Phil Lawler wonders about the pastoral implications of Pope Francis’ pastoral advice in Amoris Laetitia. Consider the plight of “regular” Roman Catholics:
In any Catholic community there will always be some devout believers who, following the Lord’s advice, “Strive to enter by the narrow door.” They will pray often and ardently, try to attend daily Mass, practice their own private devotions, and seek out spiritual direction from priests who demand a lot of them. For these people—let’s call them “high-octane” Catholics—Gresham’s Law will not apply. They are the equivalent of the folks who demand payment in doubloons.
But most Catholics, in most times and places, are not of the high-octane variety. Most “regular” parishioners will do what the Church demands of them, but will not seek out extra rigors. They will attend Sunday Mass on a regular basis, raise their children in the faith, follow the precepts of the Church as they understand them, contribute to the parish. Faithful if not zealous, they will form the backbone of the Catholic community. Nourished by the sacraments and encouraged by their pastors, they will grow in faith; some will eventually become high-octane Catholics.
Now notice how these “regular” Catholics—who sincerely intend to meet their obligations, without taking on extra burdens—are likely to choose between two hypothetical parishes:
In Parish A, Sunday Mass lasts 90 minutes or more; the liturgy is “high” and solemn; the Gregorian chant is unfamiliar. In Parish B, Mass is out in 40 minutes; the hymns sound like (and sometimes are) snappy show tunes.
In Parish A, religious-education classes are demanding, and students who do not master the basic catechism lessons do not advance. In Parish B, teachers assume that “they’re good kids” and don’t worry about details.
In Parish A, when a young couple comes to discuss marriage, and the pastor notices that they list the same home address on their registration forms, he tells them that they must live separately. In Parish B the pastor “doesn’t notice” the matching addresses, and plans for the wedding can move forward.
In Parish A, priests often preach on controversial topics, driving home the Church’s least popular messages, reminding the parishioners of their sins. In Parish B, the homily is always a gentle reminder that we should be kind to one another, and not too rough on ourselves.
Needless to say, high-octane Catholics will flock to Parish A. Regular Catholics will gravitate toward Parish B. Human nature being what it is, most people will choose the less demanding of two options.
Now notice what happens to priests in these parishes when they meet a couple that has been re-married:
In his apostolic exhortation, Pope Francis sets up the model of a pastor who will meet with these couples, help them to review and assess their lives, to repent their past failings, to bring their lives closer to the Christian ideal, and to do everything that they can in their current circumstances to grow in holiness. Exactly how this process will unfold is unclear, because, as the Pope explains, it is impossible to anticipate all the unique circumstances of any individual case. But clearly the Pope is describing a rigorous process, rather than a quick solution.
But what sort of priest would insist on that rigor in his dealings with a remarried couple? The pastor of Parish A, probably. But that pastor would very likely tell the couple that if they wish to receive the sacraments they must live as brother and sister. And the couple, for that matter, if they were active parishioners in Parish A, would probably have reached that conclusion for themselves already. So Amoris Laetitiae would bring no change in their case.
In Parish B, on the other hand, the pastor—having long ago established the pattern of requiring only the minimum—would be far more likely to tell the couple that they should not worry about details, that they should feel free to receive the Eucharist. In all likelihood he would already have conveyed that message, and they would already be in the Communion line every Sunday. Again, the apostolic exhortation would cause no significant change.
But consider what might happen in the marginal cases, where change is most visible. What will happen to divorced/remarried couples who, after years away from the faith, are inspired by the Pope’s message to return to the fold? If they happen to meet with a priest who expects them to go through a long and difficult process, aren’t they likely to seek a second opinion, and maybe a third, until inevitably, they find a pastor who will welcome them back immediately, with no requirements and no strings attached? Hasn’t that pattern already been clearly established by the young couples who want their wedding scheduled without a demanding marriage-prep program, or want their children confirmed without a rigorous CCD requirement?
This is not exactly the church that was opposed to any trace of modernity for at least 150 years.
Now imagine the real life (fictional couple) of Rex Mottram and Julia Marchmain:
Julia manages to match Sebastian’s dissolute lifestyle through her own acts of intransigence. She eventually plans to marry Rex Mottram, a Protestant Canadian, who has managed to gain a seat in the House of Commons. It is this relationship with Rex that marks Julia’s descent into chronic sin. Julia learns that Rex may be carrying on an affair with a mistress. She thinks that if they become engaged, this can put an end to the affair. When it doesn’t, she then begins to reason that if she is going to keep Rex from being unfaithful, she will have to offer sexual gratification to her fiancé before they are married. Julia justifies this in her own mind and presents the proposition to a priest: “Surely, Father, it can’t be wrong to commit a small sin myself in order to keep him from a much worse one?” The Jesuit responds in the negative and suggests that she make her confession. It is this moment, when Julia does not receive what she wants, that she turns against the faith: “‘No, thank you,’ she said, as though refusing the offer of something in a shop. ‘I don’t think I want to today,’ and walked angrily home. From that moment she shut her mind against her religion.”
During their engagement, Rex agrees to receive instruction so that he can convert to Catholicism. However, matters are exasperated when it is revealed that Rex was previously married and divorced in Canada. Rex does not understand how this can be an impediment to a prospective marriage to Julia and he sees no difference between his divorce and the granting of an annulment. When it is obvious that nothing can be done with only a few weeks before the wedding, Julia and Rex agree to marry in a Protestant ceremony, separating themselves from Catholic society and the Marchmain family. Julia’s intransigence reaches its peak as she voices a modern refusal to recognize objective sin: “I don’t believe these priests know everything. I don’t believe in hell for things like that. I don’t know that I believe in it for anything.”
So which priest would Rex and Julia seek? Parish A or Parish B? This writer thinks Parish B’s priest is closer to Pope Francis’ instruction in his apostolic exhortation:
If they were alive today, would Julia and Charles have had to part ways? Amoris Laetitia offers alternatives: “Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end.” Couldn’t Julia and Charles have spoken with Father MacKay in the internal forum for the sake of contributing to the “formation of a correct judgment”?
Even the idea of living as brother and sister seems to be impossible in this modern age. While Julia explains to Charles that she plans to “[j]ust go on – alone” this is not a sad revelation because she is finally able to receive God’s mercy and to return to a right relationship with Him. However Amoris Laetitia makes it seem that “going on alone” or abstaining from sexual intercourse is impossible in 2016. Pope Francis explains that “many people, knowing and accepting the possibility of living ‘as brothers and sisters’ which the Church offers them, point out that if certain expressions of intimacy are lacking, ‘it often happens that faithfulness is endangered and the good of the children suffers.’” In the age of Brideshead, one didn’t die if they abstained from sexual intimacy. Apparently, in this sex-obsessed age, it is impossible for one to live without it.
Some will say that no dogma has changed. And sure the dogma of mortal and venial sins have not changed. But if priests’ pastoral counsel, with a green light from the magisterium, is defective by not warning the flock from sin, if it tolerates sinful practices under the guise of being pastoral, something has changed.
Evelyn Waugh knew that the Church of England had changed (even when dogma hadn’t). Do Roman Catholic apologists think Waugh wouldn’t notice this?
Old Life 
But Father Dwight has seen the BBC series:
I wonder if Amoris Laetitia will change the Father’s enjoyment of the series.
LikeLike
DG; reference quote: The Pope calls us to be with Jesus in the dust not with the Pharisees in their lust.
Amen. For as Jesus says: in the last time there will be mockers, following after their own ungodly lusts and all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world. The world is passing away, and also its lusts; but the one who does the will of God lives forever – . Jude 1:18; 1 John 2:16-17
Will have to think on how that reconciles with…
“While we uphold the simple definition of Christian marriage as between one man and one woman for life, the situation of a polygamous culture in Africa and a no fault divorce culture in America and a machismo culture in Argentina and a cohabiting culture in Europe means that while we uphold the ideal, matching our lives to that ideal is increasingly complex and it is impossible to set out one pastoral methodology which will apply to everyone. The Church is Welcoming Not Excluding – Pope Francis wants us to open the doors to those who are caught up in the Marriage Mess”
LikeLike
Just curious. Do you here at Old Life ever apply the Bible and preach the Gospel to yourselves? Just wondering. Since you claim a salvation that no one can boast about, why is there so much boasting here at Old Life? Why are you glad you are not sinners like the rest of us poor slobs who are going to hell according to Ali’s theology?
You seem happy that others are lost and you are saved.
Phil 2:12
Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling,
LikeLike
mrswebfoot says: Phil 2:12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling,
Why do you keep stopping before the end of that thought Mrs.W?
……13 for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.
please try to give credit where credit is due
LikeLike
““It … can no longer simply be said that all those in any ‘irregular’ situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace,” states the pontiff at one point in the document.”
Organic development: Change = tomato/tomahto
“This does not mean we sacrifice or compromise the ideal, but it does mean that we listen to the real life situations of real people. Jesus was in the dust with the woman caught in adultery and he condemned the self righteous scribes and Pharisees who stood apart with stones a-ready.”
Jesus also called the woman to repentance (go and sin no more). Sounds like repentance isn’t necessary if the sacrifice is too great… taking up your cross is just so last millennium I guess. Very sad…
LikeLike
“Sounds like repentance isn’t necessary if the sacrifice is too great”
Good thing Dwight disagrees considering the very statement cited says: “This does not mean we sacrifice or compromise the ideal,”
along with:
“The “accompaniment” and “walking with the wounded” which the Holy Father recommends is a plea for us priests and all the people to meet the woman taken in adultery in the dust and to grant her forgiveness and say “Go and sin no more” and then to help her live that way. That this is a process which often takes time, care, compassion and concern is all the pope is pointing out. He is making the plea that we priests and people listen to the full, often complex and difficult situations and help people understand church teaching and move step by step to that place and time where they can be completely reconciled, ransomed, healed restored, forgiven and receive the medicine of communion.”
“many are genuinely wounded, genuinely repentant and genuinely want to belong to the church and follow Jesus Christ despite their “irregular relationships.” In other words, they want to find peace, they’ve messed up and they know it and they want to find reconciliation and the way forward.”
“Pope Francis want us to welcome and integrate those whose relationships are “less than ideal”. We should remember that those whose relationship are “less than ideal” are not just the divorced and remarried. There are numerous complex relationships that fall short of the Catholic ideal. These people should be welcomed into the church and asked to participate in prayer, Bible study, charitable activity, fellowship and full life in the parish except for the reception of communion”
Darryl, where was the call-out to the article Dwight linked to in all your collating? Not interesting enough I guess. http://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/pope-francis-no-communion-for-divorced-and-remarried
“In response, Pope Francis emphasized, “The key phrase used by the synod, which I’ll take up again, is ‘integrate’ in the life of the Church the wounded families, remarried families, etc.”
Thompson then asked, “Does that mean they can receive Communion?”
Pope Francis, with unusual clarity, responded, “This is the last thing. Integrating in the Church doesn’t mean receiving Communion.”
The Pope immediately gave an anecdotal story to make clear his point.
‘I know married Catholics in a second union who go to church, who go to church once or twice a year and say I want Communion, as if joining in Communion were an award. It’s a work towards integration; all doors are open. But we cannot say from here on they can have Communion. This would be an injury also to marriage, to the couple, because it wouldn’t allow them to proceed on this path of integration.’
The Pope gave a similar response in March 2015 concerning the admittance to Holy Communion of the divorced and remarried during an interview conducted by Vatican Radio in Rome with a Mexican correspondent from Televisa. The interview was published one week later in L’Osservatore Romano on March 13.
The journalist, Valentina Alazraki, asked Pope Francis, “Will the divorced and remarried be able to receive Communion?”
The Pope responded, “What the Church wants is for you to integrate yourself into the life of the Church. But there are those who say, ‘No, I want to receive Communion, and that’s it’ — like a rosette, an honorary award. No. Reintegrate yourself.”
LikeLike
Fascinating how the pope, who is supposed to be the answer for all of our epistemological problems, can’t speak clearly enough for anyone to agree on what he says. Like Luther and Calvin or not, you know what they mean.
LikeLike
What is also fascinating is that if Dwight is right that the pope wants the church to forgive, how can one at the same time refuse communion. If the sin has been pardoned, why isn’t the table opened?
When will CTC explain all this. I’m so confused.
LikeLike
Robert, if you were raised under Vat II or simply have been in the RC more than ten years, Francis is readily understood. None of this is new. Pastoral application has been the RC shibboleth for fifty years now and Francis’ liberation theology is as old. You’ve had this breadth of application going on at the parish level for decades now. CtC, is quite honestly some red headed stepchild.
LikeLike
“Fascinating how the pope, who is supposed to be the answer for all of our epistemological problem”
The “answer” is not the pope – the pope is one component of the answer. If he was the sole piece, that would mean popes couldn’t be corrected or in error. But RCism teaches popes can be corrected or in error.
“Like Luther and Calvin or not, you know what they mean.”
Are Luther and Calvin clearer than Scripture? When did RCism ever claim the pope is always clear?
“the pope wants the church to forgive, how can one at the same time refuse communion.”
To spur them to seek out forgiveness and reconciliation in the sacraments – as he said the confessional is not a “torture chamber”.
“If the sin has been pardoned, why isn’t the table opened?”
The table is open to those whose mortal sins are forgiven. The pope and AL did not say all mortal sin is now automatically forgiven and no big deal. That wouldn’t be “reintegrating” ones self into the church.
LikeLike
Mermaid, back at you. All the converts seem happy that they are uptown and Protestants are slobs.
LikeLike
Sean, you mean the converts converted because of two smart popes that they mistook for real Roman Catholicism? Not that anyone is actually going to subject the smart popes’ writings to critical scrutiny. Roman Catholics may not. Non-Roman Catholics don’t care.
LikeLike
Darryl,
You’ll be thrilled – http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-jesus-is-the-only-door-to-eternal-life-43358/
LikeLike
somewhat encouraging Cletus, now if He would just say ‘the clue to knowing the voice of Christ’ is when what is spoken is in accord with God’s infallible word; and then if He would just say that the vicar of Christ is the Holy Spirit
LikeLike
James Young, right. Crucifixion for “the way forward.” And what’s up with breaking the second commandment? Should a pope really put his hand there?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart And what’s up with breaking the second commandment?
What second commandment DG?
This one : http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/command.htm
or this one :Jesus: You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness….Ex 20:4-5, Deut 5:8-9
LikeLike
Clete,
The “answer” is not the pope – the pope is one component of the answer. If he was the sole piece, that would mean popes couldn’t be corrected or in error. But RCism teaches popes can be corrected or in error.
To read the audacity of pope by CTC, one would think that the papacy solves all. Further, your church puts such an emphasis on the pope as the cornerstone of unity, it’s awfully hard not to view him as the “sole piece,” particularly when if he says he’s saying something infallibly, he can’t be corrected. He’s infallible whenever he says he’s infallible, remember.
Are Luther and Calvin clearer than Scripture? When did RCism ever claim the pope is always clear?
So the pope doesn’t help us. Thank you.
To spur them to seek out forgiveness and reconciliation in the sacraments – as he said the confessional is not a “torture chamber”.
So now you can be forgiven of that second marriage in the sacrament, no need for an annulment? Cause that’s how the document is being read.
The table is open to those whose mortal sins are forgiven. The pope and AL did not say all mortal sin is now automatically forgiven and no big deal. That wouldn’t be “reintegrating” ones self into the church.
No, the pope said that you can go to your priest and let him make the decision about reintegrating you. Or at least that is how the liberals are reading this. And they have no problem finding a priest who will agree. So what has been accomplished except to give tacit approval to what wayward priests (as defined by conservatives) were doing anyway?
LikeLike
Robert,
“To read the audacity of pope by CTC, one would think that the papacy solves all. ”
The papacy is an essential component, but not the only component.
“he’s saying something infallibly, he can’t be corrected.”
Yup. So popes can be corrected in their practice, prudential judgments, theology, etc. – Vat1 didn’t say the pope is always speaking infallibly 24×7 since that would be kind of dumb to assert given history.
“So the pope doesn’t help us. Thank you.”
I asked, When did RCism ever claim the pope is always clear? The ‘always’ qualifier was purposeful.
“no need for an annulment? Cause that’s how the document is being read.”
This sounds like how you asserted the document was being read that mortal sin no longer exists – please find me the parishes or dioceses that are banning or doing away with annulments now based on AL.
“No, the pope said that you can go to your priest and let him make the decision about reintegrating you”
Which doesn’t contradict what I said – The table is open to those whose mortal sins are forgiven. The pope and AL did not say all mortal sin is now automatically forgiven and no big deal. That wouldn’t be “reintegrating” ones self into the church.
LikeLike
Ali says:
April 18, 2016 at 10:53 am
mrswebfoot says: Phil 2:12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling,
Why do you keep stopping before the end of that thought Mrs.W?
……13 for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.
please try to give credit where credit is due>>>>>
Ali, you told me I was worshipping a false god.
sdb:
Jesus also called the woman to repentance (go and sin no more). Sounds like repentance isn’t necessary if the sacrifice is too great… taking up your cross is just so last millennium I guess. Very sad…>>>>
So, you are not one of those who wish to remove the pericope adulterae from Scripture?
Please stop slandering Catholics, or at least all Catholics and all of Catholicism. Stations of the Cross, The Sorrowful Mysteries, the emphasis on sacrifice, especially in the Liturgy of the Hours. The Sacrifice of the Mass. etc. all give evidence to the centrality of the cross of Christ not just as an historical event but as a present reality.
Catholics do believe in the priesthood of all believers. In fact, the believer is both priest and victim.
The crucifixes we wear and that hang on the walls of our homes have Christ on them to remind us of His sacrifice and ours.
What are you talking about?
—————————————–
From a sermon by Saint Peter Chrysologus, bishop
Each of us is called to be both a sacrifice to God and his priest
I appeal to you by the mercy of God. This appeal is made by Paul, or rather, it is made by God through Paul, because of God’s desire to be loved rather than feared, to be a father rather than a Lord. God appeals to us in his mercy to avoid having to punish us in his severity.
Listen to the Lord’s appeal: In me, I want you to see your own body, your members, your heart, your bones, your blood. You may fear what is divine, but why not love what is human? You may run away from me as the Lord, but why not run to me as your father? Perhaps you are filled with shame for causing my bitter passion. Do not be afraid. This cross inflicts a mortal injury, not on me, but on death. These nails no longer pain me, but only deepen your love for me. I do not cry out because of these wounds, but through them I draw you into my heart. My body was stretched on the cross as a symbol, not of how much I suffered, but of my all-embracing love. I count it no loss to shed my blood: it is the price I have paid for your ransom. Come, then, return to me and learn to know me as your father, who repays good for evil, love for injury, and boundless charity for piercing wounds.
Listen now to what the Apostle urges us to do. I appeal to you, he says, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice. By this exhortation of his, Paul has raised all men to priestly status.
How marvellous is the priesthood of the Christian, for he is both the victim that is offered on his own behalf, and the priest who makes the offering. He does not need to go beyond himself to seek what he is to immolate to God: with himself and in himself he brings the sacrifice he is to offer God for himself. The victim remains and the priest remains, always one and the same. Immolated, the victim still lives: the priest who immolates cannot kill. Truly it is an amazing sacrifice in which a body is offered without being slain and blood is offered without being shed.
The Apostle says: I appeal to you by the mercy of God to present your bodies as a living sacrifice. Brethren, this sacrifice follows the pattern of Christ’s sacrifice by which he gave his body as a living immolation for the life of the world. He really made his body a living sacrifice, because, though slain, he continues to live. In such a victim death receives its ransom, but the victim remains alive. Death itself suffers the punishment. This is why death for the martyrs is actually a birth, and their end a beginning. Their execution is the door to life, and those who were thought to have been blotted out from the earth shine brilliantly in heaven.
Paul says: I appeal to you by the mercy of God to present your bodies as a sacrifice, living and holy. The prophet said the same thing: Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but you have prepared a body for me. Each of us is called to be both a sacrifice to God and his priest. Do not forfeit what divine authority confers on you. Put on the garment of holiness, gird yourself with the belt of chastity. Let Christ be your helmet, let the cross on your forehead be your unfailing protection. Your breastplate should be the knowledge of God that he himself has given you. Keep burning continually the sweet smelling incense of prayer. Take up the sword of the Spirit. Let your heart be an altar. Then, with full confidence in God, present your body for sacrifice. God desires not death, but faith; God thirsts not for blood, but for self-surrender; God is appeased not by slaughter, but by the offering of your free will.
LikeLike
Clete,
Yup. So popes can be corrected in their practice, prudential judgments, theology, etc. – Vat1 didn’t say the pope is always speaking infallibly 24×7 since that would be kind of dumb to assert given history.
Vat1 said the pope is speaking infallibly whenever the pope says he is speaking infallibly. So if Francis were to say, “I am now speaking infallibly: Homosexual marriage is a-ok.” He could not be corrected. If he could, then papal infallibility is vacuous, but we already knew that.
LikeLike
Robert,
Okay, let me know when Francis says that.
LikeLike
Meanwhile, Ross Douthat sees problems:
Rather, conservative Catholicism has been on a kind of quest, ever since the crisis atmosphere of the 1960s and 1970s, to define certain essentials of the faith in a time of sweeping flux and change, while effectively conceding (to borrow Linker’s architectural image) that reformers can rearrange and remove the bricks of Catholicism so long as they don’t touch those crucial foundations. For a long time this conservative quest was lent a certain solidity and rigor and self-confidence by John Paul II and Benedict XVI. But the advent of Francis has made it clear that conservative Catholicism doesn’t have as clear a synthesis as conservatives wanted to believe, and that in some ways the conservative view of the post-Vatican II church is a theory in crisis — or the very least that it lacks a clear-enough account of itself, and of what can and cannot change in its vision of Catholicism, to navigate an era in which the pope himself does not seem to be “on side.”
LikeLike
Clete,
Who am I to judge Francis?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart says:
April 18, 2016 at 3:57 pm
Mermaid, back at you. All the converts seem happy that they are uptown and Protestants are slobs.>>>
I do not think that at all. I have never said that Protestants are slobs. In fact, I have expressed gratitude for all that I learned from the many fine Evangelical Protestant teachers and pastors I have sat under.
What I didn’t realize is that my favorite Protestant teachers – Jonathan Edwards and R.C. Sproul – were and are actually Thomists. What hadn’t fully dawned on me was that the great fathers and doctors of the Church were all Catholic. Every last one of them expounded on the Eucharist – the Real Presence. So, don’t fault me for wanting to be what they were. Or, go ahead and fault me.
I regularly call all of you my brothers and sisters in Christ because we share the one baptism in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. The Church teaches me that we are all Christians because of the common baptism. In fact, the Catholic sources that I read and learn from often quote Protestant Biblical scholars in a positive light.
It is you, dear Brother Hart, who leads the way in trashing Catholics and Catholicism, calling us names if we do not see the world like you do. You have especially targeted me, mocking my screen name and calling me Mermaid and insulting me about my looks.
You have especially targeted Susan, telling her to THINK, when she is one of the more thoughtful people around here. She thinks deeply and expresses herself well. You and your followers mock her.
Now, if you really believe that you are teaching the truth, then fine. Go ahead, but expect some push back as you push and push back.
So, if you are happy – as in satisfied that you are on the right track theologically – then I am happy for you.
LikeLike
Mermaid, catch up. The bishops at Trent did not believe in the priesthood of believers:
LikeLike
Mermaid, consider that your love feels like pity.
LikeLike
The attitude of Rome towards Protestants in Trent and in the modern world is striking. You simply can’t have an attitude change of that magnitude without a fundamental change in an understanding of what the church is. Heretics, be they formal or material, can’t be separated brethren. So if we’re separated brethren, we’re not heretics and not in danger of hell. If we’re formal or material heretics, we’re in serious danger of hell. Dogma with respect to Protestants has fundamentally changed.
Rome has become all about looking nice to the watching nonChristian world. We’ve seen it at V2. We’ve seen it with Francis’ “Love is a beautiful thing” encyclical. We’ve seen it with Francis’ “End global warming now” encyclical. Luther would have had a much easier time if he’d have been born in 1950 or so.
LikeLike
Robert, we were in danger in 1943, but that was so, you know, then:
“Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. “For in one spirit” says the Apostle, “were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.” As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered – so the Lord commands – as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.”
– MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI, ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XII, ON THE MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST, #22
BTW, notice who Divine Spirit Pius refers to – the Church’s, not the Holy Spirit. One more wince:
“The visible Church…is the Son of God himself, everlastingly manifesting himself among men in a human form, perpetually renovated, and eternally young – the permanent incarnation of the same.”
Adam Mohler, Symbolism or Exposition of the Doctrinal Differences Between Catholics and Protestants as Evidenced by their Symbolic Writings, 259.
LikeLike
Noon,
MCC also stated, “Likewise, We must earnestly desire that this united prayer may embrace in the same ardent charity both those who, not yet enlightened by the truth of the Gospel, are still outside the fold of the Church, and those who, on account of regrettable schism, are separated from Us…. We have committed to the protection and guidance of heaven those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church, solemnly declaring that after the example of the Good Shepherd We desire nothing more ardently than that they may have life and have it more abundantly. Imploring the prayers of the whole Church We wish to repeat this solemn declaration in this Encyclical Letter in which We have proclaimed the praises of the “great and glorious Body of Christ” and from a heart overflowing with love We ask each and every one of them to correspond to the interior movements of grace, and to seek to withdraw from that state in which they cannot be sure of their salvation. For even though by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church. Therefore may they enter into Catholic unity and, joined with Us in the one, organic Body of Jesus Christ, may they together with us run on to the one Head in the Society of glorious love…. Though We desire this unceasing prayer to rise to God from the whole Mystical Body in common, that all the straying sheep may hasten to enter the one fold of Jesus Christ”
LikeLike
Hey Cletus,
“We ask each and every one of them to correspond to the interior movements of grace, and to seek to withdraw from that state in which they cannot be sure of their salvation.”
Lol. No RC is sure of their salvation. I am, for Christ has saved me by His vicarious death, resurrection, and ascension to the Father’s right hand, and i in him (Eph. 2:5). You guys are at your best selling reduced time in purgatory because you prey on the doubting. Not best as in good, but best as in successful.
Unicorns and wiffle dust is your religion.
LikeLike
Noon,
“No RC is sure of their salvation”
Sure? No – that risks the sin of presumption and snuffing out the virtue of humility. Confident and hopeful? Yes.
“Unicorns and wiffle dust is your religion.”
Is that also true for all Protestant churches denying Calvinist assurance?
Are you sure you’re assured? Or might you be confused and self-deceived? Heed Calvin’s warning:
“experience shows that the reprobate are sometimes affected in a way so similar to the elect, that even in their own judgment there is no difference between them. Hence it is not strange, that by the Apostle a taste of heavenly gifts, and by Christ himself a temporary faith, is ascribed to them. Not that they truly perceive the power of spiritual grace and the sure light of faith; but the Lord, the better to convict them, and leave them without excuse, instills into their minds such a sense of his goodness as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption… Therefore, as God regenerates the elect only for ever by incorruptible seed, as the seed of life once sown in their hearts never perishes, so he effectually seals in them the grace of his adoption, that it may be sure and steadfast. But in this there is nothing to prevent an inferior operation of the Spirit from taking its course in the reprobate…. Still it is correctly said, that the reprobate believe God to be propitious to them, inasmuch as they accept the gift of reconciliation, though confusedly and without due discernment; not that they are partakers of the same faith or regeneration with the children of God; but because, under a covering of hypocrisy, they seem to have a principle of faith in common with them. Nor do I even deny that God illumines their minds to this extent, that they recognize his grace; but that conviction he distinguishes from the peculiar testimony which he gives to his elect in this respect, that the reprobate never attain to the full result or to fruition. When he shows himself propitious to them, it is not as if he had truly rescued them from death, and taken them under his protection. He only gives them a manifestation of his present mercy. In the elect alone he implants the living root of faith, so that they persevere even to the end. Thus we dispose of the objection, that if God truly displays his grace, it must endure for ever. There is nothing inconsistent in this with the fact of his enlightening some with a present sense of grace, which afterwards proves evanescent.”
LikeLike
Robert, repeat after me. What has happened to Rome is what happened to mainline Protestants. The Westminster Confession didn’t change. How the PCUSA applied it (or ignored it and followed some unstated doctrine) sure did. But at least the PCUSA rejected conservatives. Rome had a pope who condemned modernism. Yet Roman Catholics act like modernism can’t happen to them.
LikeLike
James Young, so you take comfort from incoherence?
LikeLike
James Young, but at least Calvin encourages self-awareness. All you’ve got is gullibility.
LikeLike
James Young, does heeding both sides of pontiff’s mouth lead to this?
Come on. Everything is fine.
LikeLike
Darryl,
I have to admit, it’s hard to wrap my mind around it at times. Maybe its my evangelical/fundamentalist upbringing, but I can’t see why the RC apologists don’t see it. Point out the evidence and Susan will say, “Well at least the mass is being said every day”; Mermaid will say, “Everything good in Protestantism comes from [didn’t exist until Trent but who cares anyway] Catholicism; and James will say, “But no one has stopped holding confessions.” What is it about Rome that makes people believe that Rome simply can’t have its lamp stand taken away. All those Apostolic churches in Revelation received the warning.
I could get the argument that one should be Roman Catholic because its old, because its so large, etc., but the idea that you should become Roman Catholic because it allows you to differentiate between your opinion and divine revelation and that it can’t ever err is mind-boggling. Rome has changed substantively. Some of the most liberal Christians I have known have been mass-going Roman Catholics. And now Francis. I guess I understand the desire for certainty that Rome purports to provide, but that was the Rome of pre-V2. That Rome doesn’t exist anymore. Sedevacantism I get. Francis and Pius IX teaching the same unbroken religion I can’t.
LikeLike
Cletus van Damme says: Noon,“No RC is sure of their salvation ”Sure? No – that risks the sin of presumption and snuffing out the virtue of humility. Confident and hopeful? Yes.
This brings to mind maybe why you keep quoting the book of Hebrews scripture so much, Mrs W.
I haven’t responded to you because you keep accusing me on saying things that I have not said. So, here I will say this harsh thing to you and then you can say that I said it, and it will be actually true.
“The epistle to the Hebrews is a study in contrast, between the imperfect and incomplete provisions of the Old Covenant, given under Moses, and the infinitely better provisions of the New Covenant offered by the perfect high priest, God’s only Son and the Messiah, Jesus Christ.”
“A proper interpretation of this epistle requires the recognition that it addresses three distinct groups of Jews: 1) believers; 2) unbelievers who were intellectually convinced of the gospel; and 3) unbelievers who were attracted by the gospel and the person of Christ but who had reached no final conviction about him.”
“The primary group addressed were Hebrew Christians The letter was written to give them ENCOURAGEMENT AND CONFIDENCE in CHRIST, their Messiah and high priest. They were an immature group of believers who were tempted to hold on to the symbols and spiritually powerless rituals and traditions of Judaism.”
[*MacArthur study bible)
Mrs W, here’s the harsh thing -don’t be one of those.
The Lord wants His children to KNOW they have eternal life (1 John 5:13). I mean, what good earthly parent would love to leave there children in uncertainty, love to see them never quite sure about critical matters; how much more will our Father in heaven not do that. (Matt 7:11, Luke 11:13)
LikeLike
Darryl,
“The Westminster Confession didn’t change.”
So the OPC subscribes to the original version?
“How the PCUSA applied it (or ignored it and followed some unstated doctrine) sure did.”
The PCA held a GA which added amendments approving SSM. Where did Rome do that again?
“But at least the PCUSA rejected conservatives.”
So Rome hasn’t rejected conservatives. How about that.
“Rome had a pope who condemned modernism. ”
Modernism is still condemned.
“at least Calvin encourages self-awareness.”
I thought you were against all that Puritan navel-gazing. Btw, in case you were unaware – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examination_of_conscience
What on earth does a lineup of speakers at a few American Catholic college commencements have to do with the RC faith? If someone has their faith shaken because Joe Biden spoke at their kid’s graduation, they’ve got bigger problems.
LikeLike
typo above – PCUSA, not PCA
LikeLike
Cletus,
What on earth does a lineup of speakers at a few American Catholic college commencements have to do with the RC faith?
It shows that your church doesn’t care about doctrine. Where are the bishops disciplining the leaders of these schools?
LikeLike
Clete,
You also miss Darryl’s point. The outrageously clear doctrinal heresy of the PCUSA of today was preceded by the failure to enforce its standards yesterday. I’d be careful about thumping your chest about Rome not coming up with a liturgy for blessing same-sex unions. Your church is tracking on the same path as mainline Protestantism, you are just several decades behind.
LikeLike
Robert,
“It shows that your church doesn’t care about doctrine.”
Some American colleges are churches now? What happened to all the 2k love?
“The outrageously clear doctrinal heresy of the PCUSA of today was preceded by the failure to enforce its standards yesterday”
Vat2 that “liberalized” the church and upturned everything according to your lights happened over 50 years ago. The PCUSA was founded in 1983. How much longer do we need to wait for your prognostications to finally pan out?
LikeLike
Clete,
Some American colleges are churches now? What happened to all the 2k love?
So an institution proudly claiming to be Roman Catholic, with Roman Catholic departments of theology, teaching Roman doctrine (or its view thereof) to students doesn’t merit the bishop saying “Hey, wait a minute!”? You’d think that at least the church would be concerned about parents spending tens of thousands of dollars for a RC education getting their money’s worth. I guess not.
Vat2 that “liberalized” the church and upturned everything according to your lights happened over 50 years ago. The PCUSA was founded in 1983. How much longer do we need to wait for your prognostications to finally pan out?
Ah yes, the RCC penchant for dating a denomination according to its articles of incorporation in the United States and ignore everything that came before it. Unless, of course you are Rome, and then you get to go all the way back to Peter. Because, Rome.
Of course the institutions that became the PCUSA started ignoring the dogma decades earlier, but whatever. Kasper is jumping for joy but nothing has changed. No true innovations. It’s all good.
LikeLike
Robert,
“So an institution”
Right, an institution that isn’t the church … isn’t the church. Georgetown and Notre Dame probably have some atheist professors teaching and non-Christian scholars giving seminars and pro-choice coaches and office workers working and ssm-advocating cooks cooking – quelle horreur! People are supposed to get the vapors when Clinton talks at a commencement? Please. I know you’re not 2k obsessed like Darryl but if you plan to speak for him to clarify missed points, don’t undermine his own position trying to score points.
“Of course the institutions that became the PCUSA started ignoring the dogma decades earlier”
You said, “The outrageously clear doctrinal heresy of the PCUSA of today was preceded by the failure to enforce its standards yesterday” – the “its standards” refers to the PCUSA in your statement. PCUSA was founded in 1983. Even if we go back to PCA breaking away a decade earlier as the clear mark, we’re still later than Vat2 which according to you and Darryl is the liberal watershed for RCism. So how much longer do we wait until we see “outrageously clear doctrinal heresy” like women’s ordination and ssm PCUSA affirms? Or will it be endless doomsaying every 5 years or so?
LikeLike
James Young,
First you contradict Pius who sez you can be sure of your salvation as a Roman Catholic. You say you can’t.
If that isn’t mortal then its at least Triple A venial.
Now you send me to Calvin who speaks of the reprobate four times in your short quote. Thanks, because this is from your Calvin quote:
“In the elect alone he implants the living root of faith, so that they persevere even to the end.”
If you knew this kind of confidence in the gospel you would unswim the Tiber and shed those filthy rags. But like I said, the best you offer is doubt, never confidence. Doubt, with man-centered false humility.
As a RC, what you can’t say and know, like I know, is this:
“Who will bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies; who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us. Who will separate us from the love of Christ?”
You’re over there, doubting the God who elects and hoping in the Mary who sinned greatly at the of Matt. 13.
Unicorns and whiffle dust. Tinkerbelle in heaven and Ubermensch in Vat City.
LikeLike
Noon,
Pius doesn’t believe in Calvinist assurance/perseverance. One can have a moral certainty they are currently in a state of grace due to “those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church” as Pius affirms and which informs his urging of those outside the fold to enter.
“doubting the God who elects”
Why would I doubt God and the salvation of the elect? I agree the elect are all saved, by definition. I disagree all who are justified are elect. But I guess that means all non-Calvinist Protestants who affirm the justified can be lost also believe in unicorns and whiffle dust by your lights. Very ecumenical of you.
“Now you send me to Calvin who speaks of the reprobate four times in your short quote. ”
Yup. So are you a reprobate being hoodwinked by God’s evanescent grace and inferior operations of the Holy Spirit deluding yourself into thinking you’re elect when actually you are not?
“But like I said, the best you offer is doubt, never confidence. ”
I just said I affirm confidence and hope, not doubt, in the very post you were replying to.
LikeLike
James,
Like i said, you can’t say and know, like I say and know:
“Who will bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies;” (Romans 8:31)
You come back and claim:
“I disagree all who are justified are elect.” (Cletus 1:3)
Why would I listen to your doubt?
You would do well to listen submissively to Peter:
“Regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.”
LikeLike
Noon,
“You would do well to listen submissively to Peter:”
Considering the majority of Christians past and present disagree with your view of the justified and assurance, I believe you may want to take Darryl’s advice and engage in more self-awareness regarding Peter’s passage.
LikeLike
Robert, is it what happens — denial — when you didn’t read the fine print or National Catholic Reporter?
LikeLike
James Young, if it’s all about pastoral counsel and discipline, no dogma changed, then who is pastorally condemning and disciplining modernism?
Yup.
LikeLike