http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/com...-now-in-a-full-blown-civil-war-over-doctrine/ The Church is now in a full-blown civil war over doctrine Cardinal Coccopalmerio's book is only the latest example of Catholic teaching being questioned A few weeks ago, the Jesuit journal La Civiltà Cattolica published a startling article on women priests. Its arguments were familiar: the author, deputy editor Fr Giancarlo Pani, asked readers to consider whether an all-male priesthood might perhaps be outdated. “There is unease,” Fr Pani wrote, “among those who fail to understand how the exclusion of woman from the Church’s ministry can coexist with the affirmation and appreciation of her equal dignity.” What is startling is that this appeared in a journal edited by one of the Pope’s closest advisers, Fr Antonio Spadaro; a journal very close to the Holy See – every page is vetted by the Vatican – which the Pope recently praised. It suggests that the Church, even at its highest levels, is now entering a full-blown civil war over doctrine. There was a further example yesterday, when Vatican Radio promoted a new book by Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio, the president of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts. Cardinal Coccopalmerio says that the divorced and remarried can receive Communion if they have some wish to change their situation – even if they are not endeavouring to live “as brother and sister”. In some cases, the cardinal says, avoiding sex may be “an impossibility”. He gives the example of a man who is deserted by his wife. The man starts living with another woman. She helps to raise his kids. If the relationship breaks down, the man could be plunged into “deep despair” and the children would be left without a maternal figure. The cardinal writes: “Leaving the union would mean, therefore, not fulfilling a moral duty towards innocent persons.” If avoiding sex would “cause difficulty”, then they should continue having sex to keep the relationship going. The implications of Cardinal Coccopalmerio’s argument seem at odds with the Church’s doctrine. To take the most obvious point first, the cardinal’s view that an adulterous sexual relationship is compatible with receiving Communion is simply in a head-on clash with Catholic teaching. That the two are incompatible has been taught by Pope St John Paul II in 1981, Benedict XVI in 2007, and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1994, not to mention Popes St Innocent I, St Zachary, St Nicholas I … One could go on. But this is not the only problem with Cardinal Coccopalmerio’s book. Take his assumption that avoiding sex may be an “impossibility”. It is very hard to square this with the Council of Trent’s declaration: “If anyone says that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to observe, let him be anathema.” That means that God, our loving Father, will never stop helping us out. But Cardinal Coccopalmerio thinks that avoiding sin may sometimes be beyond us. Again, the cardinal’s conclusions about continence “causing difficulty” seem dubious. St Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, condemned the idea that one could “do evil so that good may come of it”. The Church has interpreted this very strictly. St Thomas Aquinas, following this perennial teaching, said that one should not have adulterous sex even if it could save an entire country from disaster. But Cardinal Coccopalmerio thinks one can have adulterous sex if it would “cause difficulty” not to. As for the question of Communion itself: clearly, someone in a continuing adulterous relationship is at high risk of being a state of mortal sin. Only God knows, but if someone is committing a grave sin, while “discerning” their path in relation to Catholic teaching, then this is a pretty substantial possibility. And taking Communion in a state of mortal sin is, according to St John Vianney, patron saint of parish priests, the worst sin of all – worse than crucifying Christ. Many of the divorced and remarried stay away from Communion precisely to avoid committing a mortal sin. Cardinal Coccopalmerio’s approach suggests that this risk is, in some cases, too insignificant to be an obstacle. Now, of course, the cardinal does not say any of this outright. He does not say, “I think John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and the tradition of the Church are wrong. I suspect the moral law may sometimes be impossible to keep. I have no problem, in principle, with doing evil so that good may come of it. And I do not think that receiving Communion in a state of mortal sin is such a terrible sin that we need to take great precautions against it.” But the mere fact that he does not say these things is hardly a comfort. The less generous interpretation would be that religious error always tries to avoid clarity. Blessed John Henry Newman noted that the Arians used “vague ambiguous language, which … would seem to bear a Catholic sense, but which, when worked out in the long run, would prove to be heterodox”. The more generous view is that the cardinal has not quite thought through his words, and would retract them if he realised what they implied. Cardinal Coccopalmerio is a senior Vatican figure: his book has appeared with evident support from within the Vatican, and without official contradiction. And his opinion is close to that of many other prelates (such as the bishops of Malta and most of those in Germany). So the debate about Communion can no longer be seen – if it ever could – as a marginal squabble between “liberals” and “conservatives”. Nor can it be framed as a question of whether you prefer a bit more mercy or a bit more justice. It is now, quite plainly, a debate about whether the teaching of the Church is still valid. And that means the debate will run and run.
This is arrant outright public, blatant, heresy and there can be doubt whatsoever that it is done with the support of the Vatican itself. No doubt whatsoever. Blatant public heresy of the very worst kind.
Alright... stick with me on this one... So Cardinal Cocc's book states one can receive communion if in an adulterous affair if avoiding sex is an "impossibility". By this, he is going against St. Paul who condemned the idea that one could “do evil so that good may come of it". So the Cardinal is basically saying if you do evil for the right reasons, good may come from it. By this logic (the Cardinal's, not mine), one could argue if under a similar circumstance; that is, someone feels that doing evil can propagate good, if a Catholic saw that his Holy Catholic Church was being taken over by blasphemers and heretics, that Catholic could murder those blasphemers and heretics to do good for the Church. Even though murder is wrong (as is adultery), by killing these people, the murderer would be doing good. (his logic, not mine) Right? If I were this Cardinal, I would think long and hard about putting this bad information out there. Someone, less rational than myself may interpret it as I have but may not have the same moral fortitude. Disclaimer: I don't condone murdering anyone... ever.
To say that God would ask too much of anyone to avoid mortal sin is blasphemous! This denies the TRUE mercy of God. He would never put someone in a situation where their only option is to commit mortal sin. This is a diabolical twisting of the truth!
This new attempt to change Church teaching not only coddles people in their mortal sin but encourages others to sin as well. What kind of person is going to struggle to maintain chastity when the Church is telling them they don't have to? It is one of the toughest things a person can do in life. Of course it is difficult for almost any couple who were sexually active with each other and still have a desire to be to intimate to live together in continence. I dare say you would be hard pressed to find a couple who would think it easy. Condoning mortal sin is never the answer. This whole thing is just absolutely ridiculous. It would be funny if it weren't so serious. The fact that people can swallow this is beyond me.
It is the Word of Christ that the Curch teaches and has always taught and has through members gone to the scaffold by the thousands to uphold. The sheer viciousness of a Cardinal apparently speaking for the Vatican , publishing this is a horror. An offense against the Holy Spirit who gives us the Word. This is the endgame folks. This is over the boundary on the map "where there be dragons"
General Council of Trent (1545) CHAPTER XI - The Observance Of The Commandments And The Necessity And Possibility Thereof "For God does not command impossibilities , but by commanding admonishes thee to do what thou canst and to pray for what thou canst not, and aids thee that thou mayest be able. His commandments are not heavy, and his yoke is sweet and burden light. For they who are the sons of God love Christ, but they who love Him, keep His commandments, as He Himself testifies; which, indeed, with the divine help they can do ." Canons Concerning Justification "Canon 18. If anyone says that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to observe, let him be anathema . View attachment 6133 'Cardinal Coccopalmerio says that the divorced and remarried can receive Communion if they have some wish to change their situation – even if they are not endeavouring to live “as brother and sister”. In some cases, the cardinal says, avoiding sex may be “an impossibility”.' How can this be reconciled with the statement of the Church Fathers at the Council of Trent? It cannot be , because it is outright in your face heresy. "For God does not command impossibilities ' Council of Trent
I am delighted that God is allowing full blown heresy to manifest itself and not just on adultery. What a merciful God we have that will unveil the evil intents of our hierarchy so that the many good, but confused people (even on MOG) will eventually see. They might go along with the spin on adultery and perhaps even the next battle on women priests, but eventually when all the heresies come out one by one it might just be enough for them to realize it and repent and join the remnant in fighting the good fight.
Thank you for posting the appropriate references Padraig. I honestly cannot believe this is happening. It is in such blatant and obvious contradiction to everything that went before.
We are very blessed. It is like a giant flashing red light for the faithful. More and more people are seeing through the facade. What is being proposed is the "easy way". The way of the world. Prophecy has told us this was coming for so long. God is so merciful. He always warns His children.
c. 305 - Council of Elvira Canon 8: Also women who, without cause, leave their husbands and marry again, are not to be received into communion even at the last. Canon 9: Also a baptized woman who leaves a baptized husband on the ground of his adultery and marries again, is to be prohibited from marrying; if she marry, she is not to be received into communion until the husband whom she has left be departed out of this life, unless perchance extremity of sickness demand it be given her. http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/ctsa/article/viewFile/2633/2281#page=36 c. 314 AD - Council of Arles We decree that, in so far as it is possible, a man who has dismissed his wife be forbidden as something unlawful to marry another woman while his first wife is still alive. But whoever should do this shall be cut off from Catholic communion. http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/ctsa/article/viewFile/2633/2281#page=37 404 AD - Pope Innocent I’s Letter to St. Vitricius, Bishop of Rouen For if this rule is universally observed, that whosoever during the lifetime of her husband shall have married another is accounted an adulteress, and permission to do penance is not accorded to her, unless one or other of them (the husbands) be dead : how much more ought it to be observed of her, who had in former time united herself to an Immortal Spouse, and has since passed over to human nuptials." http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/ctsa/article/viewFile/2633/2281#page=28 405 AD - Pope Innocent I’s Letter to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse You wish to know why men who are communicants do not remain with their adulterous wives, while wives, on the other hand, seem to retain cohabitation with their adulterous husbands. On this matter the Christian religion condemns adultery equally in both sexes. It is difficult for wives to accuse their husbands of adultery and they have no recourse against hidden sins. Men, however, are accustomed to bring charges against their wives with greater frequency and because of this, communion is denied to the wives once their crime is exposed. But since the commission of the crime by the husbands is hidden, it would not be expedient to keep them away from communion on mere suspicion. I grant that if their crime were detected, they would certainly be punished. Though the causes be the same, while proof is lacking, the penalty for the crime cannot be carried out…. You have inquired also about those who, after obtaining a divorce, have married again. It is clearly evident that both parties are adulterers. Those men who, while the wife is still living, hasten to another union, though their marriage seem to have been dissolved, evidently cannot be other than adulterers. This is so true that those women to whom the men in question have united themselves have also committed adultery according to that which we read in the gospels: "Whosoever shall put away his wife and shall marry another, commits adultery and likewise he that marries her when she is put away, commits adultery." All such persons, therefore, are to be kept out of the communion of the faithful. http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/ctsa/article/viewFile/2633/2281#page=29 407 AD - 11th Council of Carthage Ses. 9, Canon 8. (listed as canon 102 of Code of Canons of the African Church) We decree that, according to evangelical and apostolical discipline, neither the husband dismissed by his wife nor the wife dismissed by her husband may marry another, but each must either remain single or be reconciled to the other. If they disobey this law, then they must do penance. Application must be made for the promulgation of an imperial law on this matter. http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/ctsa/article/viewFile/2633/2281#page=38 404 AD - Pope Innocent I’s Letter to St. Vitricius, Bishop of Rouen For if this rule is universally observed, that whosoever during the lifetime of her husband shall have married another is accounted an adulteress, and permission to do penance is not accorded to her, unless one or other of them (the husbands) be dead : how much more ought it to be observed of her, who had in former time united herself to an Immortal Spouse, and has since passed over to human nuptials." http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/ctsa/article/viewFile/2633/2281#page=28 405 AD - Pope Innocent I’s Letter to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse You wish to know why men who are communicants do not remain with their adulterous wives, while wives, on the other hand, seem to retain cohabitation with their adulterous husbands. On this matter the Christian religion condemns adultery equally in both sexes. It is difficult for wives to accuse their husbands of adultery and they have no recourse against hidden sins. Men, however, are accustomed to bring charges against their wives with greater frequency and because of this, communion is denied to the wives once their crime is exposed. But since the commission of the crime by the husbands is hidden, it would not be expedient to keep them away from communion on mere suspicion. I grant that if their crime were detected, they would certainly be punished. Though the causes be the same, while proof is lacking, the penalty for the crime cannot be carried out…. You have inquired also about those who, after obtaining a divorce, have married again. It is clearly evident that both parties are adulterers. Those men who, while the wife is still living, hasten to another union, though their marriage seem to have been dissolved, evidently cannot be other than adulterers. This is so true that those women to whom the men in question have united themselves have also committed adultery according to that which we read in the gospels: "Whosoever shall put away his wife and shall marry another, commits adultery and likewise he that marries her when she is put away, commits adultery." All such persons, therefore, are to be kept out of the communion of the faithful. http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/ctsa/article/viewFile/2633/2281#page=29 407 AD - 11th Council of Carthage Ses. 9, Canon 8. (listed as canon 102 of Code of Canons of the African Church) We decree that, according to evangelical and apostolical discipline, neither the husband dismissed by his wife nor the wife dismissed by her husband may marry another, but each must either remain single or be reconciled to the other. If they disobey this law, then they must do penance. Application must be made for the promulgation of an imperial law on this matter. http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/ctsa/article/viewFile/2633/2281#page=38 404 AD - Pope Innocent I’s Letter to St. Vitricius, Bishop of Rouen For if this rule is universally observed, that whosoever during the lifetime of her husband shall have married another is accounted an adulteress, and permission to do penance is not accorded to her, unless one or other of them (the husbands) be dead : how much more ought it to be observed of her, who had in former time united herself to an Immortal Spouse, and has since passed over to human nuptials." http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/ctsa/article/viewFile/2633/2281#page=28 405 AD - Pope Innocent I’s Letter to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse You wish to know why men who are communicants do not remain with their adulterous wives, while wives, on the other hand, seem to retain cohabitation with their adulterous husbands. On this matter the Christian religion condemns adultery equally in both sexes. It is difficult for wives to accuse their husbands of adultery and they have no recourse against hidden sins. Men, however, are accustomed to bring charges against their wives with greater frequency and because of this, communion is denied to the wives once their crime is exposed. But since the commission of the crime by the husbands is hidden, it would not be expedient to keep them away from communion on mere suspicion. I grant that if their crime were detected, they would certainly be punished. Though the causes be the same, while proof is lacking, the penalty for the crime cannot be carried out…. You have inquired also about those who, after obtaining a divorce, have married again. It is clearly evident that both parties are adulterers. Those men who, while the wife is still living, hasten to another union, though their marriage seem to have been dissolved, evidently cannot be other than adulterers. This is so true that those women to whom the men in question have united themselves have also committed adultery according to that which we read in the gospels: "Whosoever shall put away his wife and shall marry another, commits adultery and likewise he that marries her when she is put away, commits adultery." All such persons, therefore, are to be kept out of the communion of the faithful. http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/ctsa/article/viewFile/2633/2281#page=29
407 AD - 11th Council of Carthage Ses. 9, Canon 8. (listed as canon 102 of Code of Canons of the African Church) We decree that, according to evangelical and apostolical discipline, neither the husband dismissed by his wife nor the wife dismissed by her husband may marry another, but each must either remain single or be reconciled to the other. If they disobey this law, then they must do penance. Application must be made for the promulgation of an imperial law on this matter. http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/ctsa/article/viewFile/2633/2281#page=38 658 - Council of Nantes Canon 12. If a man's wife shall have committed adultery and this has been discovered and made public by the man, let him dismiss his wife, if he wants to, because of the fornication. The wife, however, is to do public penance for seven years. But the husband cannot in any way marry another while his wife is alive. But he has permission to be reconciled with his adulterous wife if he so chooses. In this case, however, he must do penance with her and after penance has been completed, after seven years both may go to communion. The same procedure is to be followed by the wife if her husband committed adultery against her. http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/ctsa/article/viewFile/2633/2281#page=46 681 - 12th Council of Toledo It is the command of the Lord that a wife must not be dismissed by her husband except for the cause of fornication. Therefore whoever goes beyond the guilt of the crime mentioned above and leaves his wife for any reason whatsoever . . . is to be deprived of ecclesiastical communion and excluded from the community of Christians until such time that he returns to the society of his abandoned wife. http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/ctsa/article/viewFile/2633/2281#page=41 791 - Council of Friuli Canon 10. Likewise it is decreed that, even though the bond of marriage be dissolved because of fornication, it is not permitted to the husband to take another wife as long as his adulterous wife still lives, despite the fact that she is an adulteress. But the adulteress, who must undergo the severest penalties and the pain of penance, cannot take another husband, whether her husband, whom she was not ashamed of betraying, be living or dead.. . . Hence it is clearly understood that as long as the adulterous wife lives, the husband cannot lawfully or without impunity contract a second marriage. http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/ctsa/article/viewFile/2633/2281#page=44 1061 - Council of Tours Canon 9. That any man who dismisses his wife without the judgment of the bishop and has married another or will marry another, let him realize that, until he has given himself over to penance effectively, he is to be excluded and withdrawn from the body and blood of Our Lord Jesus and from the precincts of the Church and to be regarded by all as a putrid member cut off from the sound body by the sword of the spirit. http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/ctsa/article/viewFile/2633/2281#page=39 1139 – Second Lateran Council 22. …there is one thing that conspicuously causes great disturbance to holy church, namely, false penance, we warn our brothers in the episcopate and priests not to allow the souls of the laity to be deceived or dragged off to hell by false penances. It is agreed that a penance is false when many sins are disregarded and a penance is performed for one only, or when it is done for one sin in such a way that the penitent does not renounce another. Thus it is written: Whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point, has become guilty of all of it; this evidently pertains to eternal life. https://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/LATERAN2.HTM Council of Trent and Post-Tridentine Period November 11, 1563 – Council of Trent But no one, however much justified, should consider himself exempt from the observance of the commandments; no one should use that rash statement, once forbidden by the Fathers under anathema, that the observance of the commandments of God is impossible for one that is justified. For God does not command impossibilities, but by commanding admonishes thee to do what thou canst and to pray for what thou canst not, and aids thee that thou mayest be able. His commandments are not heavy, and his yoke is sweet and burden light. For they who are the sons of God love Christ, but they who love Him, keep His commandments, as He Himself testifies; which, indeed, with the divine help they can do. (Session 6, Chapter 11) Against the subtle wits of some also, who by pleasing speeches and good words seduce the hearts of the innocent, it must be maintained that the grace of justification once received is lost not only by infidelity, whereby also faith itself is lost, but also by every other mortal sin, though in this case faith is not lost; thus defending the teaching of the divine law which excludes from the kingdom of God not only unbelievers, but also the faithful [who are] fornicators, adulterers, effeminate, liars with mankind, thieves, covetous, drunkards, railers, extortioners,[92] and all others who commit deadly sins, from which with the help of divine grace they can refrain, and on account of which they are cut off from the grace of Christ. (Session 6, Chapter 15) If anyone says that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to observe, let him be anathema. (Session 6, Canon 18) http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/trent6.htm If anyone says that faith alone is a sufficient preparation for receiving the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist, let him be anathema. And lest so great a sacrament be received unworthily and hence unto death and condemnation, this holy council ordains and declares that sacramental confession, when a confessor can be had, must necessarily be made beforehand by those whose conscience is burdened with mortal sin, however contrite they may consider themselves. Moreover, if anyone shall presume to teach, preach or obstinately assert, or in public disputation defend the contrary, he shall be eo ipso excommunicated. (Session 13, Canon 11) http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/trent13.htm If any one says, that it is lawful for Christians to have several wives at the same time, and that this is not prohibited by any divine law; let him be anathema. (Session 24, Canon 2) If anyone says that the bond of matrimony can be dissolved on account of heresy,[11] or irksome cohabitation, or by reason of the voluntary absence of one of the parties, let him be anathema. (Session 24, Canon 5) If anyone says that the Church errs in that she taught and teaches that in accordance with evangelical and apostolic doctrine the bond of matrimony cannot be dissolved by reason of adultery on the part of one of the parties, and that both, or even the innocent party who gave no occasion for adultery, cannot contract another marriage during the lifetime of the other, and that he is guilty of adultery who, having put away the adulteress, shall marry another, and she also who, having put away the adulterer, shall marry another,[13] let him be anathema. (Session 24, Canon 7.) If anyone says that matrimonial causes do not belong to ecclesiastical judges, let him be anathema.” (Session 24, Canon 12) [Affirming the validity, but not their licity of clandestine marriages, the Council of Trent condemns] “the sins of those who continue in the state of damnation, when having left the first wife with whom they contracted secretly, they publicly marry another and live with her in continual adultery.” (Session 24, Chapter 1) https://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/trent24.htm
