Apostasy

Padraig, I visit two other forums, one of which is Charlie Johnston's. It seems the same issues are cropping up everywhere. Look at Charlie's latest post! I hope you get guidance to continue. If time is indeed short we will all hasten here chastened and in great need (if communications stay up). Just like 9/11 but even more so.

Harper

 

Lord, please be with Padraig in this moment as he seeks you and discerns your will. Mary, cover him in your mantle of love and protection. Amen.

 

What a timely reading from tomorrow's Mass. I think it applies very much to not only our little forum, but to the world and the discussions taking place all over.

Reading 2JAS 3:16—4:3
Beloved:
Where jealousy and selfish ambition exist,
there is disorder and every foul practice.
But the wisdom from above is first of all pure,
then peaceable, gentle, compliant,
full of mercy and good fruits,
without inconstancy or insincerity.
And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace
for those who cultivate peace.

Where do the wars
and where do the conflicts among you come from?
Is it not from your passions
that make war within your members?
You covet but do not possess.
You kill and envy but you cannot obtain;
you fight and wage war.
You do not possess because you do not ask.
You ask but do not receive,
because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions.

 

Well spoken Heidi.
Though Mac's rigorists (probably St Jerome too) used to try and tell widows that they shouldn't remarry.

 

I don't know but my understanding is when two are joined to become one...the souls united in a special way. That is why marrage is a vocation. While a priestly vocaton is a individual endeavor. Being married is a act of two people uniting to follow God together. I think God has a special place for souls that are united by the vocation of marriage.

I get the point that a widow can remarry... but a very special marriage where it became a vocation. It would be hard to find another soul to unite with. I just think God has a special place for the souls that have the vocation of marriage.

Brother al

 

I hope that we "know" the souls of all our loved ones in Heaven. But the way I look at it is we are in the spiritual sense brothers and sisters in Christ. So while on earth, I have the vocation of husband and father, but my eternal vocation is as a brother to my wife and yes to my children. I see my vocation here on earth to help my wife and children get to Heaven and of course, they are to help me too. After we hopefully get there, it's up to The Lord on how we commune.

 

You are correct...the great mystery.

 

The interesting part is...are there different rooms in heaven. Or like the apostles asked can I be next to YOU in heaven. Angels have a order...so does nature. Can two souls be united as one.

Brother al

 

The Church consists of Militant, Suffering and Triumphant divisions. So more than two thirds are not heading into apostasy. The word saint as used by St Paul is the Hebrew Qadosh and means set aside by God and called to moral perfection. Modern usage indicates that the Church confirms heroic virtue in this calling and that they are perfected in heaven. We are all called to this perfection but have not finished the race. Insofar as this applies FS is right...we are all saints. As most of you know I used to post under my real name. A combination of vulnerability and resentment lead to a brief absence just before my last birthday. I really missed not being wished a happy birthday and I think my hasty decision was partly a result of a history of rejection. I was beating the gun. I thought I had come to better terms with this but it seems not. Divorce is a terrible thing. Annulment does not soothe the pain. But the rejection goes back to childhood. I hate to admit I still let it affect me. My brain MRI is being reviewed as it shows degenerative changes and atrophy of moderate significance and beyond what eould be expected for my age. I was reliably informed the original report was couched in terms that would save money for the health service. My daily headaches andcexhaustion may have been caused or at least worsened by my car accident in 2013 but the state insurance will not buy that. Shortly after leaving the forum I reappeared as Aloysius which is my confimation name. I would like to apoligise to all those who made me so welcome in my first stay here under my full name for going without explanation. As you can see I am far from moral perfection but I am still trying to answer the call. I don't even know if this means anything to anyone. But if it does, please forgive my lack of consideration. This part of the Church Militant (me) will not apostasise or give up the fight. I will stay within the church loyal to Our Holy Father. Its good to know the Church Suffering and The Church Triumphant are on the side of Truth and will be fighting for the rest of the Church during the Synod. The Apostasy will not destroy the Church. Repairs will be done and it will recover not as it is but in a new skin for the new wine. The heart however will remain the same, Sacred and Immaculate and Triumphant, a fully functional syncytium.

 

God bless you, Aloysius. Quite a cross you have been given to bear.

 

Thank you for your kindness DeG. May I ask why DeGaulle?

 

I wish I knew how to insert scenes and tag Padraig and the likers in them. I would have inserted here the painting of the woman knitting in gleeful anticipation of the guillotine coming down and the heads rolling during the French Revolution. I think my sense of humour is returning. Whats that lever for...oops

 

There is a funny clip on utube of a Guillotine scene in Scarlett Pimpernel. The blade keeps sticking and the victim is spared. Thanks for your scene. Its kinda scarey

 

On a more serious note. This little joke of mine led me to another clip of the 14 Carmelite nuns and two convent servants of Compiegne being executed by the Guillotine in 1794. They sang a hymn all the way to the scaffold their voices being silenced one by one. Fittingly an opera was made which honoured their bravery and martyrdom. No apostasy here.

 

How do you do that?

 

View attachment 3460

 

Hi Padraig
Since our debacle has happened in public I thought I should end it in public. You came to mind during the prayers of the faithful at mass tonight when one was said for those people who are asked to love people who make their lives difficult. This was never my intention. I am sitting in my car outside church in the small town of Paeroa (pronounced Pai-row-ah) whose only claim to fame is a fizzy drink that used to be made here. The readings were very apt. You asked what I meant when I said the Scriptures and Catechism were imperfect. Truthfully I did not give it much thought at the time. I just thought that anything which is mediated by human agency cannot be entirely perfect perfect. I was not trying to be intellectual or academic. Afterwards I thought that any instruction that needs to be changed could not have been perfect in the first place. While the Source of that instruction has always been perfect and is perfect the catechism has changed over the years. Only God is perfect. God never changes. That need for revision does not make it erroneous. My first catechism was the penny catechism. That was perfect for me and in many ways, still is. But we are told that when we are adults, we put away childish ways......except the simple trust we had as children. Similarly the bible has undergone many translations. That does not mean any of the approved versions have been misleading or erroneous. They have served the work of God which is that we may believe in The One whom He has sent. In this they are perfect. The Catechism has not been finalised in its compiliation or presentation. But in its present form it is perfect for God's purpose. No version of the Bible has been declared perfect in its translation. But they are perfect for our needs and God's will. I believe there is only one version that has the approval of the Catholic Church in America; the NAB. When I read St Paul on his understanding of the mystery of marriage we feel his uncertainty. But this is not doubt. He expresses faith, our Faith, that requires perfecting in ourselves. In this he is very humble, like a child looking up to a loving parent for reassurance that he is on the right track. I find his way to be very humbling. He is in the presence of Truth and acknowleges its mystery and his need for it. Here he is enveloped in his own cloud of unknowing only to clear when the Son comes again on His own cloud. You must have climbed a mountain early in the morning and watch the vista being revealed as the sun dispels the mist and clouds with its heat. I did not want to overcomplicate my comment but just to assure you I am no heretic and nothing could be further from my intention than to spread heresy. I am no intellectual, no academic. From now I will not even try to engage in such exercises. Even in this matter I was not trying to be clever. I am sorry that my inadequacy caused you so much upset and for that I ask your forgiveness. As you may have seen from recent comments my MRI, while clear of cancer, has shown degeneration in my brain that is beyond my years. This may mean I face Altzeimers. I am to undergo further tests. I always knew I wasn't quite right in the head. I hope I have not compounded your anxiety by this treatise. That was not my intention. It never has been. If I am still in error please point it out. I will not respond. I will take a backseat for a while and give your old head a rest. If you would prefer I go that is fine too. It may give me more time to do my work. God bless and keep you.
Joe aka 007, Bond, James Bond.

 

I think I know what you mean MC, unfortunately I don't think that wasn't quite what your words were actually saying. (The only reason I am making a thing of this is because the way you expressed things is literally how some people actually think about ALL the remarried - they are sinning mortally (ie destined for hell) while they choose to stay in their alleged 2nd marriage. Yet that isn't really what our Church teaches).

But of course what you re-expressed above is what I believe also - however lets tease it out to its various logical conclusions...
We personally sin according to what we believe to be the case yes, but there is still an objective order regardless of our mistaken notions.
King Oedipus was still engaging in incest ("grave matter", "intrinsically evil", "gravely disordered", "a grave transgression of Natural Law") even though nobody knew he was married to his own mother.
So we say this is a "transgression" he did do... but it was "not imputable" to him as a personal sin (he did not "commit" a mortal sin). And this is for the reason you say, Oedipus reasonably thought all was kosha.

Now if a person in a 2nd marriage receives an Annulment for the 1st marriage - this is declaration (to the best of our imperfect objective human abilities) by legitimate human authority that no marriage bond ever existed. Were they therefore objectively fornicating during their first co-habitation? Well, just like Oedipus, a Canon Lawyer (and a Moral Theologian) I believe would say, strictly speaking, yes they were. However this "grave matter", this "disordered activity" was not "imputable" to them because they reasonably did not know at the time. As you rightly say, nor are the children illegitimate. They were, by human (ie Ecclesial) law (though not by Natural law) legally "married" at the time. It seems the matter of legitimacy is simply about "Ecclesial law" not "Natural law".

What if one of them woke up one day and concluded, after years of abuse or some other trauma, in conscience there was something wrong with their marriage...and probably had been from the start?
(Obviously this happens - that is why one partner sometimes gathers courage and unilaterally separates, even when a good practising Catholic/parent in every other respect...and even eventually remarry...and happily.) They do so not only out of weakness or desire to better bring up their children, but sometimes because they truly believe in conscience they were not really married in the first place.

If someone wakes up one day and sincerely believes that, then the Church actually obliges them to seek a finding from the Marriage Tribunal. Not many Catholics know this. But it seems to be based on the very principle you mentioned above. It is not stated, but I believe is implied, that they should live as brother and sister because to sincerely believe there is no bond would mean sexual relations would be immoral. Of course this is a moot point. Most couples have already separated if things have got to that point.

But what happens if such a woman has taken the kids and left her husband for very good reason, believing there never was a marriage...but for purely technical reasons the Tribunal cannot yet find in her favour...or the procedure is stalled for similar reasons? Must she refrain from attempting a second marriage? And if she does attempt same is she living a life of adultery or fornication or simply something yet to be determined (which may be relatively innocent) when Ecclesial Law and systems eventually catch up?

Regardless of the nature of the "grave, objective matter" (i.e. is it adultery, is it fornication, or is it "natural marriage" yet to be recognised) it is highly likely it is "not imputable" because her conscience is clear and she has tried to do all that the Church has asked of someone who believes they were never married.

And if a transgression is "not imputable" it is not a personal sin. And if it is not a personal sin then sanctifying grace will still exist in her soul and be beloved of God.
And if such a person is a perfect Catholic and parent in every other way...that's usually a pretty good sign that "non-imputability" is in play. Perhaps there is personal venial sin (not exercising heroic patience and trusting in the Tribunal process perhaps).

Actually there is even a small chance she could be validly married in the "2nd" marriage in any case - as a "retro-active convalidation" (if gained after her eventual Annulment) was also granted. This means the Church recognises she was in fact free to marry the 2nd time and that marriage, before God, began back when they exchanged Christian vows publicly - which is the essence of confecting a natural marriage.
In which case there was never any grave matter involved at all in the second cohabitation (which she already subjectively believed to be the case anyhow).

This I believe is what my Professors in Canon Law and Moral Theology have led me to believe by being educated at their hands! If I have made a mistake in my analysis it will be my fault not theirs, but I believe the above to be in accord with mainstream Catholic teaching and principles. I have discussed these things with many erudite Catholic professors over the years as well.