My cogent comments at the end in RED.
This is a very sober and I believe right on analysis:
This is a very sober and I believe right on analysis:
Father Thomas Weinandy: Threat of Church Division ‘Growing in Intensity’
Father Weinandy calls on the Catholic faithful to pray “in fear and trembling” that Jesus might “deliver us from this trial.”
The Catholic Church is heading toward an “internal papal schism” whereby Pope Francis effectively leads two opposing factions, Capuchin theologian Father Thomas Weinandy has warned.
These are divided, he said, into one loyal to the papacy yet critical of this pontificate, and the other supportive of him due to his tolerance of ambiguous teaching and pastoral practice.
“This is the real schism,” observed Father Weinandy, a former chief of staff for the U.S. bishops' doctrinal committee, in a commentary published today in The Catholic Thing.
It is a situation “ever growing in intensity,” he added.
A member of the Vatican’s International Theological Commission, Father Weinandy began by clarifying that he believes when the Pope refers to contemporary schismatics in the Church, he means his American critics.
But he pointed out that the “overwhelming majority” of those critics “would never initiate a schism” as they wish to remain faithful to the Pope, even if that means being critical of him.
The Capuchin also believes that the German Church would also not go into schism, despite their bishops’ wish to take their faithful down a “binding” synodal path contrary to the universal tradition of the Church.
They would not break away, he believes, because they would lose their Catholic identity, something they could not afford, and will, in any case Father Weinandy believes, be allowed to pursue ambiguous teaching and practice as it is “in accord with Francis’ own.”
Read the rest there.
My comments:
1. Is the Pope making us like the Anglican Communion which has always touted that it is the bridge between Catholicism and the Protestant sects with high and low churches? In this way the Anglican Communion gets a pope they can accept as he is the pope of confusion and a mess.
2. What's wrong with married priests who come from a limited pool like what Pope Pius XII allowed with some Lutherans which was extended to other Protestestnt sects by John Paul II and Benedict XVI?
3. If married clergy is the panacea for the Amazon, why aren't there plentiful numbers of married Permanent deacons in the Amazon that could be called to the priesthood?
4. The first day of the synod speaks of saving the earth from ecological disaster which is a noble thing for the Church to desire especially if we can do it. But Catholic dogma teaches that the earth is terminal. Why isn't there a nod to that and the final consummation and that we are always walking toward the Second Coming and the Final judgment and the resurrection of the bodies of the dead? Isn't this in fact where the Church's expertise lies, Catholic must accept and all must prepared? No Catholic has to accept ecology theories or believe we can stop the final consummation. We do need to take care of the physical and spiritual though! But we aren't our Saviors in either realm, only Jesus is!
These are divided, he said, into one loyal to the papacy yet critical of this pontificate, and the other supportive of him due to his tolerance of ambiguous teaching and pastoral practice.
“This is the real schism,” observed Father Weinandy, a former chief of staff for the U.S. bishops' doctrinal committee, in a commentary published today in The Catholic Thing.
It is a situation “ever growing in intensity,” he added.
A member of the Vatican’s International Theological Commission, Father Weinandy began by clarifying that he believes when the Pope refers to contemporary schismatics in the Church, he means his American critics.
But he pointed out that the “overwhelming majority” of those critics “would never initiate a schism” as they wish to remain faithful to the Pope, even if that means being critical of him.
The Capuchin also believes that the German Church would also not go into schism, despite their bishops’ wish to take their faithful down a “binding” synodal path contrary to the universal tradition of the Church.
They would not break away, he believes, because they would lose their Catholic identity, something they could not afford, and will, in any case Father Weinandy believes, be allowed to pursue ambiguous teaching and practice as it is “in accord with Francis’ own.”
Read the rest there.
My comments:
1. Is the Pope making us like the Anglican Communion which has always touted that it is the bridge between Catholicism and the Protestant sects with high and low churches? In this way the Anglican Communion gets a pope they can accept as he is the pope of confusion and a mess.
2. What's wrong with married priests who come from a limited pool like what Pope Pius XII allowed with some Lutherans which was extended to other Protestestnt sects by John Paul II and Benedict XVI?
3. If married clergy is the panacea for the Amazon, why aren't there plentiful numbers of married Permanent deacons in the Amazon that could be called to the priesthood?
4. The first day of the synod speaks of saving the earth from ecological disaster which is a noble thing for the Church to desire especially if we can do it. But Catholic dogma teaches that the earth is terminal. Why isn't there a nod to that and the final consummation and that we are always walking toward the Second Coming and the Final judgment and the resurrection of the bodies of the dead? Isn't this in fact where the Church's expertise lies, Catholic must accept and all must prepared? No Catholic has to accept ecology theories or believe we can stop the final consummation. We do need to take care of the physical and spiritual though! But we aren't our Saviors in either realm, only Jesus is!
41 comments:
The question for this “rank and file Catholic” is: Can the worst of times end up being the best of times for Holy Mother Church? It is up to each one of us to make good and right choices at this critical time. And the weight of all that is wrong in the world distracts and tempts us to despair of finding answers to our pressing questions.
“One thing I ask from the Lord,
this only do I seek:
that I may dwell in the house of the Lord
all the days of my life...” (Psalm 27: 4)
Mary, Mother of the Church and of priests and of us all, pray for us.
"The first day of the synod speaks of saving the earth from ecological disaster which is a noble thing for the Church to desire especially if we can do it. But Catholic dogma teaches that the earth is terminal."
You present us with a non-sequitur.
That this earth will pass away does not, in any way, imply that acting as good stewards of the material world is somehow unimportant or unnecessary.
Also, being good stewards is not an attempt to "stop the final consummation." It is a legitimate and, if we want a habitable planet for the generations to come, be that 2 or 2,002, a necessary undertaking.
The question for this Catholic is whether God will hold me accountable for assisting at masses said "una cum Francis," a public apostate.
Marc, your view is Protestant and the only reason for the existence of Protestantism is what is wrong with the papacy and Church and the protesters ate right and the true Church wrong. There is no living authority during this pontificate who can call Francis an apostate. The next pope may be able to do so and thus label him an antipope. The retired pope can come clean and say he was forced by progressives to retire. But reclaiming the papacy will create a truly two pope scenario that a future pope will have to clarify.
I am staying with the true Church and current pope and placing the current mess into Jesus and our blessed Mother’s hands!
Stating that Francis is an apostate is simply a commentary on his public actions. If I called together a group of pagans to bow down to idols in my backyard while I watched over the proceedings and "blessed" their idols, any rational person would conclude me to be apostate.
A public apostate cannot be pope because the pope must be Catholic. Therefore, stating that Francis is an apostate is not a judgment on the pope since an apostate cannot be pope in the first place. As we all know, the First See is judged by no one.
Kavanaugh,
Except all of your heroes on the left, are Climate Change frauds: Al Gore, Obama the Magnificent, Leonardo Di Caprio. When they lead by example, I will take their nonsense a bit more seriously. Global Warming or Climate Change is warmed over Paganism and you should know that. PF is a second rate intellect, just what you'd expect from someone who drank the 1960s Kool-Aid
Uhmm I am with Marc. I can see and read and think.... I can see NOW what Francis is doing and saying. The Church may take a bit longer to finally have the guts to say the same thing.
I have refrained from communion since deciding where I stand on Francis. Heck, I've refrained from everything.
Dan, the question really is which "Church" does the deciding about Francis. There is only one Body of Christ -- that is composed of all of those holding the True Faith and participating in True Worship. By that definition, the Church has already made its determination about Francis.
Again, this is not a matter of deposing Francis. It is a matter of looking at the evidence to determine what is or is not factual. A true pope cannot be a public apostate -- it is impossible since we have the guarantee of Christ Himself that the gates of hell will not prevail. When we see a public apostate masquerading as pope, we are not deposing such a person from the papacy: we are taking note of the impossibility of his being pope in the first place.
This is merely an application of Catholic doctrine and principles to the present situation.
"Stating that Francis is an apostate is simply a commentary on his public actions."
It is not "simple commentary."
Simple commentary would be "Pope Francis was present at a pagan ceremony."
To say, "Pope Francis was present at a pagan ceremony, therefore he is an apostate and not the pope" is far, far beyond simply commentating. It is judgment and condemnation.
To make such a judgment requires what Marc does not have, that is, the authority given to bishops to judge what is or is not Catholic teaching or, in this case, to judge what does or does not constitute apostasy.
Note: "A true pope"
There seems to be good reason for reasonable people to wonder about the conclave that elected Francis.
Father McDonald said..."What's wrong with married priests who come from a limited pool like what Pope Pius XII allowed with some Lutherans which was extended to other Protestestnt sects by John Paul II and Benedict XVI?"
It is amazing as to the amount of "novelties" that today's "traditionalists" consider horrific, and at odds with Holy Tradition, are linked to Pope Venerable Pius XII.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Bee here:
As our priest at Mass last Sunday stated, "Bishops and cardinals don't save us." And neither do Popes.
Who does, you might ask?
Then follow Him.
God bless.
Bee
Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said..."To make such a judgment requires what Marc does not have, that is, the authority given to bishops to judge what is or is not Catholic teaching or, in this case, to judge what does or does not constitute apostasy."
From Wikipedia:
"Eusebius, a layman who later became the bishop of the neighbouring Dorylaeum, was the first to accuse Nestorius of heresy..."
From Catholic Encyclopedia (non-bishops oppose pope's error): "In the last years of John's pontificate there arose a dogmatic conflict about the Beatific Vision, which was brought on by himself, and which his enemies made use of to discredit him. Before his elevation to the Holy See, he had written a work on this question, in which he stated that the souls of the blessed departed do not see God until after the Last Judgment. After becoming pope, he advanced the same teaching in his sermons. In this he met with strong opposition, many theologians, who adhered to the usual opinion that the blessed departed did see God before the Resurrection of the Body and the Last Judgment, even calling his view heretical."
"Of what use would be the rule of faith and morals, if in every particular case the faithful cannot of themselves make the immediate application; if they were constantly obliged to consult the Pope or the diocesan pastor? Just as the general rule of morality is the law, in accordance with which each one squares his own conscience [dictamen practicum–'practical judgment'] in making particular applications of this general rule, subject to correction if erroneous; so the general rule of faith, which is the infallible authority of the Church, is and ought to be in consonance with every particular judgment formed in making concrete applications, subject of course to correction and retraction in the event of mistake in so applying it. It would be rendering the superior rule of faith useless, absurd and impossible to require the supreme authority of the Church to make its special and immediate application in every case upon every occasion, which calls it forth. This would be a species of brutal and satanic Jansenism. . ."
Doctor Don Felix Sarda Y Salvany, Liberalism is a Sin p. 76 (Aeterna Press).
DJR - I you think Marc 1) has the necessary authority and 2) is correct in his judgment, join his church. Not the one he attends mind you. Join, rather, the Church of Marc, where he is the "authentic" authority on what does or does not constitute the doctrine and/or the theology of the Catholic Church.
As for myself, I will stick with the Catholic Catechism's #2034 "The Roman Pontiff and the bishops are "authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach the faith to the people entrusted to them, the faith to be believed and put into practice." The ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him teach the faithful the truth to believe, the charity to practice, the beatitude to hope for."
The question does arise with many including Cardinals about this pope’s teachings. We don’t accept everything blindly and can challenge that which appears not to be supported by the deposit of Faith.
That’s just it, though, a Catholic does accept the teaching of the pope blindly. Here’s what Pius XI says, “For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to ... obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty. Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord.“
Catholics may not sift papal teaching, agreeing with parts and discarding others. The teachings of the Church are always infallibly safe to believe.
Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said... "DJR - I you think Marc 1) has the necessary authority and 2) is correct in his judgment, join his church. Not the one he attends mind you. Join, rather, the Church of Marc, where he is the "authentic" authority on what does or does not constitute the doctrine and/or the theology of the Catholic Church."
The statement above is a non sequitur.
If Marc is correct in his judgment, then why wouldn't a Catholic agree with him?
Catholics who agreed with the layman Eusebius at the time he stood up and called Nestorius a heretic were part of the Catholic Church.
And they, along with Eusebius, just so happened to be correct.
Likewise the laity who, at the time of the Arian heresy, maintained the faith when the majority of the bishops fell into heresy.
As far as the bishops being the authentic teachers, all well and good.
Can you tell Marc which bishops he should consult in deciding whether Amoris Laetitia allows divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Holy Communion?
Should he consult the German bishops? Or should he consult the Polish bishops?
Marc, in the words of a certain pope "I am tradition"....(I believe Pius IX). That should summarize pretty much everything.
There is nothing In your statements, I can disagree with. A year, he had the benefit of thee doubt, now it's a pattern, and it's much better to call things as they are, rather than to sugar coat them and try to cover things up. Francis from his external actions could be judged to be an apostate. (What's on his heart is not for us to judge)....I pray for his (Francis) early retirement every day.
Kavanaugh is supporting PF because he is a fellow lefty. Kavanaugh either routinely criticized Pope Benedict or kept his mouth shut. I seriously doubt there were any ringing endorsements of Pope Benedict from him. But I could be mistaken as Kavanaugh will quickly point out.
Can we be clear as to what an antipope actually is? It refers to a man elected by a faction and who claims the See of Rome in opposition to the canonically elected pope.
Francis's successor may brand him as a heretic, even an apostate. But he cannot declare him to be an antipope.
DRJ - You say, "If Marc is correct in his judgment..."
The essential word is first - "If."
Marc, a well-read individual, though not as well-read as many, has come to a conclusion, a judgment, regarding Pope Francis. "If" his judgment is correct, then we should all be joining him as devotees of Marc-ism, the religion in which Marc's judgments are to be adhered to with filial devotion and faith.
For me, however, Marc is lacking an essential element - he is not a bishop. Therefore, his conclusions and judgments do not warrant filial devotion and faith.
On the other hand, the teachings of the Church that we have received through the Christ-established magisterium, these do require filial devotion and faith.
Marc may have an opinion about the Real Presence that is at odds with the Church teaching. He may have an opinion about the nature of the Creation Accounts. He may have an opinion about the salvation of the un-Baptized.
But without the charism that makes him a teacher of the faith, opinions are all that he has.
"If" Marc is right.... I'm not going to adhere to an "if." I will, as I have stated, remain with the Magisterium.
Father I think you asked a very good question. I do not attend a novus ordo parish and only have contact with traditional Catholics. I would like to know if the average novus ordo Catholic knows or will care what they come up with at the Vatican this week. If you find out please post the answer. From what I hear most parishes are empty save white haired retired people.
I have a very young parish. A few older people have voiced concern about this pope in general and some wonder about the synod. From younger married parishioners, not a peep.
Anonymous Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said..."On the other hand, the teachings of the Church that we have received through the Christ-established magisterium, these do require filial devotion and faith.
"I will, as I have stated, remain with the Magisterium."
And what does the Magisterium teach regarding whether Amoris Laetitia permits divorced and remarried Catholics, sans annulment, to receive Holy Communion?
I reiterate my question: Who should Marc consult in that regard? The German bishops or the Polish bishops?
Fr. Kavanaugh, based on your logic, if a bishop has an opinion about the Real Presence that is at odds with Church teaching, then his conclusions and judgments would warrant filial devotion and faith. In your logic, in order to remain with the Magisterium, the faithful would be required to submit to that teaching since the bishop has the charism that makes him a teacher of the faith.
"Fr. Kavanaugh, based on your logic, if a bishop has an opinion about the Real Presence that is at odds with Church teaching, then his conclusions and judgments would warrant filial devotion and faith."
Incorrect.
A bishop must be in communion with the Successor of Peter and the other bishops. Were a bishop to place himself outside the communion of faith, his teaching would not require assent.
"In your logic, in order to remain with the Magisterium, the faithful would be required to submit to that teaching since the bishop has the charism that makes him a teacher of the faith."
Incorrect.
Individual bishops do not exercise the charism of teaching alone.
You tend to overstate the magisterial significance of some things and underplay others. Admittedly, it is not easy to keep the cards shuffled in the right order - we are a 2000 year old teaching body and there is no single source to which one can turn for every single jot and tittle that constitutes the Teaching of the Church.
And you tend to overstate vastly your understanding of the nuances within the Church's documents and the subtleties needed to understand them.
“Were a bishop to place himself outside the communion of faith, his teaching would not require assent.”
Watch out — you’re getting dangerously close to understanding my point.
RCG - Regarding AL I will quote Austen Invereigh: "And, just to be clear, it (AL) never remotely - not ever, not by a long shot - admits the possibility of recognizing second unions that have not been preceded by a death or annulment. Adultery remains adultery. There is no remarriage. In the Catholic Church. Ever."
His short but very clear article can be found here: https://cruxnow.com/commentary/2017/04/13/amoris-laetitia-doesnt-undermine-church-teaching-sin/
Invereigh's article makes reference to Familiaris Consortio's treatment of the re-admission to communion of the divorced and remarried. An article on that is here: https://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/media/articles/familiaris-consortio-on-communion-for-the-divorced-and-remarried/
Marc - My point is what it has always been - that you, a layman, don't have the authority to teach in the name of the Church and that your opinions about the Magisterial teaching of the Church are merely that, opinions.
And I'll say what I'll always say, that I will stick with those who have been given the authority and responsibility to teach the Church's doctrine with authority.
Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said..."For me, however, Marc is lacking an essential element - he is not a bishop. Therefore, his conclusions and judgments do not warrant filial devotion and faith."
Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said..."RCG - Regarding AL I will quote Austen Invereigh..."
First we are told that laymen's opinions are merely opinions.
Then when asked which bishops to follow regarding Amoris Laetitia, the Germans or the Polish, the person who states that laymen's opinions are just opinions proceeds to quote... from a layman.
How bizarre.
Austen Ivereigh is a layman just like me, yet in your response to RCG, you quote his opinion in an attempt to prove something about Magisterial teaching.
I think this post ties in well to the recent post with the quote from Cardinal Sarah/...Blind obedience bad....And the answer Is of course to follow the polish bishops as they uphold the teaching
Austen Invereigh is a journalist and what I cited was his reporting. He has not presumed to take on the role of a member of the Magisterium. He has not attempted to tell us what is and what is not authentic Catholic doctrine.
Invereigh quotes Magisterial documents in the matter of the reception of communion by those in irregular marriages. Those documents, not Invereigh's reporting, is the essential material.
The piece from the Crossroads Initiative is also written by a layman, Marcellino D’Ambrosio. However, it quotes Familiaris Consortio. Those quotes, not D'Ambrosio's, are the essential materials.
The comments by DJR and others about Amoris Laetitia are made, I suspect, with no knowledge of the teaching in Familiaris Consortio regarding the same matter - the possible re-admission of those in irregular marriages to communion. I posted Invereigh's and D'Ambrosio's pieces to offer some of the necessary background for a better understanding of AL.
DJR and Marc and others believe they don't NEED the related passages from Familiaris Consortio in order to understand that Amoris Laetitia is not a departure from previous moral teaching. And there is the essential error: Taking a passage from one document and dissecting it without regard to the background, to the previous moral tradition. Any document from any pope could be picked apart for "errors" if one followed that process.
But those who have a desire to know and understand the Church's authentic teaching don't approach the task that way.
It is the Magisterial documents, not the journalism of a lay author, that matter.
So if I read those two documents, then I’ll know what the Church teaches on this question.
If that’s true, why can I not — according to you — read other documents and know what the Church teaches on other topics?
Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said... "DJR and Marc and others believe they don't NEED the related passages from Familiaris Consortio in order to understand that Amoris Laetitia is not a departure from previous moral teaching."
So, who understands Amoris Laetitia correctly? The German bishops? Or the Polish bishops?
And because you're not a bishop, which bishop did you consult to see whether you understand it correctly?
Which bishop should be consulted by, say, a Polish person?
"So if I read those two documents, then I’ll know what the Church teaches on this question."
No, you will know something about what the Church teaches on this question. You will not, however, be an expert on this question, nor will you be in a position to declare those who disagree with your understanding of the Church's teaching on this question to be heretics or apostates.
DJR, there is a world of difference between, on the one hand, thinking I have a good understanding of the Church's teaching and, on the other hand, thinking I am in a position to declare people to be heretics or apostates because their understanding doesn't agree with mine.
Anyone can say "I think so-and-so might be mistaken." Then, it is up to that individual, if he or she is serious, to make an argument supporting his or her assertion.
So having read those documents, if I encounter someone who says that the divorced and remarried can receive communion, so I know enough to say they’re wrong? If that person is a seminary-trained cleric, do I know enough to say he’s a heretic?
Why or why not as to both questions, please.
"So having read those documents, if I encounter someone who says that the divorced and remarried can receive communion, so I know enough to say they’re wrong?"
Do you know enough to say they're wrong? Do you know the circumstances of the divorced and remarried in each and every case?
If the person who says the divorced and remarried can, in all cases, receive communion, that person is mistaken. That person is not a heretic.
If a person says there are NO circumstances in which such a couple can receive communion, that person is mistaken. That person is not a heretic.
So you agree, then, that it is possible for a layperson to read a document, know what the Church teaches, and apply it.
It really shouldn’t have taken such gyrations to get you to the point of admitting such an obvious point.
No, Marc, I don't agree with you.
A person can read a church document and come to a conclusion regarding what it means and how it can or should be applied.
Similarly, a person can read a law and come to a conclusion regarding what it means and how it can or should be applied.
In the case of the law, the person, a lawyer, say, might be right. Or, he might be wrong. When there is a question or meaning and/or application, that lawyer, if he is wise and humble, will seek the counsel of those who are more experienced in understanding and applying the law to see if his position is correct.
If, in the case of the law, no clear decision can be reached, the lawyer takes the question to those who are empowered to make the authoritative decision. Nine justices will, if it comes to that, will determine the question.
When a person reads a church document he or she can come to a conclusion. He might be right, or he might be wrong. That person seeks, then, the counsel of those who are empowered to make an authoritative decision. In the Catholic church, those would be the bishops of the Church in union with the Holy Father.
A person may reject the authoritative decision of the Supreme Court, but in doing so he imperils his lawyerly soul. Obstinate refusal to follow the law can end his with his being disbarred or imprisoned.
A person may reject the authoritative decision of the Magisterium. There are consequences for that choice as well.
Consider also that particular circumstances, both in matters of law and in matters of Church teaching, that will determine how a law or a doctrine applies in that particular case. A wise Catholic or a wise lawyer will not presume to know, or to be able to know, every aspect of a person's soul or a person's mind.
Post a Comment