Could this be where the Synod on the Family is headed?

A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics ^ | December 9, 2003 | tantamergo

[ebb tide]

A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics

Could this be where the Synod on the Family is headed? December 9, 2013

Posted by tantamergo

in abdication of duty, Basics, disaster, episcopate, error, family, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Sacraments, sadness, scandals, self-serving. trackback

Most readers will know that Pope Francis has scheduled a special episcopal Synod on the Family and married life next October. Surveys of the world’s bishops are apparently underway to gather views for problems affecting family life and marriage in particular. Some of these surveys have come to light. Some of the survey questions seem to point in a certain direction, that of somehow changing how the Church views issues like whether the divorced and remarried (w/o annulment) can receive the Blessed Sacrament. There has been a new Secretary General for this synod appointed.

Regarding that, this new Secretary General, Archbishop Lorenzo Baldisseri, made some comments recently on the subject of admitting the divorced and remarried (w/o annulment) to Communion. Dr. Ed Peters, who normally strives to sing the corporate line, took exception to Baldisseri’s comments recently, via Bishop Rene Gracida. What did Baldiserri say? Well, among other things, this:

A new approach needs to be taken with respect to the administration of the sacraments to remarried divorcees. The Church needs to apply Church doctrine taking the circumstances of each specific case into account. This approach does not mean making general conclusions and rules for everyone….

It’s a simple, short statement, but say so much. As Dr. Ed Peters notes, there is no middle ground between admitting someone to the Blessed Sacrament, or not. And let me say, I am sick of hearing that these people are “denied the SacramentS.” No, they are denied ONE Sacrament, the Most Blessed Sacrament. They can go to Confession. They can receive Baptism.

But irrespective, what this “new approach” would seem to point to is just admitting these divorced and bigamist Catholics to receive. This is a blatant violation of Christ’s own condemnation of people who divorce and remarry, because the Church does not recognize – and nor did Christ – divorce as a severance of marriage. These people are adulterers, according to Our Blessed Lord. Calling the Church’s belief regarding the sinfulness of divorce and remarriage (adultery) a “discipline,” as Peters does, is a profound disservice. If this is not a Doctrine, straight from our Lord’s lips and 2000 years old, nothing is. We may as well close us shop.

The way I see the progressives trying to nuance this is with some claptrap about not changing “the general conclusions and rules for everyone,” but admitting the divorced and remarried “on a case by case basis.” This is laughable, we all know what will happen, the “exception,” like Extraordinary Ministers of Communion or Latin in the Mass, will become the certain, unalterable rule in about 5 seconds. It will make a mockery of the Church’s moral law.

As Peters does note, there seems a strong whiff of antnomianism (which says the Church has no moral law, “faith alone” is all that matters) about all this. I think we see in this where the progressive, primarily European elements want to take this Synod. It is very disconcerting that the Secretary General seems to be on board with their ideas. I pray the more faithful bishops will be able to derail this monstrosity. If passed, it will mark only the beginning of the progressive/modernist attempts to completely deconstruct the Church’s moral law.

[markomalley]

I’m not panicked, but I am concerned that Pope Francis appears to be saying atheists, Jews and Muslims, etc can achieve salvation without priests, sacraments and the graces associated with them. Why even convert to Catholicism, if there’s no need to do so?

Perhaps good old Pio Nono said it the best when he originally said it in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore (On Promotion of False Doctrines) (August 10, 1863):

7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.

I don't tend to think that Pio Nono was a post-Vatican II modernist. But yet I don't see much daylight (if there is any daylight at all) between what he said above and what that "post-Vatican II modernist" Francis stated.

Perhaps you could help me out here a bit with showing me the difference between Pio Nono's position and Francis' position on this matter.

[BlatherNaut]

Francis’ comments regarding Communion for Catholics divorced and remarried outside the Church are ambiguous. Impossible to know what he really means, but his allusion to Orthodox practices in regard to this subject seems to imply that he may be in favor of change. It’s only natural to wonder what he means, and whether he intends to ignore what the Church has long taught is objectively adultery in favor of “pastoral care”. Only time will tell.

[ebb tide]

Speculating? Have you not read the survey put out by the Vatican?

[RitaOK]

Thank you for the smaller bite to digest, not to overwhelm.

It appears the first excerpt speaks to Catholics alone, and the second to non-believers. If that is the case, one could say that the carrot-and- the-stick approach has been employed, in order to treat the respective conditions of the hearers.

I do recall St. Paul saying, “I am all things to all people”, and he followed that up by offering examples.

Much is expected of Catholics because much has been received. On the other hand, Paul himself entered scriptural history as the sort to be full of passion against the fledgling Church. God alone, in Paul’s case, saw fit to bring him down to earth.

God shall bring into the great Ark whom He will.

What matters to me is this. I want to try to be among the blessed Remnant, brought to Heaven, and found living a quiet life fitting of my station and vocation, as Scripture and the saints recommend and encourage.

If the Church in great numbers falls to apostasy tomorrow, including among all, any pope, bishop or priest, that blessed remnant is but known only to God.

[ebb tide]

“invincibly ignorant” is the answer. What was Pio Nono’ definition of it? I doubt it’s the same as Pope Francis’, if he even has one. He sure doesn’t seem interested in converting Jews or Muslims or atheists. Is everybody invincibly ignorant expect for those rosary-counting, Pelagin, sourpusses?

[markomalley]

If that is the case, one could say that the carrot-and- the-stick approach has been employed, in order to treat the respective conditions of the hearers.

Consider, specifically, Romans 2:11ff:

[11] For there is no respect of persons with God. [12] For whosoever have sinned without the law, shall perish without the law; and whosoever have sinned in the law, shall be judged by the law. [13] For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. [14] For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves: [15] Who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them, and their thoughts between themselves accusing, or also defending one another,

[Running On Empty]

You beat me to it! :-)
I was just going to send a post re: the 2nd chapter of Romans.

Thanks. :-)

[FourtySeven]

To whom much is given, much is required.

?

Maybe?

[RitaOK]

Both are quite true. Paul is not divided. Paul in Romans applies to the letter. Saint Paul to the letter absolutely applies and supplies his example for evangelization, the harvesting— bringing in the lost toward their salvation and toward the exact understanding of Romans that you cite.

I think we talk past one another here. The point I am trying for is that evangelizing persons is a process, unending and daily actually.

For example, I can not expect that the atheist will have our stricter understanding of the Romans citation instantly, but he may be attracted by the patience, charity and hope he sees in the kind efforts of the evangelizer. Where that may lead, for the atheist, is known only by God.

[RitaOK]

Mark, I meant to ping you also.

[piusv]

And from the same encyclical, Pope Pius IX also states that no one can be saved outside of the Catholic Church. Does Francis EVER say this? Compare that statement to anything Francis has been saying regarding consciences, proselytism, atheists, the Old Covenant and the Jews. It’s a totally different message.