Saturday, January 14, 2017

HOW DO YOU SPELL "O-M-I-N-O-U-S" AS IN THE CHURCH?

When and where will this end? It seems to me we are heading quickly to the final solution. I'd like to corroborate an example Cardinal Caffarra uses in terms of a priest writing him to tell him that a penitent in an active irregular union, was going to receive Holy Communion because the pope said he could. I have had that told to me a few times now also, the first in late 2014!

From CRUX:

Cardinal says ‘only blind man’ could deny confusion caused by Pope

Cardinal says ‘only blind man’ could deny confusion caused by Pope
Cardinal Carlo Caffarra. (Credit: CNS.)
Italian Cardinal Carlo Caffarra, retired archbishop of Bologna and one of four cardinals who recently asked Pope Francis to clarify his positions in 'Amoris Laetitia,' said on Saturday the cardinals acted because “only a blind man could deny there’s great confusion, uncertainty and insecurity in the Church.”
ROME - One of  four cardinals who recently asked Pope Francis to clarify his position on Communion for divorced and civilly remarried Catholics said Saturday they acted because “only a blind man could deny there’s great confusion, uncertainty and insecurity in the Church.”
“It’s caused by some paragraphs in Amoris Laetitia,” said Italian Cardinal Carlo Caffarra, the retired archbishop of Bologna, referring to a document released by Pope Francis in April 2016 drawing conclusions from two contentious Synods of Bishops on the family.
“In recent months, on some very fundamental questions regarding the sacraments, such as marriage, confession and the Eucharist, and the Christian life in general, some bishops have said A, and others the contrary of A,” Caffarra said.
Caffarra appeared to be referring to the fact that since Amoris Laetitia appeared in April 2016, some bishops and bishops’ conferences around the world have interpreted it to mean that at least some divorced and civilly remarried Catholics may receive Communion, while others have held that unless those Catholics are living as brother and sister rather than husband and wife, they remain ineligible.
Caffarra’s comments came in an interview with Italian journalist Matteo Matzuzzi, published Saturday in the newspaper Il Foglio.
Caffarra, who joined American Cardinal Raymond Burke and German Cardinals Joachim Meisner and Walter Brandmüller in submitting questions to the pope, said that when Amoris appeared, he tried to argue that it was consistent with Familiaris Consortio, St. Pope John Paul II’s 1981 document on the family, which decreed that only divorced and remarried couples who live as brother and sister are eligible for Communion.
Yet, Caffarra said, he eventually realized that interpretation wasn’t ending the debate.
“There was only one way to deal with it,” he said, “which was to ask the author of a text interpreted in two contradictory manners which one is correct. There was no other choice.”
Out of respect for the pope, Caffarra said, the four cardinals acted first in private, and only when they had the “certainty” Francis did not intend to respond, he said, did they make the decision to go public.
According to Caffarra, the four cardinals decided to act based on requests from ordinary Catholics.
“Many faithful began to be scandalized,” he said, “almost as if we were acting like the dogs that didn’t bark mentioned by the Prophet. That’s what’s behind those two pages.”
Caffarra insisted that it’s “false and calumnious” to describe the questions the four cardinals submitted to Pope Francis, technically known as dubia, as an act of disloyalty.
“I can be obedient to the teaching of the pope if I know what the pope teaches in matters of faith and Christian life,” he said. “But that’s exactly the problem - on some fundamental points it’s hard to understand what the pope is teaching, as the conflict among bishops demonstrates.”
Caffarra vigorously denied that the four cardinals have created division by putting questions to the pope.
“The division that already exists in the church is the cause of the letter, not its effect,” he said.
To explain the “confusion” and “uncertainty” he believes exists in Catholicism today, Caffarra cited a letter at length he said he’d recently received from a parish pastor.
“In spiritual direction and in confession, I don’t know what to say anymore. To a penitent who says to me, ‘I live in every sense as a husband with a divorced woman and now I’m taking Communion,’ if I propose a course to remedy the situation, the penitent stops me and says, ‘Look, Father, the pope has said I can have the Eucharist, without having to live in continence.’ I can’t take this situation anymore. The Church can ask anything from me, but it can’t ask me to betray my conscience. My conscience objects to a supposed papal teaching to admit to the Eucharist, in certain circumstances, someone who lives as a spouse without being married.”
“We’re talking about extremely serious questions for the life of the Church, and the eternal; salvation of the faithful,” Caffarra said.
Aware that some have styled Pope Francis’s treatment of the Communion issue in Amoris as a triumph of pastoral practice over doctrine, Caffarra demurred.
“A Church that pays little attention to doctrine isn’t a more pastoral Church,” he said. “It’s a more ignorant Church.”
Caffarra also rejected the idea that what happened in Amoris is a “development” of doctrine, saying that a development is one thing and a contradiction is another.
“According to many bishops, it’s a contradiction, while many others say it’s a development,” he said. “That’s the reason we asked the pope.”
According to Caffarra, it all comes down to a simple choice: “Can a priest give Communion to a person who lives like a husband or wife with a man or woman to whom they’re not married, without intending to live in continence?”
Familiaria Consortio, the Code of Canon Law and the Catechism of the Catholic Church all say no,” Caffarra said. “Some believe Amorissays yes, and pastors have the right to know.”

51 comments:

Dialogue said...

I understand people taking sides either for or against adulterous Communion, but I don't understand people denying that Pope Francis has created confusion among sincere Catholics. Open dialogue requires listening, and in this case listening includes hearing this genuine confusion.

John Nolan said...

Exactly. What is Mark Thomas's take on this? If he could answer (and, for a change, briefly) I can assure him we are all agog, or at least half agog.

TJM said...

We have a papalotor who posts hear nonstop who would deny the Pope is causing confusion

DJR said...

TJM said... We have a papalotor who posts hear nonstop who would deny the Pope is causing confusion.

These are the problems:

1. He believes popes are chosen directly by the Holy Ghost.

2. He believes that any man who has been ordained actually has a vocation, even sodomites.

3. He believes that Hans Kung is orthodox, even though Pope JPII declared that Kung had departed from the Catholic Faith.

4. He believes that, as long as a person is in communion with the pope, that person cannot be a heretic or schismatic.

I don't know what he thinks about the Maltese bishops, who are in communion with the pope and have now published, in the pope's own newspaper, a document denying the teaching of the Church.

Obviously, their communion with the pope has been of little benefit in that regard.

Henry said...

In a comment in the preceding thread on Cardinal Pell, I envisioned a point at which "only a fatuous fool with head in the sand can fail to see what's happening" in the Church. It seems to me that Cardinal Caffarra's crystal-clear explanation brings us (that is, all well-informed and faithful believers) to that point.

Mark Thomas said...

Father McDonald said..."I'd like to corroborate an example Cardinal Caffarra uses in terms of a priest writing him to tell him that a penitent in an active irregular union, was going to receive Holy Communion because the pope said he could. I have had that told to me a few times now also, the first in late 2014!"

Father, did you inform the penitent that His Holiness Pope Francis did not say that a Catholic in "an active irregular union" could receive Holy Communion?

Thank you.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

DJR said..."

1. He believes popes are chosen directly by the Holy Ghost."

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

Novus Ordo Good Friday Intercessory Prayer for the Pope:

"For the Pope: Let us pray

Almighty and eternal God, You guide all things by your word, You govern all Christian people.

In your love protect the Pope you have chosen for us."

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

Traditional Good Friday Liturgy:

"Let us pray also for our most holy Pope N., that our God and Lord, who chose him to the order of the episcopacy, may preserve him in health and safety, for the good of His holy Church, to govern the holy people of God."

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

From the Roman Missal, prayer for the Pope:

"O God, Shepherd and Ruler of all Thy faithful people, look mercifully upon Thy servant Francis, whom Thou hast chosen as shepherd to preside over Thy Church."

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

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

DJR said..."2. He believes that any man who has been ordained actually has a vocation, even sodomites."

I recall vividly the discussion that we had about that topic. As is contained in Father McDonald's archives, you asked me as to whether God has called sodomites to the priesthood.

I replied that God, throughout history, has called sinners to the priesthood. The key would be whether the sinner in question persisted in his sin. As the result of God's grace, a sodomite, for example, would have every opportunity to amend his life.

The fact remains that God, for example, called Saul of Tarsus, a vicious persecutor of Christians, to the priesthood. Saul of Tarsus was complicit in the murder of Saint Stephen.

Judas was called into the priesthood.

The Apostolic See reiterated recently the following: "If a candidate practices homosexuality or presents deep-seated homosexual tendencies, his spiritual director as well as his confessor have the duty to dissuade him in conscience from proceeding towards ordination."

I noted that I accepted that. I also accept that God has called wicked men, even those complicit in murder (martyrdom of Saint Stephen), to the priesthood.

Saints Augustine of Hippo and Saint Thomas à Becket, grave sinners, were called into the priesthood.

As God called the vicious Christ-hating, complicit-in-murder Saul of Tarsus into the priesthood, is it unthinkable that he couldn't do the same in regard to a homosexual?

Anyway, God has called grave sinners into the priesthood. That is my point.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

DJR said..."3. He believes that Hans Kung is orthodox, even though Pope JPII declared that Kung had departed from the Catholic Faith."

You declared that Father Hans Küng is a priest in good standing with the Catholic Church, his priestly faculties have never been suspended, and is in communion with the Roman Pontiff, Pope Francis.

You are correct.

Please don't tell me that you disagree with your statement about Father Küng. You identified him as a priest in good standing with the Catholic Church. Correct?

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

DJR said..."4. He believes that, as long as a person is in communion with the pope, that person cannot be a heretic or schismatic."

If person "X" is in communion with the Pope, then Person "X" is in communion with the Catholic Church. Correct?

We know that where Peter is, there is the Church.

Therefore, person "X," who is in communion with the True Church, could not possibility be a heretic or schismatic. Correct?

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Gene said...

Hans Kung was a laughing stock even among orthodox protestants when I was in seminary and grad school in the 70's.

Mark Thomas said...

DJR said..."I don't know what he thinks about the Maltese bishops, who are in communion with the pope and have now published, in the pope's own newspaper, a document denying the teaching of the Church. Obviously, their communion with the pope has been of little benefit in that regard."

The Vicar of Christ, Pope Francis, will determine as to whether the bishops of Malta have denied Church teaching.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

DJR said...

Mark Thomas said... Therefore, person "X," who is in communion with the True Church, could not possibility be a heretic or schismatic. Correct?

Please don't tell me that you disagree with your statement about Father Küng. You identified him as a priest in good standing with the Catholic Church. Correct?


JPII stated that Hans Kung has departed from the Catholic Faith, correct?

Martin Luther was "a priest in good standing" with the Catholic Church between 1517, when he openly proclaimed heresy, and when he was condemned, correct?

DJR said...

Mark Thomas said... "The Vicar of Christ, Pope Francis, will determine as to whether the bishops of Malta have denied Church teaching."

And what if he doesn't do so? Does that mean they have not denied Church teaching?


Anonymous 2 said...

Mark Thomas:

You should not expect the many Francis bashers on this blog to be fair and balanced in their characterizations of what you say any more than they are fair and balanced when they make statements such as “the Maltese bishops, who are in communion with the pope[,] . . . have now published, in the pope's own newspaper, a document denying the teaching of the Church.” This is the writer’s own_opinion_of what the Maltese bishops have done. It_may_be a correct opinion, or it may not. One can only reach a judgment about whether the Maltese Bishops’ document denies or contradicts the teaching of the Church—and if it does, the extent to which it does—after carefully examining what the Maltese Bishops actually said. Here is a reasonably fair and balanced report regarding what they actually said:

http://www.catholicnews.com/services/englishnews/2017/bishops-of-malta-issue-norms-for-ministry-to-divorced-civilly-remarried.cfm

Notice the fair and balanced headline, which is far cry from the typical sensationalist fare on this matter such as “Divorced and remarried can receive communion if ‘at peace’ with God, Maltese Bishops say.” And here is a link to the actual document just in case anyone is interested in getting the facts as opposed to the hype:

http://ms.maltadiocese.org/WEBSITE/2017/PRESS%20RELEASES/Norms%20for%20the%20Application%20of%20Chapter%20VIII%20of%20AL.pdf

DJR said...

Pope Benedict XVI has publicly stated that the Holy Ghost does not directly choose popes, correct?

Anonymous said...

"The Vicar of Christ, Pope Francis, will determine as to whether the bishops of Malta have denied Church teaching."

Anyone who's not blind can see that they, encouraged by Amoris Latitia, have indeed denied Church teaching. The pope can do his duty as you suggest by answering the dubia.

Mark Thomas said...

I accept the Four Cardinals' declaration that they wish simply to end the confusion that they perceive exists throughout the Church in regard to Amoris Laetitia.

The Four Cardinals have rejected the narrative concocted by certain traditionalists that the Four Cardinals have stuck it to Pope Francis, painted him into a corner, exposed him as a heretic, destroyed his Pontificate, and paved the way to depose Pope Francis via the election of a "true" Pope.

The Four Cardinals insist that in serene and loyal-to-Pope-Francis fashion, that they desire only to assist Pope Francis to eradicate confusion within the Church.

Okay.

However, the Four Cardinals could do much more than work to eliminate the Amoris Laetitia-related confusion that they believe exists within the Church. They could do so by throwing in with Bishop Schneider to combat the ultimate source of the chaos that has devastated the Church for 50 or so years.

That is, in major fashion, they could promote the December 17, 2010 A.D. appeal that Bishop Athanasius Schneider announced during a conference in Rome, which Cardinals and bishops attended.

Rorate Caeli: "Bishop Athanasius Schneider had called for a new Syllabus, one that would condemn the misinterpretations of Vatican II."

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/01/bishop-schneiders-call-for-new-syllabus.html

Here is the English translation of Bishop Schneider's address in question:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/bishops/schneider-proposte.htm

Bishop Schneider: "In the decades past there have existed, and exist to this day, groupings within the Church that commit an enormous abuse of the pastoral character of the Council and of its texts..."

"Taking account of the experience of several decades since then, of interpretations doctrinally and pastorally confused, and contrary to the continuity, over two millennia, of doctrine and prayer of the faith, the necessity and the urgency rise for a specific and authoritative intervention by the pontifical Magisterium for an authentic interpretation of the conciliar texts with completions and doctrinal clarifications: a type of “Syllabus errorum circa interpretationem Concilii Vaticani II”.

"There is need for a new Syllabus, this time directed not so much against errors coming from outside the Church, but against errors spread within the Church on the part of those who maintain a thesis of discontinuity and rupture with its doctrinal, liturgical, and pastoral application.

"Such a Syllabus would consist of two parts: a part marking errors and a positive part with propositions of doctrinal clarification, completion, and precision.

"Thus there truly is the need for a conciliar Syllabus with doctrinal value, and moreover there is need to increase the number of holy, courageous pastors, profoundly rooted in the tradition of the Church, free from any type of mentality of rupture whether in the field of doctrine or of liturgy."

Pope Benedict XVI did not respond to Bishop Schneider's request in question.

But Bishop Schneider's call to end the confusion related to Vatican II is the ultimate way to go to address the overall confusion (not just limited to Amoris Laetitia) and collapse of the Church throughout much of the world.

What greater need exists within the Church than the need to clarify the monumental Vatican II-related confusion that has engulfed the Church during the past 50+ years?

That is the clarification that the Four Cardinals should pursue to the hilt.

That is the clarification that is required before we can begin truly in earnest to rebuild — alongside the unwavering promotion of the TLM — our beloved collapsed Church.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

In 1997 A.D., then-Cardinal Ratzinger offered his opinion upon the issue in question.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Dialogue said...

Gene,

But Hans Kung has a cool name.

Mark Thomas said...

DJR said..."Martin Luther was "a priest in good standing" with the Catholic Church between 1517, when he openly proclaimed heresy, and when he was condemned, correct?"

My understanding is that the Church proceeded with Her examination of Martin Luther's declarations in accord with Church rules to determine whether Luther was guilty of heresy. Pope Leo X examined the charges against Luther.

Whenever Pope Leo X determined that Martin Luther was not in good standing with the Church, then that was when Luther ceased to be a priest in good standing with Holy Mother Church.

Martin Luther was excommunicated (I believe) in 1521 A.D.

Until Holy Mother Church declares that a priest is not in good standing with Her, is not said priest to be considered in good standing with the Church?

The Church doesn't operate via a lynch mob who determines whether a priest is in good standing with the Church.

Therefore, did not the Church view Luther as a priest in good standing until She, through an orderly process, determined that he was excommunicated?

The competent Church authority alone determined Luther's status as a priest.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

DJR, I answered your question about Martin Luther.

To refresh...you asked, "Martin Luther was "a priest in good standing" with the Catholic Church between 1517, when he openly proclaimed heresy, and when he was condemned, correct?"

Let us link that to Father Hans Küng.

I am opposed staunchly to that which I perceive as Father Küng's vision for the Church. But that doesn't give me the right to misrepresent him

In regard to your having brought Martin Luther into the discussion...unlike Martin Luther, as you declared:

-- Father Hans Küng is not suspended (a divinis).

-- Father Küng is not excommunicated.

-- Father Küng is in communion with Pope Francis.

-- Father Küng is in good standing with the Church.

DJR, you declared all of the above in regard to Father Küng.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

DJR said...

Mark, did Saint John Paul II declare that Hans Kung has departed from the Catholic Faith?

Please explain how someone can depart from the Catholic Faith and still be orthodox.

DJR said...

Mark Thomas said... "In 1997 A.D., then-Cardinal Ratzinger offered his opinion upon the issue in question."

Is his opinion correct?

DJR said...

Mark:

Father Robert Drinan, SJ, was a member of the U.S. Congress and voted in favor of abortion his entire career there.

He was "in communion" with the pope at the time, never had his faculties suspended, and was a priest "in good standing" the entire time he was in Congress.

So, according to you, voting for abortion is orthodox.

____

Voting for Abortion

Any Catholic politician who casts a vote with the intention of legalizing abortion, or of protecting laws allowing abortion, or of widening access to abortion, commits a mortal sin.

When such a vote indicates that the Catholic politician believes that abortion is not always gravely immoral, such a politician incurs a sentence of automatic excommunication, under canons 751 and 1364, because of heresy.


http://www.catechism.cc/articles/abortion-excommunication.htm

Mark Thomas said...

DJR said..."Mark: Father Robert Drinan, SJ, was a member of the U.S. Congress and voted in favor of abortion his entire career there. He was "in communion" with the pope at the time, never had his faculties suspended, and was a priest "in good standing" the entire time he was in Congress. So, according to you, voting for abortion is orthodox."

DJR, you continue to reference this or that priest...Father Kung, Father Curran, Father Drinan...then you acknowledge that the priests in question are (or were, as Father Drinan is deceased) in good standing with the Church, not suspended, not excommunicated...

...then, incredibly, you attempt to place me on the spot for the Church's recognition of them as priests in good standing.

DJR, Popes Saint John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis, not I, permitted Fathers Curran and Kung to have remained in good standing with the Church.

Popes Saint John Paul II and Benedict XVI decided not to suspend or excommunicate Fathers Drinan, Curran, and Kung. (Father Drinan died prior to Pope Francis' Pontificate.)

Pope Francis has neither suspended nor excommunicated Fathers Kung, and Curran.

I didn't permit said priests to have remained in good standing with the Church.

It is not I who refuses to excommunicate Catholic politicians and public figures who support abortion, artificial birth control, homosexual unions...the Culture of Death.

I am 100 percent in agreement with Church teaching on abortion, artificial birth control, and marriage. I pray daily for the end to abortion. I pray daily for aborted souls.

I pray and work daily for the promotion of the Culture of Life.

I refused to vote for Donald Trump as he is pro-abortion. I refused to vote for Hillary Clinton as she is pro-abortion. I will not vote for pro-abortion politicians.

DJR, you beef isn't with me as I am not the Church authority who determines whether a priest is in good standing with the Church.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

I said..."In 1997 A.D., then-Cardinal Ratzinger offered his opinion upon the issue in question."

DJR said..."Is his opinion correct?"

I don't accept his opinion. No.

From Father James Martin's (S.J.) article "Does the Holy Spirit Choose the Pope?"

"In 1997, when asked on Bavarian television whether or not the Spirit chooses the pope, the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger answered:

“I would not say so, in the sense that the Holy Spirit picks out the Pope…I would say that the Spirit does not exactly take control of the affair, but rather like a good educator, as it were, leaves us much space, much freedom, without entirely abandoning us.

"Thus the Spirit’s role should be understood in a much more elastic sense, not that he dictates the candidate for whom one must vote. Probably the only assurance he offers is that the thing cannot be totally ruined.”

“There are too many contrary instances of popes the Holy Spirit obviously would not have picked!”
============================================================================

I don't understand then-Cardinal Ratzinger's confidence in regard to his belief that “There are too many contrary instances of popes the Holy Spirit obviously would not have picked!”

I detect a lack of the supernatural element in Cardinal Ratzinger's opinion. That is, his opinion failed to recognize the mysterious ways in which God may operate.

Compare Cardinal Ratzinger's statement to Romans 11:33 (Douay): "O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are his judgments, and how unsearchable his ways!"

When we consider Saint Peter's "bad Pope" moments, there were likely more than a few folks 2,000 years ago who, in line with Cardinal Ratzinger's opinion, did not believe that the Holy Ghost had anything to do with Saint Peter's elevation to the Papacy.

In his Encyclical Ut Unum sint, Pope Saint said:

"It is important to note how the weakness of Peter and of Paul clearly shows that the Church is founded upon the infinite power of grace. Peter, immediately after receiving his mission, is rebuked with unusual severity by Christ, who tells him: "You are a hindrance to me"."

In line with Cardinal Ratzinger's opinion, we must wonder why Jesus Christ selected such a man as His first Pope.

Pope Saint John Paul II continued:

"How can we fail to see that the mercy which Peter needs is related to the ministry of that mercy which he is the first to experience? And yet, Peter will deny Jesus three times.

The fact is that despite the many moments during which he was a "bad Pope," even to the horrific point of having three times denied Jesus Christ, we know that Jesus selected Saint Peter to have served as Pope.

Perhaps the key to understanding as to why God could use a "bad" Pope to our edification is found in Pope Saint John Paul II's statement above:

"It is important to note how the weakness of Peter and of Paul clearly shows that the Church is founded upon the infinite power of grace."

God could very well utilize a "bad" Pope, who, of course, would have every opportunity to become a holy Pope via God's grace, to make clear to us that "the Church is founded upon the infinite power of grace."

We also recall Romans 11:33 in regard to God's mysterious ways: "How incomprehensible are his judgments, and how unsearchable his ways!"

Again, in Cardinal Ratzinger's opinion in question, I find the lack of the supernatural, mysterious ways in which God can work.

Good Friday liturgical prayer: "For the Pope: Let us pray. Almighty and eternal God, You guide all things by your word, You govern all Christian people.

"In your love protect the Pope you have chosen for us."

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Joe Potillor said...

Communion with the Pope is hardly a guarantee for orthodoxy.....it'd be nice if that were the case though.

This pope has one job, and he's hardly doing it. Some people have this very strange idea that the Pope's power is limitless and absolute. This is insanity. He does not have the power to change the Gospel of Christ, and any actions that undermine the Gospel of Christ need to be ended. The sooner this pontificate ends the better.

Of course, this could all be stopped with a little use of the crosier ;)

Gene said...

Marl Thomas said: "God could very well utilize a bad Pope..."

Well, Mark ol' buddy, He is using a bad Pope...as a judgement upon the Church, Vatican II, our self-indulgent culture, and our unbelief, which is rampant in the Church and everywhere else. We have exactly the Pope we deserve.

DJR said...

Mark:

The point that I have been trying to get you to understand is that a person's supposed "communion with the pope" does not guarantee that person's orthodoxy, which you have asserted several times.

It does not.

Father Drinan is a perfect example.

Why did you say that you are being put on the spot? Answer: Because your views are wrong, and you know it, but you don't want to admit it.

Father Drinan was 100% pro-abortion. He was never defrocked, suspended, excommunicated (publicly anyway), or anything of the sort.

He remained "in good standing" and "in communion with the pope" until the day of his death.

If that constitutes "orthodoxy" in your view, then voting for abortion constitutes "orthodoxy."

Father Drinan, SJ, a pro-abortion politician, was an orthodox Catholic, according to you.

That's your position.

DJR said...

Mark, do you not remember this post you made?

"Is Cardinal Kasper a "priest/bishop/cardinal in good standing" with the Church? If he is, then he is orthodox. Pax. Mark Thomas.


Now plug Father Drinan's name into your statement.

Mark Thomas: Was pro-abortion Father James Drinan, SJ, who voted for abortion in the U.S. Congress for 10 years, "a priest/bishop/cardinal in good standing" with the Church? If he was, then he was orthodox.

Thus, in your view, voting pro-abortion is orthodox.



You can't have it both ways.

If being "in communion with the pope," "in good standing," et cetera, equals orthodoxy, then pro-abortion politician Father Drinan was orthodox.

If those things do not guarantee orthodoxy, then your initial assertion is erroneous.

And if your assertion is erroneous (and it is) that means Cardinal Kasper, et al., could be heretics even though they are allegedly "in communion with the pope," "in good standing," et cetera.

Mark Thomas said...

DJR said..."Mark, do you not remember this post you made?

"Is Cardinal Kasper a "priest/bishop/cardinal in good standing" with the Church? If he is, then he is orthodox. Pax. Mark Thomas."

I recall that statement. Now, please inform me should the Church determine that he is unorthodox. As of today, as far as I know, Cardinal Kasper is in good standing with the Church. Therefore, I don't have any right to pronounce him unorthodox.

Cardinal Kasper is in communion with Pope Francis. Where Peter is, there is the Church. Therefore, Cardinal Kasper is in communion with the Church, according to Church teaching.

If you believe that Cardinal Kasper is unorthodox, then please explain as to how that is possible as he is in good standing with the Church.

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

DJR said..."Now plug Father Drinan's name into your statement. Mark Thomas: Was pro-abortion Father James Drinan, SJ, who voted for abortion in the U.S. Congress for 10 years, "a priest/bishop/cardinal in good standing" with the Church? If he was, then he was orthodox. Thus, in your view, voting pro-abortion is orthodox."

As I recall, Father Drinan was a priest in good standing with the Church. The Catholic Church, despite Father Drinan's pro-abortion voting record, never suspend him a divinis. The Catholic Church never excommunicated Father Drinan. The Catholic Church recognized him as a priest in communion with the Church.

You acknowledged the same about Father Drinan.

Nevertheless, I checked numerous sources via the internet to be certain that my recollection about Father Drinan is correct. One source after another confirmed that which I said, and for that matter, what you said about Father Drinan.

The Church recognized that Father Drinan was in communion with Her.

Example: From New Oxford Review.

The Passing of 'Fr. Death'

by Anne Hendershott

Anne Hendershott is Professor of Sociology at the University of San Diego and author of the recently published Politics of Abortion (Encounter Books, 2006).)

"Fr. Robert Drinan, S.J., died at the end of the same month he presided over the inaugural Mass for the new U.S. Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi.

"As an elected member of the House of Representatives, Fr. Drinan provided a much-imitated model for Catholic politicians who wished to support the pro-abortion movement while claiming to be faithful to Catholic moral teaching.

"All the while, Fr. Drinan remained on the faculty of the Georgetown University Law Center, from 1981 until his death this past January.

"What perplexes orthodox Catholics most is that Fr. Drinan remained a priest with "full faculties," enabling him to administer the Sacraments and to preside over the Mass at Trinity University in Washington, D.C., for pro-choice politician Nancy Pelosi, a Trinity alumna -- despite the fact that for more than 2,000 years the Catholic Church has affirmed the moral evil of abortion."

DJR, does the Catholic Church permit unorthodox priests to remain in communion with Her, to offer Holy Mass, and administer the Sacraments?

If She doesn't, then why did She permit that of Father Drinan?

Why did the Church recognize Father Drinan as a priest in good standing with Her despite his pro-abortion voting record?

Father Drinan's pro-abortion voting record was known to Church authorities. Nevertheless, Church authorities recognized Father Drinan as a priest in good standing with the Church.

That means that Father Drinan was recognized as an orthodox priest. Correct.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

DJR said...

Correction to last post: Father Robert Drinan, SJ. James was his father.

Mark Thomas said...

DJR said..."Why did you say that you are being put on the spot? Answer: Because your views are wrong, and you know it, but you don't want to admit it."

You are wrong. I don't have any error to admit in regard to this discussion.

As to your having placed me on the spot...my point about that is you attempt to pin such things on me as..."So, according to you, voting for abortion is orthodox."

You need to ask the Ordinaries who are in communion with the Church and oversee Fathers Curran and Kung as to why they (the Ordinaries) recognize the priests in question as orthodox members of the Church.

The Ordinaries, not I, have made it clear that they have recognized Fathers Curran and Kung as orthodox priests/members of the Church. In turn, Rome has never overruled the bishops in question.

Father Drinan's bishop, despite Father Drinan's pro-abortion voting record, recognized Father Drinan as an orthodox member of the Church. In turn, Rome never overruled Father Drinan's bishop in that regard.

To return, for example, to Father Curran, here is a Wanderer article about him.

http://thewandererpress.com/catholic/news/featured-today/lest-we-forget-solidarity-in-dissent-fr-curran-and-his-allies/

"For Bishop Clark, throughout his pastorship of the diocese, Fr. Curran was “a priest in good standing,” even after he was declared in 1986 unfit to teach Catholic theology by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith."

Many high-profile Catholic politicians throughout the world say that they are opposed personally to abortion, but vote to fund abortions. They favor homosexual unions. However, they remain in good standing with their parishes and bishops. Said politicians are permitted to receive Holy Communion.

I am not authorized by the Church to declare that a priest or layman is not a member of the Church.

Therefore, what is your point when you say to me that "according to you, voting for abortion is orthodox?"

Pax.

Mark Thomas

DJR said...

Mark Thomas said... "Therefore, what is your point when you say to me that "according to you, voting for abortion is orthodox?"

I'm just reiterating what you believe.

You believe that a person who votes in favor of murdering millions of babies, for 10 years no less, can be an orthodox Catholic priest.

If that is true, then voting for abortion is consistent with Catholic orthodoxy. That's what you believe.

DJR said...

Mark Thomas said... "I am not authorized by the Church to declare that a priest or layman is not a member of the Church."

But the converse is also true. You are not authorized to declare whether someone is orthodox.

Yet that's exactly what you have done.

Mark Thomas said...

Anonymous 2 said..."Mark Thomas:

You should not expect the many Francis bashers on this blog to be fair and balanced in their characterizations of what you say any more than they are fair and balanced when they make statements such as “the Maltese bishops, who are in communion with the pope[,] . . . have now published, in the pope's own newspaper, a document denying the teaching of the Church.” This is the writer’s own_opinion_of what the Maltese bishops have done. It_may_be a correct opinion, or it may not. One can only reach a judgment about whether the Maltese Bishops’ document denies or contradicts the teaching of the Church—and if it does, the extent to which it does—after carefully examining what the Maltese Bishops actually said. Here is a reasonably fair and balanced report regarding what they actually said:"

Hello. Yes...I much prefer to read the words of the bishops or Malta, rather than throw in with rush-to-judgment claims that the bishops of Malta are heretics. From there, I will see as to how things proceed in Rome in regard to the teachings offered by Malta's bishops.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

DJR said..."I'm just reiterating what you believe. You believe that a person who votes in favor of murdering millions of babies, for 10 years no less, can be an orthodox Catholic priest. If that is true, then voting for abortion is consistent with Catholic orthodoxy. That's what you believe."

Define me as you will for the consumption of other folks. Not a problem.

Anyway, here is what I believe.

For 10 years, Father Drinan declared that he was opposed to abortion as he voted pro-abortion.

During that time, as incredible as his stance in question appeared to me, the Catholic Church recognized him as an orthodox priest. He was never condemned by Rome and/or his bishop. He was recognized as a priest in good standing with the Church.

Therefore, I didn't (don't) have the right to have accused him of schism/heresy. I was (am) compelled to recognize that Father Drinan was in communion with the Church.

Please alert me if the Church had excommunicated Father Drinan. Please alert me should the Church announce that Cardinal Kasper, and Fathers Curran and Kung are separated from the Church.

By the way, millions of Catholics voted for pro-abortion Donald Trump and pro-abortion Hillary Clinton. (I did not vote for either candidate as each supported, among other things, abortion.)

Please alert me as to whether any bishop excommunicated any Catholic for having declared publicly their support for (or worked publicly to have elected) Mr. Trump or Mrs. Clinton.

Thank you.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

Mark Thomas said... "I am not authorized by the Church to declare that a priest or layman is not a member of the Church."

DJR said..."But the converse is also true. You are not authorized to declare whether someone is orthodox. Yet that's exactly what you have done."

I am compelled by Holy Mother Church to presume that a person is orthodox until or unless the competent Church authority says otherwise. I am required by the Church to honor a person's name and reputation.

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2478: To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:"

2479: "Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one's neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity."

Pax.

Mark Thomas

DJR said...

Then what I stated prior is correct. You believe voting in favor of abortion is consistent with Catholic orthodoxy.

Not only that, you believe truth and error are the same thing.

Pope St. John Paul affirmed papal infallibility, and you believe his position was orthodox.

Yet Hans Kung denies papal infallibility, and you believe his position is also orthodox.

JPII = YES to papal infallibility = orthodox (i.e., true belief).
Kung = NO to papal infallibility = orthodox (i.e., true belief).

According to you, both positions are orthodox, even though they are diametrically opposed.

You realize, do you not, that that is not epistemologically possible?

TJM said...

Mark Thomas,

Your idol, Pope Francis, is a master of detraction and calumny who constantly offends against the virtues of justice and charity. He is not worthy to kiss the feet of the Cardinals who offered the Dubia.

Bellum,

TJM

DJR said...

Mark Thomas said... "DJR, does the Catholic Church permit unorthodox priests to remain in communion with Her, to offer Holy Mass, and administer the Sacraments?

Has the Catholic Church allowed practicing sodomitical priests to remain in communion with Her, to offer Holy Mass, and administer the Sacraments?

When Archbishop Weakland of Milwaukee had a boyfriend, was he in communion with the Church, offering Holy Mass, and administering the sacraments?

Let's see. He was the ordinary of Milwaukee how long? From 1977 to 2002?

Oh, but he was orthodox. Of course.

From Wikipedia:

"According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, a deposition released in 2009 revealed that Weakland shredded reports about sexual abuse by priests.

Weakland admitted allowing priests guilty of child sex abuse to continue as priests without warning parishioners or alerting the police.

Weakland stated in his autobiography that in the early years of the sexual abuse scandal he did not understand that child sexual abuse was a crime.

Anonymous said...

I am sure that Cardinal Cafarra must read this blog. When he said “only a blind man could deny there’s great confusion, uncertainty and insecurity in the Church” he was surely pointing to the blind man on this blog, none other than our own Mark Thomas.

Jan

DJR said...

Mark prefers his own opinions to what the Church teaches, even when those opinions cause him to deny logic.

In his world, two people can hold opposing viewpoints on an issue and yet both be considered orthodox.

He obviously does not understand the definition of the word "orthodox."

The reason he does not understand it, is because he equates the word "orthodox" with "being in (apparent) communion with the pope."

He does not understand that those two things are not necessarily equivalents.

Adam Michael said...

I must admit that I am surprised to see Mark Thomas addressed so directly by a high ranking churchman - a Cardinal, no less!

Adam Michael said...

“I am 100 percent in agreement with Church teaching on abortion, artificial birth control, and marriage. I pray daily for the end to abortion. I pray daily for aborted souls.”

What would you do if you became misled, denied these teachings, and then sought to return to the truths of the Faith on these points? In the cases of Catholics that I personally know, they once denied and opposed teachings of the Catholic Faith. They easily admit that they compromised their Catholic Faith and espoused error. However, Rome never condemned them and they remained (outwardly) in juridical good standing with the Church. However, their well-formed conscience and knowledge of the truths of the Church told them otherwise and, with the help of God’s grace, they repented of their heresy and returned to life as living members of the Church. When I read your words regarding the faithful’s inability to recognize error in the words and actions of others who retain good relations with Rome, I immediately contrast this with the lives of my friends. I know that the faithful can recognize heresy and error and may repent of it, because guided by the Church’s teachings regarding the obligation of the faithful to examine their consciences and repent of their sins against the Faith, these exemplary Catholics did so. And if they did so, ordinary members of the Church must be able to know the difference between orthodoxy and heresy, or else they would have been unable to make this act of repentance. And if those who have fallen into personal heresy know this difference, they (and, by extention, all laity who may also sin against Faith) can certainly use this knowledge of the truths of the Faith to defend the Church, when others also uncondemned by Rome (like them) stray into the same heresies.

Adam Michael said...

"In his world, two people can hold opposing viewpoints on an issue and yet both be considered orthodox."

Exactly, in Mark Thomas' world, there would have been no confessors of the Faith during the beginning of the Monothelite crisis when Pope Honorius I did not condemn the heresy of the heretical Patriarch of Constantinople, Sergius I. Until Rome's condemnation of the heretic, Sergius I, all would have been bound to confess the orthodoxy of the heretical Patriarch, thus extinguishing the light of Faith in the Patriarchate of Constantinople. This is hardly attested in the historical record. By projecting his confusion and weakness onto Church history, Mark Thomas' misconceptions are more easily revealed.

Adam Michael said...

"I am compelled by Holy Mother Church to presume that a person is orthodox until or unless the competent Church authority says otherwise. I am required by the Church to honor a person's name and reputation."

You are wrong. Such a misconception has never been reflected in the history of the Church. Tell the martyrs of the iconoclast heresy that they had to presume the orthodoxy of Emperor Leo III, when he forbade icons in 726 and there was a riot in the city. Or consider the stellar witness of Christian orthodoxy, St. Stephen the Younger (among many martyrs), who was martyred after a life of confessing the orthodoxy of the veneration of the holy and sacred icons. He lived before the definite condemnation of iconoclasm at the 2nd Council of Nicaea in 787, and yet he confessed the truth and opposed heretics. This is far from your weakness in stating that the faithful of Malta can not condemn the public errors of their bishops or your defense of a long list of theological deplorables. If you confess the Faith of your ancestors, act as they acted.

Adam Michael said...

"I am compelled by Holy Mother Church to presume that a person is orthodox until or unless the competent Church authority says otherwise. I am required by the Church to honor a person's name and reputation."

And, more personally, the very Church you claim to defend admonishes you to examine your conscience for sins against the Faith and not to presume your own orthodoxy if you are in error. Explain to us how the laity can be expected to "turn on" this ability to recognize and oppose error in themselves, but "turn off" this ability when it comes to the same errors in others around them.

Mark Thomas said...

Adam Michael said..."Tell the martyrs of the iconoclast heresy that they had to presume the orthodoxy of Emperor Leo III, when he forbade icons in 726 and there was a riot in the city."

Who summoned synods to examine Emperor Leo III's orthodox status? Who excommunicated the iconoclasts? Who deemed them heretical?

Did Popes Gregory II and Gregory III have said authority or was that left to laymen?

Thank you.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Adam Michael said...

Mark Thomas,

I was referring to the unofficial lay and clerical recognition and resistance to the original material heresy of the iconoclasts, of which the Church's Lives of the Saints are replete. The formal condemnation of iconoclasm was, of course, limited to the official leaders of the Church, culminating in the Second Council of Nicaea in A.D. 787. Please review the difference between material and formal heresy since you seem unaware of this basic difference.