So the public release of the Filial Correction has caused a bit of stir (see Rorate for some insight) and the 'responses' that I have read from 'liberal' Catholics (you know the ones condemned in the 1800's) have been non-responses.
I was told that the Pope didn't have anyone intellectually capable (in my mind honest) to provide a cogent response. Then I read this one posted by Mark Shea . . . and I think my friend was right.
I've seen a lot of name calling etc, but that was to be expected. If you haven't got a good argument and feel compelled to say something any number of fallacies will be employed. Let's just say that they have been over the past week.
This note by Shea was particularly telling:
They want a purged Church, not one that welcomes sinners and the broken. They seek a Fortress, not a hospital.Well, I guess english isn't his strong suit or he didn't actually read the document. Of course, that would take mental exertion.…
While I leave you to read it for yourself I found the following interesting:
The labels of Schismatics, extremists, liars, hypocrites etc are trotted out for all to see. Not totally surprising given that I suspect (along with others) that they will be unable to respond intellectually to the correction. As such they will have recourse to a Liberals favorite tool: venomous words.Nothing on the substance of the correction. I think that no response indicates the inability to respond.
Here's some tidbits: Stephen Walford, a British Catholic author who has written several books on the papacy and the theology of the church, said the ac…
In 1987, Archbishop Lefebvre sent his dubia (see Religious Liberty Questioned) to the Vatican. He had to wait a number of months and the answer was not a 'yes/no' response. Looking at the non-response to the four dubia of Card. Burke et al, we can see a pattern. There will be no direct response to simple questions.
Two commentaries are out - first Dr. Shaw (signatory and contact point) had this to write: The document is signed by 62 people, Catholic academics and pastors, from 20 countries. It expresses, in technical theological language, the concern that, while Amoris laetitia itself may be open to an interpretation in line with the previous teaching of the Church, various informal indications, which appear to be favoured by Pope Francis himself, point to an interpretation not in line with that teaching. Either the new view is wrong, or the old one is. There has in fact been no attempt to promulgate the new view magisterially - that is from the Holy Father himself, clearly, and in an authoritative format, such as a formal document - since Amoris laetitia itself. It would seem, in any case, that such an attempt could not be successful, in the sense of creating an obligation on Catholics to assent to this new view, because the old view expressed the Ordinary Magisterium, based on Scripture, …
+ JMJ This is the next logical step in the process of the Church recovering from this crisis.
I know that there are a lot of impatient people - but this is the right way to go about correcting the Pope.
Here's a highlight of some key points over the last 40+ years:
1982 Pope St. John Paul II issues indult for Tridentine Mass1987 Archbishop Lefebvre sends dubia1988 Archbishop Lefebvre consecrate 4 auxiliary bishops2007 Pope Benedict XVI grants SSPX condition - Summorum Pontificum2009 Pope Benedict XVI grants SSPX condition - Excommunications Lifted2011 Pope Benedict XVI issues explanation of SP and gives laity right to appeal to ecclesial court - Universae Ecclesiae2016 Pope Francis issues Amoris Laetitiae2016 Theologians issue theological assessment of AL2016 Four Cardinals issue dubia on AL2017 Theologians issue filial correction to Pope Francis I understand that the letter was first hand delivered to Pope Francis and, as with the dubia, no response was received. So now the correction …
There is nothing so ordinary (regular) in the Catholic Church as 'Extra-Ordinary Eucharistic Ministers' (EOEM).
I added the attached article because it provides references to actual rules.
I would like to offer the following commentary: Delegating the distribution of communion to the laity to hospitals etc causes problems. A person who is confined to a hospital or similar circumstance will not have the opportunity to go to confession. So, when a EOEM arrives, they will have peer pressure to receive. This will, I posit, increase the sacrilegious receipt of Holy Communion. If a priest is ill, I find it hard to believe that he would have sole responsibility for a parish.There is only one person who must receive communion at mass, the priest who is celebrating Mass. In this way the sacrifice is consummated. Laity do not need to receive communion.Regular confession is as needed as regular communion.
Let's keep something in mind, while Mr. Akin's is misleading people (doing the Devil's work no doubt), I believe that he is probably sincere. In other words he is sincerely wrong. Just like Pope Francis.
This does not lessen their culpability because he should know better.
In this Liberal age, it seems that Catholics have forgotten that it is their duty to study and learn the faith.
"I didn't know" will be answered with "You should have known".
Humanae Vitae was probably the only 'light' in an otherwise dark pontificate.
There is a commission examining some of the work now and, given this Pope's apparent desire to reform the Church in his own image, there is concern that this teaching - like everything else will be set aside in a more formal manner.
Note well, I stated in a formal manner. Informally, it appears that the 'contraception' mindset of the Western World is readily accepted in the mainstream Catholic Church today.
This is only another example of the spirit of the world manifesting itself in the Church - along with Communion in the Hand and [Extra]-Ordinary Eucharistic Ministers, relegation of Confession to psychological counseling etc.
Watch and pray that you don't enter into temptation.
P^3 Courtesy of FSSPX.news
This is definitely one for the chronicle.
On Sept. 9, with a new motu proprio, he delivered another decisive blow to those who would roll back the liturgical reforms of the Second Vatican Council. “Magnum Principium”restores and strengthens the council’s call for local bishops’ conferences to have authority with regard to the approval of translations into the vernacular. Source: America Magazine
This is the final installment addressing the current situation of SSPX marriages.
It would be nice if the state of necessity was no longer existent, however it is obvious from the German Bishop's reaction - it will be quite a long time yet before Catholics are accepted as Catholics.
We know from Vatican 1 (Trent vs Vatican II) what fruits V2 did not produce. It's probably a good idea to take a look at some of the fruits and effects of Vatican II.
The first that comes to mind is the New Mass, but really I think it is the secondary fruit.
The primary fruit was the collapse of Catholicism that occurred immediately after the close of the council. On this topic one of my opponents pointed out that correlation does not indicate a cause.
This is true.
There may have been other events that caused the free-fall. However, my first premis is that something happened in 1965 and the key element in the life of the Church is the Second Vatican Council. The correlation is strong in key metrics of the life of the Church. After 50+ years there are now other ways to assess the validity of the claim that the cultural changes wrought by Vatican II are causal.
If we are to help the Church emerge from this Crisis, then we need to help its members rediscover and appreciate true liturgical music.
Given that true Catholic Liturgical Music is not unbalanced with an emphasis on the emotions / sentimentality present in Modern Catholic Music, but balances this with the Spiritual Life, Modern Catholics will find it hard to appreciate the difference between vulgar and Liturgical Music.
(sorry for the long sentence).
Reproduced below are the instructions on Sacred Music and Sacred Liturgy.
So, I have become aware that the Monks De Morgon have joined the 'resistance' and published a 'doctrinal study'.
I didn't have time to read the whole study (it is !100 pages) and time is short, so I read a bit of the intro and parts of the conclusion. I don't have time to do a proper translation so I used Google for those of you can't understand French.
The primary resistance issue is evident immediately. They are afraid of contacts with Rome. Logically, they will wait until Rome meets what they consider to be the conversion of Rome. Sadly, as this is liberalism as the Monks are going to ignore the order from a legitimate authority ... like the rest of the 'resistance' they will simply scatter into their own personal opinions.