Rorate Caeli

And the hits keep on coming ...

From The Tablet:

'Rethink line on divorce and gays'

The Church must rethink its approach to remarried divorcees and gay relationships, the world's youngest cardinal has said.

Cardinal Rainer Maria Woelki, 55, made his comments in an interview with the German weekly Die Zeit and said that while the Orthodox Church considers only the first marriage sacramentally valid, divorce and a second marriage is tolerated.

Asked whether this could be a model for the Catholic Church, he replied that the Church should talk about it. Commenting on gay men in relationships he said he tried not to see them as just violating natural law but as people trying to take responsibility for each other in lasting partnerships.

"We must find a way of allowing people to live without going against church teaching," he said.

Cardinal Woelki is a native of the Mülheim district of Cologne, on the right bank of the... Rhine. Of course.

60 comments:

Matthew Rose said...

About the only interesting piece of information in this report is the implication that the new Major Archbishop of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church has not yet been made a Cardinal.

JTLiuzza said...

"the Orthodox Church considers only the first marriage sacramentally valid, divorce and a second marriage is tolerated."

What does this mean? If you divorce and remarry does that not make you an adulterer provided of course there was not valid reason for the divorce followed by an annulment? How is adultery "tolerated?"

"Commenting on gay men in relationships he said he tried not to see them as just violating natural law but as people trying to take responsibility for each other in lasting partnerships. We must find a way of allowing people to live without going against church teaching," he said.

There is already a way for people so inclined to "live without going against church teaching" or violating natural law. It's called celibacy.

Then again maybe he'd prefer the protestant approach where we all vote on what church teaching is. At some point we'd all be able to do whatever imaginable, or "live" as he put it, and never be in violation of church teaching.

Unfortunately I've been numbed to the point of not being scandalized by such a man in the priesthood. But a Cardinal?

A. M. D. G. said...

More from the people who brought us aggiornamento for the past fifty years!

The Postmodernist said...

Yeah, there shall be false prophets and deceive even the elect. The Apostle Paul reminds us that even they present a new gospel let them be accursed!

BrokenCisterns said...

Why do these "cardinals" speak of violating NATURAL law when their mission is to serve God and to proclaim His law to the people (imagine Moses trying to bend the 10 commandments to allow the people to worship the golden calf - what he did was intercede w/God not to kill the people and those who did not agree to forsake sin I believe were killed) - what happened to "Peter a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ," "Paul a bondservant of the Lord Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated to the gospel of God," "James, a bondservant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ," "Jude a bondservant of Jesus Christ," or "to His servant John who bore witness to the Word of God" - if one doesn't believe the arguments questioning N.O. priestly ordinations and consecration of bishops, one only has to listen to their words and view their works...The Church lives in Jesus Christ. We are His body. It makes no sense to say that the Church needs to find a way to allow sinners to live without violating Church teaching -it is God's teaching that they violate. The Church needs to find a way to convert them (as Jesus Christ commissioned them to do) - unfortunately these "churchmen" are often too busy joining in the lusts of the flesh and worshipping the golden calf (like Aaron).

John (Ad Orientem) said...

JTLiuzza

"the Orthodox Church considers only the first marriage sacramentally valid, divorce and a second marriage is tolerated."

What does this mean?


It means that the Cardinal doesn't have a clue what the Orthodox Church believes.

rodrigo said...

We must find a way of allowing people to live without going against church teaching.

This was either misheard or mistranslated. I refuse to believe that a prince of the Church could be so obtuse, or so vicious, as to speak in this manner about the Church's condemnation of one of the four sins that cries out to Heaven for vengeance.

P.K.T.P. said...

Maybe this man will now take over from Müller as chief, um, whatever, in Germany.

What needs to be done is to approve inverted marriages and to end priestly celibacy. Müller has been working hard on the latter and Woelki could work on the former. Then all the priest-predators could marry their victims.

P.K.T.P.

KenD said...

in the wake of Saint Anthony Zaccaria's feast day 5 July, it seems now more than ever we need a "counter reformation" today more than ever..

Kindred Spirit said...

@Bernonensis:

I shall pray that you will see that the spotless Bride of Christ still prevails, though She be be surrounded by the wicked and ignominious, the foolish and the weak. May Almighty God bless you and Our Lady lead you to the truth.

Animadversor said...

Here is something that may shed a bit more light on His Eminence, albeit lifted from Wikipedia:

On 2 July 2011 Pope Benedict XVI ratified Woelki's election by the cathedral chapter of Berlin and appointed him Archbishop of Berlin.[2] The announcement came just two days after the death of Cardinal Georg Sterzinsky, whose resignation from the governance of the see had been accepted in February 2011.[4]

Woelki has been criticised by some German politicians for his language on homosexuality, and his suitability for the post of archbishop in a city with a significant gay population. In an interview with the Catholic journalist George Schwikart he described homosexuality as an offence against the "order of creation."[6][7][8]

After his appointment he said, "We will meet with each other" when asked about the city's active gay community. "I have respect and esteem for all people independent of heritage, skin colour and individual nature. I am open to all without reservations."[9] "The Church is not a moral institution that goes around pointing its finger at people," Woelki said. "The Church is for me a community of seekers and believers and the Church would like to help people find their happiness in life."


So, you can see that (1) he was not appointed to Berlin by the Holy Father, but rather elected by the chapter, and (2) also that he does not seem to be soft of homosexuality.

Adfero said...

Animadversor, if this report is accurate, things have obviously changed.

Anil Wang said...

"not to see them as just violating natural law but as people trying to take responsibility for each other in lasting partnerships."

This is of course nonsense. One never breaks natural law. One is broken against natural law. It is nonsense to say that two people are responsible if they encourage each other to practice behaviour that puts their bodies and souls at risk.


"'We must find a way of allowing people to live without going against church teaching,' he said. "

Again, this is nonsense. Having the Church pretend that black is white does not change the fact that black is black no matter what you choose to call it. As pointed out above, if someone is so afflicted, chastity is the only way to live without going against Church teaching. It's no different from people who are born with the tendency to adultery.

Peterman said...

The "fruits" of the new springtime.

Adfero said...

Fruits is apropros for this piece!

JabbaPapa said...

Bernonensis : "I am no longer a member of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church."

Then you are lost !!! :-(

You should repent of this sin, because to follow our Lord the Christ is to become a member of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of the Faithful in Christ.

Credo in unum Deum, Patrem omnipotentem, factorem caeli et terrae, visibilium omnium et invisibilium.
Et in unum Dominum Jesum Christum Filium Dei unigenitum.
Et ex Patre natum ante omnia saecula.
Deum de Deo, lumen de lumine, Deum verum de Deo vero.
Genitum, non factum, consubstantialem Patri : per quem omnia facta sunt.
Qui propter nos homines, et propter nostram salutem decendit de caelis.
Et incarnatus est de Spiritu sancto ex Maria Virgine : Et homo factus est.
Crucifixus etiam pro nobis : sub Pontio Pilato passus, et sepultus est.
Et resurrexit tertia die, secundum Scripturas.
Et ascendit in caelum : sedet ad dexteram Patris.
Et iterum venturus est cum gloria, judicare vivos et mortuos : cujus regni non erit finis.
Et in Spiritum sanctum, Dominum, et vivificantem : qui ex Patre Filioque procedit.
Qui cum Patre et Filio simul adoratur, et conglorificatur : qui locutus est per Prophetas.
Et unam, sanctam, catholicam, et apostolicam Ecclesiam.
Confiteor unum baptisma in remissionem peccatorum.
Et expecto resurrectionem mortuorum. Et vitam venturi saeculi.

Simple said...

I think he's off his rocker. I wish these people would either preach the truth or officially leave the church. They do so much damage. I wonder, will there be an repercussions because of his statements?

mfbg said...

mfbg said: Animadversor said quoting Cardinal Woelki: The church would like to help people find happiness in life. Contra my first grade catechism: God made me to know Him, to love Him and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him forever in Heaven. which I have ceaselessly drilled into my ten grandchildren. So pity the poor Cardinal who seems not to have had a grandmother so informed by pre-Vat-2 nuns (WAY,WAY BEFORE) with such a great love for her grandchildren.

Adrian UK said...

I just would like to ask a question: Why is this person still a Cardinal?

Gratias said...

The Pope hopefully will have plenty of time to reflect on the quality of the bishop and cardinal appointments. Please Holy Father, appoint only those that will support the traditional Catholic faith. Cardinal Woelki is not one of that group.

sam said...

In tribute to "Long-Skirt" who always gives us well made poems (i.e. I don't know how you find the time.) I will post my response in a similar way (i.e. but in a less talented way.)

-The man of the suit,
-The suit of the unbelief.
-Entered the house,
-The house of belief.

-In the house was he adorned,
-Adorned in the adornments of belief.
-The remnant of the house he sought,
-Sought them out for their beliefs.

-The remnant is ridiculed,
-Ridiculed by the unbelief.
-The adorned man had driven them out,
-Out into the street.

-Now the man of the suit leaves the house,
-The house no longer has beliefs.
-The remnant from street cries out,
-Out we stand in disbelief.

Benedict Carter said...

The truth is that the tide of heresy unleashed by Vatican II is now reaching its apogee.

I am convinced that the last Papacy and this one too have caused such damage that the result now cannot be anything other than a speeded-up move towards a fully-out-in-the-open Great Apostasy with the highest reaches of the Hierarchy calling openly - as here - for the overthrow of Christ's Church and orthodox Faith.

He asks us to look to the Orthodox Churches' teaching on marriage, does he? But the Catholic Church has always seen this teaching as a denial of Christ's own plain words about marriage.

I am more than ever convinced that Christ has given me a very great grace to be resident in Kenya where I can fulfill my obligations at the Holy Cross Priory of the SSPX.

I am a Catholic and I will NOT be a protestant!

P.K.T.P. said...

It could be worse. Woelki could be a disciple of a raving liberation communologist such as Gastavo Gutiérrez.

P.K.T.P.

P.K.T.P. said...

Animadersion:

1. Benedict XVI ratified the choice made by the cathedral chapter. He is not required to do that.

2. Benedict XVI elevated him to the Sacred College one year later. He did not have to do that.

3. Woelki's assessment of sexual inversion as contrary to the order of nature means that it is sinful. He also seems to think, however, that inverts should be allowed to marry. The only possible conclusions we can draw are

a. He thinks that inverts should be allowed to marry but must live in married chastity, as some heterasts did in the High Middle Ages, or

b. He has changed his mind.

Your call. I'd say he's considered his position in the Berlin of 2012 and has either changed his mind or is/was lying about his real position.

His position, however, shocking, is no worse than that of liberation theologians, and the question should be asked why such people have not been excommunicated so as to protect those whom they lead astray.

P.K.T.P.

LeonG said...

In one place I noticed an article containing in its title "..Young cardinal...". When I decided to read it this is the one I got................."young"? 55 years old...maybe for a cardinal but hardly young. Howver, he is certainly politically correct. I wonder what his views are on other Catholic teachings.

Alsaticus said...

Interesting statements, coming after the rash trad-hating statement of cardinal Meisner, the regularly scandalous statements of Abp Zollitsch, chairman of GermChurch, himself radicalising what cardinal Lehmann was saying etc. The list goes on and on ...

We have to keep in mind that GermChurch has been a stumbling block for the reconciliation of the SSPX, a stumbling block for Ecclesia Dei 1988 and is still a stumbling block for Summorum Pontificum.

And pope Benedict XVI found the most wise thing to pick up a German bishop for CDF ... like he picked up a die-hard Bugninist (Bp Roche) for wreckovating more the liturgy.

It sounds like a U-turn in the pontificate as I posted here some days ago. Cardinal Burke feels like a remnant in a Curia veering to a new Wojtylian mish mash.

Alsaticus

P.K.T.P. said...

We all take it for granted here that the Church must be enormous, for that is the will of her divine Founder. Most of us grew up knowing that, whatever the social position of the Church was in any given country, there were more of us than there are Muslims in the world or members of any other faith; and there are more of us than all other Christians combined. Some Protestant sects might be powerful in this country or that one but, internationally, they were small compared to us. We were favoured by God because ours is the One True Church founded by Christ.

But this culture of massiveness is not guaranteed by the Faith for all time. On the contrary, the exact opposite is promised to us by the Lord: in the end times, we shall become a tiny remnant.

Given this fact, we must admit the possibility that there will soon be a very great schism, one in which the vast majority formally apostasises and takes with it Rome and all the property, leaving us like, um, let's see, like--the Society of St. Pius X!

Are we nearing these times? What did our Lord say. When you see the lightning in the sky, you know a storm is coming, and so forth.

I have never been one of these end-times people and, really, I can't stand them; they annoy me and I think them cranks. But one day the end-times people will necessarily be right. My own view is that we shall recover from this mess and we are a very long time from the final days, aeons maybe. But that's just my feeling about things. It's not worth a stick of bamboo. It's just an opinion based on feelings.

Why do I mention all of this? Only to prepare everyone for a possible outcome, for there will be some papolaters who will say one day, no, no, the Pope can't be a heretic; the Pope cannot lose office. But such a thing *might* be possible in the sense that the Church does not guarantee its impossibility. When you see material heresy spreading like a disease, a disease to which prelates seem to have little immunity, you must be prepared to accept possibilities which you formerly dismissed.

Today, papolatry is especially rampant among our 'conservatives'--who are only liberals in slow motion and NOT traditionalists. This is owing to the post-Tridentine and esp. 19th century ultramontanism in which so many of us were raised. We all think that this extreme loyalty to the Pope is fundamentally Catholic but it is not, and it was not the attitude at all of faithful in the Middle Ages, the Ages of Faith, in which, in many places, popes were sometimes regarded as little more than Italian princes. Of course, they are much more than that and I don't counsel that attitude; rather, I counsel a more rational, less emotional, attachment to the popes. Real Catholicism has never favoured a blind obedience but obedience in due measure as interpreted by an INFORMED (not free) conscience.

No one could have imagined the possibility of Arianism before it happened--that even a Pope would fall into material heresy. No one could have imagined papal schisms before two claimants appeared for the first time (long before the Great Schism). But it did happen, and more than once. In a sense, we learn where the limits are over time, instructed by Scripture, Nature, Tradition and the Holy Ghost.

Gird yourselves for battle, for we war against principalities and powers. WHen you see prelates in high places spewing heresy, man the catacombs and get ready to defend the Faith.

P.K.T.P.

P.K.T.P. said...

Gratias:

One of the first appointments made by Benedict XVI after having been elected was that of Severino Clasen, O.F.M. On 11 May, 2005, Benedict XVI appointed him Bishop of Arraçuaí, a Brazilian Diocese having about 257,000 subjects. On 6 July, 2011, His Holiness promoted him to the Diocese of Caçador, having about 286,000 subjects. What was Fr. Clasen known for before his first appointment? His strong advocacy for artificial birth control. Has Bishop Clasen ever repudiated that advocacy? Not to my knowledge. Maybe he told his mother than he was so sorry, but not in public. So why was he one of the first appointees of Benedict XVI and why has he been promoted by Benedict XVI?

I have seen complaints on traditionalist sites that John Paul II's appointments were actually much sounder than those of the present Pope. I cannot comment on that because I have never made any assessment of the data needed to do so. This would require extensive research, as there are nearly 3,000 dioceses today. Others on this blog might want to comment.

Benedict XVI confirmed Cardinal Woelki's election by the cathedral chapter of Berlin and Benedict XVI elevated him to the Sacred College of Cardinals. Benedict XVI put Levada, a raving liberal wildcat, in charge of doctrine, and has now replaced him with someone who is even worse. When Levada was Archbishop of San Francisco, he tolerated special parishes for inverts and was the only bishop (of twelve) in all of California to forbid the Traditional Latin Mass in all circumstances. This Pope put him in charge of doctrine and gave him a scarlet simar. Now this Pope has promoted to the same position a man who tried to excommunicate priests and bishops of the S.S.P.X just weeks after the Pope himself had lifted the 1988 excommunications. As it turns out, the new man is apparently a disciple of a notorious liberation theologian, Gastavo Gutiérrez, and goes every year to South America learn more heresy from this man. I cannot comment on the extent to which he subscribes to those heresies, if at all, but Sir Humprhey would say that nobody can prove anything about anyone. In the American version of Hillbilly Clinton, it all depends on what one means by "is". The Brothers taught me in the pre-thou-shalt-not-judge liberal misinterpretion of Scripture, that one can judge a man by the company he keeps and the activities he pursues, and by his friendships and alliances. It's a point of view.

These are facts, ladies and gentlemen. Liberals deny facts; conservatives try to explain away the facts; but traditionalists alone face them and insist on them.

P.K.T.P.

Benedict Carter said...

PKTP:

I have to agree with you about the conservative Catholic (God preserve us from them!) and his cult of Papolatry which serves as a comfort blanket in the face of the storm howling about the Church in our own days.

I don't agree with your thinly-veiled contempt of "Last Dayers" though. No, we don't know the time or the date - not even Christ did in His human nature - but to disdain the Saints and Our Lady too whose lights and apparitions over several hundred years now give us all due warning is clear terms is to me a dangerous thing.

I don't believe a Catholic should be involved in too much speculation about such things - it's always heretics and cultists whose study of the Apocalypse becomes too concentrated or obsessed - but nevertheless, a pious attitude surely is to view the lights we have been given by Heaven, whether by blessed Saints or by the Queen of HEaven Herself at Fatima, Akita and other places seriously at the least.

P.K.T.P. said...

LeonG:

He's not a young man but he is relatively young to be elevated to the Sacred College. That's what they meant. The standard practice is to let these appointees in the curia and major sees have their two quinquennia and then more years until they surpass 75 and approach 80. So Woelki will have twenty to twenty-five years. Müller will likely be in place for about thirteen to fifteen years, longer if the Pope is about to raise the age limit to 78, which I think he is.

Of course, if Ranjith be elected Pope, he might replace all the Germans will Ceylonese. That could only be an improvement. Frankly, I'd like to see Asian bishops installed in Berlin, Cologne, Munich, Augsburg, Mainz. We could then put them in Paris and Marseille, Lyon and Toulouse, Strasbourg and Cambrai, London and Liverpool too, breaking the magic circle of cranks in England.

Here in Canada, I'd like to see all our bishops come from the Philippines. At least many Filipinos actually believe such amazing things as the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, transubstantiation, the perpetual virginity of our Lady, and being kind to your mother. English Canadians only favour the Blessed Trinity and only because they like the idea of getting Three for the price of One.

P.K.T.P.

P.K.T.P. said...

Benedict Carter:

I'm actually a fervent Fatimist, if you must know. But I cannot stand these wide-eyed people who chatter all day long about the end days and have special prayer meetings in their private houses with weird devotions. That's what I mean.

As for devotions, I recommend the Rosary, Eucharistic Adoration, the Stations, the Angelus thrice (not once) a day and my favourite, which is the Five Holy Wounds devotion, and I counsel everyone to avoid the Divine Mercy business and anything that came after Vatican II. While I don't think that something must be bad if it post-dated the Council, it is at least suspicious.

P.K.T.P.

P.K.T.P. said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
P.K.T.P. said...

Cardinal Woelki, referring to inverts:

"We must try to find ways to let people live without going against Church teaching."

What about unmarried people who are sexually normal? Should they be told that it is not sinful for them to repair to prostitutes or to engage in self-abuse? This man makes no sense. We are a people of sacrifice. If you are poor, you are supposed to work hard and, in the mean time, offer up your sufferings for others in Purgatory and on earth. If you are tempted by another person's credentials or property, you don't steal: you offer it up. It isn't easy but why should an exception be made for sexually-twisted people?

On divorce, we've had this conversation before, no? Remember Henry VIII? What would Woelki say in Heaven to SS. Thomas More, John Fisher, Anne Line, Margaret Clitherow, Richard Gwyn. Would he say that they should not have bothered getting themselves martyred because the Church got it all wrong? What an ass this man is. Nobody is saying that you must stay with an abusive spouse. What the Church is saying is that, marriage is so sacred that, once contracted, it can be ended only by death. So, if you must separate from your spouse, you must live as unmarried people do. You don't have to give up chocolate or an appreciation for great music, but you do have to give up something else. As Bishop Fellay might say, it's not a perfect world.

P.K.T.P.

DM said...

Recently Rorate posted to the effect that the laity may not judge the hierarchy on matters of faith. I don't understand how you square that with publishing stories like this. What I am supposed to do with this information if not judge?

Adfero said...

DM, no one said you couldn't have private opinions, just that you can't call a prelate a heretic in public.

Beefy Levinson said...

To be fair, I think conservative papolatry is in part a reaction to the universal decline in the clergy and hierarchy since the council. What are we to do when we're subjected to a Mahony, a Weakland, a De Roo? We should focus on our Blessed Lord of course, but we still need strong leadership in the Church Militant. The unspoken corollary to focusing so much on the person of the pope and his office is that we can no longer take for granted that our local ordinaries will loudly and manfully teach the orthodox faith without constant goading from Rome.

This is not a good thing. It is quite untraditional for institutional orthodoxy to depend so heavily on one man. I'm just a lay ignoramus though. All I can do is pray and do penance. It's hard when you feel like you have to go it alone.

Athelstane said...

"We must find a way of allowing people to live without going against church teaching," he said.

Corrected: "We must find a way of allowing people to sin without going against Church teaching." Good luck with that one.

There's no question that, today, this is a tough pastoral issue. But the response off too many German-speaking clergy is to simply surrender.

Matt said...

Did we just enter a time warp with JPII suddenly Pope again? I can't believe this nonsense we're hearing again.

Woelki said, "We must find a way of allowing people to live without going against church teaching.""

Avoiding sin is living without going against Church teaching. Most observant Catholics try do this every day. What's wrong with gay people doing it too? This is the liberal mentality--calling evil good and good as evil, trying to legitimize sin.

What this guy wants to do is push the envelope, see how far one can go without actually sinning? This is what legalism really means. It's not strict interpritation of theology or of the law, but how far it can be contorted while trying to remain within the parameters of the definition. This is poor thinking because every time something is slackened, it's taken farther to the extreme until another problem's been created along with the original issue.

Another selection of the Holy Father...

backtothefuture said...

The Divine mercy devotion was around before vatican 2. You don't have to follow it, but to discount it would be your loss. I'd seriously think twice about going around and playing bishop and telling people to avoid church approved devotions.

Matt said...

Woelki said, "the Orthodox Church considers..."

What difference what does it make what they consider? They're definitely schismatic and out of the Church, and their thinking is totally against what the Catholic Church holds. Do these liberals want to adopt anything the SSPX holds? It's always a laugh when liberals look for stuff outside the Church to try to attach to their thinking, and it's always something contrary to Church doctrine in the first place, never to uphold it. Well, okay, that would be contrary to a liberal.

Matt said...

Gratias said, "The Pope hopefully will have plenty of time to reflect on the quality of the bishop and cardinal appointments."

In many ways, Gratias, I think he has. He is appointing a lot of people who may think actually the way he does because he's getting tired of doing it all himself. It's a given no mater which way one goes, an agenda is easier to accomplish the more people you have buying into it. Or... the Congregation of Bishops is feeding him a bunch of BS about the candidates and when the appointment is made, too late. Just my take. I don't know. It's just odd though that with all of the strong appointments--mostly--the Holy Father has made in his first couple of years, suddenly their the has-ran types of an earlier Pontificate. ??

Stephen said...

Uh, Matt, fyi, no Orthodox can be refused communion at a Catholic Mass. They are not supposed to approach according to their precepts, but they cannot be denied communion.
The Cardinal is confused to be sure, but why compound that confusion with falsehoods? A person can't be "out of the Church" if he can take communion, however much you personally may find that distasteful.

Stephen said...

P.K.T.P.
What is there left to fall back on except ultramontanism? I'd very much like to know more details about your thoughts in this regard. The structure of great metropolitan sees has been done away with (replaced with the innovation of national councils or bishops or such nonsense), Rome since the Code of 1918 did away the subsidiarity of local canons electing their nominees as hierarchs, and on and on with the centralization that enabled the liberals - once they go a hold of the Papacy - to foist the liturgical changes on the Church. You allude to some ideas of how it could be otherwise - please elaborate.

Long-Skirts said...

Athelstane said...

"But the response off too many German-speaking clergy is to simply surrender."

A
CHILD
OF THE
SIXTIES
(or "fool me once, shame on you")

Daily Mass
In uniformed plaid
Then suddenly
Adults went mad

Priests danced round
Nuns turned hip
Fathers, mothers
All jumped ship

Michael rowed
His boat ashore
Through the Sanctuary
Door

Simon-sermons
Garfunk too
Jesus loves you
Coo-ka-choo

Jesus Christ
Superstar
God is dead
So who You are?

Take the pill
Eat the Bread
Grace Slicked-souls
Will feed your head

"All" were Virgins
Female Ghost
Solitary
Feminist boast

Tell what's happening
What's the buzz
Bishops do
What never was

Except one Bishop
Stood up straight
Great Mitred-man
Against the gate

"Go-along-to-get-along"
Begged missy-mitred men
"Even nuns say five's enough
It's too hard to do ten."

So Mitred-man
He took the cross
Plugged the hole
To stop the loss

And to this day
Full-fields no dream
From Catholic families
Vocations stream

And along the river banks
They line
Rosaries in hand
To warn the Rhine

We believe in God
The Virgin...the Creed
If this foul-flow continues
Your waters will bleed

But not with her Son's
Most Precious Blood...
A mitred-muck
Turned into scabbed-mud!

Carl said...

This view that the Pope will fall (or has fallen) into heresy, lose office and drag simple Catholics into heresy with him through their obedience contradicts the words of Christ. It turns "the gates of hell will not prevail" into "the gates of hell will prevail."

It also contradicts dogma, transforming the words of Vatican I: "This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine" (Pastor Aeternus).

Into: "This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and SOME of his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of MANY, and so that MOST of the flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine."

Just about every heresy is born of an overreaction to another heresy or error. Monarchism gave birth to Sabellianism, Sabellianism to Arianism, Arianism to Apollinarianism, Apollinarianism to Nestorianism, Nestorianism to Monophysitism. Each time, the latter claimed to resist the former even as they also compromised the deposit of faith. In the same way Modernism gives birth to Sedevacantism among those who despair of God's unfailing promises.

Andrew said...

This article...especially sections 7 & 8 may help in understanding the Eastern Orthodox approach to this issue...

http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/liturgics/athenagoras_remarriage.htm

Patrick said...

Andrew, I suppose you mean the heterodox Churches. The only orthodox Church is the Catholic Church (I don't mean only the Latin Church, of course, as there are Eastern Catholic Churches). Viz the Canon of the Mass: "... et omnibus orthodoxis atquae catholicae et apostolicae fidei cultoribus". Please, let's stop spreading confusion by labeling "orthodox" communities that are absolutely heterodox. Words do have a meaning! Caveamus!

sam said...

With regards to the schismatics (who are called The Roman Orthodox.) I believe what separates them from the Catholic Church is:

-They recognise the Pope in Rome as the first among equal Patriarchs and the successor to St. Peter, but they don't accept that he is infallible (i.e. the dogma of infallibility.) They also see him as a sign of universal unity, but without giving him the power to modify their internal discipline. In matters of faith and morals he calls on an Ecumenical Council to resolve the issue and then ratifies it, but he can't make judgements on faith and morals by himself without the council. He can take disciplinary actions only within his own see like the other patriarchs can within theirs.

-They don't recognise the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. They don't see ancestral sin as taken anything away from the Mother of God living a life free of personal sin.

-They consider the bonds of marriage to be indissoluble, but permit divorce under sever conditions (i.e. in the same style as spoken by Our Lord in "Matthew 19.9: And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery.".
For example the Roman Orthodox Church will permit remarriage for both parties, but the Coptic Orthodox Church will only permit remarriage for the injured party and not the other. (Note: the Coptic Orthodox Church doesn't share the same Christology as the Roman Catholic Church and Roman Orthodox Church shares.)

-These are differences that I'm aware of between the Roman Catholic Church and Roman Orthodox Church.

sam said...

Additionally: they are closer in theology and sacramental life to the pre-VII Church and find the post VII Church to be scandalous in its actions and theology.

Orthodox Monitor said...

Sam,

You touch upon some key differences between the Orthodox and us, but I would claim that there is much more. Among the other issues in dispute or quite possibly being effectively in dispute would be:

- filioque

- use of azymes for Eucharist

- acceptability of statuary

- beatific vision

- biblical canon

- monastic vows as a sacrament

- indulgences

- Mary being fully free of personal sin during the entirety of her earthly life

- artificial contraception

- necessity of invoking the Holy Spirit to consecrate the Eucharist.

Joe said...

The dogs are barking!!

Yes, the faithful are permitted and even commanded to give a reason for their faith, to draw out its consequences, to make applications of it, to deduce parallels and analogies from it. It is thus by use of their reason that the faithful are enabled to suspect and measure the orthodoxy of any new doctrine presented to them, by comparing it with a doctrine already defined. If it be not in accord, they can combat it as bad, and justly stigmatize as bad the book or journal which sustains it. They cannot of course define it ex cathedra, but they can lawfully hold it as perverse and declare it such, warn others against it, raise the cry of alarm and strike the first blow against it. The faithful layman can do all this, and has done it at all times with the applause of the Church. Nor in so doing does he make himself the pastor of the flock, nor even its humblest attendant; he simply serves it as a watchdog who gives the alarm. Opportet allatrare canes -- “It behooves watchdogs to bark,” very opportunely said a great Spanish Bishop in reference to such occasions.



(Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany, Liberalism is a Sin, trans. and adapted by Conde B. Pallen [Rockford, IL: TAN Books, 1993], 151-153

JMR said...

What is the defintion of the word "Prevail". Is it an exact translation of the word Our Lord used?
Because to me it could mean win/triumph in the end after appearing to suffer a temporary defeat. With all the warnings of Our Lady regarding apostasy in Rome, couldn't this be the more likely meaning?
Anothr pont is that for me if people here truly believed in transubstantion ,they would flee the NO Mass with horror and run to the SSPX

Carl said...

I am not sure when Our Lady is supposed to have claimed that a Catholic could sin or err through simple ordinary submission to the pope, but I don't believe She ever did this. It seems worth remembering that nobody is bound to believe private revelations and nobody is excused from believing public revelations. If ordinary Catholics could fall into sin or error though simple submission to the successor of Peter, what would be the value of Christ's promise to Peter?

A word study of the Greek word translated as "prevail" isn't as useful for understanding the meaning of the term as a look at Church history, doctrine and dogma.

Historically, it has meant that the See of Rome has been protected from every error. And this is true not only for the authentic popes, but for the notorious anti-popes as well! From the very beginning of the Church's history to this very day, no Catholic has ever sinned or erred through an act of simple obedience to an official act of the man who is believed in good faith to be the successor of Peter. Even the acts of anti-popes have been divinely protected for the sake fo the faithful.

In doctrine and dogma, Vatican I explains this with the greatest authority: "This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine" (Pastor Aeternus, 7).

If it were for the sake of the POPE, the anti-popes would not be protected from error. But it is for the sake of the Church - for the sake of a flock full of simple sheep - who follow the invisible shepherd through the visible. This is why even anti-popes have been protected. We who consider ourselves helpless sheep, not smart or confident enough to evaluate all the various controversies and claims, Christ is interested in protecting us. And therefore the See of Peter "always remains unblemished by any error" (Pastor Aeternus 6). No sheep goes astray by following his shepherd. The promise to Peter was given for the sake of the wayward, the ignorant, foolish, clumsy, prone to error, and in a word: me.

Carl said...

Just to add: None of this applies to the Society, which has always remained (despite appearances) in submission to and in unity with the Roman Pontiff. What I've written certainly contradicts some of the inflammatory rhetoric that we sometimes hear from SOME members of the Society, but it doesn't apply to the whole. The Society itself has broken no command of the visible shepherd. It has only done what was necessary to preserve traditions that the Pope himself has acknowledged are worth preserving. The Holy Father in heaven has blessed the fruit of the Society's hands, and I believe it only a matter of time before the Holy Father on earth does so as well. He will call this a "tragic misunderstanding" and it will be behind us.

Athelstane said...

Hello Long Skirts,

Great work from you, as always.

Long-Skirts said...

Carl said:

"he promise to Peter was given for the sake of the wayward, the ignorant, foolish, clumsy, prone to error, and in a word: me."

It's a great man are you!

Long-Skirts said...

Athelstane said...

"Hello Long Skirts,

Great work from you, as always."

Thank you,but pray for our Pope!!

Long-Skirts said...

THE
RIVER
OF
BLUE

Between my fingers
Flow blue beads
Praying for all
Not wants but needs.

Desiring good
For all that trespass
Against our souls
Bank beads of blue glass…

Against our being
We stiffen and rail -
Rapids of beads
Bleed blue-anger pale.

And though we're wounded
Misjudged and wronged…
The river of blue
Is her Immaculate song.

beckyt said...

We must find a way of allowing people to live without going against church teaching.

I wonder if he means we should change church teaching to accommodate these behaviors?! Then they wouldn't be going against church teaching!!

Micha Elyi said...

Wow, so many people here take the secular Die Zeit as gospel.