Monday, October 09, 2017

Entire Doctrinal Structure Of The Church At Risk Of Collapse?

A controversy of great magnitude is raging in the Catholic universe right now. It centres around the papal document Amoris Laetitia and threatens even to create a schism in the Catholic Church. I contend that widespread neglect of the traditional doctrine and discipline of the Church since Vatican II has paved the way for this crisis and, for decades, nowhere has this been more illustrative than in the refusal of Bishops to discipline pro-abortion public sinners, especially politicians. I would go so far as to suggest that this long term failure by Bishops has created a laissez faire environment and actually set the stage for the attack upon marriage and the family which we are currently witnessing. Either Canon 915 is to be taken seriously since it governs the worst forms of abuses of the Holy Eucharist or, if not, the Eucharist is not what Catholic teaching claims; in which case the entire doctrinal structure of the Church collapses.

Clearly, Dr. Edward Peters sees the situation in a similar light and is sounding the warning by pointing to the divine law roots of Canon 915. Here is the introductory paragraph from his post of today’s date.

For several years I and others have argued that the question of admitting divorced-and-remarried Catholics to holy Communion turns primarily on Canon 915 (which norm, against a backdrop of canons protecting the right of the faithful to access the sacraments, sets out a minister’s duty to refuse holy Communion under certain conditions). Asserting the importance of Canon 915 in this Communion discussion, however, has been an uphill battle as virtually none of the official documents central to this debate—including Amoris laetitia,the Buenos Aires letterthe Maltese directives, the German episcopal conference document, and several others—so much as mentions Canon 915, let alone do they recognize that this canon directly regulates the sacramental disciplinary question at hand.

The full posting is here. It deserves a full reading.

Unless the laity rises up—speedily—and demands unreserved fidelity from their priests and Bishops, we are approaching a meltdown, at least in practical terms, of the One True Church of Jesus Christ. God help us, we are in an abyss!

1 comment:

Catholic Mission said...

NOVEMBER 10, 2017

No clarification or response from Bishop Robert J.McManus or Brother Thomas Augustine MICM on Catholic doctrine : how did they interpret Vatican Council II and EENS?
The Slaves of the Immaculate have been recognized by the Catholic Church as a religious community with canonical status who follow the magisterium and can teach Catholic doctrine.But there is still no clarification on doctrine and theology from Brother Thomas Augustine MICM, Superior, St.Benedict Center, Still River, Massachusetts or the Chancellery Office at the Diocese of Worcester or Bishop Robert J. McManus, the bishop of Worcester.Posts on this blog have been e-mailed to them.

Here are 10 questions I ask them to please clarify for Catholics.What is the doctrinal teaching of the Catholic Church and what has been accepted by the MICM community ? Can one interpret Vatican Council II in harmony with the strict interpretation of the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation?
For me the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith/Holy Office 1949 in the Letter of the Holy Office made a mistake. The Letter assumedinvisible for us baptism of desire(BOD), baptism, of blood(BOD) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) are visible and known exceptions to Feeneyite EENS,these being examples of salvation outside the Church.I mentioned this in a previous blog post.1
So for me Fr.Leonard Feeney was correct and the Holy Office was irrational in its philosophy and new theology.Fr. Leonard Feeney was orthodox and the Holy Office was in heresy, with its visible examples of salvation of invisible people.
1) So my question is do the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary at the St. Benedict Center,Still River and Bishop Robert J.McManus interpret invisible for us BOD, BOB and I.I as referring to visible exceptions to EENS? Unknownpeople are known exceptions to EENS?
2) Do they acknowledge that BOD, BOB and I.I refer to unknown people in 2017? We cannot meet or see someone saved as such in 2017, would they agree ?

In the same blog post I mentioned that Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger were wrong to excommunicate Archbishop Lefebvre.The central issue was Vatican Council II. He was correct. Vatican Council II,with LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc mistaken as known people saved outside the Church, has to be a rupture with the past exclusivist ecclesiology and the Syllabus of Errors.With an irrational premise there is a non traditional conclusion. Archbishop Lefebvre rejected this interpretation of the Council which was accepted by the CDF Prefect and the pope.
3.For canonical status did Brother Thomas Augustine MICM have to interpret Lumen Gentium 16 etc as referring to known and visible people saved outside the Church?
4.For canonical status can the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary(MICM) in general, interpret Lumen Gentium 16 etc as referring to hypothetical cases, known only to God.So being invisible and unknown in our reality, they cannot be exceptions to EENS, as it was interpreted by the missionaries in the 16th century?
5.Are the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary able to interpret Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church in harmony with the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS? This would be EENS as the missionaries intepreted in the 16th century.
6.Can they interpret Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, assuming hypothetical cases (BOD, BOB and I.I/ LG 16, LG 8, LG 14, UR 3, NA 2 etc) are simply hypothetical.They are not concrete and personally known people in our reality?