could not formulate a more cogent argument than Francis himself.

Not to mention the Orthodox, particularly now that we are apparently going to countenance divorce and remarriage as they do.

Mark Thomas said...

Sedevacantists existed long before Pope Francis' Pontificate. At least during my lifetime, various right-wingers denounced in the strongest of terms each Pope from Saint John XIII to Benedict XVI.

Various Catholics insisted that Pope Benedict "never changed his stripes" and had remained the supposed "heretic" that he had been during his liberal suit-and-tie wearing days during Vatican II.

Pope Benedict XVI was labeled a "heretic" when he gave us Assisi III, during which he shared the stage with a voodoo witchdoctor...and when he prayed in a synagogue, mosque, and worshiped in Rome's Lutheran church.

Pope Paul VI was labeled everything from a "homosexual," to "Freemason," to Anti-Christ."

Pope Saint John Paul II was attacked viciously as "heretic" countless times. The Assisi gatherings...praying in synagogues and mosques...bizarre liturgies...Mass with topless women...

...have we forgotten the hatred that was heaped upon Pope Saint John Paul II?

If anything, compared to Pope Saint John Paul II, His Holiness Pope Francis is an amateur at upsetting the right-wing and serving as sedevacantist bait.

Who can forget the following vicious declaration that Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer lodged in 1986 A.D. against Pope Saint John Paul II?

"Adopting the liberal religion of Protestantism and of the Revolution, the naturalistic principles of J.J. Rousseau, the atheistic liberties of the Declaration of the Rights of Man, the principle of human dignity no longer having any relation with truth and moral dignity, the Roman authorities turn their backs on their predecessors and break with the Catholic Church, and they put themselves at the service of the destroyers of Christianity and of the universal Kingdom of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

"The present acts of John Paul II and the national episcopates illustrates, year by year, this radical change in the conception of the Faith, the Church, the priesthood, the world, and salvation by grace.

"The high point of this rupture with the previous Magisterium of the Church took place at Assisi, after the visit to the synagogue. The public sin against the one, true God, against the Incarnate Word, and His Church, makes us shudder with horror. John Paul II encourages the false religions to pray to their false gods — an immeasurable, unprecedented scandal."
====================================================================

Yep...Pope Francis is not in Pope Saint John Paul II's league in terms of serving as bait for those who would opt for sedevacantisism.

For nearly 27 years, Pope Saint John Paul II was attacked regularly as a vile "heretic," "communist," "Anti-Christ," and destroyer of the Church by various right-wing Catholics.

Imagine the monumental daily turmoil (the turmoil was bad enough) that the right-wing would have created during Pope Saint John Paul II's Pontificate had the Internet been at their disposal from 1978 A.D. to 2005 A.D.?

Wow!

Anyway, been there, heard that...when it comes to a Pope having been accused of "heresy" by right-wingers. Same old right-wing nonsense. It never changes.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

It is puzzling as to why weeks ago that Raymond Cardinal Burke failed to reference Pope Francis' teaching that unrepentant Catholics who divorced and entered into new unions are not permitted to receive Holy Communion.

Had he referenced Pope Francis' teaching in question, rather than have traveled the route of the dubia, Cardinal Burke would have rendered it impossible for anybody to have argued that he (the Four Cardinals) had "challenged" Pope Francis.

=====================================================

Pope Francis: No Communion for Divorced and Remarried

http://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/pope-francis-no-communion-for-divorced-and-remarried

The Pope fielded 12 questions during his hour-long in-flight interview returning from Juarez to Rome in mid-February. Anne Thompson from NBC asked the Pope a question regarding mercy to the divorced and remarried.

In response, Pope Francis emphasized, "The key phrase used by the synod, which I'll take up again, is 'integrate' in the life of the Church the wounded families, remarried families, etc."

Thompson then asked, "Does that mean they can receive Communion?"

Pope Francis, with unusual clarity, responded,

"This is the last thing. Integrating in the Church doesn't mean receiving Communion."

The Pope immediately gave an anecdotal story to make clear his point.

"I know married Catholics in a second union who go to church, who go to church once or twice a year and say I want Communion, as if joining in Communion were an award. It's a work towards integration; all doors are open.

******* "But we cannot say from here on they can have Communion. *******

"This would be an injury also to marriage, to the couple, because it wouldn't allow them to proceed on this path of integration."
=====================================================================

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Mark T, this is not clear at all to me. He's speaking of those who only go once or twice a year. Not those who go every Sunday and are active in other parish activities or ministries but refrain from Holy Communion because of the invalid marriage.

This is what I find frustrating about the manner in which Pope Francis speaks and writes; it opens itself to so many interpretations or is stealthy by design.

The Holy Father says one thing in one place and another in another place and then he calls people in illicit marriages and tells them to go ahead and receive Holy Communion by-passing the pastor of the parish and his bishop. There is no discernment here, but outright interference and a compulsive act to be kind and enable that which should not be enabled. And has pope, doing this gives a green light to any and everyone to receive Holy Communion, not only those in mortal sin but non Catholics and anyone who finds themselves at a Catholic Mass. We know about enablers in addicted families. This isn't a matter of theology or doctrine but of psychology.

This is especially true of Amoris Latitia. All is clear except for that stealthy footnote in Chapter 8, a footnote mind you, that now demolishes all the good that is in the entire document which is an excellent document. But nothing except the footnote is spoken about. The blame for this has to lie with Pope Francis who could clear everything up tomorrow or today if he wished. The footnote is a stealthy way to implement Holy Communion for the ineligible and demolish natural law and the foundation of traditional moral laws and perennial Church teachings. It is like a computer virus in other words destroying all the good.

Pope Francis has a tendency to distract from his otherwise good works with these sidebars. Think of all his triumphant travels and then on the way back on the jet he gives an interview and off-the-cuff remarks, some truly outrageous, and the only talk is about that and not all the good that was just accomplished on a papal journey. It is self-destructive to say the least and a psychiatrist would have to analyze why His Holiness does this time and time again.

Dialogue said...

In Congregationalism and Evangelicalism, the pastor accompanies his congregation on their paths of doctrinal and moral discernment. These paths consist primarily in applying the Bible to the various situations arising in daily life. This pastoral approach is a very simply one in its application, and requires no reference to an ecclesial hierarchy or to an unbroken doctrinal tradition.

With Catholicism in Argentina having changed drastically during his lifetime, and with its place in Argentine society now in steady decline, perhaps the Holy Father simply sees the success of these Protestant movements in his homeland as the only way forward for the whole Church, especially given their peculiar resemblance to certain Jesuit approaches.

It requires a vivid imagination to be a faithful Catholic. Lacking such an imagination, one drifts into various heresies and apostasies.

TJM said...

Fr.McDonald,

Many thanks for your fraternal correction of Mark Thomas. I attribute his papalotry to poor religious formation, hardly unique, in the post Vatican II Church. I thank God every day that I was formed in my faith before the apostate loons took over. I also thank God that his breed is dying out.

Mark Thomas said...

Father McDonald said..."Mark T, this is not clear at all to me."

Father, His Holiness Pope Francis made it clear that in regard to divorced Catholics who've entered into new unions, the mission is to integrate them into the Church.

Pope Francis then said clearly the following: "Integrating in the Church doesn't mean receiving Communion."
=======================================================================

Anyway, Father, I appreciate your response to me. I also appreciate both sides of the big argument in question. That is, whether Pope Francis should respond to the dubia.

I appreciate your comment: "The blame for this has to lie with Pope Francis who could clear everything up tomorrow or today if he wished."

I also consider those who have insisted that the dubia consists of "trap" questions to which Pope Francis should not respond.

Oh, well. I am certain about two things.

1. I am a nobody...a dope. I will remain attached to His Holiness Pope Francis. (I know that you will, too, as you are God's holy priest.)

2. Holy Mother Church will figure this (the dubia controversy) out.

Father McDonald, I thank you for the role that you play as a holy priest. I am thankful that God called you into the priesthood.

Father McDonald, you are a blessing to me. Thank you for educating me in God's Truth.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

DJR said...

Lifesite News: Climate of fear in Vatican is very real.

"The release of the dubia letter by the now known to be six brave cardinals, quietly supported by at least 20 to 30 other cardinals, has clearly sparked a heightened atmosphere of intimidation and fear in the Vatican."

____

I think the report is slightly inaccurate: It was five cardinals and one major archbishop (who is not a cardinal, at least not yet) who signed the dubia.

What a sad, sad commentary on what is happening.

Dialogue said...

Mark Thomas,

If the Church is the mystical body of Christ, and Holy Communion is the substantial Body of Christ, then what does it mean to be integrated into the former, but not in communion with the latter? This would seem to present a problem requiring the removal of the obstacle to the communion that ought to flow from the integration, so that an integrated adulterer would separate himself from his concubine.

Anonymous 2 said...

Father McDonald:

Now I am more confused than before. I have read the Argentine Bishops’ Directive to the Clergy, which Pope Francis apparently endorsed in a letter as reflecting the correct understanding of Amoris Laetitia, and indeed have done so several times. This is what I get from this document:

 It focuses on “a process of discernment accompanied by a pastor,” expressly preferring this concept (and similarly that of a “journey” to one of “‘permission’ to receive the sacraments” (points 1 and 2)

 This process or journey is one of “pastoral accompaniment” that “demands the pastoral charity of the priest who welcomes the_penitent_, listens to him attentively, and shows him the maternal face of the Church” (point 3) (emphasis added). But it “does not end necessarily in the sacraments” (point 4)

 Access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and Eucharist are envisaged when living in continence is feasible in the circumstances (point 5). It is also envisaged when living in continence is not feasible in more complex circumstances (assuming no declaration of nullity is possible), but even then only when “in a particular case, there are limitations that diminish responsibility and culpability . . ., particularly when a person judges that he would fall into a subsequent fault by damaging the children of the new union” (point 6). Indeed, unrestricted access to the sacraments is expressly disavowed, and some examples of where access may be inappropriate are then given (points 7 and 8).

If I understand correctly, then, there is no question of bypassing the priest in this process. Indeed, the sacrament of Reconciliation is a prerequisite to being admitted to the Eucharist. And the priest will only in certain limited circumstances open the way for admission to the Eucharist, namely when the penitent commits to living in continence or has diminished responsibility and culpability for not doing so. One question I have is: How is the latter possibility different from the “lack of complete consent” that prevents an otherwise mortal sin from being such?

Is the above a fair reading of the Bishops’ letter? Here is a link to the text of the letter:

https://www.data.lifesitenews.com/images/pdfs/Basic_Criteria_for_the_Application_of_Chapter_VIII_of_Amoris_Laetitia__September_5__2016.pdf

I do agree that clarifications may be desirable but it troubles me when some commentators so readily leap to the conclusion that Amoris Laetitia and documents such as the Argentine Bishops’ letter must be unorthodox, and Pope Francis must be a heretic, without careful consideration of the nuances in the language of the relevant texts.


Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

If only the laity in these irregular situations truly wanted the priest to accompany them. Let's face it in all our parishes including those in Macon, there are people who have not lifted a finger to get their current irregular marriage validated in the Catholic Church who present themselves each week for Holy Communion and these are Catholics who should know better. I know of one Catholic who was so bold as to present himself to the bishop for Holy Communion but would not to me.

The more difficult situation are those non Catholics who wish to enter the Catholic Church and have a non Catholic spouse who has/had previous other marriages and that spouse would never consent to a Catholic annulment procedure as they have no intention of becoming Catholic. I am quite willing to cut some slack in this situation and wished Amoris Laetitia would have covered it in detail or streamlined even further the annulment procedure for non Catholics.

I am confused by what you quote as a priest. I understand internal forum from my more liberal seminary situation and allowed in the past those who have found a dead-end to their annulment procedure on a technicality to make a decision of conscience, especially those who are in the RCIA. I am open to a more liberal view on pastoral issues because i know quite well things aren't black and white whereas canon law is or law in general. The Catholic Church has always granted dispensations to canon law in this, that or another situation.

Dialogue said...

Anonymous,

The bottom line is that Holy Mother Church has not previously admitted to the sacraments of Penance and Holy Communion those adulterers who are unwilling to end their adultery. If such adulterers are now to be admitted to Holy Communion, then this decision must first be shown to be consistent with the Apostolic Tradition, and then must be explained clearly to the people of God.

Skipping these steps gives the impression that the bishop of Rome is free to act outside of the Apostolic Tradition, and that he need not explain his seemingly novel actions to the people. But if he is doing the right thing, then he needs to accompany us on the path to understanding, and no be so rigid in refusing to do so.

DJR said...

More cardinals support dubia. It is said that 20 to 30 support the original six signers of the dubia.

The case must be pressed forward.

From One Peter Five:

"What began as Four Cardinals became Four Cardinals and three bishops. Over the past two weeks, three more Cardinals have added their voices in support of the dubia, the most recent being Cardinal Renato Raffaele Martino, who has joined Cardinals George Pell and Paul Josef Cordes in publicly backing the effort."

DJR said...

Mark Thomas said... I also consider those who have insisted that the dubia consists of "trap" questions to which Pope Francis should not respond.

Please explain how answering five questions TRUTHFULLY could possibly be "a trap."

Mark, Jesus Christ is Truth Incarnate. The Truth can NEVER be a trap.

The only reason for not answering the questions truthfully would be to hide something.

There is no trap here. That's nonsense.

Gene said...

Well, DJR, when Kavanaugh was asked by another blogger if he believed in the literal bodily resurrection of Christ and the Real Presence, he refused to answer because he said it was a trap. So, I guess it must be a trap...for Priests, anyway.

DJR said...

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said... The more difficult situation are those non Catholics who wish to enter the Catholic Church and have a non Catholic spouse who has/had previous other marriages and that spouse would never consent to a Catholic annulment procedure as they have no intention of becoming Catholic. I am quite willing to cut some slack in this situation...

Father, can you explain the "slack" you mention?

A divorced and remarried person (or a person married to a divorced person), living in a new conjugal relationship, can never receive Holy Communion while the first putative spouse lives, unless the first union is declared null.

If that is not the case, then we have arrived at the point where people can self annul their prior marriages without the need of tribunals.

If a D&R person (or a person married to a divorced person), living a conjugal relationship with a new spouse, truly believes that a first marriage was null and void but cannot prove it, and then, with the help of a priest via the internal forum, decides that he/she can receive Holy Communion, how is that possible?

Even if the first marriage were not valid, that fact alone does not validate the second marriage. It merely means that there have been two invalid marriages.

The Church cannot "remarry" a person without a decree of nullity.

What this new practice does is, plain and simple, it introduces Catholic divorce into the Church.

If, in the internal forum, a priest were to allow such a person access to the Blessed Sacrament, what that priest is saying is that there is a subset of people that the Church allows to have sexual relationships outside of marriage and they can still receive Holy Communion.

How in the world is that different from a cohabiting couple or a "gay" couple?

This would be a complete overthrow of the teachings of the Catholic Church.

This entire business of "the internal forum" regarding marriage issues is not possible. It is an effrontery to the Person of Jesus Christ.

True Catholics can never, and will never, accept it, regardless of who promotes it.

Moreover, the internal forum can be easily misused, as you know.

Don't like Father McDonald's advice? Fine. Go to Father Kavanaugh and hear something different.

So, basically we have arrived at the Church accepting divorce and remarriage, as well as accepting fornication.

No. Never. Non possumus.

Amoris Laetitia CANNOT stand. It will NOT work. It's a negation of the teaching of Christ.

The cardinals need to press their case and force the pope to answer. If he does not, he needs to be corrected for his error, and the Church must reject that document.

Anonymous 2 said...

Father McDonald:

Thank you for your response. It is helpful. Am I correct in inferring that the now infamous footnote and follow up documents such as the Argentine Bishops' letter make explicit what was often occurring at a pastoral level anyway? If so, should it be seen as an attempt to regularize and generalize such pastoral practice?

Anonymous 2 said...

P.S. And perhaps, by being explicit, to bring Catholics in irregular situations within the fold to be accompanied pastorally instead of having them outside and presenting themselves for Holy Communion anyway in the way you describe?

Dialogue said...

DJR,

It would not be objectively contrary to the Apostolic Tradition to permit the parish priest to canonically judge a marriage invalid. I hope this does not happen, but if it did, it would not pose an objective threat to the integrity of the Church.

However, this is not the point of controversy here. The point of controversy is the notion that someone in an objectively adulterous union, one which has produced children, may have a moral obligation to remain in that union, and that this obligation reduces the gravity of sin if they continue sexual relations.

Anonymous said...

Well, DJR, Fr. Kavanaugh has answered Gene's question time and time again. He has said that he believes all that the Church teaches to be revealed by God.

Now, Gene will argue that that is not an answer, to which Fr. Kavanaugh might reply, "To any reasonable person it is."

Mark Thomas said...

DJR said..."Please explain how answering five questions TRUTHFULLY could possibly be "a trap."

I simply read and consider that which has been said by people who have said that His Holiness Pope Francis should not respond to the dubia.

Example: "Father Francis G. Morrisey, a canon law expert, told Crux that Pope Francis should not answer the questions as they’re all “trick questions like the Pharisees asked Jesus."
==========================================================

I have noted that I'm amazed that Cardinal Burke (the Four Cardinals), for example, rather than having gone the dubia route (along with the threat to "correct" Pope Francis), did not simply quote Pope Francis' public teaching that Catholics who are divorced and have entered into new unions are not permitted to receive Holy Communion.

In the same manner, I am amazed that Pope Francis has not simply turned the tables on Cardinal Burke (the Four Cardinals) with a "dubia" of his own address to Cardinal Burke (the Four Cardinals).

Pope Francis should note that among the Four Cardinals is Cardinal Burke, who declared that Amoris Laetitia is orthodox. Cardinal Burke declared also that people who claimed that Amoris Laetitia had changed Church teaching had sown confusion and potential scandal within and without the Church.

Cardinal Burke also insisted that Amoris Laetitia is simply the orthodox fruit of the Synod on the Family, which, in turn, reiterated orthodox teaching (according to Cardinal Burke).

Pope Francis should pepper Cardinal Burke with questions about his (Cardinal Burke's) positive assessment of Amoris Laetitia. Via Cardinal Burke's expert analysis of Amoris Laetitia, again, which he insisted is 100 percent orthodox, Pope Francis would be sitting pretty.

Cardinal Burke's expert analysis of Amoris Laetitia, which led him to declare that Amoris Laetitia is 100 percent orthodox, has weakened considerably his association with the dubia.

Pope Francis should employ Cardinal Burke's expert declaration that Amoris Laetitia is 100 percent orthodox as his (Pope Francis') respond to the dubia.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

DJR said..."Please explain how answering five questions TRUTHFULLY could possibly be "a trap."

I very well understand as to why many Churchmen have exhorted Pope Francis to ignore the "trap" questions that were presented to him.

Even Father Mark Drew, via his Catholic Herald article about the dubia, declared that while the questions were "all put respectfully and with detailed arguments," they "were not innocent, in that their purpose is to suggest that there are difficulties in reconciling Amoris Laetitia, or at least its implications, with established Catholic doctrine."

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/issues/december-2nd-2016/how-the-dubia-drama-will-end/

There isn't any question that while the questions were "all put respectfully," they also, as Father Drew noted, are not "innocent."

Anyway, the Church will figure things out.

Pax.

Mark Thomas


DJR said...

Mark Thomas said... I very well understand as to why many Churchmen have exhorted Pope Francis to ignore the "trap" questions that were presented to him.

There isn't any question that while the questions were "all put respectfully," they also, as Father Drew noted, are not "innocent."


____

You didn't answer the question.

If Jesus Christ is Truth Incarnate, how can answering something truthfully such as the dubia be "a trap"?

Who is being "trapped"? And what is "trapping" them?

How can Truth ever be a trap?

DJR said...

Anonymous 2 said... Thank you for your response. It is helpful. Am I correct in inferring that the now infamous footnote and follow up documents such as the Argentine Bishops' letter make explicit what was often occurring at a pastoral level anyway? If so, should it be seen as an attempt to regularize and generalize such pastoral practice?

____

Such a practice is not "pastoral" in the least. It is an abomination.

If this inference is true and is what the pope actually means, then the pope is a manifest heretic, and everyone who follows him on this issue would be as well.

People who are not married cannot engage in a sexual relationship and are therefore unable to properly receive Holy Communion. It is contrary to the Law of God, promulgated by no less a Person than Jesus Christ Himself.

If the Church embraces this, then we have arrived at the Great Apostasy mentioned by Saint Paul, and it will be followed by a tremendous chastisement.

No. True Catholics will not concede and will not follow such erroneous teaching.

DJR said...

Dialogue said... DJR, It would not be objectively contrary to the Apostolic Tradition to permit the parish priest to canonically judge a marriage invalid. I hope this does not happen, but if it did, it would not pose an objective threat to the integrity of the Church.

1. How is it possible for a mere priest to "canonically judge," via the internal forum, whether someone's prior marriage was invalid, when a second priest can be consulted and contradict the first priest?

Who would be correct?

2. How does a priest's alleged canonical judgment about a first marriage affect a second invalid marriage?

3. Assuming arguendo a person's first marriage was null, that does not validate a second marriage, which means a person is having a conjugal relationship with someone not his/her spouse.

Still can't receive Holy Communion.

DJR said...

Mark Thomas said... I very well understand as to why many Churchmen have exhorted Pope Francis to ignore the "trap" questions that were presented to him"

And "many Churchmen" have exhorted Pope Francis to answer the dubia. Numbers are irrelevant.

You never answered the question.

Our Great God and Saviour Jesus Christ is Truth Incarnate. How is it possible that answering the dubia truthfully can ever be "a trap"?

What is the "trap"? Who is being "trapped"? How?

Our Lord must weep at the idea that members of His Church, up to and including the pope, consider TRUTH to be "a trap."

The fact that the pope does not answer speaks volumes.

Is there any question whatsoever in anyone's mind that Pope St. John Paul II would answer the five dubia?

DJR said...

Mark Thomas... Anyway, the Church will figure things out.

This was already "figured out" thousands of years ago.

What we are witnessing is the Holy Ghost's protection of the Church. He is raising up holy defenders of Truth, such as Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider and many others, to defend the Church's true teaching on marriage.

That is why they must go forward on the dubia. If the pope does not respond, they need to fraternally correct him and ask him to uphold Truth.

If the pope believed in Truth, answering five questions truthfully should pose no problem whatsoever. That's his job.

Mark Thomas said...

DJR said..."Is there any question whatsoever in anyone's mind that Pope St. John Paul II would answer the five dubia?"

I am not certain about that as I consider the following:

Many right-wing Catholics insisted from 1978 A.D. to 2005 A.D. that Pope Saint John Paul II permitted confusion to reign throughout the Church. Have we forgotten that time and again, the right-wing had insisted that Pope Saint John Paul II was a heretic?

How many times did the Faithful to no avail beg Pope Saint John Paul II to clarify Vatican II?

How many times to no avail did Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Fellay exhort Pope Saint John Paul II to clarify Vatican II, as well as various errors that were rampant throughout the Church?

How many times did the Faithful beg Pope Saint John Paul II to acknowledge that the TLM was never abrogated? Pope Saint John Paul II's own special Commission of Cardinals studied that question and insisted that the TLM had not been abrogated.

Nevertheless, Pope Saint John Paul II refused to declare publicly that which was left for Pope Benedict XVI to perform. That is, acknowledge that the TLM had not been abrogated.

I am not certain that Pope Saint John Paul II would respond to questions that, as is the case with the dubia, many learned Churchmen have concluded are "trap" questions.

If anything, as was the case with controversies that surrounded Vatican II, the TLM, ecumenism, as well as additional controversies, Pope Saint John Paul II refused to respond to calls that he clarify said controversies.

Pope Francis isn't the first Pope who remained silent (supposedly) in regard to calls from Churchmen as well as layman to clarify Church-related controversies.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

DJR said...

DJR said... Dialogue said... DJR, It would not be objectively contrary to the Apostolic Tradition to permit the parish priest to canonically judge a marriage invalid. I hope this does not happen, but if it did, it would not pose an objective threat to the integrity of the Church.

____

What you are suggesting falls under an anathema of the Council of Trent.


Canons On The Sacrament Of Matrimony, Council of Trent.

Can. 12. If anyone says that matrimonial causes do not belong to ecclesiastical judges, let him be anathema.

DJR said...

Mark Thomas said... I am not certain that Pope Saint John Paul II would respond to questions that, as is the case with the dubia, many learned Churchmen have concluded are "trap" questions.

Our Great God and Saviour Jesus Christ is the Way, the TRUTH, and the Life.

Please explain how answering the dubia truthfully can be a "trap."

Anonymous said...

What do you guys think Peter's key to bind and loose means? Is whatever he binds on earth bound in heaven? Can he dispense with circumcision, which was something God gave the Jews? Does he have the authority to do that? Does his successors do too? Is Pope Francis his successor?

It's not clear to me whether I should join the inevitable schism. Would Catholics be considered modern day defenders of God's glory or modern day Judaizers for rejecting the pope?

DJR said...

Anonymous said... What do you guys think Peter's key to bind and loose means? Is whatever he binds on earth bound in heaven? Would Catholics be considered modern day defenders of God's glory or modern day Judaizers for rejecting the pope?

Popes cannot "loose" God's moral law. That's the point. The pope has no authority to do such a thing.
Catholics need to read their own history regarding the papacy. The majority are ignorant of what has happened over the centuries.
Did Pope Stephen VI not also have the keys to "bind and loose"?

Would you have followed the ruling Pope Stephen VI made when he declared Pope Formosus to be an antipope, had his body dug up, put on trial, mutilated, and then thrown in the river, afterwards declaring all Pope Formosus' acts null and void, including his ordinations and episcopal consecrations, and forcing those ordained by Formosus to be treated as laity?

Would you have followed that?

If you say yes, that means you would have to reject Pope Formosus.

Then what would you have done when Stephen's successors REVERSED him and ruled that Pope Formosus was a true pope (Theodore II and John IX)?

Would you have followed them? If you say yes, then you would be rejecting the rulings of Pope Stephen.

Then what would you have done when Sergius III contradicted Theodore and John and reiterated Stephens ruling that Pope Formosus was an antipope?

Would you have followed Sergius?

If so, you would be rejecting what other popes ruled and taught.

Truth is truth, and when a pope contradicts truth, he should not be followed.