VIDEO: Stop this and watch this

Watch and learn:

Enough said.

This is the guy who did this!

This book was the game changer.

CLICK

As I post this 564 views.

Please share!
Share

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

41 Responses to VIDEO: Stop this and watch this

  1. jacobi says:

    The indissolubility of marriage, proclaimed by Christ, was challenged by various political authorities, particularly up to the 9th century. The Catholic Church’s position on the indissolubility of marriage was confirmed beyond doubt by Pope Nicolas I in 846
    The present attempt by Kasper is yet another attempt to use false doctrinal archaeology to raise again and justify an old question long since settled.
    If the Church concedes this point and allows Communion for divorced and remarried, in which either party is still validly married, under any conceopt, false pastoralism or otherwise, then the damn will burst and the concept of Christian marriage will disintegrate.

    This would mean a formal split in the Church.

    The whole problem has arisen again because of the current practise of treating the Mass as a protestant type communion service at which everyone must and indeed has the right, to communicate, regardless.

    We must get back to treating attendance at the Sacrifice of the Mass as the objective, and the reception of Holy Communion as being incidental and only if the parties are in a state of grace and are not communicating for reason of routine, vanity or public acknowledgement and acclaim.

    This would mean at any Mass only a minority would receive Holy Communion as was the normal practise for centuries before Vatican II.

  2. Pingback: The Marriage & Communion debate explained | iPadre Catholic Podcasting

  3. Pingback: The Marriage & Communion debate explained | Church of the Holy Ghost

  4. mrshopey says:

    Adding on to what Jacobi said, the only other option, regarding communion, that could be allowed is if we borrowed the tradition of, what is called – blessed bread?, for all to receive with communion for those who are in the state of grace, etc.
    If we are going to add/borrow traditions, and people NEED to receive something in order to feel welcomed, then that is one option.

  5. mrshopey says:

    And if we are getting into borrowing/adding things from other traditions, Confirmation needs to be moved back to baptism. If the Bishop still wants the one to do the Confirming, and we can all easily travel now, then set up a monthly baptism/confirmation at the Cathedral. That would help family life and put an end to the erroneous catechisis that is similar to graduation. They would have to drop those materials because they would make no sense anymore!!

  6. Kerry says:

    Fishwrap, breaking! Priest says Obama is “Emperor”!

  7. Venerator Sti Lot says:

    mrshopey writes, “If we are going to add/borrow traditions”…

    Addition can be by way of revival and/or expansion, too: have a look at John Goggin’s 1907 “Liturgical Uses of Bread” Catholic Encyclopedia article at New Advent, and follow some of the links within it, too!

    jacobi writes of “The present attempt by Kasper”: it would seem to be at least a 21-year-long attempt. Sandro Magister has a transcription of a scholarly 1994 open letter by Germain Grisez, John Finnis, and William E. May in response to a 1993 ‘pastoral letter’ by Archbishop Oskar Saier, Bishop Karl Lehmann, and Bishop Walter Kasper:

    http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350896

    Their saying, in the course of impressively answering the German Hierarchs, both that “Subsequent history reveals many additional instances of the same sort of thing: various leaders of the church, including some popes, admitted the real possibility of divorce and remarriage in particular cases, and assumed that their doing so was compatible with Jesus’ word” and that “the dogmatic foundation of the pastoral practice which your initiative is meant to improve upon provides its own account of the historical data. Admittedly, this account, like any other, must strain to cover them all, and must characterize as abuses and mistakes some practices during the first half of the Church’s history” do make me want to know more of the history in more detail.

    Magistro links it from

    http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350897?eng=y

    which includes some very interesting history of discussion in the Council of Trent by Professor E. Christian Brugger.

  8. mrshopey says:

    Venerator Sti Lot, Thanks!
    BTW, if they continue with the use of “traditional” marriage, and are going to add others, or considering what could be added, then I propose the Gomer marriage. That would indicate the person has a spouse who is adulterous BUT they are pursuing them, hoping for reconciliation and esp them to be in heaven.
    Then again, many probably live in a Gomer marriage anyway.

    “If we lived in a state where virtue was profitable, common sense would make us saintly. But since we see that abhorrence, anger, pride, and stupidity commonly profit far beyond charity, modesty, justice, and thought, perhaps we must stand fast a little – even at the risk of being heroes” St. Thomas More

  9. The Masked Chicken says:

    “This would mean at any Mass only a minority would receive Holy Communion as was the normal practise for centuries before Vatican II.”

    Well, everyone could strive to be saints, so that everyone could receive.

    On another, related note, could one of you liturgical Yodas out there answer a question for me: if spiritual Communion is, as St. Alphonsus Ligouri claims, Communion from a silver cup instead of a gold one (in other words, a real type of Communion), then I am puzzled, because, doesn’t mortal sin break communion with God, insofar as it is a breach of charity and the law of God? If so, how can one achieve communion, spiritual or otherwise, with Someone with whom one is not in communion, unless there is a restoration of the breach? In other words, how can one receive even spiritual communion while in mortal sin?

    The Chicken

  10. Dr. Edward Peters says:

    Excellent.

  11. Mike says:

    The Church is blessed in Fr. Dodaro. As do Cardinals Burke, Müller, and Pell, he delivers truth in charity.

    Granted, lately, just truth would be an improvement over the status quo, but charity is needed too — and deeply appreciated.

  12. Sonshine135 says:

    Chicken,

    I always try to look at the relationship with God as being familial. If I did something that went against my parents wishes, and I fessed up to it, a punishment would be prescribed to fit the offense. After the punishment was completed, I would be back in their good graces again, or in full communion with their wishes. That would be analogous to full communion with God. I go to confession- seeking forgiveness. I receive absolution.

    Now, let’s say I did something that went against my parents wishes, but I haven’t quite admitted to it yet. I am not in full communion with their wishes. Maybe I am sorry, but I haven’t gotten around yet to admitting to my guilt. I agree the breech hasn’t been restored, because I haven’t admitted to the fault, but it does not necessarily mean that I do not desire to follow my parents wishes. To me, this is a Spiritual Communion, and I think the church sees it that way too. It is the desire to get out from the state of sin, and strive to be holy. The byproduct of spiritual communion should eventually be full communion.

    That is just my 2 cents from a layman’s perspective.

  13. Chris Garton-Zavesky says:

    Am I alone in noting that clarity and charity are present in this straightforward, transparent presentation, while Cardinal Kasper’s sympathizers are running entirely on emotion as a form of argument?

  14. The Masked Chicken says:

    “To me, this is a Spiritual Communion, and I think the church sees it that way too. It is the desire to get out from the state of sin, and strive to be holy. The byproduct of spiritual communion should eventually be full communion.”

    By that token, it does not good for people who are divorced and re-married without an annulment to make a spiritual Communion if they have no intention of regularizing their marriage.

    The Chicken

  15. Nightcrawler says:

    “There are stupid cardinals in every century.”

  16. Mike says:

    The Masked Chicken says: . . . it does no good for people who are divorced and re-married without an annulment to make a spiritual Communion if they have no intention of regularizing their marriage.

    Not to address that point directly, but having been made aware of the grave seriousness of their situation, to acquire the will (or, more accurately, the submissiveness thereof) and the fortutide to address it would at least be a worthy intention for the Memento. One must start somewhere.

    Having seen and experienced amazing progress in grace where cases seemed hopelessly snarled, I’m not worried about God ignoring such a sincere plea. I’m far more worried about theological innovators who would apply Mercurochrome to a fracture and call it healed.

  17. acardnal says:

    I wonder how many of the bishops at the Extraordinary Synod had read this book? (I’m still waiting for my print copy. I don’t read e-books and I doubt many of these bishops do either.) Optimistically, there is a year for more bishops to read this book before the Ordinary Synod occurs.

    I am still very concerned that a majority of bishops at the Synod vote FOR giving communion to the divorced and remarried couples!

  18. FranzJosf says:

    I must say that I find this whole Synod situation nothing short of earth-shaking. (The last time I felt this way was when Pope Benedict XVI celebrated Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament in central London! That was amazing.)

    This is too: the progressives and their methods have been un-masked. The Book led the charge in the larger argument. According to reports, Cardinal Pell, a Pope Francis appointee, led the charge in the Synod hall. Truly amazing. There is hope.

  19. aviva meriam says:

    “This is what discussion looks like’

    Priceless.

  20. robtbrown says:

    Chris Garton-Zavesky says:
    Am I alone in noting that clarity and charity are present in this straightforward, transparent presentation, while Cardinal Kasper’s sympathizers are running entirely on emotion as a form of argument?

    It has been my experience that liberals who cry pastoral-this and pastoral-that usually are anything but pastoral. They are able to engage only those of a certain ilk. I once knew a priest who was nice guy and gave a lot of retreats for teenagers (nb: I am not suggesting anything scandalous). He had no rapport with adults.

  21. McCall1981 says:

    @acardnal,
    The paragraph that the majority voted for included both the argument for, and against, Kasper, and said the issue should be “deepened”. It is not a pro Kasper paragraph.

  22. mburduck says:

    I must agree with Chris G-Z: “clarity” and “charity” make this presentation a wonderful thing to watch.

    Thanks for posting this link, Father. As I sit here in my university office, I must say that I enjoyed listening to a true scholar at work. A wonderful thing indeed.

    Mike

    PS Hope you enjoyed my “native city,” NYC! Wish I had been there as I would have bought you a beer. Perhaps some other time (as I do visit NYC frequently).

  23. acardnal says:

    Edward Pentin, of the “National Catholic Reporter”, who broke the story about Cdl. Kasper lying, wrote this article expressing the same concerns I have about the “majority votes” at the Synod.

    I note this paragraph from his article:

    “The fact that these three points remain in the document despite only having a “qualified majority” has surprised some observers. In common law in the Anglophone world, these paragraphs would be rejected from the final document. “This is moving into new territory,” a legal expert told the Register on condition of anonymity. “Where now is the legitimacy of these causes as an expression of the synod? They should be fully rejected.”

    http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/synods-final-document-lacks-bishops-consensus-on-controversial-topics/

  24. acardnal says:

    Dear bishops, ” Do not be conformed to this world. . . .”

    Romans 12:2

  25. Atra Dicenda, Rubra Agenda says:

    Chicken: I would offer that making a spiritual communion is less efficacious for those in mortal sin than for those in a state of grace because, as you stated, persistence in unrepentant mortal sin has divorced them from intimate Communion with God. I am unfamiliar with the reference from Saint Alphonsus Liguori you cited, but I imagine he is comparing spiritual communion from Holy Communion in a person in a state of grace.

    However, it seems clear to me that in praying for spiritual communion at Mass regardless of whether one in mortal sin can achieve at that moment a genuine spiritual communion, one would be softening their hardness of heart and opening again the path to their own conversion. I mean for any of us who find ourselves in a state of mortal sin, we must stop and pray and seek the Lord who is turning to us to lead us home. When we stop sinning we are still in a state of mortal sin, when we pray we are still in a state of mortal sin, when we seek the confessional we are still in a state of mortal sin, and when we say our mortal sins in kind and number to the priest we are still in a state of mortal sin, we are there in that state until the priest speaks the words of absolution, but clearly the Holy Spirit is with us and moving us along the way with God’s grace to repentance, we do not save ourselves. We can be present to God in the way we are present anytime we have sinned gravely but have again turned from sin.

  26. Venerator Sti Lot says:

    Masked Chicken, at al.,

    I thought I remembered Fr. Z recently providing a link about spiritual Communion (which I had been meaning to return to and follow…), but I cannot find anything, nor by searching the term at New Advent. Trying did lead me to Joseph Pohle’s 1909 article, “The Blessed Eucharist as a Sacrament”, which included an interesting passage on frequent reception: “The mystical theologians of the later Middle Ages, as Tauler, St. Vincent Ferrer, Savonarola, and later on St. Philip Neri, the Jesuit Order, St. Francis de Sales and St. Alphonsus Liguori were zealous champions of frequent Communion; whereas the Jansenists, under the leadership of Antoine Arnauld (De la fréquente communion, Paris, 1643), strenuously opposed and demanded as a condition for every Communion the ‘most perfect penitential dispositions and the purest love of God’. This rigorism was condemned by Pope Alexander VIII (7 Dec., 1690); the Council of Trent (Sess. XIII, cap. viii; Sess. XXII, cap. vi) and Innocent XI (12 Feb., 1679) had already emphasized the permissibility of even daily Communion. To root out the last vestiges of Jansenistic rigorism, Pius X issued a decree (24 Dec., 1905) wherein he allows and recommends daily Communion to the entire laity and requires but two conditions for its permissibility, namely, the state of grace and a right and pious intention.”

    Charles Williams’s poem, “The Sister of Percivale” (1938), ends with a hair-raising imagination of distracted, misdirected attention and spiritual Communion going wrong or failing to take place during a celebration at the Court of King Arthur.

  27. Atra Dicenda, Rubra Agenda says:

    Father should we be organizing the purchase and hand distribution of this book to our countries bishops?

    I figure we would need to physical place it into the bishops’ hands or it would likely go the way of minor altars, iconography, statuary, and gregorian chant and wind up in a liberal episcopal assistant’s dumpster…

  28. robtbrown says:

    acardnal says:
    Edward Pentin, of the “National Catholic Reporter

    “The fact that these three points remain in the document despite only having a “qualified majority” has surprised some observers.

    Vatican II: It’s deja vu all over again.

  29. acardnal says:

    Here is the video of Michael Voris interviewing Edward Pentin, of NCR, about his Cdl. Kasper reporting:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPXxsanvT5Y&list=UUX17igkZ9JhU64JoTBVSWeQ

  30. Father G says:

    @acardnal,
    You’re mistaken. Edward Pentin writes for the National Catholic Register .

  31. acardnal says:

    I knew that. My mistake. The National Catholic REGISTER

  32. The Masked Chicken says:

    “whereas the Jansenists, under the leadership of Antoine Arnauld (De la fréquente communion, Paris, 1643), strenuously opposed and demanded as a condition for every Communion the ‘most perfect penitential dispositions and the purest love of God’.”

    This is too general. St. Phillip Neri, certainly no Jansenist, also recommended frequent confession, but infrequent communion on the grounds that with confession there is strength and purification, but often with the Eucharist there is suffering, as well. I don’t have a citation, at the moment.

    The Chicken

  33. ejcmartin says:

    What Cardinal Kasper must come to realize is that for many divorced and remarried persons who desire communion there is spouse and potentially children who would fail to see the mercy in readmitting them to communion. The hurt and sense of abandonment can be immense. To see their former spouse, mother or father, so readily welcomed back into the Church without so much as some basic level of contrition for their actions would only cut deeper the wounds. As one who as a teenager saw his father run off with a woman closer to age to me than my father, in addition to having a spouse enact a “no fault” divorce for no other reason other than “they found someone else” I only foresee this desire for “mercy” only deepening the hurt and in many cases backfire.

  34. excalibur says:

    This was a victory in an ongoing war. They’ll be back, and in 2015, with a larger gathering. Will Cardinal Burke be there? Will others who openly opposed be ‘disappeared’? Stay tuned as this battle has only just begun.

    What are we to make of His Holiness when he says what he said?

    VATICAN CITY — Pope Francis on Sunday, as he beatified Pope Paul VI who implemented the Second Vatican Council’s vast changes, called on the church to adapt to “changing conditions of society.”

    His remarks took on added meaning as the bishops ended a two-week conference by rejecting landmark wording that would soften the church’s stance toward homosexuality and divorce.

    “God is not afraid of new things,” Francis pointedly said during the beatification Mass.”

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/10/19/pope-francis-synod/17551189/

    Sorry, Your Holiness, but there is nothing new under the sun. And by that very remark is there any doubt remaining that the driver of the change was, and is, Francis I?

  35. codefro says:

    but here is the real question: why is he not wearing his Augustinian habit…?

  36. acricketchirps says:

    I knew that. My mistake. The National Catholic REGISTER
    If Michael Voris and and National Catholic Reporter reporter are in the same room they both explode, are annilhilated, and leave pure energy. That’s the way I learned it in high school.

  37. Kathleen10 says:

    Great concluding thoughts, Fr. Z.
    There is no doubt they will be back, and as excalibur said “with a larger gathering”. The “how” of getting these things accomplished is old hat now. Keep pecking away.
    It has to be a good thing our eyes have been opened and now we know, or at least, I feel I have seen and heard enough and can draw what seems like logical conclusions. At least the interminable speculation is done with.

  38. Marissa says:

    Charles Williams’s poem, “The Sister of Percivale” (1938), ends with a hair-raising imagination of distracted, misdirected attention and spiritual Communion going wrong or failing to take place during a celebration at the Court of King Arthur.

    That…was the most confusing poem I’ve ever read. Can you explain what was happening in it? How was it describing a spiritual communion? I’m scratching my head here. It sounded like an old guy using big words and geometry terms to check out babes?

  39. excalibur says:

    From Rorate.

    **********************************************************************************************

    Archbishop Stanis?aw G?decki, archbishop of Poznan, Poland, and president of his nation’s episcopate, is glad with himself and with the others who thought as he did for the determined criticism of the relatio post disceptationem of the Synod on the Family. The Polish prelate denounced a clear separation with the teaching of John Paul II on the issue, as well as the unclear vision about the purpose of the Synod itself.

    Speaking yesterday to Polish radio, G?decki reiterated that many of the Synod Fathers shared his feelings, considering that text “strongly ideologized, because it considered more the sociological than the theological side,” but above all because “some of its theses seemed to devastate the magisterium of the Church.”

    “I am under the impression that, had I had not spoken up, things might have ended up even worse. I consider that there was a need to say something, because of the calls rising up from the families, they were terrified. Something had to be said, so as not to confirm to people the certainty that we were about to abandon the doctrine of the Church. Because everything had to have a more serious format, more detailed and analyzed.”

    “Thankfully – the Polish prelate added – the circuli minores carried out a very serious work, considering word by word, and that which ended up in the third text is much more serious, thank God.”

    The President of the Polish bishops considers that at the recent Synod “nothing revolutionary happened.” The 1981 exhortation ‘Familiaris Consortio’, of John Paul II, “had already expounded everything long before that.” What happens is that “everyone has forgotten it, and now there is the impression that the Church has suddenly become merciful, while she wasn’t before. That she has become enlightened, and wasn’t before.”

    “These are all delusions, that are the product of nearsightedness, of the fact that we look at the past two weeks to exclaim: this did not exist before! Instead, all this already existed. The impression cannot be given that for two millennia there had been no mercy in the Church, that mercy now shows up unexpectedly. Mercy makes sense if it is related to truth,” Archbishop Stanis?aw G?decki declared to Polish state radio. [Source, in Italian]

  40. Mike says:

    “This is what discussion looks like.” Spot-on.

  41. Venerator Sti Lot says:

    Marissa,

    Thank you for taking the trouble to look up the poem and for then picking me up on this!

    My apologies that I wrong-footed you (and anybody else) before ‘tossing you in at the deep end of the pool’ (so to speak), as well!

    I gave the wrong title! I was thinking of the last stanza, not of “The Sister…”, but of “The Star of Percivale” (in the same collection)! There, the Archbishop Dubric is celebrating Mass:

    The household kneeled; the Lord Balin the Savage moved
    restless, through-thrust with a causeless vigil of anger;
    the king in the elevation beheld and loved himself crowned;
    Lancelot’s gaze at the Host found only a ghost of the Queen.

    Balin has used the relic of the Spear which pierced our Lord’s side to wound his royal host, King Pelles, and will later unknowingly fight to the death with his brother, each killing the other: he is imagined as driven by habitual “causeless” and unrepented anger (if I understand it correctly). The king here, is Arthur, who has, in his heart of hearts, been tempted with the thought “the king made for the kingdom, or the kingdom for the king?”, and succumbed to the sin of ‘worshipping and serving the creature rather than the Creator’ (Romans 1:25), treating his calling to kingship as given for his enjoyment on his own terms rather than a way of serving Christ, and not yet repenting of this. The Queen is Arthur’s wife, Guinevere (whose coat of arms are a red chalice on a silver field!), whom Arthur regards much as he regards his kingship and kingdom, which he has also not yet repented of. Lancelot is adulterously in love with Guinevere, which he has not yet repented of. (I think by this point of the story, it is a mutual adultery, committed in the flesh and not only in the heart.)

    I could also try to explain what is happening in “The Sister of Percivale”, but it will take up a lot of Fr. Z’s combox! C.S. Lewis makes a good attempt at it, in a book called Arthurian Torso (1948).

    Basically, what you describe in that poem as ‘an old guy [Arthur’s poet laureate, Taliessin: not meant to be so old, I think] checking out babes’ is meant to be non-adulterously in both cases: in the second case, it is meant to be an experience like Dante’s first seeing Beatrice – except in this story, neither marry anyone – they have a ‘brother-sister love’ and Blanchefleur (whose virgin brother, Percivale, is one of the three knights who ‘achieve’ the Holy Grail) become a nun.

    (The author was a comparatively ‘old guy’ when he wrote this – in his fifties and married to his ‘Beatrice’ for about about 20 years with a son in his teens – and ‘checking out babes’ in some pretty hair-raising ways was a big problem in his life, about which very few people knew until around 30 years after his death – his friend, Lewis, clearly never among those ‘in the know’. This may be a good reason not to read the poetry, or to read it very carefully in more than one sense, but the stanza I quote seems – to me – a good example of a weirdly sinful poet seeing clearly.)