Gracia, that is a brilliant explanation. I must remember that. Sean, you yourself mentioned that for centuries, communication was so poor that no Catholics really knew what the Pope was doing. Jesus is in the Eucharist and in the Confessional. Many good priests are still acting in persona Christi to bring us the Sacraments. They are going to Confession and celebrating Mass under this Pope. Well. Not speaking against the Pope.....hmm. I don't think it is speaking against the Pope to discuss issues and recommend staying within the True Magisterium. I look at that as clarification. We are to follow him in all things but sin.
This is where you’re wrong, Sean. Sacramental grace would help you overcome this kind of scrupulosity. Please do not try to impose your own level of scrupulosity on the MOG forum. It’s erroneous.
Yes, it is definitely not necessary for Catholics to hang on the pope's every word. Like the priest Gracia mentioned who said we must listen to his homilies. Nonsense. But I cannot unlearn what I already know. For example, the pope's teaching on adulterers receiving Holy Communion. I am supposed to submit to that in mind and will and I do not. To me, that's a big problem and I don't see why it isn't for others.
No, I am right. I have researched this in-depth. It is official Church teaching. I am not enforcing scruples on anyone. You can look it up. Obsequium Religiosum and Lumen Gentium 25a.
We are to be obedient to authority in all things, but sin. The 4th commandment is obedience to parents, but if they tell their child to go and steal from your neighbor, they are obliged to obey God not man. Same with a pope. Obedience in all things but sin.
This is why Malachi Martin said an apostate pope would shred the faith of Catharine of Siena and we must pray for the grace to be spared. But even if an angel from heaven so called brings us a gospel different from the gospel of Christ let him be anathema. I am not obliged to give consent to sin. Never. Nowhere. Nor to accept a gospel different from the one handed down to us by Christ.
My understanding was that we follow the Pope until he steps into error. Unrepentant mortal sinners cannot, under any circumstances, receive Holy Communion. That's in Scripture and has always been the teaching of The Church, as I understand it.
There are many issues involved here. To take the issue of communion for adulterers for example. The Pope included this in the official Magisterium of the Church on June 5th of last year. The problem is that technically what he is saying might be allowable in "theory". For example, say 2 mentally challenged people are in a 2nd marriage without an annulment. One of them is dying and they just do not understand the Church teaching no matter how much the priest tries to explain it. There could be no mortal sin committed, even though objectively they have committed mortal sin. Therefore it might be possible to administer Holy Communion to the dying person. What you said "Unrepentant mortal sinners cannot, under any circumstances, receive Holy Communion." is true, but the argument they are using is no mortal sin was committed because of a lack of knowledge. I am not saying they are right, only that is the argument they are using. So theologically it is possible the Pope has not violated Church teaching. I don't know I am not a theologian. This is, of course, not the way it will be implemented. Most likely many adulterers will simply be allowed to receive Holy Communion. So it is not as clear a violation of Church teaching as one might think. Technically. At least there is theological wiggle room. And that is why it does not reach the level of heresy that can be proven or else some cardinals or bishops would have used this as evidence or some theologians would have said it is heresy and they didn't. Clearly the implementation is most likely going to be against what the Church has always done and so we speak out against it.
Nice article from Eric Sammons. This is a Cross we have to carry until the end. No other way. Hi Praetorian. When something is non-infallible, novel, ambiguous and uncertain, error is possible, and it is ok to suspend assent or raise doubts. The Cardinals who wrote the Dubia based their understanding on this principle. You'll find it in both pre-Vatican II theological manuals, and some documents of the Magisterium, for e.g. "Withholding assent[edit] Donum Veritatis also allows that even if, "not habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments...some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies," and withholding assent is allowed for a theologian, "who might have serious difficulties, for reasons which appear to him wellfounded, in accepting a non-irreformable magisterial teaching." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsequium_religiosum So, doubts like those raised in the Dubia can and should be raised by Cardinals, Bishops and Theologians when a novel teaching appears contrary to Tradition and prior Magisterium; only, it should of course be raised in a respectful way, as of course the Cardinals who wrote the Dubia raised it respectfully. The other example is the Cardinals who did not agree with Pope John XXII's non-infallible oft-repeated mistake on the Beatific Vision, which his Successor dogmatically defined correctly.
I agree. To quote from what you cite above: "Withholding assent is allowed for a theologian" This permission is not given to the average layperson.
No, no you’re not. This is wrong, period. Please don’t confuse MOG forum members and lurkers with your own personal level of scrupulosity. It’s just as dangerous as benevacantism.
Saw this on Twitter today. Catholics are sailing in rough waters. Br. Martin replied to Fr. Longenecker's tweet... Fr. Dwight Longenecker @dlongenecker1 So you're Catholic and upset that the church is in crisis. What did you expect? Smooth sailing? Br. Martin of Our Mother of Consolation, SSA @BVMConsolatrix There's a difference between sailing in bad weather and the ship having a hole in it. We have to place our trust in Jesus to plug the leak. "O Sacred Heart of Jesus, I place my trust in Thee," Whatever may befall me, Lord, Though dark the hour may be. In all my joys, in all my woes, Though naught but grief I see. "O Sacred Heart of Jesus, I place my trust in Thee." When those I love have passed away And I am sore distressed, O Sacred Heart of Jesus, I fly to Thee for rest. In all my trials, great or small, My confidence shall be, Unshaken, as I cry, dear Lord, "I place my trust in Thee." This is my one sweet prayer, dear Lord! My faith, my trust, my love, But, most of all, in that last hour, When death points up above, Ah, then, sweet Savior, may Thy face Smile on my soul set free. Oh, may I cry with rapturous love, "I've placed my trust in Thee."
No Sean, you’re wrong on this. Competent spiritual direction would help you understand why. If you persist in posting this particular error, I’ll have to delete it. It’s that serious.
I very much resent that several times in the past when I have brought up something theological you say it is my scrupulosity. I would never inflict that on anyone. I am always serious, sober and as correct as I can be in my posts. Refute my point if you can from canon law or the CCC, but don't tell me I'm wrong because I'm scrupulous.
Fine, delete my posts if you wish. I am not wrong. You are and that would be an abuse of your moderator privileges. I am more than happy if you can refute what I have said with facts. I would be glad in fact.
A theologian is someone who studies God and his relationship to the world. We all are supposed to do this continually. We are maybe not expert theologians, but we are all this to some extent if we love God and pray. I think it applies to us all. And this has given me peace...to pause in my complete assent.
I love you Sean. You have no idea how hard it is to say what I’ve said in the last few posts. But my duty as a moderator is to protect the readers from error, and on this particular point, the pope's teaching on adulterers receiving Holy Communion. I am supposed to submit to that in mind and will and I do not You are incorrect. So to protect the readers here, I’m obliged to point it out to protect orthodoxy. It’s such a simple and obvious point that I refuse to enter into theological debate about it. “In matters of faith and morals, if a [parent/priest/bishop/pope] proposes error, one does NOT owe them obedience.” One need not be a theologian to make that discernment. To assert otherwise is a danger to the faithful no different than the sedevacantism you rightfully oppose.
