ASK FATHER: Is Jesus a human person? Catechism 101

From a reader…


Did Jesus Christ true God and true man, become a human person?


The Second Person, the Eternal Son, God from God, took our human nature into an indestructible bond with His divinity and was born of the Virgin Mary, who, with Joseph His legal father, named Him Jesus.

Our Lord Jesus Christ is the Eternal Son of the Eternal Father, now incarnate.  Thus, Jesus is a Divine Person, just as the Father is a Divine Person.  Though Christ had a human mother, He did not have a human Father.  He is a Divine Person, not a human person, as you and I are, having both mother and father.  Jesus has our human nature from His mother, but He is a divine Person.

Jesus is consubstantial with His Father.  Jesus is consubstantial with His mother.

Mary gave birth to the Divine Person, Jesus.  Therefore, since she is the mother of a Divine Person, and not just of His human nature, she is rightly called Mother of God, as defined by the Council of Ephesus in 431.

We do not make errors about this, as Nestorius and the Nestorians, who thought wrongly that Jesus was two persons, one divine and one human.  The Council of Ephesus in 431 settled this.

The Council of Chalcedon in 451 further clarified that Jesus has two distinct natures, Divine and human, and that these two natures are inseparably joined in one Divine person while not being confused with each other.

Neither do we fall into the error of Monophysitism, which was a heretical overreaction to Nestorianism.  Eutyches, sharply reacting to the heresy of Nestorius that Christ was effectively two persons with human and divine natures, asserted that Christ was one person having one nature, a fusion of human and divine in some way.  In Greek, “one” mono, and “nature” physis gives us Monophysitism.

There were also Ebionites and Adoptionists who thought that Christ was merely human but was adopted by God for a great purpose.  But I have answered the question and we don’t have to deal with them.

Although… I wonder if we don’t have quite a few de facto Ebionites and Adoptionists in our pulpits and chanceries.  I wonder.  That would explain a lot of liturgical choices, certain suggestions about who can receive the Eucharist, etc. Sometimes you will hear modern day heretics or people in serious error float the notion that Jesus didn’t really know who He was, slowly figured things out, blah blah, which comes pretty close to a denial of His divine nature. So, what would Mass be? What would the Eucharist be? Adoptionism, a 2nd century heresy, asserted that Jesus was merely a human man adopted as God’s Son sometimes along the way, for example, at his baptism. Ebionites were Jewish Christians who thought Jesus was the Messiah but denied His divinity. These heretics thought that Jesus was a human person.

Don’t be an Ebionite!

Jesus is a Divine Person, who still has two natures, Divine and human.  Jesus is a Divine Person, not a human person.  He is a Divine person who shares our humanity.

As the Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “Jesus Christ is true God and true man, in the unity of his divine person; for this reason he is the one and only mediator between God and men.”

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark
Posted in SESSIUNCULA | Tagged , , , , , , | 41 Comments

Devotion to the Holy Face of Jesus

A few people have mentioned that Card. Burke suggested praying devotions to the Holy Face of Jesus.

I wrote to someone in Hong Kong (which I would like to visit), who put me on to a site dedicated to Devotion to the Holy Face.  HERE

Anyway, I was sent two documents, with English and Latin propers for Mass.

Here is the Collect.

Domine Jesu Christe, cuius sacratissimus Vultus in passione absconditus sicut sol in sua virtute relucet; concede propitius; ut tuis passionibus communicantes in terris, in revelatione gloriae tuae gaudere valeamus in coelis. Qui vivis et regnas…

The Latin has this, which is interesting.

Petitioni hodierni Moderatoris Provinciae Aprutinae Ordinis Fratruum Minorum Capuccinorum circa facultatem celebrandi, in Sanctuario Sacri Vultus D. N. Jesu Christi apud «Manoppello», Missa votiva ad normam nn. 374-375 Codicis rubricarum, adhibito textu Missae propriae «Humiliavit… » concessae, die 15 Martii 1957, Congregationi Silvestrinae O. S.B.

Sacra Rituum Congregatio, utendo facultatibus sibi a Sanctissimo Domino nostro IOANNE PAPA XXIII tnbutis, benigne annuit pro gratia iuxta preces, idest celebrandi praedictam Missam, eodem in Sanctuario, uti votiva II classis singulis per annum diebus, sed solummodo a sacerdotibus peregrinis, aut quoties Missa ipsa dicitur in favorem peregrinantium:  dummodo non occurrat dies liturgicus I classis, vel festum Domini II classis: servatis rubricis.

Archiep. Carpasien.
S.R.C. a secretis
Ex aedihus S.R.C. die 23 Februarii 1963.
Concordat cum originali approbato

Anyway, we all need to get out the spiritual armor, polish it up, and buckle it on.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Hard-Identity Catholicism, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Si vis pacem para bellum! | Tagged , | 15 Comments

ASK FATHER: Anointing in the Time of Ebola

From a reader…


I´m writing from Spain where sadly, a nurse is extremely ill with Ebola virus. She was infected while treating a Spanish missionary who was brought back from Africa to get treated.

My question is this: imagine she asks for the sacrament of extreme unction. [Anointing of the Sick, at the end of life, is "Extreme Unction".] Is there a protocol or any instructions as how to proceed? Can she be refused by a priest? Can she be refused by the Government?

Right now it seems like an absurd question, but since you always say to prepare for TEOTWAWKI and we don’t know how or when it will come, it doesn’t seem like such a far off question…

And we had therefore better immediately stop the Sign of Peace!   It’s far more likely to spread disease.

It is rare that one canon of the Code of Canon Law answers a question, but here we have not just one canon, but one paragraph of one canon: can. 1000 § 2:

“The minister is to anoint with his own hand, unless a grave reason indicates the use of an instrument”.

The danger of infection with Ebola provide a grave reason.

The anointing can be done with an instrument, such as a long-stemmed swab, or even, if the patient is quarantined, with those isolation glove box things.  I once anointed someone in an ER by reaching in with sponge forceps.

The related question is going to be: Can a bishop forbid Communion administered on the tongue during a pandemic?  We ran into this with the H1N1 scare.

I suppose a bishop can do so.

It would be petty, small, and nasty were a bishop to use the crisis of an infectious disease to push his personal ideological liturgical agenda.

I don’t buy that Communion on the tongue spreads diseases more than Communion in the hand.  In general.  Ebola virus is contagious, but not highly so. But it is really really horrible.

However, one of the ways that the Ebola virus is spread is through body fluids: including saliva.  Yes, it is possible to transfer saliva, but rare if the priest knows what he is doing and people present themselves properly for administration of the host.

People: Please!  When you want to receive Communion on the tongue, lift your chin a bit and stick your tongue out! Not just the tip of the tongue with your chin tucked against your chest.  Okay?  Okay?

Now that we have that out of the way, have any of you read Tom Clancy’s Executive Orders?

NUTSHELL: Iranians manage to weaponize Ebola and seek to release it in these USA.

A ripping good yarn and surely pure fiction.  Pure fiction.  I mean, no problems with Islamic fanatics these days.

All in all, I’d rather have a Pres. Ryan, if you get me.

But… what could go wrong?

And… pray for these poor people, those coming here and those in Africa.  Ask the Archangel Michael to contain and avert this horrible plague.

Historically, in times of plague, Holy Church has held public processions.  We should do so again.


I just received a note:

Hi. My heart is heavy. Our Bishop on Las Vegas is instructing the Priest’s at our Parishes to ONLY distribute Holy Communion in the hand, due to Ebola.
I know that the Church Documents, Cannon Law and even the GIRM, is clear and allows the Faithful to choose how to receive Our Lord themself. Our right is being taken away.
My Mother who is 88 was forced to receive our Lord today in her hands. The first time ever.
What is the best course of action?
I have emailed our Diocesan office, no reply yet.

If this is being done for ideological reasons, you might drop a line to the Congregation for Divine Worship.  However, I am not sure there is much recourse, other than besieging the man with prayers.

But hey! Who am I to judge? Maybe with so many people travelling in and out of Las Vegas, and going to various… places, there may be an outbreak there soon.

Also, no one is forced to receive Communion.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, TEOTWAWKI, The Coming Storm, The Drill | Tagged , , , , , , | 46 Comments

NEW Z-SWAG! (This one might surprise you.)

It’s time to have a little fun.

Over at the piranha tanks of Fishwrap‘s combox, you readers – you – were being ridiculed as …


For those of you who may not know, “Zed” is a British English way to name the zaggy last letter of the alphabet (and per se excluding the ampersand).

We should embrace this feeble attempt at ridicule.

Thus, I today roll out my new Z-Swag line for all you “Zed-Heads” and the wanna be “Zed-Heads” at Fishwrap.

Enjoy!  Click HERE and ¡Hagan lío!

The older ones among you can explain to the younger ones what’s going on in this.

There are, now, shirts, mugs, and a great round car magnet.  There are also some black and white items.


And I must thank our official photoshopper for his great work and help.  Be sure to patronize his store.  He is the one who has the marvelous Pius Clocks, with little Papi Pii as the numbers.

It is also a CAFEPRESS store, so when you buy some of my stuff, you can add one or two of his clocks.  They are great gifts!  HERE

Don’t let what’s going on today get you down.  Have some fun, especially when your humorless enemies sneer.

Posted in Be The Maquis, In The Wild, Lighter fare, The Campus Telephone Pole, ¡Hagan lío! | Tagged , | 30 Comments

Did no one know that when the MSM got hold of the ‘Relatio’, people were going to go bananas?

We continue to watch the spin and the spinning of the spin after yesterday’s Synod… what can we call it?…. debacle.  Yes, debacle.  The release of the Relatio post disceptationem, an unprecedented mid-point summary document, was a debacle.   It has provoked “wonder”, which is old Church code for “shock, scandal provoking confusion”.

It was telling that, during yesterday’s presser, for the presentation of the Relatio, the chair of the Synod, Card. Erdö, tossed a question about the now infamous homosexuality paragraphs over to Archbp. Bruno Forte (whom some suggest might wind up as Prefect of a Franciscan CDF… if it isn’t Archbp. Fernandez), saying: “the one who wrote the passage ought to know what it means”.

The Holy See Press Office spun the Relatio this way:

Declaration of the Director of the Holy See Press Office on behalf of the General Secretariat of the Synod

The General Secretariat of the Synod, in response to reactions and discussions following the publication of the Relatio post disceptationem, and the fact that often a value has been attributed to the document that does not correspond to its nature, [Is that so?] reiterates that it is a working document, which summarises the interventions and debate of the first week, and is now being offered for discussion by the members of the Synod gathered in the Small Groups, in accordance with the Regulations of the Synod.
The work of the Small Groups will be presented to the Assembly in the General Congregation next Thursday morning.

A good example of spin – and the massive damage inflicted by the release of the Relatio - is found at CNN, which has a few slanted points:

Under conservative assault, Vatican backtracks on gay comments

Rome (CNN) — Under furious assault from conservative Catholics, [Furious assault?] the Vatican backtracked Tuesday on its surprisingly positive assessment of gays and same-sex relationships.
In a report Monday, the Vatican had said that gays and lesbians have “gifts to offer” the Christian community and acknowledged that same-sex couples can give “precious support” to one other.
The statement, an interim report from a closely watched meeting of Catholic clergy here, was widely praised by liberals. It is believed to be the first time the Vatican has said anything positive about gay relationships. [And yet it isn't supposed to be an official document, a final document.  It's just a working document.  Right?]

And that, even with its ominous language about conservatives and their furious assaults, is somewhat more responsible than what you will see at some other outlets, especially the even more openly pro-homosexual sites.

Again, my great worry is not so much what the Synod is talking about, but the expectations that are being raised because of gaffs, errors, bad decisions, weird language and, it must be said, the machinations of some within the Church.

So, let’s accept that the Relatio is just a “working document”.  Fine.

Did nobody in the Synod office or in the Press Office know that when the MSM got hold of it, people were going to go bananas?

Of course they knew that chaos would occur and that certain paragraphs would be read with strong reactions.  Of course they did.

Therefore, someone wanted the chaos.  Someone wanted those now infamous paragraphs to hit the press and then be spun into all sorts of false conclusions and false expectation.  They wanted to bump the needle, move the paradigm in a certain direction.  This seems like a classic exercise in creeping incrementalism.  They know that they are not going to get their way, or get everything that they want… this time.  But they toss things out, create the chaos, and then, even as they back away from it and do some clean up, they have managed to moved the paradigm a degree or two toward their goal.  That’s how they work.

Conservatives, by the way, don’t do this well.  They tend not to work together well and they tend to want everything right away.  It would be great were faithful Catholics able to work together better.  Meanwhile, the catholic Left is having a conga line dance, with noisemakers and little hats.

Anyway, a bright spot today occurred during the presser.  Card. Napier of South Africa said that he was surprised that the Relatio was released and that he clearly disagreed with some elements in the document.  He also is worried about the false expectations that are being created.


The moderation queue ON.

Meanwhile, TIME magazine – predictably – and purposely – misrepresented the facts.  HERE

The Bishops Are Catching Up To Pope Francis on Gay Rights [How many things are wrong with that.  First, "the bishops" aren't doing anything. Second, what has Francis really said?  Third, "Gays" don't have rights, other than basic human rights.]

Mercy must be the way forward for the Catholic Church.  [Which means, I think, you can stick anything where ever you want and eventually people will be forced to call it "good".]

Stunning news came from Rome today where the bishops [some few bishops] gathered for Pope Francis’s Synod on the Family issued a report suggesting that the Church should create a more inclusive space for gay Catholics to participate in the life of the Church.  [They already have it.]

In the [unofficial draft] document, the bishops [no... the writer of the draft] said without reservation [is that so?] that gay Catholics have “gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community.” From that, they ask: “are we capable of welcoming these people, guaranteeing to them a fraternal space in our communities?”

This is a stunning language change from the Catholic Church on the question of homosexuality. [Is it?  Really?  Did the document say that it's okay to have homosexual sex?] Since the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith declared in 1975 that “homosexual acts [ACTS!] are intrinsically disordered” Rome has been clear on where it stands on the issue of homosexuality and same-sex unions. As recently as January 2013, Pope Benedict — while affirming the dignity of the LGBT community — suggested that gay marriage threatens the world’s “justice and peace.” [And he was right, as we are seeing today more and more.]

The Church’s shift on LGBT issues began shortly after Pope Francis’s election in March 2013. In July of last year, Francis famously said, “[i]f someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?” [Hang on!  That comment had a context. HERE]

But today’s document produced by the [tiny number of] bishops [in reality, the one's who wrote it... it wasn't a collaboration that all the bishop members of the Synod voted to approve] shows that Pope Francis’s personal vision [HUH?  No.] is slowly becoming the vision of the universal Church. [This babble is the personal vision of the writer.  Enough of this rubbish.]


This is the sort of trash that people are going to read about this Synod.

Posted in Biased Media Coverage, Liberals, Our Catholic Identity, The Coming Storm, The Drill, The future and our choices, The Sin That Cries To Heaven For Vengence, What are they REALLY saying? | Tagged , , , | 77 Comments

It’s time to get onto a war footing.

After looking at my email and some comments in the queue I am compelled to say…

Be sober and watch: because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about seeking whom he may devour.

1 Peter 5:8

Everyone… CALM DOWN.

There is a serious Satanic attack going on within the Church right now.  The sharpening division itself is a sign of the same.

That said, think of your spiritual weapons.

You can fast and offer mortifications.

You can say the Rosary.   Is there a more powerful prayer than a Rosary sincerely recited?


Now more than ever we need reverent celebrations of Holy Mass in the Extraordinary Form.

Fathers, start preaching about confession, the Rosary, and – for the love of all that’s holy – start learning the Extraordinary Form.

It’s time to get onto a war footing.

Posted in SESSIUNCULA | Tagged | 1 Comment

“The truly bizarre document that the Vatican released Monday”

Have you been following the reports of Robert Royal about the Synod of Bishops?

Here’s today’s:

Synod Day 8 – A Bizarre Document and Process Print

I have been in Rome, by my rough count, 100 times during my adult life. Some visits had to do with secular matters of culture or politics, most with questions related to the Catholic Church. But I think I can say without the slightest doubt that yesterday was the strangest day I’ve ever passed in the Eternal City.  [This is what I have heard too.  I'll head over next week, after the close of the Synod, and will get more of the mood.  It is sure to linger.]

By now, almost everyone interested in Catholic matters knows about what can only be called the truly bizarre document that the Vatican released Monday: the relatio summing up the first week of work by the Extraordinary Synod on the Family. I was at the press conference after the release and it, too, was a very strange thing indeed. More on that below. But before you despair – I can tell you that there were some questions from utterly astonished old Vatican reporters in that room and journalists walking around in shock outside for hours after – things are both bad and maybe also not so entirely bad as they might first seem.

First, the bad. For reasons that may only be know to certain figures involved – or to the God who searches the human heart – a document coming from the Vatican now has passages like these:

50. Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community: are we capable of welcoming these people, guaranteeing to them a fraternal space in our communities? Often they wish to encounter a Church that offers them a welcoming home. Are our communities capable of providing that, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony? [Homosexuals do NOT have ”gifts and qualities” for the Church simply because they are homosexuals. They have gifts because they are human beings, not because they want to have sex with people of the same sex.  I made this point yesterday.]
51. The question of homosexuality leads to a serious reflection on how to elaborate realistic paths of affective growth and human and evangelical maturity integrating the sexual dimension: it appears therefore as an important educative challenge. The Church furthermore affirms that unions between people of the same sex cannot be considered on the same footing as matrimony between man and woman. Nor is it acceptable that pressure be brought to bear on pastors or that international bodies make financial aid dependent on the introduction of regulations inspired by gender ideology.
52. Without denying the moral problems connected to homosexual unions it has to be noted that there are cases in which mutual aid to the point of sacrifice constitutes a precious support in the life of the partners. Furthermore, the Church pays special attention to the children who live with couples of the same sex, emphasizing that the needs and rights of the little ones must always be given priority.  [?!?]

If you find your head spinning at the language italicized above, you aren’t the only one. Several of the journalists in the room put very carefully worded questions to the four members of the press conference panel, trying to elicit clarifications. I’m sorry to say that with the exception of Cardinal Erdö, every one of them engaged in a level of spin unworthy of a Church that seeks to proclaim the truth about the Good News of our redemption by Jesus Christ.

I won’t mention the names of respondents out of respect for the nakedness of our fathers. But let me suggest some of the dynamic in the room. One female reporter for RAI Radio, the Italian state-run broadcast services, asked pointedly in response to the last section above about the rights of children, whether they don’t have a right to be raised by a male father and a female mother (an argument that in Europe, especially in France, has been very prominent)? The reply from an exalted cleric was to enter a thicket of platitudes about parental rights to educate a child, which no one objects to or has ever objected to, insofar as they were intelligible. But the fundamental question of having a real mother and a real father went entirely untouched – by a prince of the Church talking about a burning current question.

Similarly, an American journalist [Michael Voris!] raised a question about the absurd phrase in section 50: “Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community.” In one way, of course, this is true, since all people have gifts and qualities. The journalist wanted to know, however, whether the Synod fathers were saying that homosexuals have gifts to offer precisely because of their homosexuality? That seemed to be implied.

Sadly, more inconsequential commentary followed. [From Bruno Forte... who, under this Pope, will probably be the next Prefect of CDF if Müller is exiled.] The Synod has been talking a great deal about its respect for the intelligence of the Catholic laity. [Is that why they put a media quarantine around the Synod?] But no Catholic layperson of any intelligence left the press conference yesterday thinking that this subject – and several others – was anything other than more confused than ever and perhaps inclining towards things gay activists have been seeking that cannot be squared with the Gospel.

You can find in the three sections quoted above some nods towards Catholic teaching, of course, but the rest of the summary – which a reliable source close to the process confirmed to me reflected what the bishops actually discussed, even as they “took for granted” Catholic teaching – reads like some hapless running after the small number of people who are pursuing a disordered sex life [The tail isn't wagging the dog.  The tip of the tail is.] who might still have some vestigial interest in the Church. John Allen has brilliantly formulated this as “lifestyle ecumenism,” a sequel to the ecclesial ecumenism of Vatican II.

There were also more questions, of course, about Communion for divorced and remarried Catholics, and how that might be squared with Jesus’ own words. And again, there were words, many words spoken that continued to try the impossible task to square the circle. No statement that has come out of the Vatican – including the scholarly gyrations of Cardinal Kasper – has come close to making this work. And Cardinal Erdö boldly, for this panel, said certain questions present an either/or: either you give Communion or you don’t.

But here’s a slight counterweight to these otherwise alarming developments.

I spoke over dinner yesterday evening with someone involved in the whole process. That person must remain anonymous, of course, and his opinions may or may not be dispositive. But it may just be that the bishops themselves have been surprised by this document. [The release seems to have been carried out in a very strange way.  Also, the media cordon has prevented differing sides from being reported with any serious weight.] A Synod relatio usually is issued only at the end of the event, and is presented to the pope as the working results of the group he’s asked to advise him. The process is clearly different this time out. There’s still almost an entire week ahead, with small language groups meeting the next few days and the whole group of participants coming together again only on Thursday.

But even if those behind the scenes assure us that the bishops are aware of how they are being misperceived [Ooohhh... I doubt that.] and that the final document or the overall process or something somehow is different than what it seems (and I have to say that the person who told me this has my full confidence) the Church has now dug itself into a deep hole. And why, pray tell, issue such a poorly crafted, deeply flawed, and basically misleading text?

The relatio concludes:

58. The reflections put forward, the fruit of the Synodal dialog that took place in great freedom [Is that so?] and a spirit of reciprocal listening, are intended to raise questions and indicate perspectives that will have to be matured and made clearer by the reflection of the local Churches in the year that separates us from the Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of bishops planned for October 2015. These are not decisions that have been made nor simply points of view. All the same the collegial path of the bishops and the involvement of all God’s people under the guidance of the Holy Spirit will lead us to find roads of truth and mercy for all. This is the wish that from the beginning of our work Pope Francis has extended to us, inviting us to the courage of the faith and the humble and honest welcome of the truth in charity.

Nice sentiments, but the only thing the world takes away from this – people back home tell me National Public Radio and other outlets are really going to town – is that the Church is cozying up to gays. [The Synod of the MEDIA is what worries me.] That the tone and perhaps the teaching seem to be changing. That divorced and remarried Catholics will soon be able to receive Communion by a process no one can actually explain without sounding like he’s babbling. But it will happen.

The reality may prove to be something different, but that’s the message the Synod has now sent, whether it intended to or not. We’ll see before too long whether that message now can ever be fixed.

We will have some rocky days ahead, my friends.

Posted in Liberals, Pray For A Miracle, The Coming Storm, The Drill, The future and our choices, The Sin That Cries To Heaven For Vengence | Tagged , , , | 95 Comments

ASK FATHER: Are there different ways to get an annulment faster?

From a reader…


Is the process for the Petrine privilege quicker than the annulment process? Is it easier to get? Thanks.

Again with the “getting.”

Let’s get those annulments and let’s get them fast!  Right?  After all, my friend Ellen’s best friend’s cousin’s hairdresser knew a guy who had a third cousin who “got an annulment” in four months because she paid a deacon on the sly. But my other friend Matt’s father’s neighbor had a plantar’s wart burned off by this guy named Lou who was treated really badly by the receptionist at the local tribunal and so he left the Church because his annulment was taking 37 years!  When is the Church finally going to be merciful?  We have to get annulments!

Let’s avoid the language of consumerism when we talk about canonical processes.
Let’s remain sober.

Marriage is brought about by an act of consent between a man and a woman capable of doing so.

A declaration of nullity (often called, imprecisely, an “annulment”) is sometimes the conclusion of a thorough, careful, just and timely review of the facts presented to an ecclesiastical court (tribunal) about a putative marriage.

A declaration of nullity states that, after prudently assessing the facts, the Judges (usually one to three at the first grade of trial and three at the second grade of trial (four judges minimum) arrived at the moral certitude needed to declare that the act of consent which appeared to initiate this putative marriage was invalidly placed, and the marriage did not truly exist in the first place.

It has nothing to do with sacramentality.  It has nothing to do with the legitimacy of children. It has nothing to do with divorce. It has nothing to do with whether one party or the other is a nice person or a real [___].

A “lack of form” case is often the solution to a situation where at least one of the parties in the putative marriage was Catholic, and the marriage took place outside of the Catholic Church, without a priest or deacon (a witness authorized by the Church) present, and without a dispensation. It is a simple declaration: Caia was Catholic, Caia attempted marriage to Sempronius without observing the Catholic form of marriage, Caia wasn’t really married to Sempronius.  Easy peasy.

On the other hand, a Pauline Privilege case is based on 1 Corinthians 7:10-15.  It allows the local bishop to dissolve the bond of a natural marriage.  It’s not an “annulment”. Nothing is declared null.  The Church dissolves a valid marriage bond between two unbaptized persons, one of whom is now baptized or seeking to be baptized, and wishes to enter into a new marriage in the Church.

A Petrine Privilege (Privilege of the Faith) case can only be invoked by the Pope himself.

In these Petrine Privilege cases, the Pope dissolves the bond of a natural marriage.  Again, it’s not a declaration of nullity, but a dissolution between a baptized person and an unbaptized person, in order to permit a subsequent marriage in the Church.

Both Petrine Privilege and Pauline Privilege cases have specific set parameters. They are privileges, not rights.

The bishop or pope is not under any obligation to grant the privilege.

The person requesting the privilege cannot have been the main reason that the marriage has broken up. They both take time. They both require evidence. Neither are “shortcut annulments”.

Everyone must understand some important things about tribunals.

All the processes require educated and trained canonists.  They can be either clergy or lay. They require administrative support and other staff. There are mailings, supplies, programs, ongoing education, not to mention salaries, healthcare, office space, heat, lights, etc.  Nearly every diocese in the world – even those which charge a fee for the process – looses money on their tribunals. But the benefit of a good tribunal by far outweighs the loss of money.   It is worth the economic loss because of the value of protecting the sacredness of the marriage bond.  It is worth the loss to stand strong on and with the Gospel, with the Lord Himself, in favor the permanence of marriage.  The cost of the tribunal is worth it to protect the rights of the parties involved.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity | Tagged , , | 24 Comments

Jihadist magazine shows black flag flying from St. Peter’s Obelisk

Meanwhile, even as – as some people claim – there are within the Church those who wish to bring her down. There are – as is patently clear to anyone with a brain – there are outside the Church those who wish to bring her down.

Rather, chop off her head.

I saw this at Tempi (Italian HERE):

La bandiera nera sventola sull’Obelisco di San Pietro: la rivista dello Stato islamico festeggia la “crociata fallita”

The black flag waves over the Obelisk of St. Peter: the magazine of the Islamic State celebrates the “failed crusade”

The “crociata” in this case refers to the present loose coalition doing stuff – sort of – to bits and pieces of ISIS, Islamic State, whatever the evil movement of militant Islam is called right now.

Didn’t the leader of this movement say something about going to Rome?

Yes, I remember that correctly. HERE

Rome will be conquered next, says leader of ‘Islamic State’
Muslims have been called to flock to the ‘Islamic State’ to gather for a battle against non-believers throughout the world

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the self-proclaimed leader of the ‘Islamic State’ stretching across Iraq and Syria, has vowed to lead the conquest of Rome as he called on Muslims to immigrate to his new land to fight under its banner around the globe.
Baghdadi, who holds a PhD in Islamic studies, said Muslims were being targetted and killed from China to Indonesia. Speaking as the first Caliph, or commander of the Islamic faithful since the dissolution of the Ottoman empire, he called on Muslims to rally to his pan-Islamic state.

“Those who can immigrate to the Islamic State should immigrate, as immigration to the house of Islam is a duty,” he said in an audio recording released on a website used by the group formerly known as the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham.
“Rush O Muslims to your state. It is your state. Syria is not for Syrians and Iraq is not for Iraqis. The land is for the Muslims, all Muslims.

Is this really really really haaaaard for people to grasp?

Sts. Nunilo and Alodia, pray for us!  (Feast 22 October)

Posted in The Coming Storm, The Drill, The future and our choices, The Religion of Peace | Tagged , , , , | 28 Comments

Of annulments and Christmas trees

From the often amusing Eye of the Tiber:

Cardinal Kasper Adds Three Sacraments

Vatican City––Citing the need for the Church to “update herself with modern times,” Cardinal Walter Kasper declared that the Church has now added three Sacraments to the original seven instituted by Christ. In an interview with America, Kasper explained his decision: “Christ challenged the Pharisees to look deeper than the Mosaic Law, and he challenges us to the same. The original seven sacraments were sufficient for their time, but times have changed, and the Church owes the world a greater number of spiritual life rafts.”

Continuing his interview, Kasper added: “We need a paradigm change and we must – as the good Samaritan did – consider the situation also from the perspective of those who are suffering and asking for help. Christ’s sacraments just aren’t doing the job, and so it is our duty as a Church to reach out in other ways.”

Most of all, His Eminence pushed for the Church to adapt to the Metric system: “The number 7 is a prime number; it can’t be divided by anything. And when you multiply it by anything you always get some weird number like 23 or 49. The Church needs to leave behind the Imperial system of Sacraments and join the rest of Europe in the Metric system.”

Pointing out the complexity of modern life as compared to earlier times in human history, Kasper affirmed that “Life is not just black or white or yellow or green or blue or red or purple; there are, in fact, exactly ten nuances. Not seven.”

Kasper’s new list of Sacraments is as follows:

1. Baptism

2. Confirmation

3. Eucharist

4. Reconciliation

5. Marriage

6. Holy Orders

7. Anointing of the Sick

8. Annulment

9. That YouTube video of that Lifehouse song with that Jesus skit

10. Christmas trees

I think he forgot the Church Tax.

Posted in Lighter fare | 14 Comments