Vatican City, Mar 7, 2018 / 03:05 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Cardinal Robert Sarah has authored a preface for a newly published book detailing the ascendancy, in the last 50 years, of the reception of Communion in the hand. He has been thanked for his efforts with at least one call for his removal from office. The flare-up offers an opportunity to look in greater detail at the history of the means of receiving Holy Communion.
Sarah, the prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, wrote a preface to La distribuzione della Comunione sulla mano: Profili storici, giuridici e pastorali (The distribution of Communion in the hand: A historical, juridical, and pastoral profile) by Father Federico Bortoli, which was published recently by Edizioni Cantagalli.
The book notes that in 1969, following the Second Vatican Council, the Congregation for Divine Worship issued an instruction which expressed that Blessed Paul VI had determined not to change the means of administering Holy Communion to the faithful – i.e., to retain distribution of the Host on the tongue to those kneeling, rather than allowing communicants to receive the Host in their hands.
The instruction, Memoriale Domini, indicated that where distribution of communion in the hand already prevailed, episcopal conferences should weigh carefully whether special circumstances warranted reception of the Eucharist in the hand, avoiding disrespect or false opinions regarding the Eucharist and ill effects that might follow, and if a two-thirds voting majority decided in the affirmative, such a decision could be affirmed by the Holy See.
Despite this instruction, and subsequent expressions of support for the reception of Holy Communion on the tongue from St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI, the distribution of the Eucharist on the hand has become widely adopted, especially in the West.
The Congregation for Divine Worship’s 2004 instruction on matters regarding the Eucharist, Redemptionis sacramentum, established that: “Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice, if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her. However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.”
And the General Instruction of the Roman Missal currently in force in the US simply states that “The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant.”
Using previously unpublished documentation, Bortoli’s work traces the dynamics which led to the present situation, and argues that reception of Holy Communion in the hand has contributed to a weakening of faith in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
The text of Cardinal Sarah’s preface was published Feb. 22 by La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana, and portions were translated into English by Diane Montagna.
The cardinal wrote that the angel of peace who appeared at Fatima desired that the three children would make reparations for profanations of the Eucharist (such as desecration or sacrilegious reception — by those not in the state of grace or not professing the Catholic faith) and for all that can prevent the sacrament’s fruitfulness.
He then said that the “most insidious diabolical attack is trying to extinguish faith in the Eucharist, by sowing errors and fostering an unsuitable way of receiving it; truly the war between Michael and his Angels on one side, and lucifer on the other, continues in the hearts of the faithful: Satan’s target is the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Real Presence of Jesus in the consecrated Host.”
According to Cardinal Sarah, the demonic attack against the Eucharist follows two tracks: the reduction of the concept of the real presence, and an attempt to remove the sense of the sacred from the hearts of the faithful. He noted that a sense of the sacred can be lost by receiving special food in the same way as ordinary food.
The cardinal wrote that the liturgy “is made up of many small rituals and gestures — each of them is capable of expressing these attitudes filled with love, filial respect and adoration toward God. That is precisely why it is appropriate to promote the beauty, fittingness and pastoral value of a practice which developed during the long life and tradition of the Church, that is, the act of receiving Holy Communion on the tongue and kneeling.”
He pointed to the example of St. John Paul II, who always knelt before the Eucharist despite infirmity, and St. Teresa of Calcutta, who habitually received Communion on the tongue.
“Why do we insist on communicating standing and on the hand? Why this attitude of lack of submission to the signs of God? May no priest dare to impose his authority in this matter by refusing or mistreating those who wish to receive Communion kneeling and on the tongue,” the cardinal wrote. “Let us come as children and humbly receive the Body of Christ on our knees and on our tongue. The saints give us the example. They are the models to be imitated that God offers us!”
He noted that in the case of the distribution of Communion, “a special concession has become the picklock to force and empty the safe of the Church’s liturgical treasures.”
Noting that the process by which Communion in the hand has recently become common “was anything but clear,” he added that “The Lord leads the just along ‘straight paths’, not by subterfuge. Therefore, in addition to the theological motivations shown above, also the way in which the practice of Communion on the hand has spread appears to have been imposed not according to the ways of God.”
Cardinal Sarah voiced hope that Bortoli’s work would encourage both priests and laity who wish to administer or receive the Eucharist in the mouth and kneeling.
“I hope there can be a rediscovery and promotion of the beauty and pastoral value of this method. In my opinion and judgment, this is an important question on which the Church today must reflect. This is a further act of adoration and love that each of us can offer to Jesus Christ … May Fr. Bortoli’s work foster a general rethinking on the way Holy Communion is distributed.”
The cardinal did not propose to change the current ecclesiastical norms governing the reception of Holy Communion.
Nevertheless, writing at Commonweal Feb. 27, commentator Rita Ferrone responded to Cardinal Sarah’s preface by calling for his removal from office. She asserted that “what he really does best is sow division,” and characterized his writing as evaluating the reception of Communion in the hand “as pure evil.”
Ferrone claimed that the cardinal “manages to slander Christians of the first millennium who took communion in the hand regularly for at least nine hundred years” and that his comments “reveal either an appalling ignorance of or an indifference to liturgical history. Does he not know that this practice (standing and receiving in the hand) comes from the apostolic church? Does its venerable antiquity not commend the practice to him as holy, even though he prefers the more recent historical practice of receiving communion kneeling and on the tongue?”
While in in the earliest ages of the Church there are many writings which demonstrate that Communion was received in the hand (most notably St. Cyril of Jerusalem’s Mystagogical Catecheses), there are also early demonstrations of Communion on the tongue, as in the writings of St. Gregory the Great.
As Cardinal Sarah noted in his preface, communion on the tongue is “a practice which developed during the long life and tradition of the Church.” [emphasis added]
The prominent Jesuit liturgist Josef Jungmann wrote in The Mass of the Roman Rite that over time, “growing respect for the Eucharist … led to the practice of placing the Sacred Host in the mouth.”
Reception of Communion in the mouth was widely adopted around the ninth century, and Communion in the hand had disappeared entirely after the 10th and 11th centuries, according to Jungmann. This development removed the worry “that small particles of the sacred bread would be lost”, and the Jesuit wrote that it was probably related to the transition from leavened to unleavened bread.
By the end of the patristic age, the Church had abandoned the practice of Communion in the hand, having found that Communion in the mouth was a better expression of reverence for the Eucharist.
Of course, liturgical practices of the first millenium should not be revered simple because they are old.
In his 1947 encyclical Mediator Dei, Ven. Pius XII wrote that “it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device,” and that it is “obviously unwise and mistaken” to “go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstances and situation.”
Another Catholic commentator, Fr. Anthony Ruff, OSB, wrote March 6 at the Pray Tell blog that Cardinal Sarah’s preface indicated that “his grasp of what has happened in eucharistic theology in the last 75 years is simply shocking.”
This commentary was a source of confusion for many, because recent magisterial teaching seems to support Cardinal Sarah’s position.
The Congregation for Divine Worship issued its instruction on Holy Communion, which decreed the retention of Communion on the tongue despite some calls for distribution in the hand, five years after the end of the Second Vatican Council, and during the pontificate of Blessed Paul VI.
“It is a matter of great concern to the Church that the Eucharist be celebrated and shared with the greatest dignity and fruitfulness. It preserves intact the already developed tradition which has come down to us,” Memoriale Domini stated. “The pages of history show that the celebration and the receptions of the Eucharist have taken various forms. In our own day the rites for the celebration of the Eucharist have been changed in many and important ways, bringing them more into line with modern man’s spiritual and psychological needs.”
It noted that “It is certainly true that ancient usage once allowed the faithful to take this divine food in their hands and to place it in their mouths themselves.”
But “Later, with a deepening understanding of the truth of the eucharistic mystery, of its power and of the presence of Christ in it, there came a greater feeling of reverence towards this sacrament and a deeper humility was felt to be demanded when receiving it. Thus the custom was established of the minister placing a particle of consecrated bread on the tongue of the communicant.”
“This method of distributing holy communion must be retained … not merely because it has many centuries of-tradition behind it, but especially because it expresses the faithful’s reverence for the Eucharist.”
The congregation also wrote that this traditional practice “ensures, more effectively, that holy communion is distributed with the proper respect, decorum and dignity. It removes the danger of profanation of the sacred species” and “it ensures that diligent carefulness about the fragments of consecrated bread which the Church has always recommended.”
They noted that “A change in a matter of such moment … does not merely affect discipline.”
“It carries certain dangers with it which may arise from the new manner of administering holy communion: the danger of a loss of reverence for the august sacrament of the altar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine.”
When some bishops asked for permission for Communion in the hand, Bl. Paul VI sought the opinion of all the Church’s Roman rite bishops. Of those responding, 57 percent said that attention should not be paid to the desire for the reception of Communion on the hand. Of those bishops who were open to considering the practice, just over one-third had reservations about it.
And 60 percent of bishops did not even wish that Communion in the hand be experimented with in small communities. More than half did not believe the faithful would receive such a change gladly.
So, in 1969, in full consideration of Sacrosanctum Concilium, Bl. Paul VI “ decided not to change the existing way of administering holy communion to the faithful,” considering the remarks and advice of his fellow bishops, the gravity of the matter, and the force of the arguments against it.
The Pope who oversaw much of the Second Vatican Council, and who implemented its liturgical reform, was clearly concerned about the risks of disrespect and false opinions about the Eucharist which could arise from Communion in the hand. The Church’s norms have not shed that concern. Nor did Sarah’s pastoral reflections.
Benedict XVI was well-known for advocating something he called a “hermeneutic of reform” in theological conversation. He meant that historical memory should inform contemporary theological reflection. The alternative, he said, was something he called the “hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture.”
If Cardinal Sarah, who is responsible for the regulation and promotion of the sacred liturgy, is impugned for raising the very objections against Communion in the hand which were raised by Paul VI fewer than 50 years ago, it’s worth considering whether the idea of the “hermeneutic of reform” has been rejected among Catholic intelligentia.
If nothing else, the affair reveals a very short historical memory among some members of the Catholic press.
It’s also worth noting the strength of the reaction to what Cardinal Sarah in fact wrote was largely a function of media distortion. Sarah is far from removing permissions for Communion in the hand. His stated desire is to foster the “rediscovery and promotion of the beauty and pastoral value” of Communion on the tongue.
The matter also demonstrates the degree to which reactionary Catholic media voices can enflame the kind of sensationalism they might otherwise criticize.
Cardinal Sarah won’t really be removed from his office for suggesting the value and beauty of, to borrow the words of Benedict XVI, “what earlier generations held as sacred.” But in this moment of ecclesial polarization, he will likely continue to be criticized.
[…]
I must state respectfully that the author of this article is willfully deluded. It is an objective fact that Pope Bergoglio has refused to deny and condemn the heretical belief on Hell attributed to him by Scalfari. What Catholic accused in public of such a monstrous lie would hesitate even an instant in doing so, much more so the Pope himself. It is also an objective fact the the Vatican has refused to deny the material accuracy of the Pope’s statement, confining itself only to denying the lack of a formal quotation of the words the Pope used. Finally, it is an objective fact that this is the second time that Scalfari has attributed this heretical position to the Pope, again without denial by the Pope in the earlier interview. Finally, it is objective fact that Pope Bergoglio has asserted this heretical position previously in written statements that the author omits from his article. There are other articles on the internet that deal with this whole debacle in detail. As a useful correction of this article, I would suggest reading the following article by Chris Ferrara: http://www.fatimaperspectives.com/fe/perspective1180.asp
Make your yes mean yes and your no mean no. Anything else is of the fallen one. Matthews 5:37. Confusion is from the devil. The pope is the Shepard which is to guide his sheep. There is right and wrong. Since the pope has been in office all we hear is confusion and he has scattered his sheep. It is the pope call to speak clearly and lead the sheep which jesus calls us all to do. Who am i to judge? Pope perhaps the question is you are NOT so much as judging a person. U r judging the morality of society that has fallen into the abyss. You pope are called to lead and u have failed to lead according to scripture. You pope are a false prophet that we were warned about. This anti pope immediately has to be removed. All catholics need to rise up and remove the pope and the corrupt cardinals and bishops that put him into power . St michael the archangel I call upon you to clean up the house of God in Christ’s name amen.
i agree the hole vatican 2 sect is heretic and from the devil may God destroy it
I would ask, does AL not ‘magisterially’ make this position openly, ” ‘no one is condemned [to hell] forever, because the logic of the Gospel’…is that, after the final Judgement, ‘[hell and] the souls [of hell] simply disappear’ “….? So there is a false hell belief but not the Lord’s and His People’s Gospel Hell Revelation…??
Your addition of “[to hell]” is grossly misleading, to put it nicely. Anyone with a basic knowledge of, well, Catholic theology and the English language recognizes that AL 297 is not talking about eternal judgement or condemnation. Rather, it is saying that in this life, there is no situation (“various situations of weakness or imperfection”, 296) that cannot be resolved and made right if proper steps are taken. It has nothing to do with eternal judgment. Now, having been very critical of AL, especially chapter 8, I still have issues with the passage in question. But the fact that it now taken for granted, in certain echo chambers, that this passage is about hell, is absolutely ridiculous, even laughable.
Carl, the difficulty with your interpretation of AL 297, is that is speaks specifically of condemnation. When has the Church ever taught that it “condemns” anyone “forever”? The Church does teach on mortal sin and the need to confess and amend one’s life in order the fully participate in the life of the Church. But “condemnation” and one that last “forever”? I’m no expert but I doubt if the concept of “condemnation forever” has ever been understood by the Church outside of considerations of God’s final judgement. Thus, those who interpret the language in question in AL 297 to reference Hell, can hardly be said to be “grossly misleading” as you put it, even if at some technical level they may be incorrect.
Suggest that both you and the Pontiff consult Scripture and the Catechism.
IV. Hell
1033 We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: “He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.”610 Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren.611 To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called “hell.”
1034 Jesus often speaks of “Gehenna” of “the unquenchable fire” reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost.612 Jesus solemnly proclaims that he “will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire,”613 and that he will pronounce the condemnation: “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!”614
1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, “eternal fire.”615 The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.
1036 The affirmations of Sacred Scripture and the teachings of the Church on the subject of hell are a call to the responsibility incumbent upon man to make use of his freedom in view of his eternal destiny. They are at the same time an urgent call to conversion:
“Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few.”616
Agreed!
“Rather, it is saying that in this life, there is no situation (“various situations of weakness or imperfection”, 296) that cannot be resolved and made right if proper steps are taken.”
This is a real stretch. The term “condemned” for Catholics has only one meaning.
Kind of agree with Chris C. I think the sentence and it’s choice of words like “forever” are a slip of the tongue or mind and are out of kilter with the practical on earth D/R et al sinner context since the clergy and Church never condemn to hell or to formal guilt but only to material guilt…even in ex communication. They can retain material mortal sin but still pass no judgement on a soul’s destination.
I think Francis was speaking about living sinners yes but simultaneously slipping half consciously into a private eschatology with a slip of the tongue that stains a Church document. His silence after these offending interviews support that.
His position on Judas supports that wherein he prefers a statue’s catechesis to all of Christ’s consistently dire words on Judas…not to mention Acts which says Judas “fell away to go to his own place”…a lonely connotation out of place with eventual heaven.
Others have made the point quite clearly, but I’ll try to boil it down to its essence: when do we ever talk about condemnation except in relation to hell? Especially when the temporal context is FOREVER?
Carl I agree with you which why you are a principled critic of the Pope and not an extremist.
People who dogmatically insist AL 297 is talking about Hell are actually doing the work of Hell because
their extremist and false attacks on the Pope gets lumped in with your principled criticisms.
Like I said I am NOT having it.
Peace.
Well, blessed Christmas Jim!
I guess the Beloved led me back here today in His mercy.
Your reply seems rather rash and speckled with mocking ridicule and contempt, and yet projects well some of your thoughts.
First, about content and context and understanding: Francis says with AL that the logic of the Gospel is, ‘go and continue sin, living in adultery and not as brother and sister, for the sake of the children’. Jesus’ logic of the Gospel is, ‘go and sin no more, living chastely as brother and sister for the sake of the children’. Now he says and does the same with condemnation, forgiveness and the logic of the Gospel. This is the second thing.
Hence secondly, no one thinks that unforgiveness and condemnation is forever in this life – it is absurd that you [and Francis] make Jesus, me and His Spouse say or think this! Who would rationally believe this or broad paint God’s children of doing or thinking so?? It is beyond laughable to appropriate to Jesus in the Gospel and His Gospel Teaching, that Jesus thinks wrongly that any sin or sinner is forever in this life condemned and will be unforgiven in this world or the next – except the sin against the Holy Spirit. There is no logic of the Gospel, Catholic Theology or Philosophy that proposes this though you [and Francis] do.
Third, the logic of the Gospel inherently always encompasses this life and the life to come in the logic of repentance or unrepentance, condemnation or salvation – this is not laughable or ridiculous. The is the very logic of the Gospel.
The logic of the Gospel also includes that condemnation is forever even in this life if there is no repentance – on either side of the Narrow Way Francis is wrong: either in this life and the next condemnation is forever, accordingly, and thus not contrary to God and His Logic [of the Gospel].
Further, you propose illogically that ‘forever’ is ‘specified of the non-forever place of earthly life’ – one cannot but laughably enjoin that Francis is speaking of the ‘passing earthly life’ as the ‘forever’? Really??? These things you propose are more than ridiculous, they are….??
Fourth, you isolate and limit the AL subject to just the present paragraph and this world, when it fact it is joined to the next world and the whole section in which it is found and of the whole of AL as well as to the whole Gospel. Please do not make a whole out of a part, it is not Catholic Theology nor Her Handmaid, Philosophy – this usually happens when goes beyond the Dominican , ‘make a distinction, but not a separation’ and enters the Jesuits ‘make a separation, not just a distinction’ – so the Dominicans keep the fingers and hands distinct but the Jesuits make a mess of separating them…hmm, sounds familiar.
In the Holy Family of Faith, Hope and Love, Padre!!!
Mr Jim the Scott, The Holy Trinity become man testifies to Himself and His Logic [of the Gospel], ‘the sinner who sins against the Holy Spirit is forever unforgiven and condemned, yes, in this life and in hell in the life to come’….seems pretty clear cut, don’t think the Holy Trinity got His Logic wrong…do you???
Also His Logic is the same for those who do not repent in this ‘forever earthly life’, they are and remain unforgiven and condemned, forever as well. So by God’s Logic, it is in this earthly life and hell’s life, forever, accordingly.
Well, blessed Christmas Carl!
I guess the Beloved led me back here today in His mercy.
Your reply seems rather rash and speckled with mocking ridicule and contempt, and yet projects well some of your thoughts.
First, about content and context and understanding: Francis says with AL that the logic of the Gospel is, ‘go and continue sin, living in adultery and not as brother and sister, for the sake of the children’. Jesus’ logic of the Gospel is, ‘go and sin no more, living chastely as brother and sister for the sake of the children’. Now he says and does the same with condemnation, forgiveness and the logic of the Gospel. This is the second thing.
Hence secondly, no one thinks that unforgiveness and condemnation is forever in this life – it is absurd that you [and Francis] make Jesus, me and His Spouse say or think this! Who would rationally believe this or broad paint God’s children of doing or thinking so?? It is beyond laughable to appropriate to Jesus in the Gospel and His Gospel Teaching, that Jesus thinks wrongly that any sin or sinner is forever in this life condemned and will be unforgiven in this world or the next – except the sin against the Holy Spirit. There is no logic of the Gospel, Catholic Theology or Philosophy that proposes this though you [and Francis] do.
Third, the logic of the Gospel inherently always encompasses this life and the life to come in the logic of repentance or unrepentance, condemnation or salvation – this is not laughable or ridiculous. The is the very logic of the Gospel.
The logic of the Gospel also includes that condemnation is forever even in this life if there is no repentance – on either side of the Narrow Way Francis is wrong: either in this life and the next condemnation is forever, accordingly, and thus not contrary to God and His Logic [of the Gospel].
Further, you propose illogically that ‘forever’ is ‘specified of the non-forever place of earthly life’ – one cannot but laughably enjoin that Francis is speaking of the ‘passing earthly life’ as the ‘forever’? Really??? These things you propose are more than ridiculous, they are….??
Fourth, you isolate and limit the AL subject to just the present paragraph and this world, when it fact it is joined to the next world and the whole section in which it is found and of the whole of AL as well as to the whole Gospel. Please do not make a whole out of a part, it is not Catholic Theology nor Her Handmaid, Philosophy – this usually happens when goes beyond the Dominican , ‘make a distinction, but not a separation’ and enters the Jesuits ‘make a separation, not just a distinction’ – so the Dominicans keep the fingers and hands distinct but the Jesuits make a mess of separating them…hmm, sounds familiar.
In the Holy Family of Faith, Hope and Love, Padre!!!
Mr Olson, The Holy Trinity become man testifies to Himself and His Logic [of the Gospel], ‘the sinner who sins against the Holy Spirit is forever unforgiven and condemned, yes, in this life and in hell in the life to come’….seems pretty clear cut, don’t think the Holy Trinity got His Logic wrong…do you???
Also His Logic is the same for those who do not repent in this ‘forever earthly life’, they are and remain unforgiven and condemned, forever as well. So by God’s Logic, it is in this earthly life and hell’s life, forever, accordingly.
Carl, perhaps:
Jesus and His Gospel mercy accompanies and teaches His right and proper steps: ‘go and sin no more’; ‘you are not married’, ‘you do not have God’s grace’, ‘it is NOT a true marriage’; it is not God’s will that you continue [in adultery] sin’; ‘you must live chastely and continent for the sake of the children [old/already]’; ‘you cannot until full Confession and Re-Communion approach the Altar for an Holy Communion’; ‘it is NOT the best you can do for now’, “My Grace is sufficient for you’; ‘convert and repent’ ….and so on.
Francis and his gospel mercy accompanies and teaches these ‘right and proper steps’, ‘go and sin more’; ‘you are married’, ‘you have God’s grace’, ‘it is a true marriage’; ‘it is God’s will that you not discontinue [in adultery] sin’; ‘you must NOT live chastely and continent for the sake of the children’; ‘you can withOUT full Confession and It’s Re-Communion approach the Altar for an Holy Communion’; ‘it is the best you can do for now’, “My Grace is INsufficient for you’, ‘DO NOT convert and repent’ ….and so on.
For the Beloved ‘these are various situations of sin’ that need full repentance, ‘going and sinning no more’ for forgiveness and restoring reconciliation, not being condemned. Without this conversion one is even in this life, but also in the next, forever condemned – this why the Father rejoiced in the younger prodigal’s sinning no more and why He was saddened that the older son rejected this mystery enjoining being lost and dead himself. This is God’s and His Gospel’s Logic of Mercy.
For the Francis ‘these are various situations only of weakness and imperfection, that must not be called sin, or culpable sin, and so there is no need for full repentance for forgiveness and restoring reconciliation, ‘go and continue in your sins’ [adultery] for they do not condemn you. The younger prodigal didn’t need to fully repent, he only needed to worm his way to understand the Father’s mercy would accompany him as he was doing his best, nothing to fear forever, you’re already in the Father’s Holy Communion Grace and Sacrifice. This is Francis’ and his gospel’s logic of mercy.
Proposing that presenting God’s Truth and Logic is laughable and ridiculous? Pretending that Francis is teaching God’s Gospel and Salvation in this is sadly what is ridiculous and calls for abundant tears.
No, this is the usual Teaching of the Holy Spirit viz-a-viz ‘condemnation.
Second, you make Jesus laughable and ridiculous and errant for Teaching John 20:23b.
Third, Francis it seems does not believe. He has purportedly just told the seminarians in spain [barcelona],”to forgive all sins even if there is no repentance because condemnation is not forever so always give absolution”. Thus demanding, diabolically that we disobey Christ Jesus and “do not retain sins”.
There is a moral obligation to revisit this.
Benedict notes that the biblical “sheol” has two meanings–one is Death and the other is Hell. His point is that we are freed from the fear of the abysmal desolation of personal Death (which is revealed as our passage into eternity), but that Hell still remains for those who choose to condemn themselves to total self-isolation from the infinite–which is beyond themselves (Introduction to Christianity, 1968).
At the beginning of his pontificate, Pope Francis announced that he was no theologian. Indeed.
Mr. Ferrara has long appointed himself the judge of the popes, who are generally found wanting. His opinion is tainted with that spiritual jaundice that St. Francis de Sales warned against in his Introduction to the Devout Life. As such, it is less helpful than Mr. Brumley’s article, which treated everyone involved with charity and a lack of rash judgment, while at the same time calling out the actions involved as problematical and preventable. This is a balanced take. As for the other, caveat emptor; to paraphrase an old saying, We risk becoming what we consume, and that includes reading.
Being “balanced” is the most superficial of values.
Truth is what really matters.
If Ferrara has found much to criticize in a string of Popes, perhaps the problem is not jaundice in Ferrara, but flaws in those Popes, who just happen to have presided over an unprecedented dissolution of the Church.
One can judge popes.
Chris Ferrara is a better representative of the gift of Faith than Bergoglio.
We all have a right to give witness.
Ferrara has never met a Pope he liked. If the head of the SSPX somehow was made Pope then I believe Ferrara would still find a way to complain or die like a Greek women because he can’t complain.
I hope that Pope Francis’ disastrous pontificate terminates soon.
Pope Francis already explicitly denied doctrine on hell in Amoris Laetitia by writing that “nobody can be condemned forever” while Jesus said “many” go to hell.
The Scalfari interview only exhibits Bergoglios manifest persistence in the heresy written in Amoris Laetitia.
But nobody really cares anymore. I’m not even sure why publications like CWR even exist if they are going to merely spin the Popes heretical words to attempt to make it look like a mistake or merely an allegation.
Jesus became flesh, suffered, and was murdered in order to, in part, give us words that He demanded be preserved forever.
Pope Francis and many US bishops and priests are changing the meaning of Jesus’ words, yet only a few care. Those few must be the one who end up in heaven, while the many frauds end up in hell.
I have observed in my 86 years the tendency of some Catholics is to gradually become agnostic regarding spiritual questions, and I suspect this is the agenda of Popes and Priests.
Nonsense! Pope Francis never said that.
Max you are worst then CNN on Trump.
Quote”It is a matter of reaching out to everyone,
of needing to help each person find his or her
proper way of participating in the ecclesial community
and thus to experience being touched by
an “unmerited, unconditional and gratuitous”
mercy. No one can be condemned for ever, because
that is not the logic of the Gospel! . Here
I am not speaking only of the divorced and remarried,
but of everyone, in whatever situation
they find themselves. Naturally, if someone
flaunts an objective sin as if it were part of the
Christian ideal, or wants to impose something
other than what the Church teaches, he or she
can in no way presume to teach or preach to
others; this is a case of something which separates
from the community (cf. Mt 18:17). “END
Yeh given the context I don’t see how you get universalism out of that? It seems to be talking about visible
membership in the earthly church and participation in the community not one of the Last Things.
People who slander the Pope give service to the Devil & do the work of Hell. If Pope Francis is destined to burn in he unmentionalble place for all his sins people who run around slandering are in danger of burning with him. Also the work of focused and fair critics of the Pope is undermined by persons who tell easily disprovable falsehoods about him. So Cardinal Burke or anybody who wants to point out why it is stupid for the Pope to continue to talk to Scalfari get lumped in with fanatics who are out to smear the Holy Father. I’m NOT having it.
“Let’s hope the lesson regarding Mr. Scalfari has finally been learned so we don’t see further international headlines recounting this or that alleged contradiction by Pope Francis of some basic Christian tenet.”
The lesson has been learned by whom? Francis is the one who keeps going back to this guy. What exactly does the author make of that?
And, for Mr. Brumley’s edification, this statement as part of Francis’ authentic magisterium from AL 297: “No one can be condemned forever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel! Here I am not speaking only of the divorced and remarried, but of everyone.”
That’s from Amoris Laetitia. Can’t blame that one on Scalfari.
If it looks like a duck…
Pope Francis isn`t talking of the afterlife. Read Carl Olson explanation above.
I wish Mr Brumley would be hired by the Vatican.
Thank you, Mr Ferrara!
What Bergoglio said to Scalfari on this particular occasion is irrelevant. What is relevant is what Scalfari has published in the past, repeatedly, and the fact that Bergoglio obviously approves of it. There will be more such interviews in the future, with more heresy reported, with more plausible deniability, but no real denial. And that’s how Bergoglio moves the ball down the field.
Indeed. Thank you
For a man of his age and a man in his position, this pope has spoken carelessly time and time again.
He lacks precision in thought and speech and he does not seem to care about the consequences. But this is old news.
A true leader and defender of Faith and flock would have clarified this “misunderstanding” in very short order. The faithful here nothing said in contradiction to Mr Scalfari. The pope is not moved that his flock has every right to be uncomfortable and unhappy with the mess he made.
I believe Mr Scalfari heard what the pope said, correctly. Silence is consent.
The author’s theological gymnastics are intellectually stimulating but solve nothing.
You are on the same level as Scalfari, sorry, since he never records his interviews. He rewrites them by memory.
Bergoglio has a distorted view of “mercy.” He replaces the genuine mercy of Christ, which saved the very life of the woman caught in adultery, yet included the admonition “Go, and sin no more,” with a defective mercy that leaves out that admonition and instead accompanies the sinner all the way to Hell. That is okay, of course, because there really is no Hell.
Bergoglio’s disbelief of the reality of Hell helps one understand his badly deformed view of mercy.
It’s rather naive to think that the Pontiff will in the future stop putting himself in situations where he ends up with both of his feet in his mouth. Based on his track record, most of us know what to expect and I seriously doubt that we will end up being surprised. It would be uncharacteristic of him to unambiguously and unequivocally affirm the teaching of the Church. Pray for his conversion but don’t expect it.
As there was no “reply” link to your earlier comment in response to mine, I’ll have to answer that post here.
I’m not clear where you’re coming from or why you think or implied that I was unaware of the clear teachings of our faith on the existence of Hell. My point as I thought was clear, was that the term “condemnation forever” which appears in AL 297, has never been understood by the Church apart from considerations of God’s Judgement. Hence when some state that the “condemnation forever” spoken of in AL 297 refers not to Hell and eternal judgement but something else such as denial of the sacraments for those in a state of sin, they are incorrect. Hope that clarifies things.
exactly
Many of us including myself have strong convictions in respect to the Pontiff’s intent that may well be true yet not irrefutable. For example AL 297 addresses D&R in which the Pope questions whether they must remain permanently in a state of mortal sin or should the Church forgive the sin if repentant. Insofar as Scalfari there is no irrefutable evidence that the Pontiff denied Hell except for the words of an elderly atheist. Although silence may indicate guilt silence does not convict. That is why eminent canon lawyers Cardinal Burke and Fr Weinandy do not accuse the Pontiff of heresy. Otherwise Christ would have been justifiably condemned by the Sanhedrin. Perhaps the best approach to this quandary is that of canon lawyer Edward Peters who opined the Pontiff may be indictable on the preponderance of ambiguity due to wording and silence on moral issues and its effect. For a person to be convicted under the law as a heretic he must be adamant and persistent in stating a heresy. There is no evidence of that kind on any issue. There is however moral certitude [as distinct from reasonable certitude based on incontrovertible evidence] of intent due to the preponderance of misleading statements evasive responses and silence. The quandary it seems if the Pontiff who has strong support remains in Office and doesn’t make corrections may only be resolved by divine intervention. If that’s the case I hope soon.
This is the second time Bergoglio has propagated through Scalfari his disbelief of the reality of Hell, and then refused to aggressively clarify the matter.
This is an intentional tactic, not an accident of his personality. As I mentioned in a previous post, his disbelief of the reality of Hell also explains his distorted idea of Christian mercy.
It is time to look again at the legitimacy of his election — for the good of the Church.
“For example AL 297 addresses D&R in which the Pope questions whether they must remain permanently in a state of mortal sin or should the Church forgive the sin if repentant.”
AL 297 (emphasis mine): “No one can be condemned forever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel! Here I am not speaking only of the divorced and remarried, but of everyone.”
Of course Liuzza it’s misleading if you remove it from context. That last phrase in context refers to all living in an objective state of serious sin. Perhaps gays, those in a civil marriage, cohabitation. Certainly I don’t agree with him. Nonetheless it is not a definitive denial of an eternal hell.
Post-synodal apostolic exhortations are not typically used to make definitive statements of Church teaching. So Bergoglio hasn’t officially taught error. The Holy Spirit doesn’t let that happen. So if Bergoglio finally steps over the line he continually dances so close to, he will only be proving his election was not legitimate and that he is an antipope.
It may not be “definitive,” Father, but it’s fairly straightforward (and damning) nevertheless.
That someone could be “condemned forever” is precisely the logic of the Gospel, not to mention the express words of Jesus.
Then again, Jesus is only the Son of God. What does he know? Not nearly as much as Francis the Merciful.
Honestly, Father, why at this late hour of Francis’s disastrous papacy, do you and the others still strain so hard to deny the undeniable and defend the indefensible?
Actually Gerard my purpose is not to mitigate the grave damage to the Church and salvation of souls that are the effect of this Pontiff’s intentional ambiguity and misleading statements. He is apparently using the Scalfari interviews to disseminate his ‘revolutionary’ vision of the Church’s New Paradigm. My expressed purpose is twofold. It is to confirm nothing that he has said is definitive. And thus not Magisterial doctrine. God will not permit it. The Chair of Peter is preserved from error not the person who occupies it.
Excellent point.
So Christ, when He says He will announce to the goats on His left hand “Depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels” didn’t know what He was talking about, and Bergoglio is now going to straighten things out for Him.
So Christ and twenty centuries of teaching the Holy Spirit has preserved in the Church is wrong and Bergoglio is right?
The arrogance!
Absolutely.
Cardinals now have enough evidence – on multiple issues – not just of heresy but of pertinacity (stubborn non-retraction).
This means that, tomorrow, a few cardinals can, under church law, say simply, “pertinacity is firmly manifest and Jorge Bergoglio has lost the chair by automatic metaphysical realities.”
Then they chose a new pope before the end of this month while Bergoglio lives.
Then they must not blink and hold the line while Bergoglio refuses to step down – but he will another month after because the People of God have charismatic gifts to support the true pope.
If only Pope Francis and the Vatican would work as hard as Mr. Brumley to clear up this “misunderstanding.”
Lol….very true. The position is Pope. One would think Catholicism has about several thousand more precise, more prudent, more orthodox careful, more gravitas laden papabile to have chosen from …to fill this job title. He is some kind of punitive lesson from the permissive willing of God.
Yes. Mark summed it up well. It is imprudent at best and scandalous at worst for him to speak further with this “journalist.”
The fundamental point is that Pope Francis cannot be trusted in matters of Church doctrine. A Pope who compromises in moral issues will not hesitate to do the same in doctrinal issues.
May Jesus soon clear up the confusion in the Church.
Bergoglio and Scalfari have an agreement. Bergoglio pushes confusion, Scalfari pushes atheism. And the devil pushes them both.
In an article dated March 24, 2015, LifeSiteNews.com reports that: “… Scalfari has the pope denying hell. The article says: ‘What happens to that lost soul? Will it be punished? And how? The response of Francis is distinct and clear: there is no punishment, but the annihilation of that soul. All the others will participate in the beatitude of living in the presence of the Father. The souls that are annihilated will not take part in that banquet; with the death of the body their journey is finished.’”
If Scalfari misrepresented the Pope’s comments in 2015, why on earth would the Pope grant an interview in 2018 to Scalfari only to have Scalfari turn around and repeat the same allegedly erroneous narrative? What on earth is going on here?
I believe that Pope Francis said to Scalfari what Scalfari says Pope Francis said and, further, that Pope Francis intended Scalfari to publish the statement. If Pope Francis (a) in fact said nothing about hell, or (b) recited Catholic teaching about the reality of hell, he would be outraged at what Scalfari said and the Vatican statement would not be so non-committal about whether Scalfari made any material misrepresentation. So I have no doubt that Scalfari’s statement is not materially inaccurate. If Pope Francis in fact said what Scalfari says Pope Francis said, there can be no doubt that Pope Francis knew, before saying it, that Scalfari would publish it. One thing that Pope Francis isn’t is naïve.
So all I can conclude, rationally, is that Pope Francis disagrees with the Church’s teaching concerning hell and knowing that he cannot overtly deny the teaching is seeking to undermine it by sowing doubt about it through means that allow him plausible deniability.
Your take on this is rational…very rational and succinct. It helps me because I keep seeing him as spacey…and that might be a furtive way of excusing him as though he is an imbecile. You are saying he is more intentional…than a person who is chaotic of mind. Bottom line….I don’t think any of us would leave children with him for an hour for instruction on heaven and hell…and yet he’s Pope. None of us would have left daughters with Pope Alexander VI in 1494 for an hour…and yet he was Pope. We need a better theology of deficient Pope periods. I had 16 years of Catholic school. I don’t remember having one hour on the topic….and 8 of those years were Jesuit.
Imagine the chaos that would result if the SAT Reading Test had “brief passages” from “Amoris Laetitia” followed by the usual challenge to pick which statement below best expresses the meaning of the passage.
“Pope Francis has taught the reality of hell, understood as a *permanent state of existence*. He has. Repeatedly.”
As I re-read this, I can’t help but think citations would be helpful. Also, how can Hell be permanent state if we are hoping no one even goes there? Really, it all doesn’t especially add up. Given the fact the only denial is that the recollections should not be considered exact quotes. And the pope obviously does not care enough to clear up the confusion himself. Doctrinal teaching is HIS responsibility, and here we are. I for one have decided either Francis suffers from Third World cultural blindness to America, or he is willfully trying to nudge centuries of doctrine leftward. I hopeful the former, but it’s anyone’s call. This papacy cannot end soon enough.There are good popes and bad popes. From American shores, Francis seems like a bad pope.
Christopher Altieri links to at least four texts/stories about Pope Francis discussing hell: http://www.catholicworldreport.com/2018/03/30/pope-francis-believes-in-hell-and-he-needs-to-stop-talking-to-eugenio-scalfari/
Pope Francis is a great Pope who internalizes the Beatitudes as set forth by our Lord in his great Sermohich is the essence of our Chri
Our wonderful Pope Francis internalizes the Beatitudes as set forth by our Lord in his great Sermon, which is the essence of our Christian faith. May Pope Francis have a long papacy!
This is a head in the sand article.
Pope Francis epitomizes the Sermon on the Mount, which is the essence of Christianity. May Francis have a long Papacy!
Actually Ray….Christ said to Satan in the desert that man does not live by bread alone but by
” every word that comes forth from the mouth of God”. Not some words…every word that God sent. That means the tens of thousands of words that are outside the sermon of the mount. That of course includes so many verses on punishment, several on the death penalty for us gentiles, many death penalties for the old covenant Jews only, Christ saying of hell…” where the worm dies not and the fire is not quenched”.
Read the entire Bible ,Ray, in other words and Aquinas will tell you what is void from the OT….the judicial laws and the ritual laws and the Sinai covenant blessings and punishments etc.
So if you think Christ who quoted the Bible well outside the beatitudes would agree with you and your abridged version….that it suffices….no….Christ wants you to read the whole thing in time. People read 400 page novels….many…..but the whole Bible…no.
It seems to me you did not read the full text of the Sermon on the Mount. Might be a good idea to get fully acquainted with it.
“Let’s hope…”
How long has the author been observing this catastrophe?
Wishful thinking will not bring an end to this most devastating event in the history of the Church. A pope hell bent on the deconstruction of Roman Catholicism and replacing it with a contrived cult — The New Paradigm.
Everyone need shed the rose colored shades.
Wishful thinking is not going to provide an adequate rationale for this demonstration of “odium fidei” on the Chair of Saint Peter.
How long do we have to endure “sixties priests” before we call it for what it is? What exactly compels us to embrace the level of denial required to keep this individual in a position of power and privilege which he boldly abuses?
No more deference to deception.
If the fact that we are debating whether or not the pope believes in hell does not send chills down the spine… does not convince someone that there is something seriously wrong with the church then there’s no point in talking further.
Given Scalfari’s trwck record it is not “commendable” in the least that Pope Francis continues to agree to interview requests from this manipulative atheist reporter.
The Successor to Peter should not be the source of confusion, something Francis has in fact been since he was first elected.
Francis’ insistance on “making a mess” has resulted in repeated instances of confusion, and concern for the content of our faith is at an all time high among devout Catholics.
If Francis continues to spread confusion and to teach, or at least hint at teaching heresy and error, the College of Cardinals should consider either removing him from office or allowing him to save face by resigning.
With all due respect, Mark Brumley, you are basing your entire argument on speculation, and you lay blame on Scalfari and the media in general, when the confusion is to be blamed on (1) the pope and (2) the Vatican’s sloppy response. Your point #5, in particular, makes that perfectly clear: “…Although the Vatican’s statement implicitly warns against relying on the Scalfari account, it doesn’t state what, in fact, Pope Francis said to Scalfari.” It matters not what it “seems” to you or any of us what the pope “might” have said. He and his handlers missed the short window of opportunity to nip this in the bud by EXPLICITLY refuting Scalfari’s report with the pope’s affirmation of Church doctrine on the existence of hell. That this did not take place is telling beyond words. Instead, and as usual under this pope, the faithful laity is left to clean up the mess without support of the hierarchy. I can give you personal examples of how this plays out at the parish level. Lord have mercy.
There is little doubt in my mind after 5 years of these Pope Francis “tragedies” wherein he misleads by ambiguity, lack of clarification and his frequent use of his clerical supporters to really state what the Pope thinks. Pretty clear when his advisers are folks like Kasper, Parolin, Vigano, Sorando, etc. Isn’t it telling when he does not speak a word of correction re the German bishops outrageous and heretical statements?
With all the chaos around us regarding Pope’s supposed statement on hell, Bible, Lord’s prayer and Lucifer why not the Vatican publish an OFFICIAL STATEMENT ON THESE TOPICS? Many million souls could be at rest if authentic declaration from the holy see appears in all international media.
A.J.B. JERARD,INDIA.
“1. There is the issue of whether in general Pope Francis has taught the reality of hell, understood as a permanent state of existence. He has. Repeatedly…..”
Carl – I know I am very late to this discussion (article originally published over a year ago) but, can you point me to any specific instances of the above (i.e., where Pope Francis has unambiguously stated that hell is real and that damned souls will spend eternity there? It would be very helpful. Thank you.