Avatar de l’utilisateur
Messages : 1351
Inscription : dim. 26 août 2018 11:43
Localisation : Couronne d'Aragon


#11 Message par InHocSignoVinces » jeu. 14 mai 2020 19:50

In order to understand the extreme positions already taken by Colombia's
priests, we may refer to an extremely disconcerting fact that has no precedent in
the history of Catholicism. The second general conference of the Latin
American bishops, held in Medellin, Colombia, and solemnly inaugurated by
the Pope at the Cathedral of Bogota on the eve of the Congress, was the
culmination of the program and the evident and concrete goal of these religious
events, i.e., to bring about an actual revolution in Latin America, without
violence or bloodshed, if possible.

In the religious field, one of the revolutionary aspects of this program, and
certainly not the least important, was our prelates'
overflowing, inconceivable,
surrendering ecumenism
at the Eucharistic Congress and the subsequent
Medellin LAMEC conference.

By means of a moving message, five non-Catholic "observers" (today's
name for wolves in sheep's clothing)
asked permission from the august assembly
to receive Holy Communion along with the bishops.
The names of these
soliciting observers were: David B. Reed, Anglican Bishop of Bogota; Prof.
Manfred K. Bahmann, a Lutheran from Buenos Aires; Br. Roberto Giscard, of
the Taize community; the Reverend Dana Green; and Dr. Kurtis F. Naylor.
Their apparently humble and moving supplication reads as follows: "The
conference being almost at an end, may we request the exceptional privilege of
communing, at least once, along with all our Christian brothers gathering
here. "

As grounds on which the "separated people" based their request, they
cited the Ecumenic Directory, No. 55, which states that the Church may allow a
separated brother to receive the Sacraments if there are sufficient reasons. It
also defines some cases of urgent need, and goes on to say that "we are being
pressed by the most urgent conceivable reason, that of charity. Hence, moved
by loyalty, we are discretely and confidentially addressing this Conference to
the presidency itself, asking it to take into account that the unity of faith about
the sacraments on which the Directory bases its doctrinal denial, is not lacking
on our part. We confess that the Eucharist is that certain and efficacious sign of
the personal presence of Christ, the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ,
the sacrament of His real presence."

In answer to this petition, Rafael Moya Garcia, right-hand man of Fr.
Enrique Maza, S.J., a prominent Mexican progressivist, commented that "the
presidency of the second Latin American Episcopal Conference could not and
did not want to reject this petition which undoubtedly opens new and promising
avenues toward the unity of all Christians."

To me, this incomprehensible fact is an appropriate consummation of the
second "Bogotazo" trying to revolutionize all Latin American structures.
Although they invoke fraternal charity to justify this fact, I cannot restrain my
just indignation, as a Catholic and as a priest, when faced with this outrageous
and sacrilegious political gesture by the Latin American prelates who, like new
Judases, betrayed their Master. This fact is not at all justified by the presence of
His Eminence Antonio Cardinal Samoré.

It is no longer time to be cautious. We may no longer be quiet in the face
of this dreadful abomination. We must clarify the above-mentioned fact
urgently, and then analyze it in order to draw logical and evident conclusions

To be continued...

Avatar de l’utilisateur
Messages : 1351
Inscription : dim. 26 août 2018 11:43
Localisation : Couronne d'Aragon


#12 Message par InHocSignoVinces » lun. 18 mai 2020 19:12

Who made the petition to the LAMEC prelates? What was asked, and
why? What are the theological and apostolic implications of the unbearable
concessions that the Latin American bishops granted these "separated
brothers" through their official proxies?

Sincere answers to these questions will provide a correct interpretation of
that fact and will simultaneously underline the shepherds' terrible responsibility
before God, conscience, parishioners, and history.
Because of incompetence,
cowardice, servility, lack of faith, or temporal interests, they not only betrayed
our Master and scandalized the flock, but also gave up the most precious
heritage we had received from our ancestors, our Catholic unity.

The petitioners were self-confessed heretics, that is, people who not only
do not accept, but also reject and repudiate much of the truth as revealed by
God, as stated by the Church's Magisterium and belonging to our Catholic
The churches or ecclesiastical communities to which they belong are but
branches that have been severed from the trunk of the only Church that Christ
built. Such branches differ considerably not only from us but also among each
other, because of their various origins, doctrines, and spiritual lives.

To be continued...

Avatar de l’utilisateur
Messages : 1351
Inscription : dim. 26 août 2018 11:43
Localisation : Couronne d'Aragon


#13 Message par InHocSignoVinces » sam. 23 mai 2020 15:34

With respect to the relations of the separated brothers with the Catholic
Church, Chapter 1 on the Ecumenism of Vatican II says:
Ever since the beginning there appeared schisms within this one and only
Church of God (cf. I Cor. 2:18- 19, Gal. 1 :6-9, 1 John 2: 18-19), but the apostle
repudiated them as seriously damnable. In the centuries that followed, new and
wider schisms arose; large communities seceded from the full communion of the
Catholic Church, sometimes because of the faults of men on both sides.
However, those who are now born within these communities and are nourished
by Christ's faith may not be blamed for the sin of secession, and the Catholic
Church embraces them with fraternal respect and love, for those who believe in
Christ and have been duly baptized enjoy a sort of communion, albeit imperfect,
with the Catholic Church. Certainly, various discrepancies standing between
them and the Catholic Church in structural, doctrinal, and disciplinary matters
are in the way of their full ecclesiastical communion, but the ecumenical
movement is trying to remove such obstacles. Since faith justified them by virtue
of their Baptism, they belong to Christ and fully deserve to be honored with the
name of Christians; hence, the sons of the Catholic Church correctly recognize
them to be brethren in the Lord.

In addition to the elements or goods that jointly compose and give life to
the Church itself, some and even many very valuable ones can be found outside
of the visible circle of the Catholic Church: the written Word of God, the life of
grace , faith, hope, charity, and other inner gifts of the Holy Spirit. All of these
things, which come from Christ and lead to Him, belong de jure to the only
Church of Christ.

In my opinion, these enigmatic words, which can be subject to disastrous
interpretations, are plainly incomprehensible.
Evidently, those who are now
born within these heretical or schismatic communities can or cannot be
personally guilty of their sad condition, in the same way that we are not
individually liable for Adam's sin, in which we are all born. In like manner,
those who suffer from hereditary diseases are not guilty of the vices from which
their parents became so terribly ill. Such reasoning, however, cannot efface the
fact that they were born in sad circumstances.
Similarly, the absence of personal
sin does not mean that those who are born into these sects should not be
separated from the trunk of the Church, through which we receive fruitful sap
from Christ's redemption. For how can they be nourished in Christ if they are
separated from the Christ-built trunk of the Church? Can Christ be divided into
It is all or nothing at all. Christianity requires a sincere acceptance of
the entire doctrine that God revealed.
One cannot be friend and foe at the same
time. The "separated" do not sincerely and faithfully believe in part of the
revealed and defined truth; they even attack, deny, and sneer at it. These
structural, doctrinal, and disciplinary discrepancies obstruct the way toward a
full ecclesiastical communion and, while they last, prevent the participation of
these individuals in the life of the Church. In exceptional cases, where they
adopt wrong attitudes in good faith and obey the moral law faithfully, we may
reasonably believe that they participate invisibly, but without our being able to
feel sure of this.
The words of Christ are peremptory: "He who believes shall be
saved; he who does not believe shall be condemned."

I cannot understand what this "sort of communion ... with the Catholic
that the Council mentions, consists of. There is no communion insofar
as doctrine, hierarchy, and sacraments are concerned.
The Council says that the
"separated brethren" belong to Christ by virtue of their Baptism,
to which I
object because the Church has always been distrustful of the validity of the
sects' baptismal rites.
That is why the members of those sects who converted to
Catholicism were sub conditione administered Catholic Baptism, a sacrament
which our Lord Jesus Christ instituted. The Church, therefore, was not sure of
their truly belonging to Christ. In fact, some of them do not even believe in
Christ's divinity. Their Christianity is mutilated, incoherent, and based on a
liberal examination and interpretation of the holy Scripture. The Catholic
Church recognizes them as "brethren in the Lord" because they have been
created by God and called by God to participate in the divine life that the
Incarnate Word brought to us, and not because she recognizes in them an
adoptive supernatural filiation, for in such a case they would not be separated
brethren, but sons of the Church.

To be continued...


Revenir à « Texts in English »

Qui est en ligne ?

Utilisateurs parcourant ce forum : Aucun utilisateur inscrit et 1 invité