I'm watching the drama and politics with interest too. Nothing new about such scenarios if one has read Church history.

de·nom·i·na·tion
dəˌnäməˈnāSH(ə)n/
noun
plural noun: denominations
1.
a recognized autonomous branch of the Christian Church.
synonyms: religious group, sect, cult, movement, body, branch, persuasion, order, school; church
"a Christian denomination"

A non-Catholic got it right.

This post has been edited by yeeck: Nov 21 2016, 01:39 AM

Urmm....try harder? Or start reading this thread from page 1

Cardinal Burke and the Doctors of the Law


No doubt, a large segment of readers is already aware of the recent excitement caused by Cardinals Walter Brandmüller, Raymond L. Burke, Carlo Caffarra, and Joachim Meisner thanks to their laudable attempt to clarify the pastoral and doctrinal confusion surrounding the Holy Father’s post-synodal exhortation, Amoris Laetitia.

In the economic words of the respected Catholic journalist Edward Pentin,

Four cardinals asked Pope Francis five dubia questions, or “doubts,” about the apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia (The Joy of Love) in a bid to clear up ambiguities and confusion surrounding the text. On Nov. 14, they went public with their request, after they learned that the Holy Father had decided not to respond to their questions.

While he has chosen not to respond to the dubia, it does appear that the Holy Father is displeased by them, if certain statements he has made are any indication. Besides this, Father Antonio Spadaro, S.J., editor of La Civiltà Cattolica, and something of an unofficial papal spokesman, has taken to his Twitter feed to berate the four Cardinals — in which forum also Father James Martin, S.J., said something.

In their own words, Their Eminences interpreted the Holy Father’s “sovereign decision [not to answer the dubia] as an invitation to continue the reflection and the discussion, calmly and with respect,” and took the measure of informing “the entire people of God about our initiative and offering all of the documentation.”

The five dubia all concern matters of the moral magisterium of the Church — doctrinal matters raised by Amoris Laetitia and the discussion surrounding the document. They include only one question about the specific application of Amoris; the other four pertain to fundamental questions of principle in Catholic moral doctrine.

What most interests me here are the doctrinal issues raised by Amoris, and by the dubia, but I would like first to consider what may be at stake.

The “excitement” I referred to in the first paragraph is such that some are openly speaking of a schism emerging from these events. Whether or not an actual schism takes place remains to be seen, but fault lines are certainly forming, as may be illustrated by this example: The newly created Cardinal, His Eminence Kevin Farrell, has publicly criticized Archbishop Chaput of Philadelphia for implementing diocesan norms in Philly which interpret Amoris Laetitia in line with tradition — which is to say that Philadelphia’s norms forbid the divorced and civilly “remarried” to receive Holy Communion unless they agree to live as brother and sister, forgoing the conjugal relations proper to married persons. Archbishop Chaput has publicly responded to this criticism by defending his actions, and very firmly. This is not the only example of “battle lines” being drawn on the interpretation of Amoris, but it amply illustrates Cardinal Burke’s claim that the ambiguity that presently exists is harmful to Church unity. Hence the dubia, which all four cardinals see as their pastoral response to a pastoral problem in the Church.

These events are very grave, and have far-reaching implications in the realm of Catholic faith and morals — as well as in the pastoral practice of the clergy and the daily lives of families.

I invite readers to read the five dubia. What is at stake doctrinally is the proper understanding of conscience, and — of equal importance — the clear Catholic idea of what constitutes a moral act and its integral parts. Let me explain. Traditional Catholic moral theology teaches us that the goodness of a moral act is determined by three elements: object, intention, and circumstances. At least one of these must be good; others may be indifferent; and none may be evil. A defect in any of these renders the act morally evil. Now, many modern moral systems, like “situation ethics,” “fundamental option theory,” or what is often called “gradualism,” emphasize circumstances or intention to the detriment of the object. What the proponents of these new theories deny is the existence of intrinsically sinful acts. In other words, they deny that certain moral objects are always wrong. These errors were condemned by Pope John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor, which is why the Cardinals cited that document in three of the five dubia.

Besides the Church’s teaching concerning the nature of the moral act and conscience, I see other doctrinal issues being raised here — not directly, but indirectly due to the circumstances of the Four Cardinals’ intervention:

First, there is the question of the gradations of magisterial authority. The Holy Father makes a very public, formally promulgated statement that treats of Catholic doctrine (Amoris Laetetia). Don’t we have to believe it? Do we have to accept every such document — or every utterance of the Holy Father — as a definitive statement of Catholic orthodoxy? No. The Church has a clearly articulated set of magisterial gradations to guide theologians in these considerations.

Second, there is the related question of what happens when a statement of the Holy Father, or some other authority in the Church, is in conflict with Tradition. Here, Cardinal Burke has given a good answer in his interview with Edward Pentin:

[Edward Pentin:] In a conflict between ecclesial authority and the Sacred Tradition of the Church, which one is binding on the believer and who has the authority to determine this?

[Cardinal Burke:] What’s binding is the Tradition. Ecclesial authority exists only in service of the Tradition. I think of that passage of St. Paul in the [Letter to the] Galatians (1:8), that if “even an angel should preach unto you any Gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema.”

Third, we have the closely connected question of what happens when the real or apparent meaning of some lower-level magisterial text is — or seems to be — in conflict with Tradition. This is a very complex question that touches on the debates about Vatican II and the post-Conciliar magisterium. My own humble contribution to that effort can be found here.

And now, shifting gears a bit, I must justify the whole title of this piece. It often happens that progressivists like to call traditionalists, “Pharisees” (or “scribes,” or “doctors of the law”) because they maintain a hard moral line on the Church’s irreformable moral teaching. Roberto de Mattei has admirably answered the question “who are the Pharisees and Sadducees of our time?” as a response to these charges, but I would like to offer my own four paragraphs for your consideration.

The doctors of the law were identical to the scribes. They were highly educated Pharisees, and were dedicated to the study of the Mosaic Law within that particular doctrinal milieu. Their studies included not only the Mosaic Law proper, but the seemingly endless rabbinical commentaries on it, and their work was ultimately collated in the Talmud. Their “strictness” was not a fidelity to God’s revelations through Moses and the Prophets of the Old Testament. No, their “strictness” was, rather, a rigid adherence to the rabbinical traditions that were of human origin, and which, in some cases, actually contradicted the Mosaic Law itself. They imposed this hair-splitting and often bizarre casuistry on their fellow Jews, and this merited for them serious words of condemnation from Our Lord.

A good example of this would be Our Lord’s condemnation of the perverted practice — related in Matthew 15 and Mark 7 — of uttering “Corban” over one’s property in order to avoid the demands of the fourth commandment. Our Lord accuses these “scribes and Pharisees” of “Making void the word of God by your own tradition, which you have given forth” (Mark 7:13), accusing them quite directly: “you have made void the commandment of God for your tradition” (Matthew 15:6).

In addition to establishing traditions of men that void God’s word, he accuses them of upholding the minutia of the Law, while ignoring its most important parts: “Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you tithe mint, and anise, and cumin, and have left the weightier things of the law; judgment, and mercy, and faith. These things you ought to have done, and not to leave those undone” (Matt. 23:23). Note that he does not accuse them for fidelity to the minutia, but for neglecting “judgment, and mercy, and faith.”

Jesus shows himself to be a stickler for God’s revelations when He accuses the scribes and Pharisees of undermining Faith. But beyond that, He actually elevates and surpasses the moral code of the Old Law when He notes, for instance, that hatred is a form of murder (Matt. 5:21-22), that internal sins of lust equal adultery (Matt. 5:27-28), that divorce and remarriage is also adultery (Matt. 5:31-32), that the condemnation of swearing is now stricter than it was in the Old Law (Matt. 5:33-37), and that we must do the very difficult thing of loving our enemies (Matt. 5:43-45). The condemnation of divorce and remarriage, first uttered in the Sermon on the Mount, is reiterated in Matt. 19:9.

Jesus was not a Pharisee. And neither are these Four Cardinals for insisting on Jesus Christ’s higher, New-Testament standard regarding what constitutes adultery. This is the standard that the Church has constantly maintained — in sacred spousal fidelity to her Bridegroom.


In the Immaculate Heart of Mary,
Brother André Marie, M.I.C.M.

Oh well, there's nothing new under the sun.

Something needs to be made clear. Every time the issue of confession of the sin of successfully procured abortion comes up, something needs to be made clear.

Priests have long had the power to forgive the sin of abortion. However, procuring an abortion incurs also a censure of excommunication, which is to be absolved in a separate step. Canon law reserves the lifting of this particular excommunication to the bishop. Pope Francis extended this faculty to lift the excommunication to all priests. Most of the bishops in these USA have already given this faculty to their priests as a response to the growing numbers of abortions performed. That speeds up the reconciliation process many times.

ALSO… and this is important. It is not just the women who go for the abortion who commit the sin and incur the censure. Men involved can incur it. Anyone directly involved can commit the sin and incur the censure. There are many ways to participate in the sin of another person: 9 ways! You can be guilty of the sin committed by another

By counsel (to give advice, one’s opinion or instructions.)
By command (to demand, to order, such as in the military.)
By consent (to give permission, to approve, to agree to.)
By provocation (to dare.)
By praise or flattery (to cheer, to applaud, to commend.)
By concealment (to hide the action, to cover-up.)
By partaking (to take part, to participate.)
By silence (by playing dumb, by remaining quiet.)
By defense of the ill done (to justify, to argue in favour.)
One can argue about how directly you must be involved to be guilty of the sin and also to incur the censure. Paying? Driving? Urging? Working in the clinic? Etc. However, if you have any doubts about your own state of participation in such a thing, you should find a good, solid confessor and put the whole thing to him in the context of sacramental confession or internal forum discussion.

You can see how the logic of lifting or absolving censures and absolving sins works by reviewing the older, traditional form of the words of absolution. The priest mentions censures before he absolves sins.

May our Lord Jesus Christ absolve you; and by His authority I absolve you from every bond of excommunication (suspension) [that “suspension” is used for clerics, in case they did something that incurred suspension a divinis] and interdict, so far as my power allows and your needs require. [making the Sign of the Cross:] Thereupon, I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, + and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

“As far as my power allows” (i.e., if I have the faculty to absolve the thing you incurred… there’s an old adage “Nemo dat quod non ‘got’!” You can’t give what you don’t have.), “and your needs require”, (i.e., whatsoever thing you might have incurred). This language covers all the bases.

The newer form of absolution does not mention censures. There are different forms a priest can use, if memory serves, provided in the Ordo Paenitentiae.

The Church had all this stuff about censures and sins worked out.

--Fr. Z

Polish bishops end Year of Mercy by enthroning Christ as King in presence of president



KRAKOW- ŁAGIEWNIKI, Poland, November 23, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) — On November 19, at the end of the Jubilee of Mercy, Poland celebrated a historical Act of Acceptance of Christ as King and Lord with a Mass at the Shrine of Divine Mercy, with the Polish bishops, government authorities, and many faithful in attendance. President Andrzej Duda from the Law and Justice Party took part in the event, thus attracting international media attention.

More than 100,000 Poles in Krakow recited the solemn pledge: “O Immortal King of Ages, Lord Jesus Christ, our God and Savior! In the Jubilee Year of the 1,050th anniversary of Poland’s baptism, in the Extraordinary Jubilee of Mercy, we Poles stand here before you to acknowledge your reign, to submit ourselves to your law, to entrust and consecrate to you our Fatherland and our whole people.”

The ceremony was organized by the Polish Bishops’ Conference, inspired by Pope Francis’ papal bull Misericordiae Vultus. In relation to the closing of the Holy Door of the Extraordinary Jubilee of Mercy, the Holy Father wrote, “We will entrust the life of the Church, all humanity, and the entire cosmos to the Lordship of Christ, asking him to pour out his mercy upon us like the morning dew, so that everyone may work together to build a brighter future.”

During the Mass, Cardinal Stanisław Dziwisz, Archbishop of Krakow and the president of the Conference of the Polish Episcopate, said, “We invite Jesus into our hearts, families, communities, and surroundings … and to all which constitutes Poland.” The Cardinal added that all persons should not be afraid to proclaim such things.

The idea for this proclamation came from the Commission for the Movements of Christ’s Enthronement. In an October pastoral letter, the Polish Bishops explained, “There is no need to enthrone Christ in the sense of placing him on the throne and giving him the power or proclaiming him king.” However, “there is an urgent need to enthrone Christ in the hearts of the faithful, by reviving living faith and the life of faith.” Therefore, the Act contains a profession of faith and renunciation of evil.

Bishop Andrzej Czaja, president of the Groups for Enthronement, said that the primary purpose of the Act is “faithful recognition of Jesus, surrendering and entrusting our personal, family, and national lives to Him in all dimensions, and living according to God’s law.” He added, “As such, it should therefore also be an act of justice, in the sense of devoting what is due to God, and at the same time an act of obedience to God in response to His Love.”

Most of the people were not able to enter the Shrine of Divine Mercy and stood outside in the rain. Among them were members of the Right to Life Foundation, who were holding pro-life posters. Many participants interviewed by Polonia Christiana TV mentioned that they wanted Poland to ban abortion, which the ruling party Law and Justice is unwilling to do.

It appears that the Church authorities hinted at that. During the homily, Bishop Czaja said, “There is a need for clear respect for God’s law, so that man’s law does not supercede it.” He clarified that this respect would assure that “what’s morally good and ethical would not be neglected.” Bishop Czaja also talked about giving the first place to Christ in all aspects of life, including professional.

However, Deputy Prime Minister Jarosław Gowin commented that the enthronement had no political meaning and that politicians present accepted Christ as King and Lord only as private citizens.

The Saturday celebration in the Shrine of Divine Mercy in Krakow preceded the feast of the Solemnity of Christ the King in the Catholic liturgical year. Last Sunday, the Act of Acceptance of Christ as King and Lord was recited in all Catholic churches in Poland.

A short video from the celebration can be viewed here:

The full text of the Jubilee Act of Acceptance of Jesus Christ as King and Lord as translated by the Bishops’ Conference:

O Immortal King of Ages, Lord Jesus Christ, our God and Savior! In the Jubilee Year of the 1050th anniversary of Poland’s Baptism, in the Extraordinary Jubilee of Mercy, we Poles stand here before you [together with our authorities, clergy and laity] to acknowledge your reign, to submit ourselves to your law, to entrust and consecrate to you our Fatherland and our whole people.

We confess before heaven and earth that we need your rule. We acknowledge that you alone have a holy and perennial law for us. Therefore, humbly bowing our heads before you, the King of the Universe, we recognize your dominion over Poland and our whole people living in the Fatherland and throughout the world.

Desirous to worship the majesty of your power and glory, with great faith and love, we cry out to you: Christ, reign over us!

In our hearts, Christ, reign over us!

In our families, Christ, reign over us!

In our parishes, Christ, reign over us!

In our schools and universities, Christ, reign over us!

In the social communication means, Christ, reign over us!

In our offices, places of work, service and rest, Christ, reign over us!

In our cities and villages, Christ, reign over us!

Throughout the Polish Nation and State, Christ, reign over us!

We bless you and give you thanks, Lord Jesus Christ:

For the unfathomable love of your Sacred Heart, Christ our King, we thank you!

For the grace of baptism and the covenant with our People over the centuries, Christ our King, we thank you!

For the maternal and royal presence of Mary in our history, Christ our King, we thank you!

For the great Mercy that you constantly extend to us, Christ our King, we thank you!

For your faithfulness despite our betrayals and weaknesses, Christ our King, we thank you!

Aware of our faults and abuse inflicted on Your Heart, we ask forgiveness for all our sins, and in particular for turning away from the holy faith, for our lack of love for you and our neighbor. We ask you to forgive the social sins of our nation, all its defects, addictions and enslavement. We renounce the devil and all his works.

We humbly submit ourselves to Your Lordship and your law. We commit ourselves to ordering our entire personal, family and national life according to your law:

We pledge to defend your holy worship and to preach your royal glory, Christ our King, we pledge!

We pledge to do your will and to protect the integrity of our consciences, Christ our King, we pledge!

We pledge to care for the sanctity of our families and the Christian education of our children, Christ our King, we pledge!

We pledge to build your kingdom and to defend it in our nation, Christ our King, we pledge!

We pledge to engage actively in the life of the Church and to protect her rights, Christ our King, we pledge!

You, the only Ruler of states, nations and of all creation, the King of kings and Lord of lords! We entrust to you the Polish State and Poland’s rulers. Make them all those who exercise power do so with justice and govern rightly in accordance with your Laws.

Christ our King, we confidently entrust to your Mercy all of Poland and especially those of the people who do not follow your ways. Give them your grace, enlighten them through the power of the Holy Spirit, and lead us all to the eternal communion with the Father.

In the name of brotherly love, we entrust to you all the world’s nations, especially those that have made Poland bear the cross. Make them recognize you as their rightful Lord and King and use the time given to them by the Father to submit voluntarily to your lordship.

Lord Jesus Christ, King of our hearts, make our hearts like your Sacred Heart.

Let your Holy Spirit descend and renew the face of the earth, this earth. May he support us as we accomplish the obligations that are the consequences of this national act, protect from evil, and realize our sanctification.

In the Immaculate Heart of Mary, we place our decisions and commitments. We all entrust to the maternal care of the Queen of Polish and to the intercession of the patron saints of our Fatherland.

Christ, reign over us! Reign over our fatherland, and reign in every nation – for the greater glory of the Most Holy Trinity and the salvation of humanity. Make our homeland and the entire world into your kingdom: a kingdom of truth and life, a kingdom of holiness and grace, a kingdom of justice, love and peace.
Thus, Poland, on the 1,050th anniversary of its baptism, has officially accepted the kingship of Jesus Christ.

Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now, and will be forever. Amen.

This post has been edited by yeeck: Nov 25 2016, 01:27 AM

http://studentsforlife.org/prolifefacts/pr...-rape-question/

Oh BTW, what made you think abortion is not a rebellion against God?

This post has been edited by yeeck: Nov 26 2016, 11:46 PM

http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/en...anae-vitae.html

14. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16)

Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.

This post has been edited by yeeck: Nov 27 2016, 09:40 PM

For those heretics who deny the necessity of works of faith, hear the words of Our Lord:

31And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty. 32And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: 33And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left.

34Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in: 36Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. 37Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? 39Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? 40And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.

41Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. 43I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me. 44Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? 45Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me. 46And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.

ADVENT MEDITATION
by Dom Gueranger
The Savior, who is so soon to be with us and to save us, warns us not only to prepare ourselves to appear before Him, but also to purify our souls.
“It is most just,” says St. Bernard, “that the soul, which was the first to fall, should be the first to rise. Let us therefore defer caring for the body, until the day when Jesus Christ will come and reform it by the Resurrection; for, in the first Coming, the Precursor says to us: Behold the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sins of the world. Observe, he says not the maladies of the body, nor the miseries of the flesh; he says sins, which are the malady of the soul and the corruption of the spirit. Take heed then, thou my Body, and wait for thy turn and time. Thou canst hinder the salvation of the soul, and thine own safety is not within thy reach. Let the soul labor for herself, and strive thou too to help her, for if thou sharest in her sufferings, thou wilt share in her glory. Retard her perfection, and thou retardest thine own. Thou wilt not be regenerated until God sees his own Image restored in the soul.”
Let us, then, purify our souls. Let us do the works of the spirit, not the deeds of the flesh. Our Savior’s promise is most clear; He will turn the deep dye of our iniquities into the purest whiteness. He asks but one thing of us: that we sin no more. He says to us: Cease to do perversely, and then come and accuse me, come and complain against me if I do not cleanse you.
O Jesus! we will not defer a single day of this holy season — we accept, from this moment, the conditions thou offerest us. We sincerely desire to make our peace with thee; to bring the flesh into subjection to our spirit, to make good all the injustices we have committed against our neighbor, and to hush, by the sighs of our heart-felt compunction, that voice of our sins which has so long cried to thee for vengeance.

No where did the article said getting raped and incest is the woman's fault. If it is a life-threatening situation, if the goal is to save the life of the mother, rather than being purposely to kill the child, then it is not a sin. Not only Catholics view abortion is against God. Where on earth did you get that idea?

This post has been edited by yeeck: Dec 1 2016, 02:51 AM