Showing posts with label Roberto de Mattei. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Roberto de Mattei. Show all posts

Thursday, November 16, 2017

De Mattei: Friendly Criticism of Rocco Buttiglione’s Theses

Roberto de Mattei
Corrispondenza Romana
November 15, 2017

[Rorate Caeli] I have known Rocco Buttiglione for more than forty years. Both of us were assistants to Professor Augusto Del Noce (1910-1989) at the Faculty of Political Science at La Sapienza University in Rome, but since then our positions have diverged, mainly regarding our judgment on modernity. Buttiglione believed that the historical process inaugurated by the French Revolution was compatible  with Christianity, but I believed it incompatible.  Despite these differences, I appreciated Buttiglione’s work as Minster of National Cultural Heritage in Berlusconi’s government (2005-2006) and expressed my solidarity with him in 2004 when he didn’t attain the nomination as European Commissioner as a result of having called homosexuality “a sin”.  I refer to all this in order to show my sincerity in my “friendly criticism” of his theses, just as Buttiglione is truly sincere when he argues with Professor Seifert, his “life-long friend” in his most recent book (Friendly Responses to the Critics of Amoris Laetitia, which included an essay introduction by Cardinal Gerard Ludwig Müller, Ares, Milan 2017, p. 41).


The volume recently published has 200 pages, divided into four chapters. There is nothing in it that Buttiglione’s readers don’t know.  The chapters are in fact made up of essays previously published in several places, between 2016 and 2017. This explains the numerous repetitions, which, nonetheless, aid in a better understanding of his basic thesis: the possibility of admitting the divorced and remarried to Communion, since  in certain cases, “even if the acts are illegitimate” , people “may not fall into mortal sin because of the absence of full knowledge and deliberate consent” (p.172).


I have already had the occasion to criticize this position (see here: https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2017/11/de-mattei-increasing-confusion-cardinal.html Additionally, in order to justify it, Buttiglione introduces a fallacious distinction between “grave sin”, “specified by the object (by grave matter)” and “mortal sin”, “specified by the effects on the subject (it kills the soul)”. He writes “ all mortal sins are also grave sins, but not all grave sins are also mortal. It may happen in fact that in some cases grave matter has not been accompanied by full awareness and deliberate consent.” (p. 173).

Thursday, March 2, 2017

Roberto Mattei: After the latest scandals, we demand the resignation of Archbishop Paglia and Bishop Sanchez Sorondo




Vincenzo Paglia (left), President of the Pontifical Academy for Life (Formerly Family Minister of the Holy See), gave a lecture on the politician Marco Pannella, one of the most disgraceful church enemies; Curia bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo (right) invited Paul Ehrlich, an overpopulation and abortionist ideologist, to the Vatican. What is going on in the Catholic Church when the most intimate confidants of the Pope celebrate abortion ideologues, and when Ehrlich himself says he is "electrified" by the direction Pope Francis is taking the Church?

By Roberto de Mattei *
Among the most recent events, which have caused upset among Catholics, two make for special attention.The first incident is the immense praise for Marco Pannella by the Archbishop of Verona, Vincenzo Paglia, President of the Pontifical Academy for Life . The occasion was the posthumous presentation of Pannella autobiography at the headquarters of the Radical Party in Rome: "Lo Spirito di Marco ci aiuti a vivere in quella stessa direzione " (The Spirit of Marco help us to live in the same way).
The second incident is the presentation by Dr. Paul Ehrlich, a well-known representative of today's "culture of death", which he was able to hold at the invitation of the Roman Catholic, Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, in the Vatican. The American biologist is connected with Marco Pannella,  and both the deceased leader of the Radical Party like Ehrlich, is an abortion advocate and a declared enemy of the Catholic Church. While Mgr. Paglia more or less gave spontaneous explanations as in delirium, Sanchez Sorondo, in his capacity as chancellor of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, made an official invitation to Ehrlich.
Sanchez Sorondo, like Paglia, is a confidant of Pope Francis, and although "thousands of people have asked Francis to end this scandal, it goes on," complained Maria Madise of Voice of the Family. More than 10,000 signatures had been sent by the Catholic Organization of the United States to Pope Francis, with a request to prevent the participation of Ehrlich in the Vatican.
In a joint press release, the Voice of Family , LifeSiteNews , the Lepanto Foundation and Famiglia Domani have emphasized that Ehrlich is one of the most famous Neo-Malthusian abortion representatives. In 1968 he published the bestseller The Population Bomb. He prophesied to mankind a cataclysmic future dominated by overpopulation and demanded compulsory measures for birth control in order to avert them.
Although his predictions did not occur and had even colossally disregarded the facts, Ehrlich continues to assiduously demand selective abortion and mass sterilization as a legitimate means of population control. Ehrlich's ideas have been implemented in the People's Republic of China, India, Kenya and other states with governmental authority, making him responsible for the millions of deaths of those unborn.
In an interview by Mara Hvistendahl of 2011, Ehrlich defended selective abortion by saying, "It would be a good idea to leave the people the right to make decisions so that they have only a few children and only those who want them." The determination of the sex of the born children by abortion and even the killing born children is better for women, says Ehrlich, than the fate that she would expect in an overpopulated world.
In an article published in 2015, Ehrlich attacked the Catholic faith as "dangerous", because it opposes the contraceptive mentality. In the same year, he openly criticized the encyclical of Laudato si by Pope Francis, because he made passages against the birth control.
In 2014 he said:
"The Pope and many bishops represent a real evil and are part of the backward forces of the planet, which I believe are primarily interested in preserving their power."
John Henry Westen, the editor-in-chief of LifeSiteNews , wrote that Pope Francis, by not attacking Ehrlich, "does not follow his duty to protect the faith entrusted to the Church by Christ." Westen added:
"In an interview, Ehrlich told us that he was 'electrified' by the direction that Pope Francis is giving to the Catholic Church."
The invitation of Ehrlich to the Vatican, therefore, represents a scandal which increases the already existing confusion in the Church. Perhaps Monsignor Sanchez Sorondo thinks of Ehrlich what Msgr. Paglia said about Marco Pannella:
"He is a man of great spirituality (...) His death is a great loss to our country (...) His mind blows on ... He was the stimulus of a more beautiful life, not only for Italy, but for our whole world, the more Because every man needs to know how to speak (...) I wish that the spirit of Marco might help us live in the same way. "
All quotes can be checked on Youtube.
Some Catholic associations and media have rightly demanded the resignation of Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia from his office as President of the Pontifical Academy for Life and as Grand Chancellor of the Pontifical Institute John Paul II for Studies on Marriage and the Family. For the same reasons, we also demand the resignation of Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo from his office as Chancellor of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences .
* Roberto de Mattei , historian, father of five children, professor of modern history and history of Christianity at the European University of Rome, President of the Lepanto Foundation, author of numerous books.
Image: Corrispondenza Romana
Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com
Link to Katholisches...
AMDG

Thursday, May 19, 2016

Pope Francis and His Revolutionary Language



Pope Francis' "Revolutionary Language"
(Rome) The historian and well-known Catholic intellectual Roberto de Mattei published a column yesterday in the Rome newspaper Il Tempo (18th May), about the "revolutionary language" of Pope Francis.

The revolutionary language of Pope Francis

by Roberto de Mattei

In the Church's history there have been many "reformist" popes, but Pope Bergoglio seems to belong to a different category, which has been alien under the Roman popes to date, that of the "revolutionary".

The reformers of the past aimed to restore the doctrine and the discipline to its purity and original integrity, which is why they can be referred to from this point as "traditionalists". Such popes were Pius IX. and Pius X.

The revolutionaries, however, are those who want to make a break between past and present, by locating the achievable ideal in a utopian future.

The breach of Pope Francis with the past takes place more in language than on the doctrinal level. However, the language has a greater power to change than the idea that it represents in the media age. It is no accident that Cardinal Schönborn was called to launch the Papal Letter Amoris laetitia at the press conference in Rome as "a linguistic event".

The decision for a particular "house style", which is expressed through words, gestures and omissions, requires a certain mindset and implicitly offers new doctrine. The claim, however, carries out a linguistic revolution, from which one denies that it is also a doctrinal revolution, which inevitably leads to confusion. However, the confusion, the disorientation and a certain schizophrenia seem to be the distinctive cipher of the current pontificate.

Recent examples of the confusion surround the concept of poverty. The poverty of the Gospel is confused with that of the socialist-communist ideologies.

The former is a state of perfection, which arises from the conscious decision of the individual. The second is a social state which is imposed as a mandate from above.

In addition, if the men of the Church and Catholics should live generally on a personal level in the spirit of poverty, in the sense that they should not depend on earthly goods, that does not mean that the Church should be as poor as an institution founded by Christ, but have all the necessary material resources to carry outn its mission.

To rob the Church of this means depriving it of the means, to amputate and weaken its action in the world. From the point of this poverty mongering, Pope Bergoglio puts the Church in danger by taking away its vitality, to change it in order to immerse it in the process of secularization that has been dissolving what the Church once was in the Christian West.

* Roberto de Mattei , historian, father of five children, Professor of Modern History and History of Christianity at the European University of Rome, President of Lepanto Foundation, author of numerous books, most recently appeared: Vicario di Cristo. Il primato di Pietro tra normalità ed eccezione (Vicar of Christ, the Primacy of Peter Between Normality and Exception.), Verona 2013; in German translatio: The Second Vatican Council - A Previously Unwritten History, Ruppichteroth 2011. The intertitles are from the editors.

Translation: Giuseppe Nardi Image: Corrispondenza Romana Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com Link to Katholishes... AMDG

Saturday, May 7, 2016

"An Interpretation of Amoris Laetitia From Tradition is Not Possible"-- Interview With Abbé Claude Barthe by Roberto de Mattei

Abbé Claude Barthe: Chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia is incompatible
with the Church's tradition  
(Rome) The French priest Abbe Claude Barthe was one of the first people already on 8 April, the date of its publication, to take a position on the Apostolic Letter, Amoris Laetitia. The theologian has written many books, among others, La messe, une forêt de symboles (The Mass, a Forest of Symbols), Les romanciers et le catholicisme (The novelists and catholicity) and Penser l'oecuménisme autrement (Ecumenism Thinks Differently ). The historian and Catholic thinker, Roberto de Mattei conducted an interview for Corrispondenza Romana with Abbé Barthe to deepen the analysis.

Prof. de Mattei: it is very interesting for us to give Abbé Barthe the floor because you in your response to Amoris Laetitia  were not, as others had initially tried in the first moment, to read the Apostolic Letter on the basis of a traditional framework, and we share your reading.
Abbe Claude Barthe: I can not see how one could interpret  Chapter VIII of the letter within the meaning of the traditional doctrine, honestly. It would mean doing violence to the text  and not respecting the intent of the editors who want to introduce a new element: "Therefore, it is no longer possible to say ..." (AL, 301).
Prof. de Mattei: And yet, what is said in the Apostolic Exhortation that is not so new.

Abbe Claude Barthe: You're right, it is not new on the part of theological protest movements. Since the Council, under Paul VI. and John Paul II., there was a great undertaking primarily of protest theologians to attack Humanae Vitae with the help of books, "explanations" of theologians and congresses.  At the same time the demand of Communion for "remarried" divorced (and also homosexuals as couples and  cohabitants), I would say, played a symbolic role. One must know that it has long been the practice of many priests in France, Germany, Switzerland and many other places to allow "remarried" divorcees to communion, and to give them absolution when they want it.
The most common support for this demand came through a pastoral letter of 1 July 1993 of the Upper Rhine Bishops Saier, Lehmann and Kasper, entitled: "For pastoral care of people from broken marriages, divorced and remarried divorcees." It was about "respect for a decision of conscience."  It contained exactly, among other things, the arrangements of the current Apostolic Exhortation: in theory there would be no general admission to Communion, but the exercise of an examination with the priest to see whether the new partners "are authorized by their own conscience, to approach the table of the Logos." In France, some bishops (Cambrai, Nancy) have published files of diocesan synods that go in the same direction. Cardinal Martini, Archbishop of Milan, had also called for changes in the Discipline of the Sacraments in one general assemblyheld on 7 October 1999 at the General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops on Europe speech that was a real program for a pontificate.
And in fact you go to France, Belgium, Canada and the US even further: Some priest, even a relatively large number, celebrate for second marriages a small ceremony without the bishops prevent them. Some bishops encourage this practice even as it has done "divorcés remariés Chrétien" (Remarried divorced Christians Desclée de Brouwer, 1990) Msgr. Armand le Bourgeois, the former bishop of Autun in his book. The "jurisdictions of religious" like those of diocese also "regulate" this ceremony even, discreetly, to be done without bells, without the blessing of the rings.
Prof. de Mattei: Share the assessment that Cardinal Kasper played a leading role?
Abbe Claude Barthe: At the beginning already. Pope Francis called Kasper shortly after his election a "great theologian", as he prepared the ground with his speech to the Consistory of 20 February 2014 which caused a great sensation. From there the matter was continued with great skill in three stages: two synodal assemblies in October 2014 and in October 2015 where the reports contained Kasper's "message".
Between the two Synods of the text was on September 8, 2015 Mitis iudex Dominus Iesus whose architect was Msgr. Pinto, dean of the Roman Rota, to make  easier the nullity of marriage, mainly because it takes place before it gets in front of the bishop when the couple request nullity together, and it alone can decide, because the double judgement has been abolished.Some canonists have spoken  in this case already of a cancellation by mutual consensus.
The synod has  a kind of leadership core, which is a Cupola [the  Abbé Barthe's use of the Italian word refers to the leaders of a mafia organization], around the very influential Cardinal Baldisseri, the Secretary General of the Synod, together with Msgr. Bruno Forte, Archbishop of Chieti-Vasto and special secretary of the Synod, which is the number two, to Msgr. Fabio Fabene, new member of the Congregation of Bishops and undersecretary of the Synod, then still Cardinal Ravasi, President of the Pontifical Council for Culture, who was responsible for the message of the Synod Assembly, and all together carefully supported by Msgr. Victor Manuel Fernandez, rector of the Catholic University of Argentina, and by the Jesuit Antonio Spadaro, editor of the Roman Jesuit journal Civilta Cattolica . Added to this are other influential persons, all of whom are close to the Pope like the Bishop of Albano and C9 Cardinal Council Secretary Marcello Semeraro and Msgr. Vincenzo Paglia, President of the Pontifical Family Council. To them is also appended Cardinal Schönborn, the Archbishop of Vienna, the main one responsible for the Catholic Catechism, in the role of guarantorwho assumed   at the Synod that the text of the final report was already orthodox which Cardinal Müller refused to do. This whole team contributed a considerable amount of work in order to achieve the desired goal ...
Prof. de Mattei: To create a text of more than 250 pages submitted by the second Synodal Assembly ...
Abbe Claude Barthe: Even earlier ... The text of the post-synodal letter was broadly elaborated in September 2015 that is, before the start of the second Synod on marriage and the family.
Prof. de Mattei: You spoke of a desired target. What exactly?
Abbe Claude Barthe: It is very possible that it was at the beginning the intention of Pope Francis to grant only a "pastoral" and "merciful" pass. Since theology is a rigorous science, principles had to be announced, to justify a decision of conscience, to be permit people who live in public adultery to the sacraments. From the beginning, many passages of the Apostolic Exhortation prepare the doctrinal statement of the eighth chapter. There is the talk of "situations of weakness or imperfection" (AL, 296), and most of the divorcees who are seen "in a second union, settled over time, with new children, with proven loyalty, generous dedication, Christian commitment, with the awareness of the irregularity  their situation "involved," and great difficulty, these turn back without wanting the feeling on their conscience that they fall into new sin (AL, 298). In this "imperfect" situation (AL, 307), which relates to the "perfect ideal marriage," the Apostolic Exhortation rules for a "special exception" (AL, 301).
This happens naturally with the help of a priest "in the internal forum" (for both partners of the new union?) That the interested parties would be permitted to form a correct judgment of conscience (Al, 300). This judgment (The priest ?, the partner? with the explanation of the priest) do it because of "conditionalities or mitigating factors [...] possible that one in the middle of an objective situation of sin - who is not subjectively culpable or at least not completely "can go to the sacraments (AL, 305). It does not say whether this ruling also applies to the other priests who are interested to administer the sacraments. Anyway, it must be said that the text is not focused on access to the sacraments, which is treated in a footnote, which creates a pretty bashful impression (footnote 351).
A theological principle, however, is stressed which is summarized in paragraph 301 that is applicable to quote again: "It is therefore no longer possible to say that all who live in any so-called 'irregular' situations, are in a state mortal sin and have lost sanctifying grace. The restrictions have not only to do with a possible lack of knowledge of the standard. A person can, even though he knows the standard exactly, have great difficulty in understanding the values ​​at stake in the moral norm,[339] or he may be in a specific situation, which does not allow him to act differently and make other decisions without incurring a new sin."
A principle that can be analyzed as follows: 1) the basis of specific conditionalities, would be that people who are in "active" public adultery and know the moral rule prohibiting them, invite a guilt if they were to leave this situation (especially compared to the birth of children); 2) The people who live in  "active" public adultery, therefore, would not commit mortal sin if they remain in this state.
In fact, the negative consequences that result from the completion of the adulterous condition are (the children born of illegitimate union would suffer from the separation of parents) are not new sins, but the indirect effect of a virtuous action, namely the ending of a sinful state.
Natural justice must be respected, this applies especially to the continuation of the education of children from the second union, but outside a sinful state. So here we have a frontal contrast with the previous lesson that John Paul II. stressed in paragraph 84 of Familiaris Consortio. This clarified: If serious motives prevent it, that the "remarried" end in common life  under one roof,  then they have to live like brother and sister. This is in contrast to the new doctrinal proposal: Under certain conditions, adultery is not a sin.
Prof. de Mattei: You are saying  that one must not recognize the faith instinct?
Abbe Claude Barthe: All can not be reconciled with the natural and Christian morality. Those with knowledge of the moral norm have committed themselves sub gravi (the divine commandment that prohibits fornication and adultery) whose sin can not be excused, and therefore it can not be said that they in themselves are in a state of grace prior. St. Thomas Aquinas says in a Quaestio of the Summa Theologica, which all moralists well know, in Quaestio 19 of IA and IIÆ: It is the quality of an object that our quest arises that makes a voluntary act good and not the circumstances the action (Art. 2), and even if it is true that human reason can err and can take a bad action for good (Art. 5), are not some errors excusable, it is especially not those who disregard that one is not allowed to approach the wife of another, which is in direct opposition to the law of God (Art. 6).

Elsewhere, where it is also well-known to the moralists, in Quodlibet IX, Quaestio 7, Article 2, St. Thomas explains that circumstances can not change the value of an action, but its nature is one of the killing or punishing an offender to satisfy justice or legitimate defense. It is in this case not unjust violence, but a virtuous action. In contrast, he emphasizes that with some actions,  badness is inseparably linked, as in fornication, adultery, and other similar actions. You can never be good.
A child who reads the catechism understands this, Pius XII said in a speech on 18 April 1952 with which he condemned situation ethics that does not rely on the universal moral law, such as the Ten Commandments, but "in real and concrete conditionalities and circumstances in which one must act, and according to which the deciding individual conscience must judge and decide."
Pius XII. recalled that a good intention can never justify objectionable means, and that there are situations in which man, and especially the Christian, must sacrifice everything, even his life, to save his soul. The same thing happened in the encyclical Veritatis Splendor of John Paul II., when she says that the circumstances or the intentions of a dishonest act in itself can never turn into a subjectively honest effect of their object. He said, quoting St. Augustine (Contra mendacium): fornication, curses, etc. remain, even if they were committed for good reasons, always sins.
Prof. de Mattei: What's to be done?
Abbe Claude Barthe: The words of Christ can not be changed: "Even a woman commits adultery when she divorces her husband and marries another" (Mk 10:12). Professor Robert Spaemann, a German philosopher and friend of Benedict XVI.commented that any reasonable person can see that here we have a break. I do not think that one can be content to assert an interpretation of the eighth chapter of the Apostolic Exhortation, according to which nothing has changed. One must also take the Pope's words seriously, which confirmed the presentation of the letter by Cardinal Schönborn on the return flight from Lesbos.
The theological principle is clear and the commitment to truth requires us to say that it is not acceptable. This also applies to the related proposals, such as those who claim that illicit cohabitation or the communion of the divorced and remarried the ideal of marriage are embodied "at least partially and in analog." (AL, 292). It is therefore to be hoped, in the strong sense of theological hope, that many pastors, bishops and cardinals will speak in a clear way for salvation. At the same time, by the infallible Magisterium of the Pope or the Pope and  the bishops in communion with him, to solicit, request and demand an authentic interpretation - in terms of the interpretation of the revealed Depositums, including Depositums of natural law, and all that which is associated with it - that which differs and thus confirms in the name of faith what is true and rejects what is not.
It seems to me that today, 50 years after the Second Vatican Council,  we are entering into a new Post-Conciliar phase. We have seen a few passages on ecumenism, on religious freedom, breached the dam of doctrinal and theological Roman ecclesiological doctrine which was believed to be safe and well knit. Then another dam was built to withstand against the surge of modernity, the natural and Christian morality, whose starting points were Humanae Vitae of Paul VI. and all subsequent documents of John Paul II. on this subject. Everything that was described as  the "Restoration" as Joseph Ratzinger described it in "State of the faith,"  was largely built on the basis of the defense of marriage and the family. Everything happens now, as though the dam will break  at any moment.
Prof. de Mattei: Someone might accuse you exaggerated pessimism ...
Abbé Barthe: On the contrary. I think we are witnessing a crucial moment of Post-Conciliar history. It's hard to say what the consequences will be of that which we are experiencing, but it will be considerable. And despite everything, I'm sure that it will be positive in the end. First of all, I am safe by faith because the Church has the words of eternal life. I am also confident a very real way, because the need for a return to the Magisterium, the teaching that is actually one, will emerge more clearly in the future.
Translation: Giuseppe Nardi 
Image: Corrispondenza Romana
Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com
Link to Katholisches...
AMDG

Wednesday, November 11, 2015

Pharisees and Saducees of Our Time

The Sandhedrin of the time of Jesus was the Council of
Sadducees and Pharisees
by Roberto de Mattei *
Criticism of the "Pharisees" is often found in the words of Pope Francis. In numerous speeches 2013-2015 he has spoken on the "disease of the Pharisees" (September 7, 2013), "accusing Jesus of not honoring the Sabbath day" (April 1, 2014), from the "temptation of self-sufficiency and  clericalism, that codifying of faith in rules and instructions, like the scribes, the Pharisees and the lawyers of the time of Jesus" (September 19, 2014). During Angelus of 30 August 2015, he said: "As  then for  the Pharisees there is also for us the danger that we order, or worse: to consider ourselves better than the other based solely on the fact that we keep the rules, the customs,  even if we do not love our neighbor, are hard of heart, proud and arrogant. "On November 8, 2015, he compared   the attitude of the scribes and the Pharisees and their "exclusion", to Jesus, who was based in "inclusion." The reference to the Pharisees is equally evident in the speech in which the Pope concluded last October 24  for the XIV. Ordinary Synod on the Family. Who else are the "closed heart, who often hide behind even the teachings of the Church or behind  good intentions to sit  in the chair of Moses and - sometimes condescendingly and with superficiality - to address  the difficult cases and the injured Families,"  if not "the Pharisees, who made ​​religion to an infinite chain of commandments (June 26, 2014)?" Pharisees seem to be anyone who defend with stubborn pride, the existence of absolute and incontrovertible commandments, laws, rules of the Church.

Who Were the Pharisees Really?

Who were the Pharisees really? When Jesus began his teaching years, the Jewish world was divided into different currents, about which we are told from the Gospels, among historians, like Flavius Josephus (3 -100 AD.) in his works "Antiquities of the Jews" and "History of the Jewish War ". The main sects were those of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. The Pharisees were concerned with the details of the religious rules, but had lost the spirit of truth. They were arrogant men who forged the prophecies about the Messiah and interpreted the divine law  according to their opinions. The Sadducees taught even more serious mistakes. They doubted the immortality of the soul and rejected the majority of the Holy Scriptures. Both were fighting for power in the Sanhedrin, who, when Jesus was condemned, was led by the Sadducees.
The Sadducees are even mentioned by Mark and Matthew three times, while the Pharisees occur repeatedly in the Gospels of Mark and Matthew.  Chapter 23 of St. Matthew in particular, is an open accusation against them: "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Your tithe mint, anise and cumin, and left the weightier matters of the law: justice, mercy and faithfulness. One must do the one thing without neglecting the others."

The St. Thomas Aquinas, Augustine and Bonaventure about the Pharisees

St. Thomas Aquinas explains in his commentary on this passage of Matthew that the Pharisees were not condemned by the Lord because they paid a tithe, "but only because they valued the lower more than  the spiritual commandments. But [deliver the tithe] in practice he seems to praise it, saying: 'These things shall be done' (Haec oportuit facere) according to the law, as Chrisostomos adds (Summa Theologica, II-IIae, q 87,. a. 2 ad 3).
St. Augustine said, referring to the Pharisees, of which St. Luke writes (18:10 to 14), that he has not been convicted of his works, but because he has boasted of his alleged sanctity (Epistola 121,1,3).  St. Augustine explains the same in his letter to Casulanus that the Pharisee was not condemned because he fasted (Luke 18,11ff), but "because he was inflamed in pride over the publicans" (Epistola 36,4,7). Because it is "fruitless for a man to fast twice during the week as the Pharisees, on the other hand, yet it is an exercise of religion in a  believer who is humble or  one who is a faithfully humble man  when Scripture does not say that the Pharisees had been condemned, but rather that the tax collector was justified." (Epistola 36,4,7).
The most concise definition of the Pharisees is found from St. Bonaventure: "Pharisaeus significat illos qui propter opera exteriora se reputant bonos; et ideo non habent lacrymas compunctionis" (De S. Mary Magdalene Sermo I, in: Opera omnia, Ad Claras Aquas, Florence 2001 Vol IX, col 556b..). "A Pharisees is described as one who thinks of themselves good because of their outer works  and therefore has no tears of penitence."

Pharisees were Proud Conservatives, the Sadducees Unbelieving Liberals

Jesus condemned the Pharisees because he knew their hearts: they were sinners, but considered themselves holy. The Lord wanted to teach his disciples that the external fulfillment of good works is not enough. That which is a good act is not only so in its own property, but the intention. Nevertheless, if it is true that good works are not enough, if good intentions are lacking, as it is also true that the good intentions are not enough, if good works are missing.   Gamaliel, Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea (Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1), and even St. Paul (Acts 23.6) who belonged to the party of the Pharisees, were better than that of the Sadducees, precisely because they, despite their hypocrisy, acclaimed the laws, while the Sadducees, from whose ranks the high priests Annas and Caiaphas came (Jewish Antiquities 18.35.95), also disregarded this.
The Pharisees were proud conservatives, the Sadducees unbelieving liberals. But both unified rejection of the divine mission of Jesus (Mt 3.7 to 10).
Who are the Pharisees and the Sadducees of our time? We can give an answer to this with quiet certainty. There are those who have tried before, during and after the Synod and will try to change the practice of the Church and through the practice of their teaching, on the family and marriage.

Pharisees and Sadducees rejected the divine teachings of Jesus

Jesus proclaimed the indissolubility of marriage as God had thought from the beginning, and she founded this on the restoration of the natural law, from which the Jews had removed, and strengthened them by the raising of marriage to a Sacrament. Pharisees and Sadducees rejected this doctrine by denying the divine Word of Jesus and introducing their own opinion. They appealed disingenuously to the law of Moses, as the innovators of our time invoked an alleged tradition of the early centuries, by falsifying the history and doctrine of the Church.
For this reason, a brave bishop and defender of the true faith, Monsignor Athanasius Schneider, speaks of a "neo-Mosaic practice". "The new disciples of Moses and the new Pharisees in the two most recent Synodal Assemblies (2014 and 2015) have veiled their practical denial of the indissolubility of marriage and their occasionally lifting the Sixth Commandment under the guise of charity, by expressions like  'way of distinction,' 'accompaniment', 'orientation by the bishop ', 'dialogue with the priest', 'internal forum', 'a more complete integration into the life of the Church' which are used to eliminate the accountability [in the law] of cohabitation in cases of irregular connections as much as possible (see. Relatio finalis, no. 84-86). "

The Pharisees and Sadducees of Today

The Sadducees are the innovators who openly claim to overcome the doctrine and practice of the Church. The Pharisees are those who, although they confess the indissolubility of marriage with  their mouths, still hypocritical deny it  by their deeds, by proposing a "from-a-case-by-case" - transgression of the moral law.
The real disciples of Jesus Christ belong to neither the Party of neo-Pharisees nor the party of neo-Sadducees, both modernist, but follow the school of St. John the Baptist, who preached in the spiritual desert of his time. The Baptist was, when he denounced the Pharisees and Sadducees as a "generation of vipers" (Mt 3,7) and admonished Herod Antipas for his adultery, not hard-hearted, but moved by love for God and for souls. Hypocrites and Hardhearted were the advisers of Herod Antipas, who wanted to bring his sinful and unrepentant loose life in harmony with the teaching of Scripture.  Herod had John the Baptist executed to bring the voice of truth to silence, but the voice of the forerunner is  still audible 20 centuries later. Whoever defends sound doctrine publicly, does not follow the exaample of the Pharisees and Sadducees, but the example of St. John the Baptist and Our Lord.
Translation: Giuseppe Nardi
Picture: Youtube (Screenshot)
Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com
AMDG

Thursday, September 10, 2015

Roberto de Mattei: Christian Matrimony Has Been Dealt a Grievous Blow

by Roberto de Mattei *
The two motu proprio of Pope Francis Mitis iudex Dominus Iesus for the Latin Church and Mitis et misericors Jesus for the Oriental Churches, which were announced on September 8, 2015 have dealt Christian marriage a serious wound.
The indissolubility of marriage is divine and immutable law of Jesus Christ. The Church can not "cancel" a marriage in the sense of dissolution. You can, with a declaration of invalidity, consider its non-existence, if those conditions are not met which ensure their validity. This means that it is not the interest of the spouse which has priority in a canonical process for the Church to obtain a declaration of invalidity, but the truth about the validity of the marriage bond.
Pius XII. reminds us in this regard, that "the only destination is the truth of the marriage process and the law is its verdict in the annulment process, which secures the non-existence of the marriage bond" (allocution to the Roman Rota, October 2, 1944). The believer can cheat the Church to obtain a nullity, for example, through the use of false evidence, but the Church can not hoodwink God and has the duty to ascertain the truth in a clear and precise manner.

In the canonical process, the interests of marriage as a divine institution comes first

In the canonical process, first place goes to the highest interest of the divine institution - and marriage is one such - to be defended. The recognition and protection of this reality come in the legal field expressed in the narrow formulation favor matrimonii, in other words, acceptance of the validity of the marriage until proof to the contrary. John Paul II. declared that the magisterium represents the indissolubility of each consummated marriage as an ordinary law, precisely because the validity is assumed regardless of the success of married life and the possibility in some cases that there could be a marriage annulment (Speech the Roman Rota, January 21, 2000).
As the Enlightenment tried to deal a fatal blow to  Christian marriage,  Pope Benedict XIV. with the decree Dei miseratione from 3 November 1741, ordered that in each diocese a Defensor vinculi had to be used,  for obtaining the declaration of nullity, the principle double coincident judgment to by two different judicial bodies. The principle of double matching judgment was affirmed by the Code of Canon Law in 1917 as well as adopted by  John Paul II. on 25 January 1983 in the new Code of Canon Law.

Turned on its head by reform of Francis  - precedent USA 1971-1983

In the motu proprio of Pope Francis, things have been turned on their heads. The interest of the spouses take precedence over the marriage. This is said in the document itself. The basic criteria of reform can be summarized in a few points:
the abolition of the double, matching judgment, which is replaced by a single judgment in favor of the annulment;
granting a monocratic authority to the bishop, who is qualified as a single judge;  introduction of a fast and factually uncontrollable process;  with including extensive elimination of the Sacra Rota.
How else, for example, is the abolition of double judgment be interpreted? What are the reasons so serious that this principle will be abolished after 270 years? Cardinal Burke recalled that there is in this respect a catastrophic experience. In the United States were from July 1971 to November 1983, the so-called Provisional Norms, the de facto eliminated the duty of the double, matching judgment. The result was that the Bishops' Conference did not reject a single one of hundreds of thousands applications it dispensed, and that the process started to become popularly  known as  the "Catholic divorce" (s. Remain in the truth of Christ. Marriage and Communion in the Catholic Church, Echter, Würzburg 2014).

New powers for Diocesan Bishops, one aspect of explosive scope

Even more serious is the granting of authority to the diocesan bishop, to be able to initiate a rapid process of a single judge at his discretion and to arrive at a judgment. The bishop may exercise his judicial power either personally or delegate it to a committee, which does not necessarily consist of lawyers. A commission in his own image, which of course follows his pastoral instructions, as is already happening in Italy with the "diocesan centers of listening," which lacks any legal basis to date. The combination of Canon 1683 and Article 14 of the Procedural Rules is under this aspect possessed of explosive implications. Sociological considerations will inevitably weigh on the decision: the divorced and remarried are to obtain for the sake of "mercy," preferential treatment. "The Church of Mercy has been set in motion," said Giuliano Ferrara in Il Foglio of 9 September 2015. It does not move by administrative channels, but on the "Courts", which has little to offer in the way of justice.
In some diocese, the bishops will try to ensure the seriousness of the process. But one can easily imagine that in many other dioceses, for example, in Central Europe, the annulment will be a  pure formality. In 1993 Oskar Saier, Archbishop of Freiburg, Karl Lehmann, Bishop of Mainz, and Walter Kasper, Bishop of Rottenburg-Stuttgart, had produced a document in favor of those who were convinced, according to their conscience, for the annulment of their marriage, but not of the elements to prove this in court (Pastoral Letter of the Bishops for the Upper Rhine for the Pastoral Care of People from Broken Marriages, Divorced and Remarried Divorcees [In German]).

"Subjective conviction of conscience" is enough to keep marriage null and void?

The CDF responded by letter Annus Internationalis Familiae of 14 September 1994, with which they made it ​​clear that this path has not been possible because marriage is a public reality: "to ignore this important aspect would make marriage as a de facto reality of the Church, which would deny the sacrament "(no. 8). Nevertheless, recently, the Pastoral Office of the Archdiocese of Freiburg, took the proposal up again (Guidelines for the Pastoral Care to the address people in separation, divorce and after civil remarriage in the Archdiocese of Freiburg), according to which the divorced and remarried  because of a "conscience nullity" ("subjective conviction of conscience" ) of the previous marriage could receive the sacraments and   take on tasks in the parish councils.
The favor matrimonii is to be replaced by a favor nullitatis, which is the primary legal element whilst indissolubility is reduced to a "not practicable Ideal." The theoretical affirmation of the indissolubility of marriage is accompanied in practice by the claim to a right to declare any failed marriage band void. It is enough, in its conscience, to keep one's own marriage invalid, to obtain recognition of their annulment by the Church. It is the same principle, which according to some theologians, to hold a  marriage for "dead", in which the "love is dead" according to a statement of both or even one spouse.

"Bad money drives out good money"

Benedict XVI. warned on 29 January 2010 the Court of Sacra Romana Rota about  the cancellation of marriages by way of  a compliant attitude, "accommodating wishes and expectations of the parties or the influences of the social environment." However, in most diocese in Central Europe  the annulment has been reduced to a pure formality, as in the US when Provisional Norms was the case. Due to the known law, according to which "bad money drives out good money," will be condemned to chaos,  where the "quick divorce" will outweigh its opposite, the indissoluble marriage.
Since more than a year there is talk of a latent schism in the Church, but now  Cardinal Gerhard Müller, the prefect of the CDF, has implored in his speech in Regensburg against the danger of a schism, and urged vigilance and not to forget the lesson of the Protestant schism, which set Europe on fire   five centuries ago.
In advance of the Synod on the Family taking place in October, the reform of Pope Francis is not a torch, but it has sparked it and is paving the way for other catastrophic innovations. Silence is no longer possible.
* Roberto de Mattei, historian, father of five children, Professor of Modern History and History of Christianity at the European University of Rome, Chairman of the Lepanto Foundation, editor of the monthly magazine Radici Cristiane and the online news agency Corrispondenza Romana, author of numerous books, most recently appeared: Vicario di Cristo. Il primato di Pietro tra normalità ed eccezione (Vicar of Christ, the Primacy of Peter Between Normality and Exception.), Verona, 2013; translated into German last: The Second Vatican Council - a hitherto unwritten history, Ruppichteroth 2011. [Avalable on Amazon in English] The intertitles are from the editor.
Translation: Giuseppe Nardi
Image: Corrispondenza Romana
Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com
AMDG




Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...