In the last couple of years I’ve written more than once about the Church’s attribute of indefectibility. In a nutshell, the Church’s members may err or fail, but the Church cannot.
Which leads me to advance a video that Michael Voris made.
He makes a good appeal. Have a listen.
I think that Michael struck the right tone here. We are in seriously troubling times. However, the troubles of these times also present opportunities for learning well and reasserting and articulating with conviction all that the Church teaches.
We need everyone to get on board with dedicated spiritual programs of prayer and mortifications.
Learn your Faith.
Pray. Pray especially before the Blessed Sacrament. Pray the Rosary. Pray to St. Michael and other saints who are you personal and local patrons.
GO TO CONFESSION.
Loading ...
Well,
he seems to be more calm that I’d have expected him to be. My respect.
That said, I disagree to his statement that loss of belief in the Real Presence is the root of the problem. [Why am I not surprised that you disagree with something?] It is obvious that there has been a loss of belief in the Real Presence; but it is not at the root of this problem. If anything, a lingering belief, or maybe not belief but half-belief, in the Real Presence is one of the few positive signs of this problem.
Because this is actually a proxy war; the real issue is not whether mortal sinners can go to Holy Communion. (There is an easy way to prove this: ask the same people whether they think an unrepentant mafia boss or Nazi should be able to go to Communion. They’ll say “no”: They’d for that matter probably even say “no” to a repentant mafia boss or ex-Nazi, but the mercilessness of those pretending to be merciful is a different construction site [as we say in Germany]. See The Chief Mourner of Marne, by Chesterton.)
The actual issue is whether the remarriage, or the remaining within a given uneasy-to-exist-and-impossible-to-turn-to-brother-and-sister remarriage, is a mortal sin; it is whether people who are in such a situation and have not otherwise gravely sinned, and are struck dead, are immediately thrown to hell.
Admission to Heaven, not admission to Holy Communion, is what this is really about.
Michael hit the nail on the head. The root cause of all of this social upheaval, Liturgical disaster, gender ideology, etc etc……is…..in fact…..a direct result of the loss of belief in the real presence and the reverence demanded to Him by justice. Period.
Communion in the hand, nonsense folk music Masses, people centered worship, so called pro-abortion “catholics”, so called lgbtqiapgf (blah blah blah…..) Masses, destruction of high altars and communion rails, etc.
Ven. Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen was also spot on when he said that the problems in the world are done by fallen away Catholics. In other words….those who never believed in the Church’s teachings…most especially the real presence.
Yes, we must pray and fast more earnestly then ever. Heaven help us!
It all boils down to those two words, doesn’t it?
“Clear and unambiguous”
Clear and unambiguous faith and belief in the Real Presence, clear and unambiguous teaching by ALL Church leaders. If we had those two, (with some spines thrown in for good measure) we definitely wouldn’t be where we are today.
The problem is misunderstanding canon 915 and its critical importance. Someone is living or appears to be living, an objectively, mortally sinful life and this is common knowledge. It is harmful to the Church and sacrilegious to admit such a person to communion without repentance. This is so regardless as to the subjective state of the person’s conscience. The therapy such a person needs is confession, and possibly instruction as well, not the eucharist alone.
Reverend Father,
I am not surprised too at your not being surprised that I disagree with something ;-)
Maybe you are surprised, though, that I would in fact long for a side of the debate, a party in the fight or what you’d call it that is entirely without mistakes, which I could totally rally to and confine myself to shouting its battle cries.
(It’s one of the nice thing about the figurative or real battle cry, “let the Kingdom of Christ be built up”, that it is a battle-cry, summing up everything, and totally true.)
I can’t say I blame anyone who wouldn’t believe me; but I’m not purposely trying to be “center” or what not, I’d try to be on an extreme and find I am not.
(And then, of course, disagreements are much more interesting than agreements, merely comment-wise.)
Thank you Father Z for posting Michael Voris’ message–you, unlike many other priests, are not afraid of his “tone”. lol
Imrahil wrote: “The actual issue is whether the remarriage, or the remaining within a given uneasy-to-exist-and-impossible-to-turn-to-brother-and-sister remarriage, is a mortal sin; it is whether people who are in such a situation and have not otherwise gravely sinned, and are struck dead, are immediately thrown to hell.”
I don’t understand why there is even a question that it is a mortal sin for currently married persons to enter into a civil union and then consummate the so-called second “marriage.” The Master has said it, ““Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and the one who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.” (Luke 16:18)
And as Saint Paul writes, “Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites or thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9).
And Saint Thomas Aquinas has pointed out “Nothing but mortal sin excludes from the kingdom of God.” (ST Supp Q 65 A 4)
So if people who divorce and remarry outside the Church are, as Jesus Himself states, adulterers, and adulterers will lose the Kingdom of God, therefore, divorced Catholics remarrying outside the Church are committing a mortal sin.
And it matters not what “brand” of mortal sins have been committed, whether robbery or slander or blasphemy or adultery, persons who die in a state of unrepentant mortal sin a cannot bear, at the time of Judgement, to be in the presence of the all-Holy One, the all-Righteous One, the all-Loving One, and they fling themselves into Hell to escape from Him. As a man would fling Himself out the window of a 30-storey building to escape a fire, so, too, a sinner – any “brand” of sinner – will fling himself into Hell rather than to bear – even for a moment – the fire of Divine Love and of Divine Goodness. Only those souls united to Him in love at the times of their death have prepared themselves to endure – to rejoice in – this fire of Holiness. And these preparations cannot be present among those who are spiritually dead, which is to be in mortal sin.
I believe that many in our hierarchy have deliberately cast from their own minds any appreciation of the awesome and indescribable Holiness of God, and of the very great gulf that exists between His perfection and our frailness and sinfulness, not only of our personal sinfulness, but of the fallen and degraded state of the world around us. I believe that they have happened for two reasons: (1) I believe many in our hierarchy have been eager to win concord with the elites of this world, with the men of power, men of authority, men of pride – academics, politicians, corporate officers, diplomats, etc. And to have themselves be seen as equals with them, to have themselves accepted as their own kind. And this because of their pride. And to accomplish their acceptance by the elites, it has been seen necessary to downplay to the people the splendor and majesty of God’s holiness, and to portray God instead as a spiritual authority figure who otherwise upholds contemporary secular values (I say “otherwise,” because concepts like *spiritual* and *authority*, especially used together, are scorned and rejected by many people who hold secular values.).
I believe that the second reason is like the first: that in their pride, also, certain members of the hierarchy have made themselves believe that to attract people to God and to the Church, it is necessary to downplay God’s holiness – His otherness – and instead, to portray God as one who holds contemporary secular values, the same values that many of the people already hold as their own. Thus, God is made over in the image of man . . . a seemingly very good man, but a man. The problem with this, of course, is number one, it isn’t the truth, and number two, it’s bad psychology. People don’t want just what is ordinary and attainable in this world; people are made for and long for the transcendent and the unattainable. An example of which is God’s supreme Holiness. And this is why the more the Church “dumbs down” her account of of God’s transcendent and unattainable Holiness (“unattainable” in the sense that we in ourselves and by our own powers, cannot lay hold of such Holiness), the more people fall away from the Church. Because some hierarchs in the Church haven’t been preaching the truth, and, falling into a trap constructed of bad psychology, have been preaching instead an idol of their own making: a god who is neither transcendent nor unattainable, but holds the same secular progressive values that our present-day elites hold.
These members of the hierarchy aren’t maliciously trying “to tear down the Church;” it’s possible to make the case that they are hoping to win souls and to be merciful, . . . but they are deceived in the false mercy they have implemented, and have they deceived themselves through pride. And that’s where their malice lies – pride and self-deception.
Voris nails the problem—apostasy—however reluctant he may have been heretofore to call it out at the very heart of the Church as well as among pastors and the faithful. And however reluctant we may have been to acknowledge it and beg for deliverance from it, beg we must.
I agree with you Father. I think Michael Voris gave a perfectly timed invitation and exhortation to all the Faithful for a personal and humble individual examination of our love and reverence for Jesus in the Eucharist. It is critical for the the whole Mystical Body of the Church. Beautiful
God will take care of the other stuff.
The person who refers to himself as Imrahil seems to think that the outcome what we do in regards to communion with God the Almighty is only to be interpreted in terms of the salvation of souls. While of ultimate concern to the souls concern, it is not the only factor in the equation is the other person in the equation, God Himself, Whom we are also by the Virtue of Religion even where there is no love for Him, bound to honor. It offends God and His Goodness to blaspheme his Covenant Fidelity and Majesty by receiving so unworthily and so knowingly unworthily. It may not be a sin that has of yet cried to Heaven for immediate retribution, but of a right should be.
Regarding those souls who would so receive, and so receive to their damnation, Imrahil has no knowledge that they will eventually develop sorrow for their sin, and a with a firm purpose of amendment and confess and be absolved. And if anyone were goaded on to continuing to wallowing in their adulterers’ bed, and did die, Hell would be the same to them as if they had been immediately struck down, and those who participated in their sin by silence, concealment, provocation, or defense of the ill done, would justly go to perdition with them.
While I understand your point, Imrahil, I think this DOES ultimately lead back to degree of belief in the Eucharist. Vatican II and the Novus Ordo tried to emphasize a greater understanding of WHY the Church acts as She does. A healthy self-examination, yet one with a nasty side-effect. When seeking to reduce “needless rigidity”, we risk over-emphasizing the human element. Your thought regarding “does Sin X REALLY cast us into Hell?”, explains it well. We may think of “Sin X” as such a trivial thing, it should not make a difference. Only when we more carefully examine what, rather Who, we have in the Eucharist, does triviality disappear.
If we view the Eucharist as merely “dinner with my best friend, Joe”, we’re likely to be pretty casual about it, we expect Joe to be a nice guy. However, when we recognize the Eucharist as “dinner with our Redeemer, but also our Eternal Judge and Jury”, then dinner isn’t nearly so lax. THEN we begin to reconsider our behavior and beliefs.
Pingback: TVESDAY CATHOLICA EXTRA – Big Pulpit
I do not believe that the belief in the real presence is a fundamental part of things going wrong.
Our egos are the proximate cause. We are unwilling to accept long standing truths because they are not enforced, therefore they are not binding and are merely the opinions of those before us who we view as fallible as we are.
I fall into this myself.
And I do believe that my opinion, on certain issues, is far, far above and more trustworthy than that of those who came before me. However, I will listen to arguments otherwise and mull them over, and pray, and try to be objective.
This is where, I believe, many(most) are lost.
I do not believe that many are in the habit/discipline of listening, contemplating seriously, praying about the issues in thought and, intentionally and pointedly requiring objectivity in ones thoughts and conclusions.
But, all of this is dependent upon one’s conscience being authentically Catholic.
Thus we have, in my opinion, which I think is correct(of coarse), errant consciences making decisions arrived at, cursorily, rather than with serious discipline. And this is on a huge scale.
Until the clergy restore their Catholicism or until Catholic laity take control of the entire Church, from the clergy, and restore it once the clergy are broken of their lack of Catholicism this will continue.
My gut tells me the latter, rather than the former, is more likely and more rational. And, I know how mad this sounds. But to me, and I do consider myself more Catholic than the vast majority of laity and clergy, with my background in science and its emphasis(though most do not adhere to it, even cursorily, much less being troubled by their laxity(as I often am about myself)) on objectivity and discipline in thought and in interpretation of data, I do not see the clergy “fixing” themselves.
My life’s experiences are a witness to the corruption of the clergy(yes non-clerical religionists Catholics, too(like the overwhelming majority of Canon lawyers). I am absolutely certain of this last sentence.
Karl
I also feel obligated, not externally but internally, to add that since the non-clergy are in significantly larger numbers that the clergy, it is our responsibility to work, diligently, to live lives that authentically reflect the gospel as we older folks(I am 63) were taught by our parents and by our teachers. If we were not so lax in our beliefs and putting them into practice, the “demand” for “clerical accommodation” of our excesses and simply our lusts, would have no footing. The laity cannot, in good conscience, place all of the blame upon the clergy.
Karl
Dear Marion Ancilla Mariae,
for clarification: with “the question” I mean the thing that actually is contested here. And that it is contested is obvious.
I was not implying that to contest it would make any sense.
Thank you, Father, for posting this. I, with two of my sons, am about to embark on a 10-day pilgrimage to Rome. I now know what the focus of our pilgrimage and prayers will be at every church, and before the tomb of every saint and martyr we are blessed to encounter. We will spend one day in Assisi and beg for the intercession of St. Francis to intercede on behalf of our Holy Catholic Church.
Thank you, Imrahil, for your kind clarification to my misunderstanding. God bless you. And God bless us. every one.