Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio, Pres. of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts
According to a post at Rorate Caeli:
We are told to watch for a press conference tomorrow focused on Amoris Laetitia. It is said to be the official reply to the four cardinals’ dubia, which will be answered by Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio, President of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legal [Legislative] Texts.
As the Rorate post suggests, this supposed “official reply” may coincide with the release of a book written by Cardinal Coccopalmerio on Amoris Laetitia at Francis’ request, which contains the following excerpt:
The divorced and remarried, de facto couples, those cohabiting, are certainly not models of unions in sync with Catholic Doctrine, but the Church cannot look the other way. Therefore, the sacraments of Reconciliation and of Communion must be given even to those so-called wounded families and to however many who, despite living in situations not in line with traditional matrimonial canons, express the sincere desire to approach the sacraments after an appropriate period of discernment…
Assuming that Rorate’s sources are accurate (and I think that likely), the choice of Coccopalmerio is rather interesting.
Coccopalmerio, incidentally, was given his current position by, and received the red hat from, Benedict the Abdicator, who hasn’t made a peep in defense of the Faith since the scourge on the Church known as Francis came on the scene.
In any case, the above mentioned quote is of interest to be sure, but it only serves to indicate that Francis, just as one might expect, has chosen a spokesman who agrees with his position. No surprise there.
Far more noteworthy concerning the choice of Coccopalmerio is that Francis has apparently decided that it is now opportune to present Amoris Laetitia, at least in some substantial measure, as a “legislative text.”
This “maneuver” is quite possibly is the best strategy that Team Bergolgio, after months of deliberation, could muster in the face of the dubia.
It would seem that Francis & Co. may believe that entering a plea of “not guilty” based on the notion that Amoris Laetitia is intended to be viewed as a “legislative text” (as opposed to a “doctrinal text”) will somehow provide a “legal defense” capable of excusing His Humbleness from the charge of notorious heresy.
If so, it is an embarrassingly lame defense indeed.
Intent simply has no bearing on whether or not the text of Amoris Laetitia is blasphemous and heretical; either it is objectively so or it is not.
It is also an eminently predictable strategy coming from the author of Amoris Laetitia – a document that presumes to suggest that intent – specifically, the intent to avoid “further sin” – somehow renders adultery something other than mortal sin. (cf AL 301)
According to the Profile of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts:
As part of the interpretative function, [the Council] is responsible, first to propose the Authentic Interpretation confirmed by pontifical authority, the universal laws of the Church, that is, the laws that concern the entire Latin Church and common laws to all the Eastern Catholic Churches.
In the case of Amoris Laetitia, the following universal laws are, in fact, called into question:
“Persevering in manifest grave sin serves as an obstacle to the sacraments.” (cf Canons 915, 1007)
“To receive the salvific remedy of the sacrament of penance, a member of the Christian faithful must be disposed in such a way that, rejecting sins committed and having a purpose of amendment, the person is turned back to God.” (Canon 987)
If indeed Cardinal Coccopalmerio intends to suggest that the “authentic interpretation” of said canons, “confirmed by pontifical authority” as set forth in Amoris Laetitia, allows for those who persist in adultery with no purpose of amendment to approach the sacraments of Confession and Holy Communion, and yet the doctrine of the faith remains untouched, don’t you believe it.
From day one, the proponents of the Kasperian Solution have been insisting that pastoral practice and doctrine are somehow independent of one another, to which Cardinal Muller rightly said (prior to whatever threats caused him to state that “it is not Amoris Laetitia that has provoked a confused interpretation”):
Each division between ‘theory’ and ‘practice’ of the faith would be a reflection of a subtle Christological heresy.
The same can be said of legislative texts and doctrine.
The bottom line here is rather simple:
As I (and certainly others) have been saying all along, the matter of Holy Communion for those in so-called second marriages is not the most pressing matter with respect to Amoris Laetitia; rather, this is but a result of the document’s most basic error – namely, the false idea that it is possible for a priest and an individual to effectively judge the interior disposition of soul in such way as to exculpate one of the mortal sin of adultery.
(Then there is the blasphemous notion that God desires men to persist in adultery!)
If this is true, then there is no such thing as mortal sin practically speaking; not only with respect to adultery, but also with regard to abortion, homosexual activity, or any such thing.
Lost along the way is any sense of the existence of intrinsic evil, and ultimately, the very notion of infallible teaching.
All of this is the result of one thing and one thing alone:
Man having putting himself in the place of God, the Author of the Divine Law; a problem that runs much deeper than Amoris Laetitia alone, in fact, going right back to the Council.
I digress…
The choice of Cardinal Coccopalmerio also serves as a clear indication that the supposed “official response” to the dubia will not be given in the form of a simple “yes” or “no” – the only answers necessary in such matters – rather, it is going to be given in essay form; replete with deception, subtleties and nuance (an art form among the modernists).
If either of those two words (“yes” or “no”) are actually uttered in response to the five questions that make up the dubia, there can be little doubt that they will immediately be followed by a qualifier: but, however, and yet…
All of this having been said, no matter what Coccopalmerio says, it will not suffice to render Francis innocent of the charges of heresy.
After all, the dubia is addressed directly to him for a reason; it is Francis himself and his membership in the Body of Christ about which there are doubts, not the doctrines stated in the questions.
As I wrote the day that the dubia was made public; Francis has been put on public trial. His failure to appear only serves to confirm his rejection of divinely revealed truth, and we all know what that means…
If indeed the scenario described above comes to pass, there can no longer be any dubia whatsoever that Jorge Mario Bergolgio is a formal heretic.
I, for one, cannot wait for the sun to rise tomorrow. God willing, I will be here to discuss whatever happens further.
Of course, Louie, your observation is dead-on the mark:
“…(the) “official response” to the dubia will not be given in the form of a simple “yes” or “no” – the only answers necessary in such matters – rather, it is going to be given in essay form…”
“But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil.” Matthew 5:37
An entire book–by a designated fall-guy–to answer yes or no? The dubia were directed to pope Bergoglio and it is he who is expected to answer. But, consistent with this heretical papacy, the book will enable Bergoglio to answer as he usually does–yes AND no. Apparently “papal” blasphemy and heresy becomes official tomorrow.
A Catholic Thinker’s explanation will doubtless be that to all the souls who end up damned for acting upon Amoris, the joke’s on them. They should have known that Amoris wasn’t “binding”. Nothing in or since Vatican II is binding. Didn’t you get it? Ha ha! You thought you were being taught by the Church did you? Fool!
They should have gotten their “credentials” up to speed before listening to what they think is the authority of the Church. No one is forced to act upon it you see, and if they do, it’s their fault, not the pope’s.
I am sorry, but this is unacceptable. This is the “out” he keeps using, but it does not hold water. He proposes a Church and a Papacy that is dangerous and unreliable, and one submits to it at the constant risk of damnation. It’s preposterous. All this to get Bergoglio off the hook. He hangs the Church to acquit Francis. I have tried, and continue to try to understand how ACT sees it. I honestly do.
Don’t be fooled?
Where were the dubia’s when the new religion of Modernist/Ecumenism became the official religion of the Vatican institution?
Where was the protest when the Vatican adopted the condemnations of prior dogmatic councils and previous pope’s exhortations and teachings against ecumenism, religious liberty, “democratic” governance of the Church, idolatry, and the definition of who belongs to Christ’s Church, Catholic participation in praying and worshipping with heretics, schismatics and non-believers?
Don’t be fooled? It is beyond foolish to believe the new religion is Catholic and yet the majority do.
I have stopped giving a rats a$$ what any NO prelate has to say anymore. They are protestant. Anyone who continues saying the NO or even supporting the NO is a protestant. Wake up neos, it was designed to appeal to prots. No true Catholic would accept or attend the NO.
Do you live in La La Land? Only a tiny fraction of the world’s Catholics have access to TLM, due to the fact that the SSPX has never been regularised. Faults on both sides of the coin – NO Bishops hardness of heart in not giving faculties within their Dioceses for TLM to be celebrated although the numbers asking for it were more than enough, leading to an elitist Traditional entity who didn’t put themselves out to promulgate in deference to Rome. If they had, Rome couldn’t have held Assisi nor gone to the Lund commemorations as neither of these places signify anything pertaining to Christ’s Church on earth. The countless souls that have been neglected & even lost is a scandal to Christ.
Ana, I sympathize. But the NO will always be protestant. It was designed to be so.
Except those who are too old, frail, or geographically challenged to get to Mass in the Extraordinary Form, all of which are often the case.
The pope is harming himself greatly, in my opinion, by not giving this presser himself. We know he’s hiding something, but this dodge is embarrassing. As usual, when one pokes beneath the surface, one often finds the loudest or most aggressive Modernists are paper tigers. There is a superb gentleman, Brian Camenker, who is head of an also superb group, “MassResistance”. This unassuming gentleman, I call “Clark Kent”, because really, underneath his demeanor, he is a kind of Superman. He takes on the LGBT community, some of the most loud, obnoxious, vulgar people on the globe, and he does it regularly in many ways. (See the website to see what I mean.) He was asked how he does it, how does he stand up to all those hostile people? He responded, “you just tell the truth…people will back down in the face of the truth…”.
These modernists are like every other progressive, they don’t have truth, and they can’t articulate heresy in a straightforward manner. They have to rely on elaborate responses that twist around and leave you wondering what on earth it was they were asked at the beginning.
Unless Pope Francis is there, with a YES or a NO, this is a farce and a further insult to Catholics everywhere, and reveals that the emperor knows full well that he has no clothes. Men armed with the truth can be used by God to overcome this infestation in our church. They must!
I would stay home before attending a protestant worship service. A Traditional minded Catholic is not in communion with what goes on in your average NO parish.
The responsibility goes back to Paul VI. If you can get to a traditional Mass offered by a priest ordained in the traditonal rite, by a bishop consecrated in the traditional rite, then you are extremely fortunate to have bypassed Montini’s attack on the Church.
Our Lady of Fatima said to pray the Rosary and wear the Brown Scapular, as a means of obtaining the ordinary graces that the enemies of the Church want to deprive you of for these dark times.
Tom A, you may want to re-think what you’re saying about the Novus Ordo Mass. Whatever else may be said about that liturgy, the Novus Ordo Mass is celebrated by ordained priests and bishops who are every bit as valid and legitimate as the bishops and priests of the SSPX. Despite your objections (as well as mine and many others) to the Novus Ordo Mass, suggesting it is not valid and licit is simply in error.
Speaking for myself, I am fortunate enough to live reasonably close to a church that celebrates the Tridentine Mass. But while a 60 mile drive may be reasonable for us to assist at a Sunday Mass, it is out of the question for me during the week. Consequently, if I wish to continue with daily Mass (which I do), I have no choice but to attend a Novus Ordo Mass.
And yes, the Novus Ordo is a disgracefully Protestanized Mass. Indeed, it has even picked up one of the very prayers created by the Thomas Cranmer. It is also difficult not to agree with those Catholics who claim that even witnessing a Novus Ordo Mass makes them physically ill. It is certainly true that when one witnesses a Novus Ordo they are exposed to one profane act after another––even when the Mass is said very reverentially. But importantly, profane or not, the Consecration is absolutely valid.
For those who can avoid witnessing the re-creation of Christ’s sacrifice for us on Calvary as faithful Catholics believe it should be witnessed, they should do so. Otherwise, they should attend the Novus Ordo Mass. To counsel a Catholic to do otherwise would be wrong.
Meant to say “For those who are able to witness…”. Sorry about that.
Modernist Rome is the master of doublespeak. Stay tuned —or better yet—tune them out. Our time is better spent in prayer.
You are right, of course. Being compelled by circumstance to attend a NO Mass is reminiscent of this encounter with Christ:
“For she said within herself: If I shall touch only his garment, I shall be healed.” Matthew 9:21
Even the opportunity to barely touch His cloak is incomparably better than staying home in a snit because one will not have the chance to fully embrace HIM as we would want.
Don’t be fooled.
There is doubt as to whether or not Jorge is even a validly ordained priest, as is the case for all of those ordained (or not) using Paul IV’s new rite of Holy Orders.
This isn’t simply the view of sede’s but that of Archbishop Lefebvre as is noted in the following link:
https://www.scribd.com/document/15270936/Doubtfulness-of-New-Catholic-Ordination-Rite#
Here is a link to this very important consideration
Prayer, penance, mortifications, and reparations are desperately needed for our own salvation and to end this Great Apostasy.
There is no great insult to Our Lord, to the men, women and children who have and still make sacrifices, some giving their lives, to defend and promote the true faith than to believe this man could be the head of Christ’s Church.
There is doubt as to whether or not the priests ordained in Paul VI’s new rite are validly ordained.
Please read this and then tell us what you think:
https://www.scribd.com/document/15270936/Doubtfulness-of-New-Catholic-Ordination-Rite#
The consecration was not valid in the NO when it changed the very word of Christ by substituting the word “all” for “many.” This reflects the new religion that the Catholic Church is not THE Church of Christ but merely a subset of the dozens or hundreds of other “Christian” churches, with as many varied doctrines as man can invent.
The reference to co-habitation makes things crystal clear, except to those sticking their fingers in their ears and singing “La la la, Pope Francis, we adore you!”
Next on the table: Sodomitical “marriage”. I’m sure Franciscus has got his boyfriend Rabbi Skorka working on “Amoris Laetitia 2”.
Irishpol, I said nothing about validity of NO. I just said it was protestant which you agreed with. I just dont know why a Catholic would attend a protestant worship service. The more a person prays like a protestant, the sooner he or she will start thinking like a protestant. That is why a Catholic should never attend. You will lose your faith in a desperate attempt to fulfill your Sunday obligation.
Black, you are still under Novus Ordo thinking.
God gave us the means to worship Him through the Mass “in Spirit and in Truth” John 4:24.
The Novus Ordo suppresses the Truths with which God has given us to worship Him.
The Mass is not about what we like but what God rightly demands of us.
Novus Ordo thinking is man centered, and which rite of mass one attends comes down to a preference, when it should be a principle.
Let me ask: just say an episcopalian got valid holy orders from some Orthodox bishop. He may well validly consecrate at his Lords Supper service. Would you go to it? It supresses the same truths that the Novus Ordo does, but it might be valid.
Sorry, Black should say Bosco!
The same people who vomited up the almost certainly invalid “for you and for all men” lie in the consecration of the Chalice ( or “cup”) also mucked around with the very FORM of the sacrament of Holy orders. If the Holy Ghost did not protect them from spewing out the former, why assume He protected them from producing the latter?
How can one be so sure the novus bishops are real bishops?
The validity issue is only half the issue. There’s more to Mass than “I just wanna get me my Sacraments! Give ’em to me!”
What about the worship we owe to God? Does anyone care about that anymore? Or has the Novus Ordo so completely turned us all into self centered brats?
The Novus Ordo throws precious elements of the Deposit of Faith into the trash or the sewer, and then has the astounding gall to shove this new abomination, this bastard rite, bereft of Divine and Catholic Truth, in His Holy face, and call it “Mass, or the Lord’s Supper”.
Correct. If Tom’s position were accurate, there would be no further need for Bergoglio to mess with the Mass. But that’s exactly what he’s planning to do – this time to make it really as Tom says. Then we poor NO goers, who currently have no other option, will be in a real pickle. When the Mass ceases to be valid and the bread and wine no longer become the Body and Blood of Christ, then will be the time to look for an underground Mass.
My above comment is in response to irishpol’s post. And, if one cannot worship fully externally at a NO, Papal Subject, he can do his best internally. The God I know, love and serve does not expect from us the impossible.
Isn’t it foolish to think the head of an institution that does not believe in nor practice the religion of Catholicism but the religion of Modernism, could somehow teach and preach a religion other than that which he believes?
See Ann Barnhardt’s current column at barnhardt.biz. Recall the saying that all heresy begins below the belt.
Two words sum up the reason why there is such a devastating crisis in the Vatican institution: Modernism and Ecumenism. Both are demonic machinations that serve to destroy the mind, heart and soul and it is through them that every change in both word and deed within the institution has its source.
The entire New Order “church” is one big DUBIA. It should have been nipped in the bud. If ever protesters were needed, it was at the start of the Second Vatican Council. How do you put the toothpaste back into the tube?
The same thing could be said about the countless millions over the years who have relied on vatican 2 annulments to enter into “Catholic” sanctioned adultery. AL isnt even the root problem here. AL is what has gotten trads into an uproar (and that’s a good thing….at least people are starting to get it), but the whole drive-through Catholic divorce process still gets almost no attention.
Dear Denis, this whole situation inflicted upon the Church by Paul VI Montini leaves us all in an unprecedented situation of extreme difficulty.
When Henry VIII invented a new church in the 16th Century, did Catholics go to the Anglican rite, which suppresses the same truths of the Deposit of Faith that the Novus Ordo does? Did they go externally to the new liturgy, but internally keep the Catholic Mass?, or did Catholics refuse it? The Novus Ordo is no more a Catholic rite than the Anglican or Lutheran rite, because they all have the same theology.
It’s very tough, I agree. How does God want us to respond? Can you relocate to be near an SSPX chapel for example? I know that that is not always possible.
Papal Subject, with respect, they do not “all have the same theology”. No Protestant church I ever attended in all my years of searching for Truth ever so much as pretended to offer the Sacrifice or offer more than a piece of bread or grape juice for communion. I can understand one who’s always enjoyed the beautiful TLM thinking that the NO is nothing more than a Protestant service, but my experience tells me otherwise. For years, all I had was the Bible, a preacher who determined what it meant, some music and fellowship. Something – with a capital “S” was missing – but I had no idea what It was. No one here or any place else will ever convince me that I do not receive my Lord in the Eucharist or that the Sacrifice of Calvary is not re-presented in the NO Mass. Some, I don’t doubt, do not – but that’s another matter that’s frequently discussed here. But ugly as anyone may deem it, it has totally transformed my life. That wasn’t possible where I only received a sermon and bread and grape juice, no matter my inner disposition.
I am concerned for some who seem to dictate what God can and cannot do. And I am grieved for our Lord being insulted when some make terrible comments about His Sacrifice in the NO Mass.
Regarding moving, it is not possible. How I wish I could live next to an SSPX chapel! But, who’s to say Bergoglio or his successor won’t stop that? We are all brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus. And I think it won’t be long before we are all seeking underground Masses and we’ll be very grateful for the simplest of them.
God bless you, brother.
I hear what you are saying Denis, but the Sacrifice referred to in the Novus Ordo is the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, not one of propitiation. The Anglicans have the “pray bretheren that our sacrifice…” in their liturgy too.
If one wants to read into the Novus Ordo a further meaning of sacrifice than what it actually says, then they are free to do so, but it was deliberately supressed. You can get the missals side by side and see for yourself, whether online or hard copies in front of you.
The Novus Ordo is much more (or much less) than just an ugly, dull, man centered rite. The aesthetics are just the fruit, not the substance.
Dennis, when you worship at the NO mass you worship differently than at a TLM. That difference is not insignificant. The way you worship forms your soul. Eastern Catholic Liturgy will form you differently than Western Latin Liturgy, but not in essence or substance. The NO is a radical departure in worship and will form you dramatically different that Traditional Catholicism both East and West. Its not a matter of a valid consecration, its a matter of your formation. To worship in a protestant manner will eventually make you a protestant. I just avoid the NO at all cost save family weddings or funerals, and then I absolutely refuse to communicate since I am in no way in communion with the average NO pewsitter. PS- and since the NO has formed most of my family, there are relatively very few NO weddings or funerals in my once absolutely 100% Catholic extended family.
Dear Tom, I cannot disagree with what you say – until you say that “to worship in a protestant manner will eventually make you a protestant”. That is simply ridiculous. For one who is not well formed in the orthodox Catholic faith, there absolutely is a great danger to attend the NO. I agree with you wholeheartedly on that! As I see it, that was the main intention of the Second Vatican Council reformers, to “protestantize” the Mass so much so that it would do exactly what you say – for the unsuspecting and uncatechized. And they certainly took care of that, too, didn’t they? But now the reformers (Masons and Modernists and Communists) are ready to make that last and most significant *reform* – and that is to ACTUALLY do away with the Sacrifice and Eucharist. Not just in some bad NOs, but ALL NOs. Period. Tom, I think we’ll agree on this: most Catholics are so ignorant of their faith that they hardly will notice. When that happens, there will be no reason to attend a NO, for it would be far better to stay home and pray than take part in a blasphemous service. God bless you, Tom.
No offense – I can’t doubt your sincerity as we don’t judge the internal forum – but you really just have not gotten it at all.
–
First, this constant sede mentality that simply acknowledging the REALITY that Francis is pope is completely baffling. It really is. And it certainly suggests that YOUR take is based highly on emotionalism. Francis being pope “acquits” him? From WHAT, pray tell? As a matter of fact, the punishments for his treachery will be all the greater since he is, in fact, a real priest and real pastor of souls – the supreme pastor! Perhaps he will be chained to the High Priest Ciaiphus – also a legitimate pastor according to Christ – for eternity. (Unless he repents, of course.)
–
Secondly, you really don’t seem to understand on iota that culpability for sin really is subjective. Someone honestly fooled into believing that something isn’t sinful may actually be less culpable. But such things are known only to God.
–
Third, your apparent insistence to cling to the falsehood that everything that comes out of Rome is binding is just plain odd. Learn what the Church teaches. I’m sorry if it can’t be as simple as you’d like.
–
Why the obsession with judging others? And why your seeming obsession with ME? To be honest, it’s getting a little creepy on my end. My position is that of Archbishop Lefebvre, of the Society since its inception, then & now, of the Remnant, of Catholic Family News – the position of Traditionalists apart from the sedes. And, no, I don’t think they qualify for that title.