| | | OFFLINE | | Post: 30.097
Post: 12.276 | Registrato il: 28/08/2005
Registrato il: 20/01/2009 | Administratore | Utente Gold | |
|
It is, of course, unfair to lay all the blame on the Archbishop of Vienna for articulating in more explicit terms what his master only 'suggests' in appropriately hedged but hardly enigmatic ways! After all, with his 'communion for everyone' policy in Buenos Aires, JMB has been advocating Eucharistic sacrilege far more openly than Schoenborn even dares articulate today. But of course, no one dares say the future pope was, in fact, aiding and abetting Eucharistic sacrilege. In fact, everyone pretends that the family synods and AL were JMB's first efforts to universalize Eucharistic leniency, which is simply a euphemism for sacrilege.
Cardinal Schoenborn and
his explicit invitation to sacrilege
by Paolo Deotto
Translated from
July 8, 2016
The Archbishop of Vienna, interviewed by [Pope Francis's chief surrogate for now and unofficial chief spokesman] Fr. Antonio Spadaro, SJ, should rid all kindly-inclined persons of every illusion: Amoris laetitia is Magisterium.
He also adds that "in certain cases", persons in an objective state of sin may avail of the sacraments. Which is called, whether you like it or not, a permit to commit sacrilege.
The 'astuteness' [the proper word is casuistry] with which the anime belle (let us call them that, to put it mildly) [which is not putting it mildly at all, though certainly euphemistically, because in Italian, 'anima bella', which literally means beautiful soul, is an expression used to describe a misguided person in general] have been using to justify the incredible papal affirmations in AL is this: It is not Magisterium, it is merely the pope's opinion on matters related to the family.
A grotesque claim clearly, and in any case, contradictory, because it would be singular for any pope to express his personal opinion on matters involving faith and doctrine. [In fairness, eminent commentators like Cardinal Burke who insist that neither AL nor Evangelii gaudium constitute 'magisterium' say this is so because, on many points, they contradict the Magisterium as it stood before March 13, 2013. But to the great masses of the faithful out there, 'magisterium' is whatever the pope says, and this pope himself has said that whatever he says is magisterium. So why quibble on a theoretical point that has no practical consequences whatsoever on the damaging effects of these Bergoglian documents, whether you consider them magisterial or not???]
In short, we have the singular case of a pontiff who alternates between Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. And when he is being Mr Hyde, he calmly blasts forth heretical statements. [Heretical-sounding, maybe, but so far, he has been very careful not to be caught out, in writing or orally, saying anything that meets the full definition of heresy according to the Code of Canon Law.]
One has to sympathize with the beautiful souls n0netheless. Some, through a misguided sense of duty "The boss is always right"), others out of mere servility, others for congenital inability to use their reason, but regardless, they all need to clutch at straws [the Italian idiom used is 'arrampicarsi sugli specchi', literally 'climbing up mirrors', a far stronger image to suggest futility] in trying to square the circle. [Which is all completely unnecessary striving. Even in simple literal terms, magisterium means teaching (teaching authority is its formal definition in the ecclesial context). Surely, Cardinal Burke et al are not questioning the fact that whatever the pope - any pope - says or does is 'teaching' in some way, which is the way JMB and probably 90% of the world's 1.2 billion Catholics understand it.]
Corriere della Sera published an 8-page English excerpt of the interview given by Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn to Fr. Spadaro. Remember that Pope Francis himself named Schoenborn as the authentic interpreter of AL, so drop your illusions! The 'beautiful souls' should come tumbling down fast from those mirrors.
www.laciviltacattolica.it/articoli_download/extra/INTERVISTA%20SCHONBORN%20ING...
Here is a sampling:
It is obvious that this is an act of the magisterium: it is an Apostolic Exhortation. It is clear that the Pope is exercising here his role of pastor, of master and teacher of the faith, after having benefited from the consultation of the two Synods.
I have no doubt that it must be said that this is a pontifical document of great quality, an authentic teaching of sacra doctrina, which leads us back to the contemporary relevance of the Word of God.
I have read it many times, and each time I note the delicacy of its composition and an ever greater quantity of details that contain a rich teaching.
There is no lack of passages in the Exhortation that affirm their doctrinal value strongly and decisively. This can be recognized from the tone and the content of what is said, when we relate these to the intention of the text – for example, when the Pope writes: “I urgently ask …”, “It is no longer possible to say …”, “I have wanted to present to the entire Church …”, and so on.
AL is an act of the magisterium that makes the teaching of the Church present and relevant today. Just as we read the Council of Nicaea in the light of the Council of Constantinople, and Vatican I in the light of Vatican II, so now we must read the previous statements of the magisterium about the family in the light of the contribution made by AL. [Excuse me, say again!THAT IS QUITE A REVERSAL OF WHAT THE CHURCH HAS ALWAYS TAUGHT - THAT NEW 'TEACHINGS' MUST BE READ IN THE LIGHT OF PREVIOUS MAGISTERIUM, which is what Archbishop Chaput did in issuing his diocesan guidelines for the implementation of AL. For which the Mayor of Philadelphia denounced him as 'not being Christian'.]
Can Schoenborn be any clearer???
I don't claim to make any deep analysis of the interview [From the eight pages I've read, every word and every sentence appears to cry out to be fisked! I mean, Schoenborn has really flipped his noggin completely in total and abject servility to JMB. It is unbelievable.] But I think it is useful to dwell on a few words that show us, with immodest clarity, how relativism has come to dominate some 'theology'. According to which it is perfectly right that AL is an act of magisterium, without the slightest equivocation. Of which magisterium it purports to be, is something else!
Let us read this passage with close attention:
Q: The Pope states that “in some cases,” when a person is in an objective situation of sin – but without being subjectively guilty, or without being totally guilty – it is possible to live in the grace of God, to love, and to grow in the life of grace and of charity, receiving for this purpose the help of the Church – including the sacraments, and even the eucharist – which “is not a reward for those who are perfect, but a generous medicine and a nourishment for those who are weak.” How can this affirmation be integrated into the classical doctrine of the Church? Is there a rupture here with what was affirmed in the past?
[After a great deal of contortionist casuistry, Schoenborn's answer ends with more casuistry:] The Pope invites us not only to look at the external conditions (which have their own importance), but also to ask ourselves whether we have this thirst for a merciful pardon, so that we may respond better to the sanctifying dynamism of grace. [One understands from this that having 'a thirst for pardon' converts the sin from being an objective state of sin to not being sin subjectively. Schoenborn does not even have the presence of mind to add to the thirst for pardon "the firm resolve to do penance and to amend my life" which makes up the rest of the Act of Contrition! Why do we even need confession, when all we have to do is 'thirst for pardon' and voila!, we are no longer in an objective state of sin! Surely, no one needs a doctorate in theology from the Sorbonne as Schoenborn has, to see what a well-catechized First Communicants knows clearly.]
One cannot pass from the general rule to “some cases” merely by looking at formal situations. It is therefore possible that, in some cases, one who is in an objective situation of sin can receive the help of the sacraments.
So here, Schoenborn has somehow 'officialized' interesting new categories: the 'objective situation of sin' in which, however, one may not be 'subjectively guilty' or 'not entirely'. The chaos of the question is not accidentally followed by the equally not accidental chaos of the answer.
Thus we learn that one can be in sin but not really in sin, or be in sin but not entirely in sin [It's like saying someone is half-virgin!] the moment the distinction is made between the 'objective' and 'subjective' situation of sin! [What the hell is a subjective state of sin, anyway? The sinner gets to decide whether he has sinned or not??? Sin is sin, and the sin of adultery, in the case on hand, is clearly defined objectively.]
And what about he who has sinned "but not entirely" - what should he do? Repent but only percentually? Nonetheless, "in certain cases" (which cases, we are not told) [this has to be 'discerned' by the priest or bishop along with the sinning couple whom they are 'accompanying', so AL tells us - therefore, theoretically, it could be any and all cases!], whoever is in an objective state of sin - without specifics as to whether he has 'subjectively' sinned, or sinned only partially - can receive 'the help of the sacraments'.
But is not the only 'help' a sinner can receive absolution at confession? Which carries with it sincere repentance and the resolve not to persist in sin.
No, Schoenborn and AL speak of 'sacraments', plural, and since everyone has blathered on - pardon, debated enough - on whether remarried divorcees should be given communion, hello!, we find out that practically everyone can receive communion because the apparent chaos of situations of sin that are 'objective', 'subjective','not entirely sin', really embraces everyone. The [studied] generic scope of 'in certain cases' obviously is meant to open the door to the most diverse interpretations.
But it remains incontrovertible that "Whoever eats the Bread and drinks from the chalice of the Lord unworthily, eats and drinks his own condemnation".
Though one would say that [in the church of Bergoglio] this is of no concern any more. Obviously, eternal salvation no longer counts among the interests of this singular new church which expresses its own 'magisterium'. Such that the statements from Schoenborn reported above
constitute a permit for sacrilege.
In closing, I will limit myself to underscoring one thing only: This mishmash (and the rest of it which you can read in the link) does not come from just any joker out there tossing out para-theological bizarreries. It comes from Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, Archbishop of Vienna, named to us by the pope himself as the best interpreter of AL.
Everything is that much more terribly clear. God help us!
If I had the time and the wherewithal, I would perhaps be able to put together a small book by now about how the man who was the chairman of the editorial committee that put together the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church has in the past several years seen fit to be the living incarnation of virtual and actual violations of what the Catechism says. Before AL, it was chiefly against the Catechism's teachings on homosexuality. After AL, he has now proceeded to contradict the Catechism on the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and matrimony, as well as the nature of sin and of God's grace.
Yet he has apparently drunk in too much of the infernal libations of Bergoglio Kool-Aid that he does not seem to realize the enormity of his transgression - or even, that he is transgressing any way. The Christian thing is to pray for him and all his fellow belle anime especially their supreme mastermind.
P.S. Will Fr. Fessio or Fr. Twomey, or anyone in the Ratzinger Schuelerkreis, please disavow the false statements that have been made by their 'colleague by courtesy' - and most unfortunately, I believe, still president of the Schuelerkreis Foundation?[Schoenborn was not a bona fide student of Prof. Ratzinger in Regensburg, though it seems he sat in on some of his courses for a semester or two.]
PPS - With all due respect, I do not see why Fr. Z argues AL is not Magisterium because JMB himself 'says so' in Paragraph 3, to wit:
3. Since “time is greater than space”, I would make it clear that not all discussions of doctrinal, moral or pastoral issues need to be settled by interventions of the magisterium. [Fr. Z's note: Did you get that? If not, go back to the beginning and read it again.] Unity of teaching and practice is certainly necessary in the Church, but this does not preclude various ways of interpreting some aspects of that teaching or drawing certain consequences from it.
And according to the good father,
This is the only reference to “magisterium” in all of Amoris laetitia. Did you get that, too? Because “time is greater than space”, he sets aside the concept of magisterium in the THIRD PARAGRAPH.
Maybe I've lost my ability to understand English, but the bolded statement from AL does not say AL is not an 'intervention of Magisterium'. It says Magisterium does not always have to intervene in 'settling' issues, and it makes more sense to think JMB was referring to the fact that he deliberately 'left open' to discernment, etc, the most important issue he needed to settle in AL.
Which is not to say that AL was not intended to be magisterial at all. Quite apart from JMB's self-assertion that everything he says and does is Magisterium, there is the fact that 98% of those who have commented on AL, including Fr Z, have felt obliged to acknowledge that other than Chapter 8, much of the rest of the document is an 'admirable, poetic, passionate' Bergoglian repackaging of the Magisterium as we know it.. So all that carefully gift-wrapped orthodox ballast is not Magisterium either??? I rest my case.
In order not to open another 'anti-JMB' post unncessarily, let me add on this item here from an Italian online journal. Too bad they did not put a byline to the piece:
A pope who divides:
Is he not criticable?
Translated from
July 6, 2016
Prudence is a Christian virtue, and imposes that we carefully weigh judgment, especially if it is about a pope. Because no pope, as pope, is immune from being judged.
That is because no pope possesses power on his own, since he is a Vicar who has been entrusted with the deposit of faith, namely, something that already exists - which could be developed and better understood but never changed.
Blessed John Henry Newman taught us, among other things, the importance of listening to our conscience, that is, to a rightly formed Catholic conscience ("I would raise a toast to conscience first, and only after, to the Pope")..
But at the same time, he reminded us, in commenting on the dogma of papal infallibility [new in his time], how much it is limited to specific actions and circumstances.
"Undoubtedly, there are papal actions in which no one would have wished to have any part," he wrote, adding that the teaching Church has not always been, in history, "the most active instrument of infallibility: consider the Arian crisis".
"Was Peter infallible," he asks, "when Paul opposed him to his face in Antioch? Or was St. Victor infallible when he separated the churches of Asia from communion with Rome, or Liberius when he excommunicated St. Athanasius?"
Reasoning this way, Newman said he was saying nothing new, citing illustrious theologians from the past like Cardinal Torquemada and St. Robert Bellarmine.
Said Torquemada: "If the pope ordered something contrary to Sacred Scripture, the articles of faith, the truth of the sacraments, the commandments of divine and natural law, he must not be obeyed, and we do not need to concern ourselves about such contrary orders."
And St. Robert Bellarmine [Jesuit and subsequently Doctor of the Church], said:
In order to resist and defend oneself, we do not need any authority... Therefore, just as it is licit to resist a pope if he assailed a person physically, it is equally licit to resist him when he assails souls... and more so when he tries to destroy the Church. It is licit to resist him, I declare, by not doing what he commands and impeding the execution of his projects. (cited by J.H. Newman in Letter to the Duke of Norfolk)
Finally, Newman recalled the importance of the lay faithful in the history of the Church in keeping the barque of Peter steady throughout various circumstances in history.
Well, it so happens that today, while there is much talk about laymen and their role; while the Pope is praising Luther (who considered the papacy a diabolical institution that had to be toppled); while decentralization from the Vatican is all the talk; while collegiality and synodality are evoked at every step...an internal debate within the Church appears to have become impossible.
Whoever dares murmur about his perplexity in the face of some papal actions (like his unqualified praise of Napolitano, Bonino and Pannella) or of specific doctrinal statements, automatically becomes a reprobate, a schismatic, an enemy of the pope.
Friends of the Church and of the pope, instead, are persons like Luther, Pannella, Scalfari... while enemies are cardinals who under the past two popes were held in the greatest esteem. It seems that the courage to speak now belongs only to a few laymen, Vaticanistas like Tosatti, Valli, Socci, Magister...
Around Francis, like a Praetorian guard, are those who yesterday had dismissed and fought the magisterium of Pius XII, John Paul II and Benedict XVI.
Thus, as never in recent memory, one breathes despondency in the Church, an empty triumphalism, a rhetoric fed by the major secular newspapers who continue to speak of 'the Bergoglio effect' - even if
confessions have not increased, fewer people to to Sunday Mass, there are fewer vocations - that the pope's incense-burners purported to see in the first months of his Pontificate.
Instead, what he have is great confusion, great disconcertment, about a pope who speaks much about secular politics (Trump, Pannella, Argentine affairs, immigration policy...) but never when civilian laws would impact negatively on life issues and the family. Who speaks much about the poor but is cossetted by media in the hands of the wealthy bourgeoisie. Who welcomes Benigni and Di Caprio and
Scalfari but refuses to meet with persecuted orders (their founders and priests) who have been begging to see him for years...
Confusion, and division. Fueled by autocratic decisions like episcopal nominations that bypass the concerned congregation; by often very caustic statements against 'spinsterish' nuns, worldly priests, hard-of-heart Catholics; by a teaching that says substantially: "In the Church, everyone is at fault, except me... In the Church, it is I who discovered mercy, tenderness... Before me, there was nothing". Such that there are those who now speak of current church events, as not of the Catholic Church, or the Church of Christ, but of the church of Bergoglio.
Let us consider some of the latest statements given in one of his now numberless freewheeling interviews that have done much to inflate his figure in the media.
The interviewer asks: "What is your relationship with the ultra-conservatives in the Church?"
Now, one could answer such a question in many ways - diplomatically, to begin with. And one could first protest the polemic contained in the term 'ultra-conservative', which is one of the terms used to divide the Church into the good guys and the bad guys.
But no, this pope answers promptly and dismissively.
They do their work and I do mine. I want a church that is open and understanding, that accompanies 'wounded' families. They say NO to everything.
But I continue along my way without looking to the side. I don't cut off heads. I never enjoyed doing it. To them I repeat: I reject conflict. You can take off nails by applying pressure upwards. Or one can put them aside, until they reach retirement age.
[The smug hubris of these statements is unbelievable. Coming from a pope, yet!]
And who might these 'ultra-conservatives' be? Let us name names. The cardinals who did not approve of the method (its imposition) nor the merits in some key passages of Amoris laetitia: Pell, Mueller, Caffarra, Burke...the American synodal fathers, many of the African bishops and those from Eastern Europe...
How can a pope speak this way about some of his cardinals, whose duty, among other things, is to advice the pope? How can he deride them publicly and compare them to old nails?
How can a pope define himself for months as nothing but the Bishop of Rome; write Hans Kueng that the Petrine primacy can, yes, be considered debatable; plan a trip to commemorate someone who had tried to destroy the papacy and the Church herself in northern Europe;
and when he wants to decide something on his own against a majority, as in the 'family synods', declare that everything must be done cum Petro e sub Petro (with Peter and under Peter)?
And what does he mean when he says "They say no to everything"? These cardinals say No to abortion, divorce, adultery, same-sex marriage, and doing so, they are saying nothing new, nothing strange, but are merely reiterating what the Church and all the popes have always taught. Eight of the 10 Commandments say NO, and the Church has always taught that this NO is really a YES - YES to true love of God.
To measure the distance between this pope's way of speaking and that of Benedict XVI, one can note two things:
- Benedict never used and would never have used such harsh words against the progressivist cardinals who were adverse to him, and whom he never set aside as this pope did with Burke.
- He would never have fed the secular rhetoric that those who defend Catholic doctrine - 'doctors of the law who are hard of heart' - are persons who "say No to everything".
Benedict, in Caritas in veritate, said that those who see simple prohibition in the NOs which the Church insists upon have not really understood the moral of the Gospels: "...With this, the German philosopher [Nietszche] expressed a widespread perception: Does not the Church with her commandments and prohibitions spoil life's most beautiful things? Does she not perhaps raise cards of prohibition precisely where the joy predisposed for us by the Creator offers us a happiness that give us a foretaste of the divine? Is it really so?..."
[This is my translation of what the writer quotes, but I am not sure it comes from CIV... I am checking.]
And John Paul II? Evangelium vitae, Familiaris consortio, etc. say things other than what this pope says, and in a different language.
If he says things that contradict previous popes, if he publicly declares that after the 'family synods', things have 'changed' concretely, cannot laymen ask questions, discuss, try to understand and if necessary, object?
They can and they should.
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 09/07/2016 13:15] |