No marriage? No papacy either.

…Let me give these men something to worry about. These men who are fracking the Church to produce the current “earthquake of mercy” are hungry for recognition and legitimacy. They want to be seen as leaders — which is why they dash out in front of every crowd, wherever it’s headed. But legitimacy is precisely what the bishops and even the pope will sacrifice if the Synod ends up approving the radical proposals that are before it.

If the pope permits divorced couples who now live in extramarital relationships to receive Holy Communion without repenting and promising celibacy, he will be sanctioning one of two things: adultery or polygamy. Marriage is, by Christ’s command, indissoluble. That was taught infallibly by the Council of Trent. If the pope denies that doctrine, if he re-shapes one of the seven sacraments so radically, he will be proving something that the Orthodox have been saying since 1870: That he is not infallible on matters of faith and morals. (Source)

The above commentary is probably one of the best that I have read thusfar.  It gets to the heart of the matter of what the Catholic Church claims for herself. I am not into trying to make excuses or explain away infallibility of the Pope or the Church.

Next year and a few months following that when the Pope writes it all up, it will be “high noon” for me personally, and likely for my family and the generations that come after us.

I can scarcely believe that I am saying this, but I mean it.  I will not be a sophist or a pretzeled fool trying to put the toothpaste back into the tube.

Either the Pope defends and upholds marriage, or the Pope has one less family to worry about.  He can minister to his new gay friends and adulterers, if it comes to that.

I am still very confident that the Holy Spirit will protect the Church, but I am also very confident that I won’t play the fool either.

I very much doubt any bishop really gives a damn about what I think.  They couldn’t care less.  But if they don’t wise up and realize that a large number of Faithful might well walk because of such insanity, they will be ministering to a shrinking number of Episcopalians and mercy will be a moot point.

13 thoughts on “No marriage? No papacy either.

  1. Don’t know, Mouse. I have every confidence that it won’t come to that. But, in theory, there is no place to hide…for any of us, if we are honest.

  2. If you’re confident the the Holy Spirit will protect the Church, then you know that to leave Her is to play the fool. You talk about the faithful who’d walk because of such insanity. If they walk, they’re not faithful. They would have overlooked an important fact: that Christ would NEVER divorce His Church. Period.

    I’m not saying it won’t be messy, but Our Lord never promised an easy ride.

    If you look at Church history, you soon find out that this nonsense is business as usual. There have always been dissidents, schismatics and heretics (and weak and bumbling popes). The Church has fried bigger fish than Cardinal Kasper and his ilk…

    Enough with this talk about leaving – you risk causing scandal to those of weaker faith than you. (I personally know some people who are confused and not being helped in the right direction after reading this blog). Besides, any decision for leaving the Church could only rest on your own private judgment, and what would that make of you? A protestant.

    Let’s focus on defeating Kasperism (by that I mean the modernist heresy and the machinations by which they make inroads).

    Stay, pray and fight.

  3. I don’t intend to go anywhere, and I have every confidence that the Holy Spirit will triumph, but it is important to lay the cards out on the table just in case those in authority do not really understand what is at stake here. And I don’t think they do. Not really.

    This is not merely a “pastoral issue” or “pastoral direction” for the Church. I reject that completely. I am not the one causing confusion. The source of the confusion is in Rome. That is the truth of it, I’m very sorry to say. Just ask Archbishop Chaput (see the blog entry I just posted).

    So, we need to ensure that every bishop on this planet knows the stakes. And what are those stakes? This is not something to be lightly dismissed. The dissenters have the Pope tacitly on their side, encouraging them, wanting a certain result. This is the greatest crisis that the Church has faced since the Reformation. In fact, it could be worse because the Reformers did not have the Pope on their side.

    I have a right as a Catholic to ask for certain things. Clarity and honesty are two of them. I will not accept any watering down of the Church’s teachings on marriage or sodomy. And I certainly won’t pretend that something hasn’t happened when it has.

    Faith is more than just blind obedience to doctrine on paper, or even to the Papacy. The doctrine has to be supported by the discipline. Period.

    If it’s not, what good is it, if not to be trampled under foot?

    I’ll figure out the theology behind it afterwards, but I have to be honest with myself before I can be honest with God.

    The only people today who are not welcome in the Church are us poor Pharisees.

  4. There is no Catholicism without the Pope. A group of bishops who oppose the Pope as a final step are just in no man’s land. Just ask the SSPX. And I’m not a sedevacantist or sedeprivationist or whatever sede is the flavour of the month.

    If, God forbid, the Pope were to declare against Catholic teaching or countenance immoral discipline, it would be incumbent on the bishops to oppose him and make him recant. If he does not, then Jesus is now part of the rainbow movement. It’s as simple as that.

    At that point is when tough decisions will have to be made by all of us.

    Does that mean the Church has defected or that Papal infallibility has been breached? Not at all. It just means that your bishop will be encouraging you to welcome your gay partner to the Eucharist on Sunday.

  5. Steve, that kind of thinking (that the Pope, when defining doctrine EX CATHEDRA can err) is anathema (read the First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ (Vatican I) you can’t break with the Pope. You’d be rejecting the First Vatican Council.

    The confused persons I’m talking about are people already flirting with SSPX and any talk coming from regular Catholics that echo the SSPX is just confirming them in the wrong direction. There is no shortage of bogus apologists out there claiming to defend the Catholic faith, but when you scratch the surface, they’re schismatic and even sedevacantists.

    This is what angers me most. The dissidents (read: modernists) will not only have succeeded in getting their false Church of Nice enshrined in the MSM, but they will also have succeeded in getting the those who seek to be faithful to the Church’s moral teachings to abandon ship.

  6. Prudential evil and stupidity have always been the risk of the church. I am amazed that it hasn’t happened in the past. (Oh wait: it has: regarding slavery). If there is a pope after Francis, he can correct the lies and scandal. Remember there was a reason why Dante had hell’s deepest pit filled with popes. John , your counsel of despair and bitterness needs to be addressed by talking to a good priest.
    If doctrinal revision happens, it will just mean that popes can’t quit. they must die in office and Benedict 16 is still the vicar of Christ and ‘Francis’ is just an antipope.

  7. Wayne,

    I have no bitterness or despair, but I do have a certain resignation should the time come.

    I can also call a spade a spade.

    The Church will not defect, and I do not believe the Pope will declare any error.

    But then again, we have some crazy times in the Church and nothing is for certain as to what will transpire. The theologians will circle the square after we’re dead and buried, but not before massive damage might be done.

  8. Wayne,
    Slavery has never formally been taught by the Church as a morally acceptable practice. Why do you seem to imply that it has?

  9. Doris,
    I don’t think any of us (certainly not me) are expecting an Ex Cathedra statement from the Pope against traditional marriage, but rather the possibility of an implicit or de facto repudiation of doctrine through new pastoral practices which effectively mean that marriage is dissoluble. Kasper has actually been clear on this: the doctrine on paper wouldn’t change. But his proposal means marriage can be dissolved.

    If the Pope were to promote such an erroneous practice, I believe that faithful bishops and laity would have a moral duty to not implement it. Wouldn’t you agree? There’s no charism of infallibility for the stuff they are dabbling in currently.

  10. The Real Catholic Church are the believers in Christ not Edifices!The New Testament Believers in Christ are called Church. Moving on to Slavery and other legalized vices as so-called human rights.The ones who called themselves Christians voted for people who allowed Slavery in Europe to Flourish! Today perversion is normalized in our democracies to Kindergarteners as human rights!Politician William Wilberforce wrote a book in 1797 in all the European languages, to make The Slavery point clear to all so-called Christians who like bury their heads in the sand Politically!Be careful of what you are talked into legalizing by Politicians and the Popular Media etc.,as it gets normalized as a so-called human right starting with Kindergarteners,thus insuring the future of so-called “neutral” Secular Paganism.William Wilberforce’s books title explains it all.” A PRACTICAL VIEW OF THE PREVAILING RELIGIOUS SYSTEM OF PROFESSED CHRISTIANS,IN THE HIGHER AND MIDDLE CLASSES IN THIS COUNTRY,CONTRASTED WITH REAL CHRISTIANITY.”

  11. I have not considered what I’d do because I’m ultra-confident that that line won’t be crossed.

    Am I bitter? I have had moments of bitterness about what’s happened? Sad. Yes. Very much so. I hope I don’t always feel that way but I do. I think that this confusion was unwarranted and I don’t think it’s about Jesuits letting an unpopular idea being discussed. I think that there is a support for softening teachings. I am distressed by this and by the public relations disaster it’s been on what the Church teaches. I am sorry to see the absolute hatred that exists for traditional Catholics in some circles of believing Catholics. I had not understood the degree of that until this discussion. Mostly I am sad for the level of caution I feel towards others. For example, I’d probably never let my kids participate in a religious education program at Church unless I was physically present. If I cannot rely on the Pope to guard Church teachings I am not going to rely on Suzie and Johnnie who signed up to teach Sunday School.

    And I wouldn’t mind a discussion about Pastoral approach. How we can teacher that gay sexual activity is a sin while still messaging inclusion for someone to attend and participate to the extent possible and how to re-engage people with Church or how to treat people – well, I’d love that. I’m hardly an example of how to do that well so I’d really love that discussion. It just cannot involve lying to people.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Solve : *
18 ⁄ 9 =