A Priest Answers Questions on Synod …
I am still hearing from Catholics who should know better, who say things like “well, I suppose the Pope wants to leave all options open…” to excuse the scandal of the suggestions put forward, in the name of “mercy”, at the recent synod. I, think, therefore, that the answers which Fr. Marcel Guarnizo gives to 6 questions regarding many urgent issues surrounding the recently concluded Synod, are very useful in countering such ignorance. Comments invited.
Synod Questions and a Clarification on the Virtue of Mercy 
October 30, 2014
1. Prior to the Synod, you had some concerns over the direction of the debate. How did the relatio address those concerns, and/or confirm them?
I think to understand the nature of these concerns (which are shared by many), a few things need to be established regarding the nature of the synod itself. A synod is a gathering of bishops from around the world who meet to, “… foster a closer unity between the Roman Pontiff and the bishops, to assist the roman Pontiff with their counsel in safeguarding and increasing faith and morals and in preserving and strengthening ecclesiastical discipline…” (Canon 342.) The current synod on the family is not an ecumenical council. It is not a Church council–a Vatican III–or any such thing. A proper understanding of the synod’s authority should put what is taking place in its proper perspective. A synod cannot overturn ecumenical councils or remake the Church’s definition of dogma.
Second, as a Catholic I believe firmly that the office of Peter cannot teach error. When Peter, as universal shepherd of the Church, speaks regarding faith and morals, his pronouncements are unerring throughout the universal Church regarding matters of belief. Defined doctrine cannot be changed by any human power, so I have no concerns in this regard.
The charism of infallibility though, is only a negative protection of the office of Peter as universal shepherd of the Church. What I mean by this is that God has promised to prevent, or impede, Peter from teaching error or heresy as doctrine for belief of the Catholic Church. Infallibility does not, however, guarantee that the Pope will further the promotion of truth and faith. It also does not insure that he will not err or fail to communicate effectively and forcefully the truth of the Gospel in homilies, interviews, and the like.
I think the present concerns are due to weeks and weeks of Cardinal Kasper’s prominent role in the synod and his multiple reiterations of proposals which seem, upon review, not just theologically unsound but philosophically and logically contradictory. The concern of which you speak, has been shared by many bishops and cardinals around the world. This has been openly stated by many in attendance at the synod and was evidenced by the book and articles authored by Cardinal Burke, Brandmuller, Carfarra, De Paolis, Pell and others as a response to the proposals of Cardinal Kasper and Kasper’s cothinkers. Cardinal Gerhard Muller (Prefect of the Congregation for the Faith), had made his own negative views of Cardinal Kasper’s proposal known as well. I agree with their concerns and am grateful for their articulation and studious elucidation of the facts surrounding the question of marriage and other doctrinal issues.
I think there is legitimate concern that, regardless of the doctrinal facts, speculative theories on the doctrine of marriage, homosexual unions, cohabitation, and other fractious issues, cause tremendous confusion and even scandal among the faithful, Catholic and non-Catholic. In practice, ambiguous and imprecise statements send a signal that these doctrinal matters are perhaps no longer relevant in our day and age.
If discussions of these “hot button” issues are not treated with great care, the signal can be sent that fundamental doctrinal teaching of the Church may be irrelevant, or up to the subjective judgment of each priest or bishop in pastoral practice. Clearly, there is political and media pressure seeking impossible doctrinal change and we should be careful not give the illusion that any change is possible or forthcoming.
The “relatio” must cause astonishment and concern. Even the main relator, Cardinal Peter Erdo, openly stated that some of the most controversial paragraphs had been inserted in the final draft and he was clearly not about to defend them or even explain them. Instead he called publicly on Archbishop Bruno Forte, the author of the controversial statements, to assume responsibility for his own words.
To see Cardinal Erdo’s concern and the objections voiced by bishops from Africa, Poland, and elsewhere on the synod floor must cause concern. If one of the goals of a synod as stated in the Code of Canon Law is the, “… preserving and strengthening of ecclesial discipline…” but openly there seems to be a faction proposing to change not preserve, and weaken not strengthen, the discipline of the Church, then I believe there is cause for concern. If this is so, some of the goals of the synod, seem to me are not being met. It also seems to me, that Cardinal Kasper’s proposals have not served as a vehicle to foster unity among the bishops and cardinals.
This I do not mind, as unity in the Church can only come as a communion (common union), vis à vis the true and correct doctrine of the Church. Unanimity in accepting to support the proposals of Cardinal Kasper and others would be very preoccupying, indeed.
The doctrinal issues at hand do not, in my view, require heroic powers of discernment. But the “relatio,” I think, lacked rigor, precision, and operational definition of terms. Given the circumstances of today and the need for clarity, it was not helpful in this regard. My impression is that, in many paragraphs, it was not grounded on a solid, philosophical, biblical, or theological ecclesial foundation. The international reaction to it, was telling of the final result. Given the partiality of the document, to release it to predictable public clamor was bound to increase pressure for doctrinal change, augment confusion, and frankly promote scandal among many. If the actual statements of all the bishops speaking about these matters are not accessible what is the point of releasing such draft documents?
2. Do you see the effort in the relatio as strictly pastoral, or does it raise doctrinal issues?
There is no such thing as strictly pastoral. Pastoral practice cannot contradict Church doctrine. Pastoral practice depends on doctrinal teaching. Practice follows necessarily from theory.
Pastoral practice exists to teach, to implement in practice Divine revelation as mediated and defined by the Magisterium of the Church. It is not within the jurisdiction of pastoral practice to decide what is true in the deposit of faith. Pastoral practice necessarily takes its guiding principles from the dogmatic teaching of the Church, not the other way around. Pastoral “theology” is the praxis which depends necessarily on the dogmatic teaching of the Church. To think that pastoral practice, rules or even guides dogmatic theology is a mistake. Theoretical science and its principles, in this case given by the Divine person, are in no way subject for their truth and certitude upon pastoral concerns. If Divine doctrine could be settled by votes, popular opinion, or the opinion of a few theologians, such doctrine would be anything but of Divine origin. God’s word and its teaching by the Church is immutable–not because some are not with the times but rather because God cannot change and His Divine Word for the salvation of mankind is–unlike man’s testimony–immutable. It is immutable because it is true.
Theology requires much intellectual humility. God cannot deceive or be deceived. God is not the consultant from whom we seek opinions to determine what is true and good. He is Truth and Goodness itself.
Pastoral practice cannot determine or grant the promise of truth. Truth of a Divine origin has been true before there were any pastoral agents in the Church. These new “pastoral theologians,” need to be reminded of their function. Judging revelation is not one of them.
The granting of communion to the divorced and remarried without a previous annulment is evidently a doctrinal issue in the Catholic Church. To claim that this is a disciplinary issue and does not touch doctrine is at best an error in thought by the proponents of such a theory. The merciful obligation to deny communion to individuals in situations which are objectively gravely sinful in the teaching of the Church is a solemn duty. Simply put, to attempt a second marriage while still validly married is taught by Our Lord and the Church to be adultery. Sexual relations in such invalid marriages are also grave matter and clearly forbidden by the Sixth Commandment, ergo those who engage in them cannot receive communion. Communion is denied in practice by the Church, as an act of mercy.
The commandments are commandments, not suggestions or proposals. From a philosophical point of view, to change pastoral practice and grant communion and maintain the condition of such communicants to be objectively disordered, would be a logical contradiction which cannot be exercised at a practical level. Both cannot be maintained simultaneously.
Furthermore, to grant communion touches the doctrinal teaching of the Church in matters regarding grace, the sacrament of confession and the authority of the Magisterium of the Church. Cardinal Kasper has proposed a mysterious “penitential path,” which somehow would conclude with confession and absolution. But this is also a logical contradiction. Of what would these divorced and remarried individuals be absolved? If they are being absolved for attempting a marriage outside of the Church or for illicit sexual relations outside of marriage, how is it that it would be sinful for that one confession concluding the penitential path and then, they could go back to commit and persevere in the same actions which a priest has just absolved and recognized as sinful? How were such actions determined to be sinful once and the same exact actions thereafter are perfectly fine? It makes no sense. No priest in a confessional could solve these illogical and irrational dilemmas. Are they to absolve them once and then say that the same actions are fine? If they are morally sound after the confession how come they were not acceptable the day of the confession at the end of the penitential path? No theology is needed to see the problems. A previous science, namely logic and philosophy, disqualifies these proposals as contrary to reason.
Finally, all priests are held to serve and protect their faithful from spiritual damage. To “do no harm”, is the most basic and fundamental ethical principle of human action. The Church teaches with St. Paul, who taught that, “For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are ill and infirm and a considerable number are dying.” (1 Cor. 11: 29-30).
It is of no benefit to the communicant who is objectively in a condition of serious sin to receive communion. Since we have a moral obligation to endeavor for the good of souls, we must not give to people what de facto will do damage to them. It is in my view, positively unmerciful to give communion knowingly to such individuals. We hold to the doctrine of the proper reception of communion and counsel souls not to receive if they are not in a state of grace, for many reasons. The fact that mercy obliges us to do this is one of them. There should be no shame, fear, or discomfort in this; we cannot give what would harm another person.
Communion without conversion is an impossible proposition, morally and theologically. Our Lord taught the conditions for discipleship, “ If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, take up his cross and follow Me.” (Matthew 16:24). This is the order required by wisdom and true discipleship. We must first deny ourselves that which God forbids. This will not be easy, but with God’s grace we must carry our cross and then and only then, does He invite us to follow Him. Cardinal Kasper’s proposal, supported by others as well, is in my view, the antithesis of the Divine requirement. If Communion without conversion were possible, Our Lord would have perhaps stated: “Do not deny yourselves, do not pick up your cross, just follow me.”
It seems to me, that it is a grave oversight to forget that the sacrament of Confession is the visible and effective sign, instituted by the Divine person as an endless fountain of mercy for humanity. Confession is the sacrament of mercy. Mercy as a virtue cannot exist outside of that which is true and it cannot exist without the proper observance of justice. It is unjust and unmerciful and a bad error to propose or imagine human solutions that offer guarantees which may depart in doctrine or practice from Divine teaching.
The relatio’s review and proposals on all other issues, including that of cohabitation and homosexual unions, compounds all these problems. But, in my view, there is little complexity to the proposals being offered. They all follow, from the same erroneous start, to multiply the dangers for the souls of the faithful. If the teaching of Our Lord and the Sixth Commandment is to hold any relevance, all types of sexual unions outside of marriage (between one man and one woman), fall under the same logical and doctrinal judgment. Sexual relations outside of marriage being forbidden by the Sixth Commandment also would forbid adultery, homosexual relations, the sexual relations of those who cohabitate and are not married. All of these are simply a different specie or kind of the same sin forbidden by the Sixth Commandment, namely fornication. None of these can be advised without contradicting the Sixth Commandment. There is really in my view, very little complexity to the proposals being deliberated.
3. The paragraphs on homosexuality seem to be gaining the most attention in American media. Do you see these as the most troubling and/or remarkable?
It seems the analysis and focus on trying to accommodate these relations is a futile effort within the context of Catholic doctrine. I do agree that a pastoral plan is needed, given the extraordinary changes in our culture and the public lobbying by a small but vociferous group of people. Most men and women with homosexual tendencies are grateful to have a father and a mother, and do not want to destroy marriage or change any Church doctrine.
The missing pastoral plan to which mercy obliges us, is to minister to men and women with homosexual tendencies for, as of now, they have been like “sheep without shepherds.” The pastoral plan needed would be for every diocese in the world to open up a ministry to counsel and lend a merciful ear to those with such non-normative tendencies, who wish to speak about them. To celebrate and congratulate people “coming out,” cloaks a great deal of moral irresponsibility. There is real suffering in many of these cases, about which we should feel great mercy.
Sufficient for those who at present want to make such relations normative, would be to ask them to enter into dialogue with men and women with homosexual tendencies. If they did this, they would discover the immense number of our brothers and sisters who have suffered sexual abuse, family dysfunction, and other psychological and physical harms.
Many of the people with homosexual tendencies in fact are seeking someone to talk to. They are not ministered properly if some shepherds continue to pretend there is no issue at hand. Many young people who have been sexually abused, have developed homosexual tendencies but they cannot easily find a responsible adult to speak to about their situation. If institutionally we close our doors, exclude them from our ministry by pretending there is no issue, we ignore our duty in mercy to be available to all people regardless of their situation. The real pastoral plan is not, through theological acrobatics, seeking to ignore the presence of non-normative sexual tendencies and therefore refuse to seek solutions. This position of the Church, may be a sign of contradiction in our day and age but nonetheless, mercy obliges us not to tell falsehoods, scientifically, morally or theologically. The Church has been very clear on this matter. What is needed in my view is not accommodation but a realization of suffering and pain which requires the mercy of our ministry.
Furthermore, there are great questions of justice which are owed to children. Namely, the right of every child to be nurtured by a father and a mother in a family, and the social, psychological, cultural, and moral benefits such an arrangement affords them.
4. The relatio is a work in progress, and already some participants have called for changes to walk back some of the language released. Do you expect that the second draft on Saturday will address those concerns?
It all depends apparently, on who deals with the final redaction of the document.
Certainly a great number of bishops and cardinals oppose Cardinal Kasper’s proposal as being inconsistent with logic, sound philosophy, morals, Church law, and Catholic theology. But the response should be thoughtful. And I do think the counter arguments to Cardinal Kasper & company, have been thoughtful, steeped in Catholic tradition and theology, and consistent with the aim of theology, pastoral practice, and the discipline of the Church, namely the felicity and happiness of man. A respect for human dignity requires clarity and precision when conveying the doctrine of salvation.
5. How does the “law of graduality” as mentioned in the relatio impact the teaching on the indissolubility of marriage? Does this tend to give license to those who want access to the Eucharist regardless of the status of their communion with Church teachings, and why?
The law of graduality in my view does not apply to marriage. One is either married or not. A determination by the Church may be needed to discover and assess the fact. The process of annulment exists to determine this, if a marriage is called into question. But one cannot be partially married, somewhat married, married but not fully. There is no possible graduality here. To make an analogy to ecclesial communion by different ecclesial communities or particular churches in this regard a false analogy. The Church can be in communion on some points with other ecclesial communities and not in communion on other points, that is, the degree of unity may vary. Sacramental communion, communion of faith, and hierarchical communion are all needed to be in full communion with the Catholic Church. Therefore, different degrees of communion are possible. [Ed: this is an error which is discussed in the comments below].
In the case of marriage the determination is singular and unique. A couple married or not, period. There is no such thing as married in some respects and not married in other respects. If it were possible to have degrees of marriage, it would be to propose yet another logical contradiction, that one could be married and not married at one and the same time. It is analogous to a mother being pregnant. She is either pregnant or she is not, she cannot be somewhat pregnant or gradually pregnant. Seeking some status to accommodate other “unions,” is in my view again, a futile exercise. Sacraments affect the grace they signify upon completion of the sacrament, after the rite of baptism you are baptized. Before baptism, you are not. If there is a valid, sacrament the reality of the sacrament takes effect immediately.
The commandments and the law of God are also not subject to graduality. It is not possible to believe that the prohibition against fornication applies as a prohibition gradually to different people. If not, someone could therefore be licitly fornicating for some months, others for some years as the commandment applies differently to each person. Who could with certainty of truth imply that for some couples the prohibition of the commandment does not apply yet? This is to empty revelation of its clear meaning. It matters little if they cannot change doctrine; the effect in practice is to make the teaching of Christ and the Church vacuous, in practice. Again, all this is impossible from a philosophical, theological, and ethical perspective.
6. There has been a lot of talk about mercy before and during the synod, what is your view on mercy as the justification for these new pastoral approaches?
It seems to me at the heart of the matter lies yet another problem that has been afflicting the opinions of more than one bishop at the synod. This problem is the lack of and great need in the age of postmodernity for proper operational definitions of terms. There seems to be in our day and age a great deal of confusion about the meanings of all sorts of things, family, unions, gender, homosexual tendencies, doctrine vs. discipline, dogma vs. pastoral practice, and much more. Mercy as a virtue is most necessary in the Church, but it unfortunately does not escape the deconstruction of postmodern thinking in our times. Mercy denotes, as St. Thomas Aquinas teaches, “…a kind of sorrow” (Summa Theologica II-IIae, Q.30, a.1-a.4)–sorrow for the plight of another. The origin of this sorrow is originated necessarily from the recognition of a privation of a good in the person for which one feels “… a kind of sorrow.” This privation of a good could be physical, moral, spiritual, or for any other reason. Therefore, to properly understand mercy as a virtue one must first recognize the inadequacy, defect, lack of a perfection or goodness in the person one feels sorrow for. This implies, of course, recognition of the privation of good in all the cases being addressed at the synod–divorced and remarried (without a previous annulment), those cohabitating outside of marriage, homosexual “unions,” and the rest. Mercy is impossible even as a feeling without the recognition of the objective deficiency present, for it is in the recognition of the deficiency that mercy as a feeling originates.
But more is needed to actually attain mercy as a virtue. A feeling is not a virtue. We all have feelings, many beyond rational control. But a feeling of sorrow for someone’s plight is far from constituting the virtue of mercy. Thomas distinguishes between “a feeling of sorrow,” which is not more than a movement of the sensitive appetite, a passion and mercy which is the virtue. The feeling by itself does not constitute the virtue of mercy. For mercy to exist as a virtue, (which I take is what really is of value), mercy must be “ … a movement of the intellective appetite…” This movement, for mercy to be an actual virtue, must be ruled, “…in accordance with reason and in accordance with this movement regulated by reason, the movement of the lower appetite (the feeling of sorrow), may be regulated.”
The “feeling of sorrow,” is not mercy. It must be regulated to be a virtue by adherence through right reason to the good and to that which is true. It seems to me much of what we have today is feeling sorry that someone cannot receive communion. But to assert that this feeling is a manifestation of the virtue of mercy is just simply a bad theoretical error.
Furthermore, to determine the defect in a relationship for which one “feels sorry,” requires a judgment. Therefore to oppose a judgment of the mind to mercy is to be speaking of emotive mercy (irrational feeling), vs. the virtue of mercy which requires reason and judgment. Much of what today is being called mercy is nothing more than a feeling by which no serious judgments, let alone pastoral practice or doctrinal determinations, can be made.
Finally as Thomas teaches, quoting St. Augustine, the virtue of mercy exists as, “… this movement of the mind (i.e. not feeling) obeys reason, when mercy is vouchsafed in such a way that justice is safeguarded, whether we give to the needy or forgive the repentant.” (De Civ. Dei ix. 5).
Pseudo mercy or emotive mercy–just feeling sorry for someone–is what sustains flawed arguments in cases such as euthanasia, “mercy killing.” Indeed one may have “a feeling of sorrow,” for the plight of an older person who is suffering. But this is not a virtue it is just a sentiment. To propose putting them to death to alleviate their suffering is a departure from reason and does not secure the obligations of justice to the sick and disabled. This is not the virtue of mercy. Equally to destroy the unborn, for reasons of mercy”–they have Down syndrome, they will suffer, they are not wanted–is irrational and unjust.
I think much of the debate has been between those who think mercy is an irrational feeling, emotive mercy against those who are upholding the real virtue of mercy, which requires, reason, a judgment of the mind, the recognition of the lack of good in a situation and the absolute need for securing through right thinking the ends of justice, truth, and goodness. END.
Comments (48)
I’m not persuaded by his view on ‘partial communion’ but otherwise this is is one of the most sensible pieces I’ve seen over the last couple of weeks.
CD,
I’ve checked the article and I think you refer to this part of Father’s answer to Question 5:
“The Church can be in communion on some points with other ecclesial communities and not in communion on other points, that is, the degree of unity may vary. Sacramental communion, communion of faith, and hierarchical communion are all needed to be in full communion with the Catholic Church. Therefore, different degrees of communion are possible.”
I agree that this is opposed to Catholic teaching, so I’ve asked Father to clarify and await his response.
Yes, editor, you are right. In fact, to deny one element of Catholic teaching is deny it all.
Editor,
I was just going to make the same point that you and the others have made, but no need. He seems to be a very good and genuine priest but is obviously mistaken on this point about communion with other religious denominations. I’m sure he’ll recognise that now that you’ve raised the issue with him. Otherwise, it’s a very good questions and answers piece, very sound.
Athanasius & Petrus,
Thank you for thanking me… Do I get a pay rise now ? From £000.000 p.a. to £000.000.000 ? 😀
I think Father may simply have meant that certain Protestant ecclesial groups have, or at least appear to have, more in common with the Church than others but it has, unfortunately, come across in the wrong way.
Anyway, back to that pay rise – deal or no deal?
Editor,
I say you should certainly add a few more zeros to that salary. You deserve to hit the high noughts, if you catch the play on words!
Athanasius,
I not only “get it” but you’re “for it” as we used to say in our youth!
I have to confess that I’ve not had time to read Father Guarnizo’s article right through with due care and attention, due to very pressing commitments (well, if the Pope called you every five minutes wouldn’t YOU think that a “pressing commitment”? ) But I have always been impressed with his interviews and articles, and the fact that he refuses to bow to the pressures placed on him to cool down his comments on homosexuality (click on photo to read one report on this) so I trust the above article is no exception. It certainly looked good at first skim…
In any event, Bishop Fellay has been very outspoken about the Synod and about the beatification of Pope Paul VI. Click here to read is commentary on both – he is truly a God given leader for our times.
Well, for starters, the time he takes to explain what infallibility is and what it is not would be important to comprehend for Catholics and non-Catholics alike. A few other sections of this discussion I find helpful are everything pertaining to mercy and also doctrine. Are there any other Catholics who recently have felt as if the ground is shifting underneath their feet?
SAA5OF5, (some username!)
I think we ALL feel as if “the ground is shifting underneath our feet” these days. The recent Synod was described by some as an “earthquake”, so it’s quite a widespread sentiment. Little wonder.
Below is a partial response sent by Father. I am very disappointed indeed – shows that even such a well meaning priest, who suffered persecution for his adherence to Catholic sexual morality and who is known to offer the TLM, has, nevertheless, imbibed contemporary errors and accepts them as true.
Father’s response so far:
“Ut Unum Sint”: JPII
“These are extremely important texts for ecumenism. It is not that beyond the boundaries of the Catholic community there is an ecclesial vacuum. Many elements of great value (eximia), which in the Catholic Church are part of the fullness of the means of salvation and of the gifts of grace which make up the Church, are also found in the other Christian Communities.
14. All these elements bear within themselves a tendency towards unity, having their fullness in that unity. It is not a matter of adding together all the riches scattered throughout the various Christian Communities in order to arrive at a Church which God has in mind for the future. In accordance with the great Tradition, attested to by the Fathers of the East and of the West, the Catholic Church believes that in the Pentecost Event God has already manifested the Church in her eschatological reality, which he had prepared “from the time of Abel, the just one”.19 This reality is something already given. Consequently we are even now in the last times. The elements of this already-given Church exist, found in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other Communities,20 where certain features of the Christian mystery have at times been more effectively emphasized. Ecumenism is directed precisely to making the partial communion existing between Christians grow towards full communion in truth and charity.”
( see last line for partial and full communion).
Lumen Gentium 14(vatican Ii), speaks about sacramental unity, unity of faith and hierarchical unity.
There are many more. But not enough time for me to do this at present. Partial communion, full communion is language used by the Church. END.
I would have been more impressed if Fr Guarnizo had been able to quote some reference to ‘partial communion’ from anything resembling an official document prior to 1960.
For reference here is what the Roman Catechism (of the Council of Trent) has to say on the question:
THOSE WHO ARE NOT MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH
Hence there are but three classes of persons excluded from the Church’s pale: infidels, heretics and schismatics, and excommunicated persons.
Infidels are outside the Church because they never belonged to, and never knew the Church, and were never made partakers of any of her Sacraments.
Heretics and schismatics are excluded from the Church, because they have separated from her and belong to her only as deserters belong to the army from which they have deserted. It is not, however, to be denied that they are still subject to the jurisdiction of the Church, inasmuch as they may be called before her tribunals, punished and anathematised.
Finally, excommunicated persons are not members of the Church, because they have been cut off by her sentence from the number of her children and belong not to her communion until they repent. (emphasis added) (Part I, art. ix)
To see the force of the highlighted clause you need to recall how armies typically regarded deserters – fit only to be shot! A queer sort of ‘partial communion’.
CD,
Many thanks for that quote from the Catechism of the Council of Trent – coincidentally, I used an army metaphor below, prior to reading your excellent post here. Is this, therefore, a case of “great minds think alike” or “fools seldom differ”?
Strictly rhetorical question – unless the answer is “great minds…” 😀
You have to laugh!
“…Many elements of great value (eximia), which in the Catholic Church are part of the fullness of the means of salvation and of the gifts of grace which make up the Church, are also found in the other Christian Communities…All these elements bear within themselves a tendency towards unity, having their fullness in that unity…”
What we have here is the “latent seed” theory of the Modernists condemned by St. Pius X in his Encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis.” Essentially, it is evolutionary Christianity; the Catholic Church having the fullness of truth, the others a more or less partial grasp of truth depending on the stage of evolution they are at.
Whatever “elements of great value” the other Christian denominations may posses, such as, for example, the Sacrament of Baptism, they do not possess as “a tendency towards unity,” but rather as a tendency to maintain a semblance of Christianity when they split from the one true Church instituted by Our Lord Jesus Christ.
What Father attempts to defend by his non-infallible post-Vatican II quotations he will not find anywhere in the teaching of the Magisterium of 1900 years before the Council. The infallible dogma is ‘Extra ecclesiam nulla salus’ (Outside the Church no salvation), excepting of course invincible ignorance. Father is frankly in error.
Athanasius,
Succinctly put – I have forwarded your comment for Father’s attention.
Editor,
Father is clearly a priest of good will. I’m sure he’ll see the merit in what I’ve said and go look it up. The Encyclicals of the Pius Popes together should suffice to set him straight.
Athanasius,
“Father is clearly a priest of good will. I’m sure he’ll see the merit in what I’ve said and go look it up”
I sincerely hope so, but this appears to confirm my own opinion – often expressed on this blog – that even the best of the “Summorum Pontificum” priests are not one hundred per cent clear of the scourge of modernism. They still, as Father has done, consider that even controversial documents and statements coming from the Vatican represents the teaching of “the Church”. This is why I encourage parents of young children to hook their star to the SSPX chapels and nowhere else. Being of “good will” and having an enthusiasm for the Traditional Latin Mass is all well and good but since – as the CCC puts it – “God has so willed it that we come to salvation through knowledge of the truth” ( italics in the CCC) then we must also look for priests who are absolutely sound in doctrine.
I do find this phenomenon – priests who are sound on sexual morality and who learn the TLM, but who go along with ecumenism and interfaith dialogue, religious freedom etc – very difficult to understand, let alone defend.
Priests like Father Guarnizo are aware that there is a massive crisis in the Church, which should make them vigilant, beginning, as it were, with a clean page, taking nothing for granted. Just as we, as lay people, have had to check out the authoritative (or lack of it) status of various Vatican documents and papal statements issued since Vatican II, so should priests of good will.
Here endeth the lesson – for now…
Editor,
Yes, there is the danger, as you rightly point out, of well meaning priests falling for at least some of the liberal trash that’s presently swamping the Church. I would expect all priests attached to the Latin Mass and traditional morality to be vigilant in this regard, but, alas, so few are 100% free from Modernism to some extent. At worst, they are completely indifferent to the doctrinal issues that Vatican II has raised.
I quite often check out the Papa Stronsay Redemptorist blog to see what’s being discussed there, but, sad to say, the monks have become completely conformist. They who once fought so stridently for Tradition in its entirety are now satisfied to remain utterly silent while the Church undergoes this present doctrinal passion.
Of course they can’t speak out or they will certainly find themselves under pressure from Pope Francis. But truth be told, I think they have reconciled themselves to compromise for the sake of peace. I don’t think Our Lord will be too happy with that kind of attitude, though. We would all like peace, but not at so high a cost as silence in the face of great scandal. It seems that even a few Cardinals have recently come to realise their duty in this regard.
I agree with you that only the SSPX is prepared to stand up and be counted in this crisis and that’s why it is so viciously persecuted. If there’s no persecution today from within the hierarchy, then those who claim to be Traditional and at peace with their local ordinary must be compromising something, somewhere. It really is that straightforward.
Athanasius,
This is what keeps so many caring Catholics away from seeing the whole truth, the fact that there are some priests like Fr Guarnizo who seem to be very sound and even willing to be ostracised for sticking up for parts of the faith like homosexuality and the Mass, but who go along with other things and quote documents like Ut Unum Sint as if they are infallible. This is so confusing and there are other priests like that. It’s all in Pascendi, the modernist is one minute orthodox and the next unorthodox. No wonder people are mixed up. The SSPX priests are thought to be extremists because they won’t go along with any of the heresies. Fr Guarnizo and priests like him will only go along with some. It really is a mess.
Margaret Mary,
I agree entirely and I would throw people like Michael Voris into the mix of confusion as well.
Athanasius & Margaret Mary,
Absolutely. Anyone who is trying to keep a foot in both camps right now, should take both feet, put them together, and go for a hike. As one American reader put it, quoting his army superior, “either lead, follow or get out of the way”. If that is true for worldly battles, how much more is it true for our spiritual battle against evil principalities and powers.
Editor,
Yes indeed! As the old adage goes “those who hesitate are lost.”
Not to mention, “he who laughs last, laughs longest”.. er…I think… 😀
Editor,
Or indeed “the longest mile is the last mile home”.
Athanasius,
Or, “laugh and the world laughs with you**, cry and you cry alone”!
** or in my case “laughs at you” 😀
Editor,
Here’s one for the disciples of the ‘New Theology’: “Show me your friends and I’ll tell you what you are”.
I’d throw Michael Voris’ organisation into the bin, actually!
Petrus,
Well, as long as he stops short at laying the blame where it should be, at the Pope’s door, his organisation would be best in the bin, for all the good it will do.
Petrus,
Not my bin I hope – I’ve enough to do keeping up with all this recycling nonsense without having to worry about what to do with the Voris rubbish 😀
Athanasius,
I think a lot of people compromise for the sake of an easy life. That’s exactly what those monks have done and what the Society of Saint Peter did before them.
All our lives would be less complicated and more comfortable if we were to compromise and go along with the liberal nonsense in modern parishes. Many of us travel significant distances to get to the Traditional Mass and put up with nasty comments from friends and family. However, Our Lord didn’t promise us an easy life. It seems there are a limited number unwilling to approach “the narrow gate”.
That’s not to say for one second that many of those who go along with the madness and remain silent don’t have good intentions. However, we all know which road is paved with good intentions…
Petrus,
I think the good intentioned could get away with their position to some extent under Pope Benedict XVI, but certainly not under Francis. This Pope is so far removed from Catholic orthodoxy that I’m half expecting him to announce the beatification of Martin Luther!!
Athanasius,
“I’m half expecting (Pope Francis) to announce the beatification of Martin Luther”…
No way! At least not before Tony Palmer. Read more…
Editor,
Yes, I read about the Tony Palmer association. God help us!
Petrus,
Would that be the road to my local Scottish Slimmers class?
Editor,
What you trying to say? Are you suggesting I go to Scottish Slimmers??
Oh no, perish the thought! I mean MY good intentions to go to Scottish Slimmers equal the road which is paved with gold! I’d sooner it were paved with fresh cream cakes, but what the heck. Gold will do!
I could be doing with slimming down a bit!! Editor, say nothing, act casual.
Editor,
I need some of your good intentions!
Athanasius,
If you slim down you’ll be known as the original disappearing act! Apply to the nearest theatre! Or to put it another way, were you a girl, the rest of us would be SOooooo jealous of you! I do believe you’d be the first person ever to be turned away from Scottish Slimmers!
Petrus,
Well…. you said it!
The benefit of being as slim as I am is that you get lots of overtime at work. I’m always being asked to join the skeleton staff!
I liked this part of Father G’s article: “Pastoral practice exists to teach, to implement in practice Divine revelation as mediated and defined by the Magisterium of the Church. It is not within the jurisdiction of pastoral practice to decide what is true in the deposit of faith.” That is totally correct.
It’s a real pity that he has fallen into the heresy of ecumenism, quoting Ut Unum Sint of all things. I hope he will come to see that this is completely wrong. I’ve seen videos of him speaking and he seems to be a very humble priest. If so, he will see that such a contradiction as ecumenism cannot be truly Catholic, otherwise all the other great popes were in error to condemn it!
Comment removed – completely off topic.
Editor: RbM, since you have not commented here previously, to the best of my memory (which isn’t great these days I admit), this, your first comment should have gone into moderation. Anyway, please read our house rules which you will find in the About Us section of this blog, and note that anything which is off topic will be deleted.
John Vennari was interviewed by the Voice of Catholic Radio on October 31st regarding the Synod of the Family. The title of the interview is the “Psychotic Synod”. Really a matter of the “Psychotic Intellect”.
http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/9677a83a30da25e9258c2e84683c1e32-289.html
Fidelis, I agree that “it is not within the jurisdiction of pastoral practice to decide what is true in the deposit of faith.
Thanks, Theresa Rose. Like Fidelis, I’m grateful for the link although I’ve not yet had time to listen. Will do, asap, be assured.
Theresa Rose,
Thanks for posting that link to CFN on the “Psychotic Synod”. It is really helpful in reinforcing the fact that there cannot be change in the Church of the kind the Synod Bishops were asking for.
Thanks for that link, Theresa Rose. It is excellent.
I’ve now closed the October threads, so thanks to all who contributed to them.
I’ve had a couple of emails from a reader in France who describes the Catholic Truth bloggers’ response to Father’s error as “superb”, so thank you again, everyone, for your contributions to the October threads and to Confitebor Domino who was first to highlight the error of “partial Communion” in the blog article on this thread. Sincere gratitude to all who commented in support of authentic Catholic doctrine thereafter.
I’m now about to close down this thread, so thanks again, to everyone.
Comments are closed.