Today I’d like to launch a new feature called Conversations with Francis. Whether it’s a one-time thing or not remains to be seen.
For better or worse (and we all know which one), we have a pope who frequently expresses himself with the kind of theological precision that one might expect from a guy in a bar mixing it up religious with his buddies over a couple of cold ones.
Thanks to the efficiency of global communications, the pope’s words are almost immediately broadcast to the waiting ears of impressionable people worldwide, and this on a near-daily basis.
As you well know, it’s not uncommon for these informal one-way “discussions,” which often pertain to important matters of faith and morals, to contain ideas that are ambiguous, misleading and sometimes even flat out erroneous.
With this in mind, it occurs to me that injecting a reasonably well-formed Catholic voice into these papal soliloquies just might provide a degree of clarity for those who are listening in, sincerely seeking the truth.
At this, I’ll take my place on the other side of the table to chat with Pope Francis about today’s Santa Marta homily, and we’ll see how it goes.
__________________________________________________________________________
Francis: It’s true, Jesus has saved us all, but not in a general fashion. All of us, each one with their name and surname. And this is our personal salvation.
Louie: Jesus has saved us all? Papa, please! Being “saved” refers to the work of salvation; a work still unfolding in the lives of individual people here in this vale of tears. That’s why St. Paul could encourage the Philippians, and us, “work out your salvation in fear and trembling.”
Francis: I am truly saved, the Lord looked at me, gave his life for me, opened this door, this new life for me and each of us can say ‘For me.’
Louie: As Ronald Reagan would say, there you go again! Seriously though, and with all due respect, you’re confusing salvation with redemption – which, by the way, is a work as yet still being carried out in the life of the Church, in a most profound way in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, but we’ll save that for another conversation.
Look, Holiness, by His Cross and Resurrection, the Lord redeemed us; that’s what it means to say, “He opened this door.” And yet, one may either walk through that door, or not. Those that do are saved; those that do not are lost.
Francis: But there’s a danger of forgetting that He saved us individually but at the same time as part of his people or community. His people. The Lord always saves his people. From the moment he calls Abraham and promises to make them his people. And the Lord saves us as part of this community. That’s why the writer of this Letter (to the Hebrews) tells us: ‘Let us be concerned for each other.’
Louie: OK then, I’m concerned for you. No more Châteauneuf-du-Pape! No, seriously, want another one? I got this.
Anyway, in his Epistle to the Hebrews read at Mass today, St. Paul is telling his fellow Jews that they are not saved! So much for “always saving His people,” eh! He tells them that in order to be saved, they must leave behind the Old Law and embrace the New Covenant established by Christ, since this is the only means of salvation.
Francis: There is no salvation solely for me. If that’s the way I understand salvation, I’m mistaken and going along the wrong path. The privatization of salvation is the wrong path.
Louie: It’s true that there is no salvation outside the Holy Catholic Church, this Mystical Body of Christ of which we are called to be members. So, if by “privatizing” you’re referring to the protestant who behaves as a free agent, detached from the Church and her visible head, that’s you big guy, confident that he is saved, then you’re entirely correct.
Francis: And when I’m in a parish, in a community — or whatever it is – I am there, I can privatize salvation and be there only on a small social level. But in order not to privatize salvation, I need to ask myself if I speak and communicate the faith, speak and communicate hope, speak, practice and communicate charity.
Louie: Hahahahha! Sorry. For a minute there I thought you said “communicate clarity.”
Alright, I think I get it now. Faith, hope charity… You’re speaking specifically of the baptized, since it is in baptism that we receive these theological virtues, right? You’re saying that we must be concerned for the other baptized individual’s salvation as well as our own, right? Well then, yes, I agree! We must communicate the faith, striving like St. Paul did to convince others to accept the promise of salvation made available only through Christ in His Holy Catholic Church. One might even say that we are called to proselytize. Is that what you’re saying? Please tell me it is!
Francis: If within a particular community there is no communication between people and no encouragement is given to everybody to practice these three virtues, the members of that community have privatized their faith. Each of them is looking for his or her personal salvation, not the salvation of everybody, the salvation of their people.
Louie: Are you saying that “communicating the faith” means doing so only “within our own particular community” or “whatever it is”? You’re losing me again.
Francis: And Jesus saved all of us but as part of his people, within a Church.
Louie: Well, again, it’s more accurate to say that Jesus offers salvation to all through the Church, but I have to say, Holy Father, now I’m encouraged! I can’t wait to hear you call the heathens, heretics, and Jews to enter the Church so they might be saved!
You do mean to speak of the Catholic Church, right? In any case, can you give us an example of how people who “privatize” salvation behave? I’m not sure I ever met one.
Francis: They scorn the others, they stay away from the community as a whole, they stay away from the people of God, they have privatized salvation: salvation is for me and my small group, but not for all the people of God. And this is a very serious mistake. It’s what we see and call: ‘the ecclesial elites.’
Louie: Oh, I see now! You’re referring to people like me; those “self-absorbed Promethean, neo-Pelagians,” otherwise known as those who hold firm to the doctrines of the faith, think and feel and live according to the mind of the Church as expressed throughout the centuries, and who long to worship as did their ancestors for many generations, etc. Gotcha.
Francis: When these small groups are created within the community of God’s people, these people believe they are being good Christians and also are acting in good faith maybe, but they are small groups who have privatized salvation.
Louie: Really, Holy Father? All of this simply to tell me and other tradition-minded Catholics to let go of the rich doctrinal and liturgical heritage that nurtured so many previous generations? Seriously? In exchange for precisely what; the warm and fuzzy feeling that comes from replacing evangelization with endless dialogue, and acting as if the mission of the Church extends no further than meeting the temporal needs of the poor?
No thanks; I have a better idea. How about you leave all of that earthbound nonsense behind and join us!
Alright, bottoms up. I have an early day tomorrow.
Well done
That is a brilliant, funny and yet crystal clear guide to understanding redemption, and the hope of salvation.
More,please sir!
This “Personal Jesus” thing sounds really Protestant.
So now it’s becoming very clear. When Poor Francis talks about ‘church’ and ‘people of god’ he means ‘all’ – Christians, and non-Christians, everyone. When he tells us we must not be concerned with our own salvation, or that of ‘our group’ he is telling us that we must include ‘all’ in the salvation that Jesus has won for us. All we have to be is accept Jesus (or not???) and we too can hitch a ride to the great salvation in the sky.
–
Well, sorry but that’s simply wrong on every level.
–
First of all the most important, nay, the only important thing for each person on the planet is his/her personal salvation. We Catholics are privileged to have our Holy Catholic Church to help us individually do this. (This individually is sort of like when you’re flying and the ‘stew’ warns you to put the air-bag over your own face before you help others – become a saint, then spread it around – not the the other way around.)
–
Then we work and pray for others to come along with us, those within our Holy Catholic Church.
–
Then we branch out and invite all people to gather with us, in our Holy Catholic Church so they can take advantage of the Truth, and assistance being offered there.
–
What Poor Francis is saying is certainly not Catholic, and in fact it really doesn’t make a lot of sense.
–
He tells his audience (the world?) that until he came along the Catholic Church was in a terrible state – we huddled in our dimly lit churches, hunched over our missals, smothered with stiff collars and jackets, or draped with dusty black veils, intoning weird incantations in a dead language, high on incense, while poor suffering humanity pounded on the doors to be let in on the secret.
–
I waver almost daily between knowing this man is a Modernist heretic, or that he is well-meaning but going about things in the wrong way. When Louie lays out what Poor Francis is saying, sentence by sentence it’s all there – Modernist heretic.
I think this is a useful expository format, in the tradition of the Scholastic Summa. I have tried something like it myself in imagining a conversation between Jorge Bergoglio and two popes of the Catholic Church.
Dear Louie, Barbara (and all)
This interview format greatly helps illustrate the problems, mostly because someone with Louie’s awareness was doing the “countering” so the rest of us could benefit.
__
And Barbara, your analysis seems right on target to us, as well. (Another gift)
__
Something else we’ve picked up on gradually, as we’ve continued investigating those ambiguities, is how exactly they mirror the teachings of the philosopher giants who have affected the Church so greatly over the past 50-100 years or more. Since most of us are relatively “uneducated” compared to many of those who push modernism, they take the language and run with it, using re-defined and unfamiliar terms that make them sound wise and us perpetually “uncertain”
UNTIL we analyze the RESULTS.
__
Lately we’ve focused on Teillard de Chardin and Rahner ( due to trying to keep up with the trail S.Armaticus is attempting to blaze over at Deus Ex Machina)
What that led to, was the discovery that especially after Pius X blasted modernism, modernists have been working feverishly to win over even more “converts” in order to literally take over the power structures of the Catholic Church, allowing them to change her from within.
__
Just yesterday, we read a report from the very liberal NCR (the register that Louie rightly denounced as liberal and Fr. Z calls “fish wrap”, which , although we don’t dare trust it’s “conclusions” about anything, lays out the CONNECTIONS between many of the big-names we are speaking of here, and the Popes they “groomed” to passionately pass on their ideas.
__
What keeps amazing us, is the number of times their works were first “condemned” and then the condemnations were ignored, and they or their long lists of adherents were brought in to help, assist, advise, the Church.
Here’s that link WITH CAUTION that it’s just one trail of names and connections:
http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/word112803.htm
___
S.Armaticus responded on the Rahner portion of this, with the opinion that:
..”.the Rahner issue is something that will eventually need to be addressed by the Catholic Church itself. What is becoming apparent is that Rahner is the dead body in the basement. The entire “spirit of VII” crowd have this major skeleton in the closet. The manner in which they keep this skeleton out of sight is by this very emotional and irrational (to the outside observer) “dogma” of not questioning VII. It is the third rail topic for them. To clean up this corrupt and frankly patholigical situation in the Curia and papacy, this whole issue will need to be reexamined. And I think the Catholic cardinals are being to see this now.”
=====
Whether they are duped by Satan and really, sincerely believe they are right or not, we must leave to God, and are wise to do so (speaking for ourselves) not having the ability to determine otherwise. They seem to bicker and argue amongst themselves at times, which is what leads to differences in style and some substance among their adherents, which in turn is why we see varying degrees of difference between post-conciliar Popes, and haven’t quite been able to put our finger on whether one is Totally modernist or Partially Traditional etc. Our conclusion thus far, is don’t trust any of them until you read and understand a lot from the condemned philosophers they praise.
___
This is a monumental task. Rahner alone wrote over 4,000 works before he died, including a 10-volume and a 6-volume Encyclopedia of Theology, and in addition to all that, he edited books that others wrote. Among his condemned ideas were those on the Eucharist, Mary, and the Resurrection–which he said was not “physical”. He promoted re-incarnation and evolution as well.
The same year he was told not to publish without permission, by the Vatican,
(1962), John XXIII made him a Periti at the Council, and THEY chose him as one of the 7 who wrote Lumen Gentium, incorporating HIS ideas about ecumenism and the ways God reveals himself to every soul -no matter what religion, including atheists–which permeated that and other documents.
___
The bottom line is, if we really want to understand what happened with VII, we need to study the concepts behind it all, or find people we can trust who understand the pernicious evil it represents.
___
Personally, we’ve already read enough to convince us that it is high-sounding words designed by Satan to confuse and mislead into heresy. Our worship of “educated-sounding” people, may be the root cause of it’s lasting so long.
But if we look at the Fruits, as Louie has been doing, we see the rotten results everywhere. Thank God, it IS clear to us “peasant-level” Catholics, that Communion requires a State of Grace or it’s sacrilege. That adultery is a mortal sin, objectively. So is sodomy. and we DONT WELCOME it in our midst!
Not now, or EVER.
___
Reading the 7 letters to the Churches -which St John in the Apocalypse says were dictated to him by Jesus Himself, we see praise for good works along with condemnation for TOLERANCE of sin in the midst of the Churches, which teaches others to sin.. God holds the Bishops (lamps) responsible and threatens to come and take them away unless they preach penance and stop allowing sin to go on. And he promises the greatest rewards to those who do penance and persevere in doing good, despite all these trials–including the one about Satan being in the midst of the Church.
___
CORRECTION THAT fishwrap IS THE REPORTER not the “register”.
CORRECTION -wrote “register” above MEANT REPORTER = FISHWRAP
as in the link.
IF, you have nailed it.
–
I cannot recommend highly enough a great book which is almost a Coles Notes on the error-filled philosophy of the past 200 years – culminating in de Chardin, and Rahner (and by extension John Paul II and Card. Ratzinger) – One Hundred Years of Modernism by Father Dominic Bourmaud. Available from Angelus Press, and has a kindle version.
–
This book is not an easy-read. But it is easy enough for most to understand with a little patience. I make notes as I go along so I can digest it and make the ideas my own.
–
Here is the sermon Poor Francis might make today, the Feast of St. Martina, Virgin (!?!) and Martyr – this is the Second Reading at Matins using the 1960 rubrics on Divinum Officium’s fabulous website:
Eph 5:5-8
“For know you this and understand, that no fornicator, or unclean, or covetous person (which is a serving of idols), hath inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
Let no man deceive you with vain words. For because of these things cometh the anger of God upon the children of unbelief.
Be ye not therefore partakers with them.
For you were heretofore darkness, but now light in the Lord. Walk then as children of the light.
Eph 5:9-14
For the fruit of the light is in all goodness, and justice, and truth;
Proving what is well pleasing to God:
And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.
For the things that are done by them in secret, it is a shame even to speak of.
But all things that are reproved, are made manifest by the light; for all that is made manifest is light.
Wherefore he saith: Rise thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead: and Christ shall enlighten thee.”
–
Poor Francis could then say: “My Children, St. Paul has words of mercy for us. He describes some of the sins we are so prone to fall into – then he gives us a way out – into the light. Do not despair, by Dear Children! God does not leave us orphans! He has given us a magnificent Church to guide us along this dangerous path called life.
–
“I am your Father. I don’t want to be harsh – I want to show you that God’s Holy words are those of a Father who wants His children to be good children – but only so they can have that full joy of pleasing Him.”
–
Wouldn’t that be refreshing?
Dear Barbara,
Thanks for the insights AND the lead on the book:
( “One Hundred Years of Modernism by Father Dominic Bourmaud. Available from Angelus Press”)
The Faithful today need all the help we can get.
For anyone interested: The link:
http://www.amazon.de/One-Hundred-Years-Modernism-English-ebook/dp/B007PJ6XEG/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1422625043&sr=1-1#reader_B007PJ6XEG
Dear IF:
.
This Francis tragedy is actually having some positive side effects. Others are starting to look into these issues. Here are two examples. Enjoy.
.
http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/growing-presence-at-march-for-life
+
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2015/01/finding-ones-way-deeper-into-the-faith/
.
S.Armaticus
Here is an example of ‘historical-critical’ destruction of the Scriptures. It also echoes modernism as a heresy. The words sound so nice, but are a complete misunderstanding of Truth as we have always known it. This is from a ‘speech’ at his inauguration as Bishop in Vermont, Chris Coyne, talking about the parable of The Sower:
–
“I have always considered one interpretation of this text to be an allegory for the works of charity and service. Each of us is the sower who sows good deeds. Some of our deeds are appreciated. Some are simply received by some as their “due.” Some don’t want or welcome our help at all. But then there are those persons who accept our good act as it is and then become people who also become sowers. But the point is that the sower does not seek anything in return. He or she just sows because it is the right thing to do, because it brings light instead of darkness, because it serves the common good.
–
” The phrase ” people who also become sowers” is the most insidious. This is a direct result of studying Rahner et al. WE are like gods, WE become Jesus (even though plainly He tells us He/God is the sower). We must ‘be’ Jesus to others – again yes, but this new Rahner-ism distorts the Truth. This is god within at its worst.
–
See how fast this ‘talk’ has spread from Rahner, through JPII, through Cardinal Ratzinger, and now to Poor Francis all the way down to this poor excuse of a person who says in his talk that he has studied for years in Rome and other places and says he’s fit to lead his sheep to Heaven. Lord help us!.
Thanks for the link, but it leads us to a European seller. Angelus is a better source. One, it’s North American, and two, we need to support that Press and all who bring us these books.
Dear Barbara,
Good points. We were zeroing in on free access to the words.
🙂 🙂 When we pay for it, it’ll be to Angelus..
Dear Barbara,
Another thing your example points out very well, is the deliberate mis-direction by our leaders, away from the teachings of Christ-most , especially their condemnations of sin and calls to repentance. The “new” Gospel is all about volunteer services and being nice while remaining SILENT about anything that causes discomfort or might alienate individual affection. It’s not just about the body, they claim, as it has this truly spiritual dimension. But even that focuses only on earthbound feelings and affirmation. We’re here to make you feel “welcomed” and affirmed in all we can find about you that is commendable.
Which would be okay, if it didn’t preclude any necessary talk of what they need to save their souls. That’s the ONE thing they claim to have plans to do when the time is right, but never get around to doing. Why it keeps people on the WIDE road that leads to hell. And well-intentioned do-gooders, fall in step.
Here is a little taste of Rahner from One Hundred Years of Modernism. The taste is bitter so be warned.
–
“To become a true theologian in his Church, no man should take the faith of his parents seriously. The fact that Christ lived died, and rose again at a particular time and in a particular place in history certainly lends clarity and a tangible and concrete character to Church piety, but it is also a weakness because it will always be a fact limited in time and space. Of course, the primary experience of God…is only thinkable as an experience of God inseparable from the transcendence of man, as the horizon of that transcendence. The divine causation of the a priori horizon of our knowledge and freedom must be characterized as a specific and original mode of revelation, indeed even as the mode upon which all other revelation is based.”
–
The author comments on Rahner: “the ramifications for ecclesiology are obvious. Any belief, whatever its creed, is able to save man because what matters is inner feeling: ‘Any piety in sincere conformity with conscience is able to save, upheld by grace, and is in a certain sense already Christian, but anonymously.’ An atheist can perfectly well be saved, as an anonymous Christian, even if he explicitly refuses to be associated in any way with the visible and hierarchal Church.
–
Continuing the comment on Rahner “Such a way of seeing things radically modifies our understanding of the church. For Rahner, The People of God is not a ‘ghetto Church.’ Yet, when the boundaries of Christ’s Church are burst so wide, of what further use is the Roman Catholic Church?
–
The author quotes Rahner again, “The Church is not so much the exclusive community of candidates for salvation, as the historical and social vanguard of that …hidden reality.”
–
And more from the author: “Next, within the Church herself, the very concept of authority is called into question. If Church authorities act on Church members, they must never forget that the Church is made up of persons whose dignity consists of their inalienable liberty. Since the Church exists to bring her members to a personal meeting with God in charity, then they must be left free to follow the workings of the charismatic spirit, which are always present.”
–
Sorry for the long quotes. But when you read Rahner’s thoughts you hear the echo of Poor Francis, and all his minions. The very phrases are spouted now as if they are spontaneous – but they come from the master Rahner, who cobbled together his heretical philosophy from Hegel, Heidigger, and all the other sorry irrational souls in the past 200 years.
–
Remember this is the man who was told to stop publishing his twisted thinking, but who continued to write and have his ‘books’ spread through the underground. Only to pop up, all nice and clean and shiny as a periti who actually wrote many of the words of the VII documents we struggle to make sense of today.
–
The damage is very, very deep.
Dear Barbara and all,
John Bosco’s Prophecy about the 2 Columns, 2Councils and enemy attacks after each, is fascinating to read right now. The link is below for the full reading, but the part that strikes us in relation to the attacks on the Church from false-philosophers is this:
““The entire enemy fleet closes in to intercept and sink the flagship at all costs. They bombard it with everything they have: BOOKS AND PAMPHLETS, incendiary bombs, firearms, cannons. The battle rages ever more furious. …
…… At times a formidable ram splinters a gaping hole into its hull, but, immediately, a breeze from the two columns The Eucharist and Our Lady, Help of Christians) instantly seals the gash.
[and then there’s the cause for great hope in the Time of Peace…]..
…..“Breaking through all resistance, the new Pope steers his ship safely .. and moors it to the columns.. first to the one surmounted by the Host, and then to the other, topped by the statue of the Virgin. At this point something unexpected happens.[THE CONSECRATION?]
The enemy ships panic and disperse, colliding with and scuttling each other. Some auxiliary ships which had gallantly fought alongside their flagship are the first to tie up at the two columns. [The Louie V has to be one of them]
“Many others, which had fearfully kept far away from the fight, stand still, cautiously waiting until the wrecked enemy ships vanish under the waves. Then, they too head for the two columns, tie up.. and ride safe and tranquil beside their flagship. A great calm now covers the sea.”
https://timothyandtitus.wordpress.com/2013/02/24/st-john-boscos-dream-2-colums-of-the-eucharist-our-lady/
Some more nuggets from One Hundred Years of Modernism. See if we can hear these nutty theories echoed in Poor Francis, and now from every pulpit:
Ecumenism: “The beliefs of humanity as a whole are unified not by a common dogma at the interior of religions, but by a common impulsion behind them. Their sole point in common is man’s sentiment of adoration and dependence upon an invisible Power” (Schleiermacher followed by Rahner)
“True Catholicism is Christianized paganism or world-religion, which amounts to a change from tight clothes to elastic ones. It resembles a Buddhist community more than anything else and its creed is like to it: ‘I put my trust in Buddha; I put my trust in the doctrine of Deliverance’” (Tyrrell who finally was excommunicated).
“The only possible conversion to the World and the only conceivable form for the religion of the future is the general convergence of all religions into a universal Christ, fundamentally satisfying to all parties” (Teilhard de Chardin who is beloved of Cardinal Ratzinger).
“Buddhism is the greatest spiritual event in the history of Christianity itself” (de Lubac who was a periti along with Ratzinger and John Paul II)).
Faith: “The Gospel is not an absolute and abstract doctrine applicable to all times and all men; it is a living faith” (Loisy – living Faith, living Tradition).
On God: “The only God we can ever know is the God within; this God is but a chimera” (Kant, the granddaddy of nuttiness)
“I believe in the objective value of the idea of God, of an absolute and perfect ideal, distinct but not separate from the world, one and three, for it can be called: infinite activity, intelligence and love” (Hebert- he believes in an ‘idea’ not a Revelation).
“If God Himself is man, and if He has been from all eternity, if man is forbidden to hold himself of little value for he would be holding God of little value, if God continues to be the ineffable mystery, then man is from all eternity the mystery of God expressed, who participates from all eternity in the mystery of His foundation” (Rahner for whom the ‘dignity of man’ became concrete in VII documents).
On Grace: “As to what we call grace and the immediate vision of God, God is really an internal principle constitutive of man. God and the grace of Christ are in all things, as the secret essence of all reality” (Rahner – here’s immanentism).
Dear Louie,
Just want you to know that despite the seriousness of the situation we’re all in right now, and the discussions it evokes, it’s really nice to have something amusing to chuckle about occasionally, which is what the humor in your writing, and that picture of you above, do for us. Thanks.
🙂 🙂
It boggles the mind, and frustrates the faith, to detect that Pope Bergoglio’s remarks are wrong in so many levels, and I say this without ever having formally studied 20th century theology.
____
His ecclesiology appears to be wrong: is not the church above all HOLY. (Credo in SACTUM Ecclesiam Catolicam)?
____
Did our Lord when he walked on this earth not command us to be perfect like His Father in Heaven?
____
Is not the Father in Heaven, God, HOLY, HOLY, HOLY, thrice Holy?
____
Then why does the Vicar of Christ not remind us of our calling as the baptized to be individualistically perfect, but instead insists on feeding us the pablum of inchoate “community” recommending that we melt our identity, our very God-given individualism (and not simply the church’s identity), in this hodge-podge “community”. Does Pope Bergoglio know absolutely nothing about St. Benedict of Norcia and his times? The present society is heading in the wrong direction, and only personal sanctification as guided and corrected Holy Church is the only real Hope we really have. It’s as though Bergoglio were more a metaphysically, materialistic stoic than a Catholic?
Alarico, Poor Francis doesn’t remind us of any of what you say because he doesn’t BELIEVE any of it. He is a believer of Teilhard de Chardin (and Rahner) who taught that there is only the ‘god’ in us, and that we are all going to converge into “christ” at the end of time.
–
When Poor Francis says he wants convergence not conversion what part of that do we not understand?
Dear Barbara and Alarico,
In the Spirit of “all things working unto good” for believers, at least God is using this agonizing Pontificate to unite us in comparing Truth to falsehood; speaking out against what is harmful, and in suffering. We all seem to be expressing the same level of pain here.. Sad that it has to be this way, but practice does make perfect, and the Bible says the Saints in Glory wash their robes white by going through the time of great distress. This should qualify, wouldn’t you say?
🙂 🙂
Yes….more, please!
In the Louie/Bergoglio conversation, one of the participants sounds very Catholic. Hint: It is not the one in white.
When I attended a Catholic in Name Only College some years ago to study Catholic Theology, I got irrational anti-Catholic bullology instead from all the “greats”, heretics and apostates. Rahner was (is) the great prophet who must not be questioned – one of the few objective principles upheld. The reading lists for each course, and topic, were heretical works, while the definitive texts of the relevant Church teaching were conspicuous by their absence. How the heretic “Catholic” professors loved to spout on about the nebulous “anonymous Christian”, who was lauded as something one should aim for – well they, like their imposter counterparts in thousands of Catholic colleges across the world are anonymous (not so much) atheists. Lord, have mercy.
How awful for you Lynda, that you had to suffer through that. It’s only later in my life that I’m being exposed to this complete nonsense – and it is just that: none sense.
–
But what a good exercise Louie has shown us. We might all do this: every time some heretic makes a statement we pull it apart sentence by sentence and contrast it to Catholic teaching. Good way to really learn our Faith – and free!
–
We are blessed with hundreds of really good Catholic books from the past, sermons, conferences etc. on-line – lives of the Saints too. How wonderful it is to read truth – it is beauty – it fills the mind and heart – it’s thrilling!
Perhaps, ‘Converstations with the father of lies’, would simply be more to the point.
–
What is the the Vatican II Church? It is not the Catholic Church and its ‘popes’ are little antichrists.
–
“We ask Ourselves, Venerable Brethren, what has become of the Catholicism of the Sillon? Alas! This organization which formerly afforded such promising expectations, this limpid and impetuous stream, has been harnessed in its course by the modern enemies of the Church, and is now no more than a miserable current of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a Panreligion, which shall have neither dogmas nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind nor curbs for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would return to the world – if such a Church could conquer – the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak and of all those who toil and suffer.” St. Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique
–
The new religion of Vatican II-ism is nothing else but the Sillonism that Pius X warned against and condemned. Roncalli was a Sillonist (the ‘torch’ taken up by the Focolare movement and World Youth Day fiasco – the ‘make a mess’ days). He was not a successor of St Peter and never a ‘Holy Father’, unless one considers lucifer’s sons ‘holy’. All the successors of the Sillonist Roncalli belong to freemasonic ‘naturalism’, not Christ. Sillonists and their successors sought/seek to horizontalise the priesthood and the laity – that is to say, destroy the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. For the most, at this time they have succeeded practically unimpeded.
–
Remember Gaudium et spes: Ratzinger said that is an attempt to officially reconcile the Church with the new era inaugurated by the French Revolution in 1789.
–
The cathechism of the Vatican II church teaches that the ‘Church’ is a ‘sign of the unity of all humanity’. False. Christ came with a ‘sword’ – meaning division – dividing Truth from lies and the followers of either camp one from the other. Humanity is not and will never be united under Truth because we have free will and many many many folks have no desire to be one with the Truth. The cathechism of Vatican II teaches therefore that justice and injustice, belial and truth are united = Assisi…it all belongs to the father of lies.
–
http://www.restorationradionetwork.org/
What’s truly frightening is that we all have a choice. Our Dear God gives all enough grace for their salvation. We have to correspond with that grace. I see and hear so many turning away from the grace. It is a choice. Who will say to Our Lord at the judgment “I didn’t want to know?”
PS. for those who’ve never heard of Sillonism (French: see-yon-ism), it is a freemasonic movement that, like all freemasonic movements, seeks to replace Truth with lies and the liberty of Christ’s Bride with a totalitarian ‘one world religion’ based on naturalism/luciferianism/new-ageism, where everyone is free to believe only lies.
PPS. In 1995 on the 50th anniversary of the United Nations, the One World Church was the topic of disccusion and the ‘United Religions Initiative’ was ‘founded’ by an Episcopalian ‘bishop’ (Brother Bishop according the Frankophiles) – all in complete ‘harmony’ with the Vatican II church and its authorities. The URI, along with a number of other freemasonic initiatives, came together in ‘harmony’ and ‘human dignity’ in 2000 to found the One World Church – the official United Nations ‘religion’. Fast forward to the 4th September 2014 – Bergoglio and Shimon Perez put their heads together in the Vatican meet and hate-on-Christ greet and proposed the United Religions Organisation, ‘to fight terrorism’. How useful has terrorism become lately? Terrorists and Freemasons – they all hate Christ and His true Bride.
–
For more see the work of Cornelia Ferreira, or visit http://www.isoc.ws which has an interview with her, but it might not be available anymore.
–
Take the red pill: http://www.mostholytrinityseminary.org/home.html
–
http://www.novusordowatch.org/tradcast/index.html
PPS. In 1995 on the 50th anniversary of the United Nations, the One World Church was the topic of disccusion and the ‘United Religions Initiative’ was ‘founded’ by an Episcopalian ‘bishop’ (Brother Bishop according the Frankophiles) – all in complete ‘harmony’ with the Vatican II church and its authorities. The URI, along with a number of other freemasonic initiatives, came together in ‘harmony’ and ‘human dignity’ in 2000 to found the One World Church – the official United Nations ‘religion’. Fast forward to the 4th September 2014 – Bergoglio and Shimon Perez put their heads together in the Vatican meet and hate-on-Christ greet and proposed the United Religions Organisation, ‘to fight terrorism’. How useful has terrorism become lately? Terrorists and Freemasons – they all hate Christ and His true Bride. (look up the writings of Cornelia Ferreira – Traditioninaction).
–
If you are really ready to smell the coffee:
–
http://www.mostholytrinityseminary.org/home.html
–
http://www.novusordowatch.org/tradcast/index.html
Mr. Ferrara seems to agree with many here, that new eyes are being opened by the outrageous anti-Catholic off-the-cuff words and actions of Francis, in contrast to his welcoming kindnesses to every kind of perverted unrepentant sinner….
http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/1473-rabbitgate-could-this-be-a-good-thing
If the mp3 is still available listen to Cornelia Ferreira (you might recognise her from the Fatima Conferences) on http://www.isoc.ws/ – “Pope Francis and the New Sillonist Push towards the One-World Church”.
I would not poke fun or deride my own biological Father as much as Louie has done in this article to our Holy Father, Pope Francis. I wish you would offer correction with gentleness and reverence for the Holy Father. I think more people would be inclined to listen to you and to take you seriously if you showed more reverence. Is too much to ask for a little reverence?
2nd Timothy 2:25,
24 A slave of the Lord should not quarrel, but should be gentle with everyone, able to teach, tolerant, 25 correcting opponents with kindness. . . .
Reprove, being judged: He gives them another instruction to practice charity in endeavouring to convert their neighbour, where they will meet with three sorts of persons: 1 st, With persons obstinate in their errors and sins; these may be
Dear Azygos,
Have you noticed in the Scriptures that Jesus sometimes treated people in authority as you describe here, and other times with ridicule and anger? Remember Him telling the Pharisees their father was Satan, and they were like whitened sepulchers and would end up in hell unless they repented?
He did that out of love-as much for their sakes, as for the people who were listening, who were subjected to their authority.
St. Jude instructs the faithful that there are different situations which call for differing responses from us. In the footnotes of the Douey Rheims Bible, regarding his Epistle, verse 22, it says:
” He gives them another instruction to practice charity in endeavouring to convert their neighbour, where they will meet with three sorts of persons: 1 st, With persons obstinate in their errors and sins; these may be said to be already judged and condemned; THEY ARE TO BE SHARPLY REPREHENDED, REPROVED, AND IF POSSIBLE, CONVINCED OF THEIR ERROR..
-2 d, As to others you must endeavour to save them, by pulling them, as it were, out of the fire, from the ruin they stand in great danger of.
– 3 d, You must have mercy on others in fear, when you see them through ignorance of frailty, in danger of being drawn into the snares of these heretics; with these you must deal more gently and mildly, with a charitable compassion, hating always, and teaching others to hate the carnal garment which is spotted, their sensual and corrupt manners, that defile both the soul and body.
======
If your biological father were doing something terrible to a younger sibling, would you not try to stop him, even if it required shouting or violence? We would hope so, for the sake of the innocent. Sometimes even parents need to be shaken out of great evildoing, by their own children. Things have gotten pretty bad these days. We hope you’ll think this over, and reconsider.
Here’s a link to a priest in France, who wrote an open letter to the Holy Father recently, which may help you see how desperate the times have become:
http://triregnum.blogspot.com/2015/01/letter-from-priest-to-pope-francis.html
___
Also one question, are you aware that the Holy Father sharply rebuked a pregnant woman for being about to give birth to her 8th child, by C-section, telling her she was testing God and being irresponsible for not having fewer children, and saying Catholics aren’t supposed to breed like rabbits?
Something is very wrong with him, obviously, and that’s not the worse thing he’s done, it’s just one that everyone can agree upon. It is far worse to insult Our Lord by inviting mortal sinners to receive Him in the Eucharist and commit sacrilege. Cardinals have been publicly lamenting what is going on in the Church right now. So if ridicule of the ideas that harm souls can get people to realize they shouldn’t listen to this man’s ideas, then ridicule is a good thing right now.
Hope this helps you to understand how people can really, sincerely love the Holy Father, and wish for him to be in heaven with us some day, and at the same time, hate what he is doing to those he is leading to hell, enough to do all in our power to denounce it, including prayer and daily sacrifices.
God Bless.
.
said to be already judged and condemned; they are to be sharply reprehended, reproved, and if possible convinced of their error. 2 d, As to others you must endeavour to save them, by pulling them, as it were, out of the fire, from the ruin they stand in great danger of. 3 d, You must have mercy on others in fear, when you see them through ignorance of frailty, in danger of being drawn into the snares of these heretics; with these you must deal more gently and mildly, with a charitable compassion, hating always, and teaching others to hate the carnal garment which is spotted, their sensual and corrupt manners, that defile both the soul and body.
p.s. Sorry those first few lines before the greeting were extras…
also the last paragraph. was extra.
Here is our beloved Bishop Schneider on THE SIN of mankind. This puts everything into perspective. Errors of the past, and errors being taught in our day.
–
“In order to speak of new evangelization correctly, it is necessary first to turn our gaze towards Him Who is the true evangelizer, namely Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the Word of God made Man. The Son of God came upon this earth to expiate and atone for the greatest sin, sin par excellence. And this sin, humanity’s sin par excellence, consists in refusing to adore God and in refusing to keep the first place, the place of honor, for Him. This sin on the part of man consists in NOT PAYING ATTENTION TO GOD, in no longer having a sense of the FITTINGNESS OF THINGS, or even a sense of the details pertaining to God and to the adoration that is His due, in not wanting to see God, and in NOT WANTING TO KNEEL BEFORE GOD.”
–
Everything we talk about here, and what we learn of the horrors of the world and inside our Holy Church stem from the above. It’s all that simple.
Here’s the link to Bishop Schneider’s talk.
http://catholictradition.blogspot.ca/2012/10/the-extraordinary-form-and-new.html
What you’ve said about the PAPACY is correct. It is the PAPACY we ALL revere. Poor Francis does NOT revere the PAPACY. He refuses to wear the traditional gear, he refuses to wear the Cross and the Ring. He does not consider himself the successor to the PAPACY, but rather to the Bishopric of Rome. The Tiara and other things that helped us to see the PAPACY as special, set above, different, sacred, In Persona Christie, are long gone.
–
He invites others to ridicule him and the PAPACY by appearing in public with a clown’s red nose, he speaks extemporaneously instead of acknowledging that the PAPACY must speak with measure and thought.
–
In a word, his PERSONALITY has obscured the PAPACY.
–
That’s why it is legitimate to call him out on these things, while still having reverence for the PAPACY.
@Indignus famulus,
Everyone of us has to answer to God for our own actions. Regardless, lets say that I grant you everything you said about Pope Francis and more. Suppose the Pope is 10 times worse than you think he is. Does this mean that we should or can publicly ridicule and deride him?
I have nothing against speaking boldly or calling a spade, a spade. However, there is a difference between speaking the truth with boldness and poking fun at people.
This is the irony.
It is a doctrine of Faith that everyone is to submit to the Holy Father, this means, the whole world. As Catholics we know that this does not mean we submit to any ludicrously or opinion that may come from the Pope, however this has to do with authority. How are you going to convince people to accept the Papacy and to be obedient to it (especially past statements from Popes), when you are deriding the current Pope?
Attempt to correct the Pope, yell at the Pope, cry to the Pope, beg the Pope, but do not treat the Pope worse than you would your own biological father.
I ask again, is it to much to ask for a little reverence? It is like this, if the Holy Father came to see you personally and shook your hand, would you use such language to talk with him as Louie has done above, or would you plead with him to see the light of truth?
Thank you for the link to Cornelia’s radio interview. It was packed full of facts and information, some which was totally new to me! Her timeline/chronology of PF and Peres and those Peres represents was eyeopening. I’m also sending the link to those on my e-mail list.
@ #17 reply: Dear Azygos,
We considered putting this in the forum due to length, but hope people won’t mind, because it pertains so directly to Louie’s above post and addresses some important questions for all of us .
You seem to agree with us about due submission to his authority, so we’ll get right to these other points raised by you- (and give you our opinions on them):
1. We DO all have to answer to God for our behavior; and so as Christians, it’s good to challenge each another when we’re concerned about sin going undetected, as you are apparently trying to do here.
2.There IS a big difference between attacking what a person says and teaches that is wrong, and attacking the person themselves, intending to make them into a laughing stock, to whatever degree, (which also matters) rather than just to have people realize how laughable their ideas are.
-The question is: Is it EVER appropriate to do that? [And especially with public authority figures, which we’re discussing here]
__
-As with the example of Our Lord’s ridicule, we believe it is, when it is for the benefit of the “common good”. As a society, we need to reject dangerous, false beliefs that can lead to loss of souls and earthly freedom as well. If a majority, out of ignorance or unwillingness to be swayed by rational argument, empower social idolatry of men or women (like the Clintons, Obamas, Castro, and further back- Hitler, Stalin, etc) and the hidden evil philosophers who motivate them and refuse to acknowlege the truth that these people are corrupted and dangerous; THEN effective tools such as ridicule help persuade people to back away from what is being wongly respected, and THINK about what the causes are, rather than jumping on the “band-wagon”. It can also help silence harmful supporters who likewise have not considered things seriously enough. There is power in numbers and empowerment of individuals when large numbers support them.
___
-The false prophet and anti-christ are predicted to sway the world into handing over its freedoms to them, voluntarily, by deceptive means- presenting themselves and their beliefs and goals as best for all. Jesus warned that even the elect would be in danger of falling for it, “if that were possible.”
Drastic times call for more drastic measures. Still within limits. We don’t believe in radicalizing opinion to the point of inciting violence against a person, for instance. Which is why, whenever we employ ridicule, we try to remind people to pray for the Pope’s conversion to the fullness of the Faith, and of the Fatima and Akita warnings and promises, which predicted all this, and call for personal sacrifices for souls.
__
We personally try to attack false ideas themselves in general, but use ridicule when appropriate, and have taken to repeating Mundabor’s acronym of “TMAHICH” (the most astonishing hypocrite in Church History) regarding Pope Francis. Many hours of thorough research have proven him SO OFTEN scorning, mocking, bashing, and punishing True Faithful Catholics who love the Church and/or Traditional Mass greatly; reverence the Eucharist, and still practice things like the giving of spiritual bouquets (counting prayers) and generously having big families WHILE at the same time he reserves great shows of kindenss and mercy for unrepentant heretics and sinners of every kind,–including cohabiting adulterers, active homosexuals who bash the church and promote sodomy, whom he pushes us to “welcome” into full Communion- (including sacrilegious reception of the Eucharist); and transvestites and foul-mouthed punk rockers (whom he personally invited to the Vatican to embrace and visit or perform at Christmas concerts) The list goes on and on.
So we denounce him as a verifiable hypocrite, with no apologies and, for good reason, to warn others.
=====
We would say every bit of this to him in person, and with far more passion. Out of respect for his office we would give him a chance to talk, but would rebuke him servely for the damage to souls he is still causing, and infidelity to Christ’s will and mandate.
Bottom line–it’s really all about TRUE charity and Rightly ordered priorities. God’s will and truth first-always. Then balance the common good with that of the individual, being concerned for BOTH and doing what is best in good conscience. Never be afraid to bread evil silence that leads souls to hell.
Last line typo correction:
Never be afraid to BREAK evil silence that leads souls to hell.
God bless, Sherry1. I think this link might remain online for a while longer:
–
https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isoc.ws/recording.mp3
And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force
Matthew 11:12
Dear Ever mindful,
a little footnote help from the Douey Rheims keeps this one in context:
“…suffereth violence, and the violent bear it away. For all the Prophets and the law prophesied until John: and if you will receive it, he is Elias, who is to come.”
__
suffereth violence: “[The kingdom] is not to be obtained but by main force, by using violence upon ourselves, by mortification and penance, and resisting our perverse inclinations. St.Thomas Aquinas: those practices of austerity which John, both by word and example, pointed out….It is not now confined, as by the old law to one people, but is open to all ..who will take possession of it.
::-) 🙂
Dear Indignus Famulus,
Yes,indeed…after two hours combing commentries, that is the best…although lengthy, here follows an example of Olde English writing, suggesting great effort ( cooperating with Grace), is needed to enter the Kingdom
And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force
Matthew 11:12
The classic interpretation is this one by Adam Clarke The kingdom of heaven suffereth violence] The tax-gatherers and heathens, whom the scribes and Pharisees think have no right to the kingdom of the Messiah, filled with holy zeal and earnestness, seize at once on the proffered mercy of the Gospel, and so take the kingdom as by force from those learned doctors who claimed for themselves the chiefest places in that kingdom. Christ himself said, The tax-gatherers and harlots go before you into the kingdom of God. See the parallel place, Lu 7:28-30.
He that will take, get possession of the kingdom of righteousness, peace, and spiritual joy, must be in earnest: all hell will oppose him in every step he takes; and if a man be not absolutely determined to give up his sins and evil companions, and have his soul saved at all hazards, and at every expense, he will surely perish everlastingly. This requires a violent earnestness.
This view is built into Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress; Then the Interpreter took him, and led him up towards the door of the palace; and behold, at the door stood a great company of men, as desirous to go in, but durst not. There also sat a man at a little distance from the door, at a table-side, with a book and his inkhorn before him, to take the names of them that should enter therein; he saw also that in the doorway stood many men in armor to keep it, being resolved to do to the men that would enter, what hurt and mischief they could.
Now was Christian somewhat in amaze. At last, when every man started back for fear of the armed men, Christian saw a man of a very stout countenance come up to the man that sat there to write, saying, “Set down my name, sir;”the which when he had done, he saw the man draw his sword, and put a helmet on his head, and rush towards the door upon the armed men, who laid upon him with deadly force; but the man, not at all discouraged, fell to cutting and hacking most fiercely. So after he had received and given many wounds to those that attempted to keep him out, Matt. 11:12; Acts 14:22; he cut his way through them all, and pressed forward into the palace; at which there was a pleasant voice heard from those that were within, even of those that walked upon the top of the palace, saying,
“Come in, come in,
Eternal glory thou shalt win.”
So he went in, and was clothed with such garments as they.
Ever mindful, and IF, thanks for this reminder. This is called Spiritual Combat, eh?
–
In today’s Epistle, St. Paul tells us that those who run races are not afraid, or reluctant to train hard, to even chastise their bodies to win the prize. He says he ‘does violence’ to his body too because he realizes how easy it would be even for him to lose sight of his own salvation the while preaching to others. I remember training for marathons in past years. How I loved to diet, and to run long, long painful training runs so I could summon the guts to run 26.2 miles with a bunch of other fools!!!
–
So yes, holy violence is necessary, and demanded.
–
Terce, Sext, and None for Sunday psalms are 117, and 118 – I always hated plodding through 118 because it was so repetitive.
–
Now when I read it in light of the complete lack of understand of ‘rules,’ ‘commandment,’ admonishing of any sort, seeing ‘discipline’ and ‘dogma’ as harsh or unnecessary etc. I see how good God’s Law really is.
–
So give Psalm 118 a read.
–
Some pertinent quotes: “Blessed are they that search His testimonies: that seek Him with their whole heart.” “Thou has commanded thy commandments to be kept most diligently.” “Open Thou my eyes: and I will consider the wondrous things of Thy law.” “Give me understanding, and I will search Thy law; and I will keep it with my whole heart.”
–
It’s all there – Revelation, and Church teaching and tradition for those who want it.
Dear Ever mindful, (and all)
It’s an important point you raise here. When we contrast these solid teachings with the watered-down,confusing messages people get from catechists since Vatican II, it’ easy to see why the Church and world are in such a mess today, as our Lady predicted at Fatima and Akita.
__
(One on the “Team Bergoglio” list) Vienna’s Cardinal Christoph Schonborn is a good example. He’s edited the Catholic Catechism we use today, and (under Pope Benedict) led the team which produced “Youcat,” a 300 page Youth Catechism designed to teach young people the ABC’s of Catholicism using a language tailored to their generation, which is now “the official youth catechism of the Church” and “THE #1 best-selling Catholic book in the world.”
__
This SAME man (like Cardinals Marx, Kasper, and many other modernists, including our Pope) when questioned on the Church’s attitude to homosexuals, said to “The Tablet”:
— “We should give more consideration to the quality of homosexual relationships,” “A stable relationship is certainly better than if someone chooses to be promiscuous.” and:
–“The Church needs to reconsider its view of re-married divorcees [receiving Communion without annulment] “as many people don’t even marry at all any longer”.” and
–“The primary thing to consider should not be the sin, but people’s striving to live according to the commandments” “Instead of a morality based on duty, we
should work towards a morality based on happiness.”
=====
Even if we charitably assume he meant “happiness” that comes from pleasing God, his words still take the focus off of what Our Lady pointed out so graphically with the vision of Hell at Fatima– that the Church and the world desperately need to focus more on sin so they come to recognized the gravity of it, learn to HATE it as God does, and desire to repent and do penance- before it is too late. The too-lenient all Mercy-no Justice God they preach, doesn’t help people come to that, and instead leads to presumption and despair.
======
–Even Jimmy Akin, when trying to explain away the above quotes of Schonborn (no surprise there) found himself forced to admit:
“If the good Cardinal is being accurately represented by “The Tablet” then something is very definitely wrong.”
– Akin went and on for several paragraphs, trying to suggest it might all be all a matter of German to English translation etc, or John Paul II language misunderstood by the reporter..
–Our question–if that’s the case, then why put a man like Schonborn in charge of teaching the world, when he does’t express himself clearly enough to be understood even by a seasoned reporter and his own supporters?
http://jimmyakin.com/2010/05/cardinal-schonborn-said-whaaat.html
Dear Barbara,
It’s nice to hear people express their love for God’s living voice to us–in the Sacred Scriptures and Tradition. Coupled with Grace from the Sacraments, they are everything we need no matter how bad things get. The key for us was pulling out of the modern habit of keeping occupied with either work or entertainment, with the nagging fear that if either were not there to take up the remaining space, the dreaded monster of “boredom” would invade.
It’s one of the devil’s most useful tools these days, and one area where a little holy “violence’ self-imposed, gives new life to a hungry soul.
Thanks, Barbara – and IF – and, of course, Mr Verrechio, for being lights in the general darkness. Consoles my broken heart (and I’m sure the heart of Our Lord, too).
Yes, there is a very evil, culpable and harmful silence/reticence pervading the episcopacy and the presbyterate and lay Catholics vis-a-vis the soul-endangering words and actions of Pope Francis. The salvation of souls is the missions and purpose of the Church.
Psssst! Ya wanna hear some rigid, doctrinally security?
–
This from “Dear Newlyweds – Pope Pius XII Speaks to Married Couples” (Sarto House). This beloved Pope spoke regularly to groups of newly married couples and actually spoke TRUTH! Go figure.
–
On June 17, 1942 he spoke on “Estrangement of Hearts.” Quote “If their love had been total, if it had been absolute, if it had been that love which consists in the giving of one’s self, if it had known no other limits than the love of God, or better still, if that human love had been raised above the senses to rest on and be fused in a complete and common love of God, then truly no extraneous upheaval would have disturbed its harmony, no shock would have broken it…St. Augustine, with his usual vigorous language, says: “Where love reigns, suffering is absent, or the suffering itself is loved.”
–
“Who, therefore, has inflicted the invisible and often fatal would upon that love, that holy union of souls? …there is the enemy, there is the guilty one…it is pride, love of self, which is born with man, lives with him almost to his last breath.”
–
“But you will say must we therefore hate ourselves? Are we not prone by nature itself to love and seek our own good? Yes…but to seek that good which is reasonable and proper for him…..but the good of the family, to the good of the children…those husbands and wives gradually came to conceive of the bond of matrimony as a servitude…in opposition to this holy and salutary love stands another love, a perverse love…what love is this? It is the love of corruption, it is egoism, it is the love of self which is the source of all evil…
–
HERE’S THE CRUX: Love of self is the great seducer of all human passions. The centre of all our thoughts, desires and impulses, it frequently manages to set itself up almost as an idol which receives in homage a cult of beauty which pleases the eye, of sweets which delight the palate, of perfume which refreshes the nostrils, of softness which caresses the touch, and of praise and admiration which ensnare the heart.”
–
I know, I know. So yesterday, so retrograde, so rigid, so harsh, so mean spirited, so unloving, so lacking in mercy.
–
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if Our Lady converts Poor Francis and tomorrow morning he changes the whole prep for the October Sin-nod by using these wonderful words of beloved Pope Pius XII???? I can dream, can’t I?
I am not a fan of PiusXII. He brought in Bugnini, he changed the Easter Liturgy, and he publicaly endorsed NFP. As for the above talk on marital love, I believe this incessant focus on marital love at the expense of focussing on the instruction on the traditional teaching on marriage and its primary purpose of procreation and education of children for God’s glory was very harmful. Love is not what distinguishes marriage from all other human relationships. It is the mission of procreation and education of children for God’s glory that defines God’s order and purpose for marriage. Love is the fundamental calling of all human relationship. We are even called to love our enemies. Love is found in marital love is diferent from parental love or brotherly love, love is not what defines marriage. Marriage is to be rooted in love but it is not what defines it.
I get what Pope Pius XII was trying promote. A Love that is not false and not rooted in a self love. This is great to teach, but not at the expense at suppressing the teachings on the primary purpose of marriage and thus the meaning of marriage. Which NFP did by separating procreation from unity of the couple. Unity is subordinate to the primary purpose and is secondary because it unity is to serve the mission of the primary purpose of procreation anfd aducation of children for God’s glory.
Sorry for the spelling errors. I will try to be more careful next time and proof read before I send.
Dear Barbara,
It would likely require that miracle of our current Pope’s conversion, to prevent him from misusing the words you quoted here.
“Love of self is the great seducer of all human passions.” And all the examples that follow along with it, could so easily be twisted into a criticism of those who love what he hates–such as TLM devotees like us:
“to set itself up almost as an idol which receives in homage a cult of beauty which pleases the eye, of sweets which delight the palate (Eucharist received on the tongue only), of perfume which refreshes the nostrils, (incense)
and of praise and admiration which ensnare the heart.” (and causes rejection of clown and cherished tango Masses).
========
This distortion of views the Devil inserts in minds is what has to be countered with prayer and denunciation. And regarding this battle between the Spirit and the Flesh that St. Paul also talks about extensively, one thing we all should be striving for is to understand God’s will for the proper use of what He created. Before the fall, there was unquestionably a perfect harmony between His will and the actions of Adam and Eve, sustained by their preternatural gifts, we’d venture to guess. After it, we struggle, but have His Providence and promise not to abandon us without redemption. So we keep Faith, follow the Church’s teachings and use our intelligence and reason. .
__
That’s where it seems to get complicated these days. We’ve wonder if it helps to consider something as obvious as eating. Few would argue that its primary function is to give us the pleasures of taste, and for those who would, we can easily demonstrate that such a distortion often leads to gluttony, obesity, and serious harm to the body, even death. Most would agree it’s primary function is to keep the body alive, healthy, and maturing.
Yet that pleasure of tasting a variety of foods, and the relief of hunger pangs that accompany moderate eating, are not to be seen as evils, or God would not have instructed the people to celebrate festivals by making sweet cakes to enjoy, and Jesus would not have made far more wine at Cana, than anyone could consume (6 stone water jars full to the brim when the other wine had already run out) Apparently God allows us to enjoy the pleasures that accompany necessary functions, as long as we do it in moderation. He certainly wouldn’t expect people to be thinking “I’m only eating this cake to sustain my life” while they were enjoying it at the feast.
___
We know it’s not that simple, but it’s something to consider in all these battles about what Pius XII wrote on these matters, and how they relate to other major issues. The ongoing debates sometimes remind us of that silly T.V. show in the early 1980’s — “The Greatest American Hero” in which a group of aliens gives an ordinary human a special suit that gives him superhuman abilities. He loses the instruction booklet, and has to learn how to use its powers by trial and error. With the ongoing crises in the Hierarchy, and the lack of trust all the betrayals have engendered in people, it feels like we too have lost the instruction booklet on some issues like these. Pius promoted NFP as a good and useful tool for families with special needs. That has been distorted into a kind of substitute for artificial contraception, and even taught as such by different groups within the Church. And on the extreme you had you have views like those of St. Jerome being cited, who saw even marriage as an evil to be barely tolerated. We must all keep seeking the truth, and remember to love one another, even when we disagree on such serious matters as these. And may God clarify them to us all, with a Pope and hierarchy we can respect and trust.
The quotes from Pius XII were from only ONE short talk! The rest of the book is filled with all the orthodoxy we could hope for. As for the references to NFP, I don’t have the quote to hand, but he said something like, “abstinence can be used for a time, EVEN FOR A LONG TIME, when NECESSARY to space, or eliminate births.” So he was not giving permission to use NFP the way it has morphed into today. It would have been unthinkable. When we read statements from the past, let’s remember these people couldn’t have imagined the horrors of today in their wildest nightmares!!!
Dear Barbara,
I Have the quote from Pope PiusXII’s address given October 29th, 1951 to the “Italian Catholic Union of Midwives” :36. “It is possible to be exempt, for a lengthy period, and even for the entire duration of the marriage, if there are grave reasons, such as those which not infrequently occur in the so-called “indications” of a medical, eugenic, economic, or social nature. For this it follows that observing the non-fertile periods alone can be lawful from the moral point of view. Under the conditions mentioned it is really so.”
He gives just about any excuse to separate procreation from conjugal intercourse and declares that this practice is not immoral or even at fault, but that it is moral. He has contradicted the dogma of morals.
Pope Pius X in Casti Connubii condemns these common excuses put forward by those who practice contraception when he says “Some justify this criminal abuse on the ground that they are weary of children and wish to gratify their desires without the consequent burden. Others say that they cannot on the one hand remain continent nor on the other can they have children because of the difficulties, wether on the part of the mother or on the part of family circumstances.”
Pius XII in his adress to the Catholic Midwives is not talking about complete abstinence from conjugal relations. He is talking about having recourse “ONLY” to the infertile period while engaging in conjugal intercourse in order to avoid
having children.
I don’t deny that Pius XII has said good things on marriage but the crucial doctrine on marriage and contraception was trampled on and dishonored through his endorsement of separating procreation from conjugal intercourse. This is grave indeed.
Dear Barbara and Anastasia,
The address in question can be viewed here:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P511029.HTM
As we said above, we pray that these matters can be clarified, and appreciate the sincerity of everyone attempting to do so. Not feeling qualified to teach about it, we aren’t convinced the reasons given by Pius XII contradict Church teachings of the past, and can understand why he would even extend grave circumstances to covering it’s use for the entire duration of the marriage.
Again, that’s just our opinion, after reviewing as much as we have so far.
p.s. by “its use” of course we are referring to NFP and not artificial birth control, which we do not view as the same thing.
Dear IF,
I am astounded that you both cannot see the contradictions that are found between Casti Connubii, natural law and sexual morals vs Humanea Vitae and PiusXII’s letter to the midwives endorsing the separation of procreation from unity. I have to conclude that there are none so deaf than those who do not wish to hear.
Dear Anastasia,
I have yet to see the mighty Indignus Famulus fail to make sense of anything…patience, and he will yet astound you into a smile
Dear Anastasia,
We’ve never claimed to be geniuses, and It’s possible we are simply not smart enough to see things as clearly as you seem to think they appear on these issues. That’s why we’ve refrained from insisting we’re right, and have simply presented our ongoing questions and opinions, based on sincere efforts to understand all that the Church has so far taught on these complicated issues.
We’re sorry you’ve concluded that we have no desire to hear the truth, as that is definitely not the case, as we’re certain God knows.
It is does not take a miracle for God to allow conception to take place even when people are trying to space children using NFP, or avoid conceiving for serious medical reasons. In fact, there’s an old joke asking–“what you call people who use the rhythm method” with the answer being “parents”.
So as long as they continue to be as open as you or we would be to accepting children willingly from God, at all times, it seems to us your accusations of what they are doing -presume they have more power than any human has, to “separate” those two aspects. What they have is a hope to help them cope with their particular situation in the best way possible, with an openness to God’s will, if it be otherwise. That doesn’t seem sinful to us.
Dear Ever mindful,
Thanks for the vote of confidence, but we’re an old Catholic couple -so there’s a he and a she working together on these posts, , and “mighty” seems a bit too high of a standard to us, unless you mean “mighty stubborn” . We hope and pray always, that truth will be known in the end. If Anastasia is right about her opinions, we hope to understand why some day. We just don’t see it clearly, yet.
God Bless you and her, and us all. 🙂 🙂
Trying to avoid and wishing and desiring that no children come from the marital embrace is contrary to purity and God’s law and order for conjugal intercourse. Abstinence is the option to remain pure, chaste, and free from sinning. If you fail at this there is always confession and prayer .Just because one is willing to reluctantly surrender to the outcome of conception from conjugal intercourse when they were actually against the conception of a child while trying to separate in act, word and deed the conception of a child doesn’t make their attempts to separate procreation from unity not sinful.
I hope and pray you will one day accept this truth on God’s purpose and order for marriage and for understanding purity.
@Anastasia,
In your #27 response you say Pius XII trampled on the “crucial doctrine on marriage and contraception”. If you could cite where this doctrine was defined, I’d greatly appreciate it. What I have found is an interesting listing of events leading up to Pius XI’s Casti Connubii (1930), http://www.pathsoflove.com/texts/casti-connubii-outline/ . In it, the Sacred Penitentiary ruled that: periodic abstinence to avoid children was allowed (1853); that passive cooperation in contraceptive intercourse is impermissible, unless there is danger of serious harm to the spouse (repeatedly 1816-1876); and proposes that confessors suggest period abstinence to couples practicing contraception (1880). Additionally, within Casti Connubii itself, (pp 59), Pope Pius XI states:
“Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.”
Has the Church authoritatively excluded NFP from determining the “natural reasons … of time”, which within the previous century, an organ of the Roman Curia, (Sacred Penitentiary), had ruled licit? I believe that theologians, religious and laity will continue to disagree and voice differing views, but in the meantime, shouldn’t you continue with “candor, intelligence and good will”, and not disparage contrary opinions which are not precluded by established doctrine?
Dear Anastasia,
We see you making a lot of dogmatic sounding statements that don’t seem to agree with what we read in the sources you cite. As Mike notes above,
and we read ourselves—Pius XI says in Casti Cannubii
“nor are these considered as acting against nature…etc”
___
So you’re statements all seem contrary to The statements of the Church throughout the 1800’s and up to the 1930 Casti Connubi which you also contradict,( Pius XI), and then on to Pius XII with his letter to the midwives, etc… and to Paul VI who took their lead in writing HV..
So it seems to us that your claims of doctrine being on your side of this argument are not proven, and your interpretation of what is out there seems to amount to your declaring yourself to be a separate magisterium– in disagreement with them.. This is not intended as an insult or personal attack on you. As we’ve said before, we’re simply seeking the Truth.
The truth is that Casti Conubii is referring to couples who are not planning to exclusively have recourse to the infertile period in order to avoid having children. They are having recourse to conjugal intercourse that happens to be infertile through no fault of their own. I don’t see how you can’t see the difference between the two. That is like saying a couple who is infertile cannot have conjugal relations because, even though, through no fault of their own, they can’t have children. Again, they are not the ones doing the NFP gymnastics of separating procreation from unity in order to avoid children.
As to Mike’s quote of the Sacred Penitentiary is not infallible. The Acta Apotolicae Sedis which was declared “authentic and official for publishing the acts of the Apostolic See” has no documents that demonstrate misguided pastoral applications of NFP.
I would like to continue this discussion but I have to go for now. Hope to be back soon.
Dear Anastasia,
The problems we still have with your statements of what the Church officially teaches on this matter, have to do with how often we find them being explicitly contradicted by moral theologians and others who have studied Church Law, and disagree with you -entirely Here’s one example .
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=6&catname=9
General Principles.
In an article complaining to a Traditional publication which came out against NFP, He says: You have no training in, and no experience dealing with, a complex moral question like NFP. We traditional Catholic priests have studied moral theology and we apply it in the confessional and in counselling. Leave such matters to us:
•Spouses are free to choose whatever time they want to exercise their marriage right or abstain from exercising their marriage right by mutual consent.
•Conversely, they are not obliged to exercise their right during fertile periods, or abstain during sterile periods.
•Deliberately to limit marital relations to sterile periods to avoid conception is morally lawful in actual practice, provided the requisite conditions are met.
•Family limitation without good and sufficient reason involves a degree of moral fault.
•Periodic continence is morally permissible because it fulfills the other ends of marriage (mutual love and fidelity, alleviation of concupiscence) and because it does not physically hinder the natural processes of conception.
2. Requisite Conditions.
•Mutual consent or willingness of the spouses.
•Ability properly to observe periodic continence without danger of sin.
•Sufficient justification or cause, just and grave, either medical, eugenic, economic, or social, which justifications are outlined by various theologians.
3. Gravity of the Various Obligations.
•The issues involved with NFP were not fully discussed by pre-Vatican II theologians.
•The gravity of an obligation (if any) to exercise the marriage right during fertile periods was not clearly established.
•Neither was the gravity of the unjustifiable use of periodic abstinence.
__
“Do not presume that the defection of the post-Vatican II hierarchy gives you the right to settle all this, and then tell Catholic couples they are committing sin.”
p.s. we’re not saying he’s right and you’re wrong, just wondering if you can understand–looking at how definitively these statements are all made, and his credentials; how difficult it is for any layperson who wants to find the truth about this issue, to rely on either sider for accurate information?.
Also to Anastasia,
This SSPX priest’s explanation seems to confirm our findings–addressing both sides of the issue and reviewing a larger number of articles and opinions:
http://sspx.org/en/nfp-unhappy-compromise
[If we understand it, it seems to distinguishes the fact that although the couple IS freely choosing and intending not to conceive for a time, if it is done for the specified reasons, it is NOT sinful.]
___
Contrary to widespread misunderstanding, Rhythm is not the same as contraception. It’s true that often the aim of the married couple is the same — they use Rhythm to avoid conception — but their method is not the same as the birth-controller.
___
The practice of Rhythm is natural so far as the biological aspect is concerned. The practice of contraception is unnatural, against nature, a perversion just as truly as homosexuality.
___
But just because Rhythm is “natural” doesn’t mean it is always morally good and permissible. The practice of Rhythm proceeds from a free and deliberate will — the will not to have children — that is directly opposed to the primary purpose of marital relations as ordained by God. Is such a free will choice contrary to the will of God and sinful?
======
Without getting too technical, there are two schools of thought on the essential morality of Rhythm as a system. The more common opinion, the majority opinion, holds that this method is not of itself illicit, and becomes lawful only when there is sufficient cause present for sidestepping the primary purpose of marriage.
======
BOTH OPINIONS ARE APPROVED BY EXPERT THEOLOGIANS: you may follow either one UNTIL THE CHURCH MAKES AN OFFICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT ON THE SUBJECT. . But keep in mind that all theologians hold certain basic facts to be true. There is perfect agreement among theologians that Rhythm can become sinful because of circumstances and dangers involved.
Important conditions
So we can summarize the latest and best theological thought on the subject. The Church neither approves nor disapproves of the Rhythm Method as a system to be followed. The Church merely tolerates the use of this method. Tolerates indicates reluctant permission. And the Church only tolerates this method, when three definite factors are present. These three are:
•First, there is sufficiently serious reason for a given couple to use this method, sufficiently serious enough to justify side-stepping the first purpose of marriage;
•Second, both husband and wife are truly willing to follow the method — neither one can force the other to adopt this system;
•Third, the use of this method must not cause mortal sins against chastity nor become a proximate occasion of such sins.
======
If this is all true, then tolerating and permitting make the situation a matter for the couple and their confessor to decide, would it not? And is it not morally wrong then, for folks like you to go around labeling users of NFP as mortal sinners? Or treat them as if they are stupid simply because they resist following your lead, or end up disagreeing with your views?
__
Again–no bitterness from us, just hoping to help you see that if it turns out you are right about all this, (and we’re still leaning the other way) you need to be at least as “nice” in trying to convince people of that, and patient as well, in order not to send them running to the other side solely because of how bad you make them feel about their hesitations. Hope this helps you. God Bless..
p.s. We chose the SSPX presentations as examples, to eliminate any concerns you might have regarding post-conciliar mentalities influencing their judgments and prejudicing them towards NFP or rhythm as a novelty.
We aren’t members, but do have a lot of respect for those we’ve come across in articles on the Faith. .
The morality of NFP is far from being complex. I think it is very easy to discern it’s hypocricy and contradiction to natural and devine law. Their is nothing natural in the rhytm method orNFP. It is contrary to natural law. As someone once said NFP is about as natural as a farmer wishing to sow his seed in his field in the dead of winter hoping nothing will grow.
Actually I stand corrected that nothing pertaining to NFP was ever written in the Apostolicae Sedis. Here was what was written as a response of the Holy Office on April 20, 1944 to the following question: “May one subscribe to the opinion of certain modern authors who deny that the principle end of marriage is the begetting and education of children, or who teach that the secondary ends are not essentially subordinated to the primary ends, but are equally and primary and independent?” The reply was “No.”
Dear Indignus Famulus,
I am sorry to hear you say how bad or stubid I might make people feel. That is certainly not my aim although I do acknowledge the sensitivity of the subject in that can bother ones conscience. However this is too far of a seroius matter for me not to speak out against the redefinition of marriage even if it might turn some people off or hurt their feelings.
I am grateful for much of what the SSPX does and stands for, but the so called Catholics,who are identified as Traditionalist, are not always free from errors. I think that this is important to remember. We should not fall into the trap of believing that just because a well known traditionalist says a lot of great things
that everything he says must be great and correct too.
from the neglect of Thine inspirations, Jesus deliver us
Perhaps this charming Bluegrass Gospel song offers good advice, while pondering these issues…like Daniel, to pray morning, noon and night.
Perhaps the rendition will suffice to return a smile to those lips…
http://youtu.be/98jNS8MmEqw
Dear Anastasia,
The above explanations didn’t dispute your cited definition of the primary purpose of marriage. It said that the practice of Rhythm is natural so far as the biological aspect is concerned, while the practice of artificial contraception is unnatural, against nature, “a perversion just as truly as homosexuality.”
Your response seems to be, “no, it’s not” and someone else says so, too.
We obviously could go back and forth finding supporters for each side of that argument, as these priests point out, because until Paul VI spoke in HV, there was nothing definitive said about the use of it, other than from these moral theologians. You call it simple. We simply present the vast number of arguments on every level from laymen to top of the hierarchy and among moral theologians, as evidence that what seems simple to you, is not seen as such my many, others.
Maybe you think it shouldn’t be that way. But the facts show that it is.
___
“What it says above, is that hythm (NFP) is directly opposed to the primary purpose of marital relations as ordained by God, but is not sinful.
Perhaps your illustration of the farmer, planting in the winter is missing the fact that there is no secondary purpose to planting in the winter, while there are others in marriage.
__
Perhaps that’s why father’s reasoning makes sense to us, and not to you, because you are convinced the two cannot be separated without DENYING the primacy of the first, and being sinful. Both these priests say you are wrong about that, and your answer is that they are not to be trusted, but you are.
Dear Anastasia,
Regarding how your responses might make people feel, we believe you that it is simply your zeal that makes it come across that way at times. We were sincerely making a few suggestions to help with that, assuming you were unaware. When you keep expressing amazement that your views aren’t seen as readily by the other as they are by you; and repeat how simple it all is, when we see that it is not, it comes across as a put down of the other’s intelligence and an insistence that get’s nowhere because it is all based on your opinion.
It then amounts to bullying your way to acceptance by intimidation.
__
We’re not the type to submit to that, and we’ve had enough people in our lives who behave that way, to know how counterproductive it is.
We do respect you and your intentions seem very honorable, so we hope you won’t take this as anything but what it is–a kindly request for your consideration, with no hard feelings on our part. 🙂 🙂
As we tried to p.s. above about the Traditionals, we’re not “sold” either way and are very cautious about trusting anyone these days on any issues we find difficult to fully understand. We’ll keep reading and praying for God’s guidance, and especially for the Church to be straightened out fully, so this problem of lack of trust in magisterial officials, also goes away, leaving clearly understandable pronouncements and teachings.
The official stance right now, is that NFP is fine under the stipulated circumstances, so your position is going against that, as we’re sure you know.
What complicates it all so much, is the way this issue came to the forefront around the same time as the modernists gained the upper hand. And we get that, too. Thomas Aquinas taught that people should keep looking for truth and argumentation should look for contradictions in it. In a few instances like this and the sede positions and those of the SSPX, we see that the devil has throw the book at us all, with contradictions galore. The internet just adds to them.
So keep praying for us, and we’ll keep praying for you, too.
God Bless you.
Dear Ever mindful,
Very cute. 🙂 🙂
Glad to see one commentor refuting Karl Rahner. I wrote a refutation of Rahner’s interpretation of Vatican II here http://consolamini.org/consolaminipublications/books/free-cp-books/1652-2/ if anyone is interested in a refutation of the “spirit of vatican ii”.
Certainly, the use of so-called “NFP” to avoid conceiving a child is sinful in very many cases where the couple simply doesn’t want a child for a long time, or ever again.
There is something fundamentally wrong with this priest’s argumentation. Catholic morality is based on objectively knowable morality. No special training is required in moral matters that are understandable by moral reason. It is not necessary to formally study moral theology and to pass exams in same, to understand that it is only in exceptional circumstances is it morally licit for a husband and wife to decide not to have another child, or another child for a given period of time, and confining intercourse to the non-fertile period to this end. God has not made everyday fundamental moral matters complex or obscure to right reason, which we can all generally attain. Theologians are not necessary to understand the moral principles in issue; and indeed, very many theologians who profess themselves to be moral authorities, are in fact, heretics and even promoters of intrinsic evils. Moral theologians, per se, have no authority as to what is good or evil.
Dear Lynda,
We agree there is plenty of potential for it to be abused, as with anything involving free will. But if it is actually in accord with God’s will as a means of enriching a marriage with special needs, i.e. NOT at all sinful when used according to the current norms and standards–, then an awful lot of “well-intentioned” people are actively persecuting the innocent these days, from what we see online, condemning anyone who uses it as mortal sinners, and inducing what is actually false guilt, in people who are already burdened. That just isn’t right. If the Church is wrong, we need to battle to have the teachings changed, and those with the moral theology education an training, like Cardinal Burke, should be leading the way. As far as we know, he supports NFP fully, when used as directed.
The logic that supports NFP appears to be similar to the divorce and remarried receiving communion without renouncing the marital act. Can we not say that the modernist progressivists see communion as a means of enriching adulterers with special needs?
Dear Anastasia, (re #40)
We can’t agree with your statement that ” the logic appears to be similar” between these two things. Here’s why:
___
The modernist ploy being used in this case, is the creation of an illusion of “special needs” where none exist, in order to then promote the filling them with what fits their known, evil agenda, already established as contrary to God’s laws, by past rulings. The absence of logic and truth to support their ideas, explains why they crumble to dust when reasonably examined and compared to Revealed truth, and also why it is often so easy for laymen to identify the basic problems, without help.
__
Dogmatic teachings had long ago clearly established the necessity of being in a state of Sanctifying Grace for the proper reception of the Eucharist. Adultery (the objectively mortal sin of the non-annulled, divorced, civilly remarried) was specifically condemned by Our Lord Himself -as mortal. The Sacrament of Confession was established by Him as the sole remedy (outside of perfect contrition before death) for the genuine “special need” created when a person sincerely repents of any mortal sin committeed after Baptism; repudiates them, and wishes to have Sanctifying Grace restored to their soul. Thus God fully provided for all those needs, requiring the proper use of their free will, as part of the remedy for its former misuse. Ignoring those means is clearly wrong and not logical at all.
___
And while those established teachings clearly address sinful sexual relations- outside of the Sacrament of Marriage- NFP concerns only the Church’s guiding behavior in sexual relations within a non-sinful setting- of valid Marriage, performing its teaching and governing functions by establishing clear norms where new questions have arisen over time, as mankind grew in knowlege and scientific understanding of the workings of his body and its fertility. Her pronouncements help avoid sinful behavior by further clarifying the proper uses and functions of the marital act, without contradicting the teachings of the past.
[we realize that’s your current bone of contention] 🙂 🙂
__
But if they are correct in what they have taught in that regard over the past 200+ years since they were first called upon to publicly answer such questions; i.e they HAVE provided such further clarification of Truth about God’s will through the Holy Spirit;, then the faithful, trusting in Papal infallibility, should place full confidence in what has been promulgated (even since Vatican II which was not dogmatic itself), which specifically addresses the newer questions, -such as HV did.
___
It also seems logical to us that if certain knowlege was not available in the past, you will not find specific mention of it or the answers to modern questions, clearly defined as such, in past promulgations. Those have to be examined in light of truth by trustworthy moral theologians.
___
So we’re back to today’s problem of lack of trust, with you, apparently believing you are capable of explaining to the faithful what you see as simple enough for laymen to tackle, and us still thinking, at this point – that is a very big mistake, especially when you use it to justify accusing people of mortally sinning by using NFP. As far as we can tell, HV seems to be in harmony with everything there is to find from the past on this issue, since the questions first arose. So that leaves us at odds with you still, but not your enemies 🙂 🙂
– And we hope we’ve explained why the analogy above doesn’t provide anything we can see, to support your position.
Dear Anastasia,
You say ” The truth is that Casti Conubii is referring to couples who are not planning to exclusively have recourse to the infertile period in order to avoid having children. They are having recourse to conjugal intercourse that happens to be infertile through no fault of their own”
Casti Cannubii says:
“Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner ALTHOUGH ON ACCOUNT OF NATURAL REASONS EITHER OF TIME OR certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth.
–Defects would explain the “through no fault of their own” happening to be infertile. TIME, implies that the TIMING of the intercourse makes it infertile.
Does it not?
Dear Lynda,
We cited Father Cekada above, not because we think he is irrefutable in all matters (not being qualified to judge that) but because so many on Louie’s blog have often linked to him and shown great respect for his moral theology in the past- and he is not considered a modernist. In the above, he provided a good example that there are opposing opinions to the ideas presented by Anastasia, coming from knowledgeable conservative Catholics, contrary to her contention that these are “simple” matters that don’t require more expertise and, many people think they do–which is why the debate keeps raging.
__
While it may be true as you say, that ” No special training is required in moral matters that are understandable by moral reason” , it seems this one is not as clearly understandable to many people, and required clarification by the Church, which has been both provided AND rejected due to lack of trust of Paul VI apparently, and private interpretations of Casti Cannubii, which conflict with his teachings in HV.
Anastasia is disputing even the exceptional situations you apparently allow for here, saying all such uses are sinful. God has not made everyday matters too obscure for us, true, but He did give us the Magisterium to guide us when they are complicated by questions on which many people disagree. And this appears to us, to be one of those. It’s not a clear-cut issue of the “selfish modernist” versus the faithful Catholic, but rather one of the sincere Faithful seeking answers to what pleases God on an issue that does seem to have extenuating circumstances requiring explanation.
As long as you allow for the exceptional circumstances the Church has outlined, as it seems you do here, you are accepting those clarifications made by the Pope on the issue, obviously. Fr. Cekada was apparently objecting above, to those who denounce those as sinful, and teach others to believe so as well. It was on those particular matters as well, that, he was pointing out that they were not qualified to decide, and proclaim contrary teachings.
p.s. We’ve assumed of course, that things like medical problems of the mother etc, listed by the Church as “serious” causes regarding NFP, are not contested by you as imaginary needs.
One other thought concerning the confusion we see so often today.
When we looked into ecumenism, we found that the actual teachings of VII on it, contradict what is going on in practice today. The Documents actually call for a full disclosure of the Catholic teachings as part of dialogue with other religions, and for resolution of the differences. What Francis is doing, saying “no we don’t proselytize” , and “leave the arguing to the Theologians” goes directly against even that. And of course the rest of the atrocities he does, compound the matter greatly.
Our point is that it may be possible for Catholics to rely more, rather than less on the formal teachings of the Church, even in these modernist-corrupted times.
That may be what Pope Benedict was trying to say when promoting the hermeneutic of continuity. That Providence hasn’t failed us, even though much work is needed to clarify and correct the errors that have come from it.
Personally, we’d rather have VII burned and see the Church go back to the TLM. But that’s just us. 🙂 🙂
Dear Barbara,
So right. And the other big devil’s hook is distraction.
Sorry, Lord, I just wasn’t paying any attention to all your signals, I was too busy with……..
If you interpret that as ONLY applying to menopausal women, is there any documentation explaining that?
And, just so we don’t create an erroneous impression of arguing FOR things like the “ideal” 3-child limit of Pope Francis, we recall clearly over the last half-century hearing teachings from every Pope before this one, that the Church calls on married couples to help grow the Church through the little “domestic Churches” of their families, asking parents to be “generous” with an understanding of the sacrifices involved in parenting which have always been honored and praised by the Church and recognized as increasing with larger families that have always -until now it seems-been highly encouraged.
Our own family is still growing steadily, and we frankly don’t think it’s the Pope’s job to worry about the size of its “carbon footprint”. Unfortunately, this one seems very earth-bound at this point in his life, more concerned in his encyclicals with preserving crops to feed than preserving Dogma to feed hungry souls and save them from Hell through conversion. (But that’s another issue). Ora pro nobis for him and all souls.
Dear IF,
In reply to your post in #41 I need to say that the need for the misguided pastoral provision for NFP and the divorce and remarried receiving communion without renouncing the marital embrace are very similar. They both see conjugal intercourse as a tool to keep the marriage and thus the family together and thus in their snaky way they try to appeal to a false mercy by saying These NFPers need to separate procreation from unity And the divorce and remarried continue their sex life in order not to risk the chance of separating and thus hindering the children.
The widespread embrace of conceptive mentality because of the endorsement of NFP by the hierarchy is what has brought us to this mess in regards to the sacrament of marriage. Now that a great, great majority of Catholics see the primary putpose of marriage as being the unity of the couple before procreation of children for God’s glory, it is no wonder that half of the cardinals cannot see clearly and wish to consider the divorce and remarried to be able to receive communion without renouncing their sexual relations. This is what it boils down to. These deceived ones beleive it is impossible to abstain and even worse that abstinence has little value, is unhealthy and is even frowned upon. Yes an NFPers could be validly married and the divorce and remarried iare definitely not validly married but the pastoral application for both of them to sin against natural law and sexual morals is both supported by and rooted in the new definition of marriage which was ushered in by NFP when it puts afalse sense of love and unity as the primary purpose of marriage.
There is not one person who is going to be able to truly defend the sacrament of marriage with integrity without renouncing the devastating lie and trickery
behind NFP.
Dear Anastasia, in reply to your last post (just above our #42:)
-In claiming NFP and Sacrilege are both “misguided pastoral provisions” and very similar examples of “false” mercy- the premise of your argument is still your previously unproven contention that the Church is wrong about NFP being perfectly moral in God’s eyes and therefore not contradicting any prior teachings; and that you are right about it being mortally sinful.
Unless the Church reverses itself, you’re basing your argument on a premise you already know we see as false.
__
You also claim “They both see” intercourse as a tool to keep the marriage and- family together. While that is likely true about those who propose sacrilege;.
as far as we know, it’s not at all the case- from either the Magisterium or its NFP teachings, which approach Marriage in a much broader context.
___
What you propose by stating that, is that regardless of whether someone promotes Sacrilegious reception of Eucharist, OR NFP, they view the targeted unions as more likely to fall apart -based solely on the availability of sexual intercourse.
–In reality, a sinful union is far more likely to be disrupted; formed as it was by two who joined while choosing to ignore a previous set of marriage vows, as. following the Church would require their intercourse to cease immediately, completely and for life- unless or until the previous marriage is declared null and void by the Church.
-Whereas In the case of a validly married Catholic couple, the union is blessed by God with Sacramental Grace to help it stay together under all circumstances; and is further helped by many Church teachings available on marriage and family, which they are more likely to seek out and heed, than a couple living in sin. So if the Church were to change it’s teaching on NFP right now, for example, good marriages have the Graces needed to go on obeying them without falling apart . (What you seem to be demanding is that Catholics treat it as if that were the case, while the Church teaches otherwise.)
__
You wrote next that since a majority of Catholics put unity before procreation, it is no wonder the Cardinals cannot see clearly and wish to etc….
–That seems to us to be stated completely backwards. If most Catholics think that way, the primary blame is to be laid upon the Hierarchy, who failed in their solemn duty to Teach, Govern and Sanctify them. Secondary blame belongs to the negligent laity. Furthermore, it’s most likely the same weaknesses and heresy that led to the Hierarchy’s laxity, that are to blame for them now looking to further mess things up by proposing sacrilege rather than repentance of sin, as a solution for the divorced. They seem to lack belief in the Real Presence, or have adopted an image of God that is “casual about sin” and therefore false.
__
You are likely right that they believe it impossible to abstain, or at least “too difficult”. Many reports confirm that. But abstention is the only solution as defined by the Church regarding adulterers. It is not the only solution for married couples, according to HV and NFP, and all the other teachings that (if we understand you) you also reject as false, which preceeded it.
-So again, we’re back to you “labeling” people who appear to us to be doing nothing wrong- as “sinners”, and lumping them together with those we can all be certain, are doing great evil, as confirmed by the Church’s teachings.
-If it’s any consolation, we think the Church should clarify the matters you raise, in a formal matter, by declaring NFP’s teachings and rules dogmatically correct.
-If that were to happen, would you reject it?
.
p.s. We realize that these issues are further complicated right now, by the fact that we have a Pope that thinks 3 children should be the unselfish limit. So that question puts you more on the spot than it would if we had a Pope like say, Cardinal Burke, for instance. So what if he were pope, and reaffirmed the teachings on NFP ex cathedra? That’s a fairer question.
That would be like saying that if the Church declared that one can do evil so that good can come of it as a dogma therefor I Would have to say that this decalration is not comming from the Church but from hijackers of the Church and thus I would not agree with their falsehoods. With NFP and the divorce and remarried they both refuse to renounce the conjugal embrace. Yes the divorce and remarried sin is adultery and The NFPers is not the sin of adultery but they both have the option to abstain to get out of sinning and this is what I am pointing to. The option to abstain is rejected by both and this is rooted in the new progressive, modernistic definition of God’s purpose and plan for
marriage.
Don’t you see this is what I am getting at? This is the only legitimate option,complete abstinence. Because most of us within the Catholic Church have been more than willing and eager to embrace the new teaching on it not being a sin to separate procreation and education of children for God’s glory and that it is dangerous and unhealthy to fully abstain because of human needs and weaknesses that we find ourselves in the sexual moral decay and confusion and loss of today. This “it’s asking too much of people to abstain, it’s cruel and unhealthy to oblige this” mentality is also what is bringing on the ordination of married men. After all since this new false pastoral provisions to not require complete abstinence is pervasive throughout our parishes we feel we can do away with a married man having to renounce the conjugal embrace with the permission of his wife before he can be legitimately ordained.
One should not have to reference what modern theologians had to say about sexual purity or morality to understand sexual purity and impurity. Natural law should be etched in our hearts. I can see how one can loose this sense of natural law with all the sexual perversities and filth we are witnessing today on a grand scale for everyone to access on the flip of a switch. This is precisely why this topic on sexual purity and the correct unadultered doctrines of marriage need to be addressed now and head on. It is not something we have the luxury to wait around for in hopes that our highjacked Parishes and the Majority of the liberal Cardinals and the current Pope will guide us on.
from the snares of the devil, Jesus deliver us.
Dear Anastasia,
We are very aware there is a lot of sexual immorality everywhere. We also agree that modernists in the Church have been promoting it in a variety of ways, (and many have also been participating in it). But the Church has not officially approved any of that because it is sinful. And unless you consider Pius XI and Pius XII both modernists, you added them to that group by including NFP in your list of sinful things.
__
You speak of natural law being in our hearts and knowable. We know eating and hydrating obviously have a primary purpose of nourishing these bodies God gave us, and they have secondary functions of relieving hunger and thirst, and being pleasing to the senses of sight, smell and taste and giving us chemically induced feelings of well-being, etc. As we mentioned earlier, there is obviously no sin in separating the secondary from the primary purpose, or God would not have instructed the Israelites to make sweet cakes for festivals, and to enjoy eating them for days; and Jesus would not have made 6 stone water jars full of the best wine, for wedding guests who had already drunk all that was provided by their host. That was not for hydration, obviously, but to provide pleasures, which if used properly, in moderation, are not sinful but helpful to man. Or do you think that was sinful too? If not, why do you find it so hard to apply the same reasoning to this other bodily function God created, which would help you not to view the Popes and the Church as wrong for declaring it what it naturally is– not sinful and in fact, helpful to man?
__
And if someone wishes to abstain from eating those sweets or drinking the wine, and make of that a sacrifice offered to God, there is nothing wrong with that, either. But we know God does not force us to do that, as you seem to be trying to say He would do, to all validly married couples. Thus it appears to us that you would condemn something beautiful and good, as ugly and sinful, on your own authority, claiming you understand natural law and moral law in this matter, better than three popes who used their offices and the Graces God gave them, to rule on these matters, with His help.
___
It just seems to us that natural law stands against your ideas, and with those popes and their rulings on NFP. And we’ve read enough of their other writings, to see them as well reasoned and in line with Church teachings of the past, so labeling them modernists seems to us to be another error..
Dear IF,
After evrything I have said and referenced, I can see that it is useless discussing this any further because you refuse to be honest with Natural Law and the teachings of God’s law and order for marriage that says one cannot separate procreation from unity in act word or deed without it being sinful. The truth is what will set us free,not excuses and permission to sin by misguided pastoral applications within our parishes,and by those who have been mislead in the Vatican.
from the snares of the devil, Jesus deliver us
Dear Anastasia,
We would like to add a side note here. Though we obviously differ greatly on this matter at present, and it seems to boil down to how much weight and credibility are given to the Popes in question, versus faith in personal understanding regarding natural law, we seem to have reached an impasse, where additional examples, once stripped down to what they represent, end up back at the above point–where we identify the difficulty as being centered on a lack of clarification on these serious matters, from trusted Church authorities, and THAT is a major problem today, as so many have proven so unwise and even sinful in their personal lives as to seem too often, just plain “crazy”.
___
We suggest we each continue on with our love of God and His Church and the souls it was created to save, including one another. We meant every word we said about our high regard for your determination and sincerity. We are also open to being wrong in our conclusions, because of the complexity of these issues. We have read and re-read Casti Cannubii from various points of view, and see that, much like Vatican II, it contains words that require further explanation, that have led to various interpretations. This is why we need the Magisterium to pronounce clearly and definitively on such matters, and this is why we need to know whether we have a Pope or an empty seat in Rome.
As we all know, these are the most serious problems we face today.
Our discussion of these issues with you, is living proof of that.
__
So thank you, and God Bless you. Don’t let this stop you if you have more to add. We just wanted to get it in. 🙂 🙂
Dear Anastasia,
Apparently we were keyboarding at the same time. Please see our comment just above yours. God Bless you.
🙂 🙂
p.s. God will bring much good out of all this, as Scripture assures us:
Nahum 1:7
“The Lord is good and giveth strength in the day of trouble: and knoweth them that hope in him.”
(Psalm 9:10)
“.. a helper in due time in tribulation.. And let them trust in Thee who know Thy name: for Thou hast not forsaken them that seek Thee, O Lord.
🙂 🙂