POPE FRANCIS AND THE LORD'S PRAYER

Pope Francis recently stated that he believes the Roman Catholic Church needs a better translation of the phrase “lead us not into temptation” in the “Lord’s Prayer,” also called the “Our Father.”

The Holy Father is concerned the prayer in Italian and English asks God to “lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.”

Pope Francis said in an interview with an Italian TV network that the prayer “is not a good translation” because it is not God who tempts.

“But really God helps those who are “provoked into Satan’s temptation,” the Pope said.

Earlier this week, French Catholic Bishops adopted a new translation for their “Our Father” prayer, changing the phrasing from “Do not submit to temptation” to “Do not let us enter into temptation.” In September, Pope Francis changed the Code of Canon Law to allow nations; Bishops’ Conferences to make the celebration of the Liturgy more understandable to the people they serve. France’s recent change to the Lord’s Prayer is a result of decentralizing how liturgical prayers are approved.

Of course, the Pope’s remarks undoubtedly will spark much controversy among the more conservative ranks of Catholic scholars, Clerics and laity.  

The real issue behind the Pope’s remarks is the manner in which the Sacred texts of the Scriptures have been translated and interpreted down through the ages.

And so, I thought it might be beneficial to present a brief overview of the major versions of the Scriptures which are important both historically and for the fact of their continuing use within the Catholic community.

It is a fascinating, but complex and often confusing history of translations of texts from one generation of believers to the next.  It is a history which betrays any notion that the Bible comes to us as a complete and unaltered document chiseled in stone by the Divine Hand.

The earliest copies of the Old Testament were written without vowels or accents, as written Hebrew did not represent vowels until the Middle Ages. To preserve traditional spoken readings, starting in the 5th Century A.D.,  a group of Jewish scribes known as the Masoretes carefully selected, copied, and annotated biblical scrolls, adding vowels and accents to the ancient Hebrew consonants in the process.

Though the Masoretic scribes added these vowels to the ancient text long after it had been written, they were likely preserving traditional vocalizations that dated to much earlier times. The Masoretes produced several different systems of vocalization (writing in vowels) between 500 and 700 A.D.

Until the last few decades, most biblical scholars believed that the Masoretic biblical texts were, with some exceptions, the best witnesses to the most ancient Hebrew text of the Old Testament.

Recent discoveries from the Dead Sea Scrolls, however, suggest that there were several different versions of many biblical books.   Some of these versions differed only slightly from each other, but some versions were very different. After the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple by the Romans in 70 A.D., Jewish groups dispersed across the ancient world, preserving these versions of the Hebrew Scriptures in their communities. One of these groups preserved the texts that would later become the Masoretic Text. Others are preserved in versions such as the Septuagint, the earliest Greek translation.

In the 10th Century A.D., the ben Asher scribal family of Tiberias produced a manuscript of the Hebrew Bible that Maimonides, a famous Jewish scholar, declared to be the best known version of the sacred text. 

Soon after, the Tiberian Masoretic text and its particular version of vowels and annotations became the standard, authoritative text of the Hebrew Bible for rabbinic Judaism. The most important Masoretic medieval manuscripts are the Aleppo Codex, which dates to the 10th century C.E., and the Leningrad Codex, which dates to 1009 A.D.

The Masoretic Text is the version held as authoritative and used liturgically in most synagogues today. The Catholic Church since the time of Jerome (4th Century A.D.) and most Protestant Christian churches use this version as their source text for modern translations.

Now when it comes to translations of the Biblical texts, we note that the earliest translation of the Hebrew Bible is the Old Greek (OG), the translation made in Alexandria, Egypt, for the use of the Greek-speaking Jewish community there. 

At first, just the Torah (the first five books of the Old Testament) was translated, in the Third Century B.C.  The rest of the Old Testament books were translated later. The whole Hebrew Bible was likely translated into ancient Greek by the middle of the 2nd Century B.C.

Scholars think that many Old Greek translators worked from early Hebrew versions of biblical books that were quite different from the Masoretic Text. As a result, some biblical books, such as Daniel, Jeremiah, and Job, are longer or shorter in the Old Greek version of the Bible than they are in the Masoretic Text.

In fact, it is clear that there was not an official project to translate the Sacred texts into ancient Greek.   Instead, many different Greek-speaking Jews in various times and places simply translated their favorite books into ancient Greek. Some of these books were later chosen to be included in the Bible, and some were not. It was only many centuries later that people began to choose the best of these Greek translations and to copy them all together as if they were one book.

So, it can be said that the Bible was translated in its entirety before there even was a Bible!

Eventually, early Christians adopted the Old Greek translation as their preferred version of the Old Testament. Christians then added bits and pieces to what had already been added by Jewish editors and translators, and the resulting text used in early Christian liturgy (and still used by Eastern Orthodox Churches) is called the Septuagint.

Christians then translated the Greek version into many other languages, such as Latin (the Old Latin version, completed by the 3rd Century AD), African languages such as Coptic (3rd Century A.D.), Asian languages such as Armenian (5th Century A.D.), and Arabic (9th Century A.D.).

Because the Jews in Palestine spoke mostly Aramaic by the time the Old Testament books were coming into their final forms, translations were required even while the finishing touches were being put on the texts. For example, some parts of the Aramaic translation of the Torah, called Targum Onqelos, probably go back as far as 100 B.C. Others, such as Targum Psalms, date from as late as 600 A.D. These Aramaic translations are usually called targums, the Aramaic word for “translation.” Some targums are more literal, and others are more expansive and creative. Some Old Testament books have a number of different targums made from them, whereas for others we can only find one.

The Syriac language was spoken by Jews in northern Syria; they translated their Bible into Syriac at various points in the second century C.E. Several translators worked on this project, so the quality and style of translation varies. The Peshitta (which means “simple,” that is, a plain translation without textual comments) was prepared for the use of Jews. Later, Syriac-speaking Christians adopted the Peshitta and added a Syriac version of the New Testament, although the far-Eastern Christian churches seemed not to include several New Testament letters or the Book of Revelation.

In the 2nd Century A.D., a Christian named Tatian decided to harmonize all four canonical Greek Gospels and, at the same time, translate them into Syriac. Because the four Gospels seem to exhibit some discrepancies, Tatian rewrote them so that they would not conflict. Although Tatian’s harmonization was very popular in the East until the 5th Century A.D., other early Christian interpreters such as Irenaeus urged Christians to maintain all four (separate) canonical Gospels. The tradition of four separate Gospels continues in almost all Christian churches to this day.

By the end of the first and the beginning of the 2nd Century A.D., various Gospels, narratives, letters, and apocalyptic writings, all written in a broadly used dialect of Greek named koine, or “common,” were being used by various Christian communities.

Selection among these sacred texts, and from the Old Testament, for public reading in Christian worship probably began the process of canonization of Christian writings. When disputes broke out about beliefs or traditions, the canonical status of the various Christian writings became a touchstone in the debates.

Official lists of books in or out of the Canon only began to appear in the 4th Century A.D., as a result of particular theological disputes, usually about the divinity of Jesus or the Trinity. However, Christian Canon lists remained fluid through the 7th Century.  During this time, books such as the Shepherd of Hermas or the forged Epistle to the Laodiceans could be found in certain Christian Bibles.

Overall, by the end of the 4th Century,  there was general agreement about which books should have scriptural status. Although early Christians wrote quite a few letters and books, only a few became widely accepted. 

For a work to be considered sacred in the 4th Century and beyond, it seems that it had to claim apostolic authority: the work had to be written or authorized by one of the earliest Christian leaders, especially Paul and the twelve apostles. Apostolic authority required that the books be consistent with the teachings about Jesus and the Trinity that were found in other accepted books and that were current in 4th Century Christianity. As a result, books such as the Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of Thomas were rejected from most Christian canon lists.  Some of the writings deemed non-canonical were lost and only rediscovered in the 19th and 20th centuries.

So you can see that the history of the Bible is quite complex.  

Given the number of mutations that occurred over the course of the centuries, it is reasonable to ask how we can be sure that our present translations of the Bible really contain and communicate Divine Revelation in a trustworthy fashion.

What Catholics (and most Christian denominations) believe is that the Holy Spirit is the ultimate source of Divine Revelation and the Guarantor that the Scriptures as we know them accurately communicate the Divine Mind and Will to God’s Holy People, the Church.

Pope Francis has highlighted that the words “and lead us not into temptation” contained in the Lord’s prayer do not suggest that Almighty God induces human beings to be tempted to sin, but rather is a plea that the Lord Himself assist us as we resist the wiles of Satan and his deceit.

Of course, the Holy Father is correct.

It seems, however, that even the Pope’s words and intent can get lost in translation.

In any case, let us rejoice in the Prayer upon which untold generations have called upon Our Heavenly Father for His continued Providence, Forgiveness and Charity.

By the way, lest anyone think I carry this encyclopedic awareness of the history of the Scriptures in my mind on a daily basis, nothing could be further from the truth. 

Actually, in preparing this article, I found myself doing research I hadn't engaged in since my seminary days at the Gregorian University, so many years ago. 

Happily,  I have a much better appreciation for Biblical scholarship now than I did when I had to memorize so much of the history of the Scriptures to pass exams in the course of my advancement to Priestly Ordination.

THE AUTHENTIC MAGISTERIUM OF AMORIS LAETITIA AND THE BUENOS AIRES GUIDELINES: Part Three (Conclusion)

Pope Francis’ letter to the Argentine Bishops Conference, approving their implementation of the Apostolic Exhortation, Amoris Laetitia,  as well as the Buenos Aires Pastoral Guidelines for its implementation were published recently in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, which is the official gazette of the Holy See containing all the principal decrees, encyclical letters, decisions of Roman congregations, and notices of ecclesiastical appointments. The laws contained in it are to be considered promulgated when published, and effective three months from date of issue, unless a shorter or longer time is specified in the law.

An accompanying note from the Secretary of State, Cardinal Parolin, states “the Supreme Pontiff decreed that the two proceeding documents be promulgated through publication on the Vatican website and in Acta Apostolicae Sedis, as authentic Magisterium.”

In this concluding part of my three-part series, I will briefly address the source of much of the confusion which has surrounded Pope Francis’ call for the pastoral accompaniment of those involved in second invalid attempts at marriage who, while living fully the conjugal relationship of husband and wife, wish to return to a full practice of their Catholic Faith.

As I have shown forthrightly and clearly, there is nothing in the Apostolic Exhortation itself, nor the Buenos Aires Guidelines, which constitute any abandonment of the traditional teachings of the Church regarding the indissolubility of Sacramental Marriage.  Neither does they profess a discipline contrary to that prescribed in the Canons of Church which decree that persons knowingly in a state of grave sin not present themselves for reception of the Sacrament of Holy Communion.

Moreover, I have argued that the Office of Peter and his successors enjoy supreme sovereignty over the teaching and disciplinary authority bestowed upon them by Christ Himself.

That authority is not diminished by time nor immemorial custom.  Neither can it be limited to certain traditional forms of expression other than those with which the Church has been familiar during the course of its history.

Scholars of ecclesiology and experts in the Law are, or should be, knowledgeable of these facts.

Therefore, it is a wonderment to me that there are small but very vocal and irreverent groups (whom I have chosen to describe as neo-conservative reactionaries) who are obstinate in their refusal to accept what the Vicar of Christ has suggested is a compassionate response to those who find themselves in irregular marital situations but who choose not to abandon their Catholic Faith, but instead wish to be nourished fully with the Sacraments of Reconciliation and Holy Communion.

These self-proclaimed defenders of the Faith continue to suggest that Pope Francis has promulgated a heterodoxy which some claim borders on heresy.  Their rhetoric is full of vitriol and brings dishonor to the Office of Peter and disgrace to themselves.  

In their zeal to affirm themselves and their narrow-mindedness, they sow seeds of division and scandalize the Christian faithful who depend upon their knowledge and expertise as they attempt to live a life in harmony with the Divine Will and the Deposit of Faith which they cherish as the center of their Catholic Faith.

While not in anyway disparaging or abandoning the traditional understanding of the Covenant of Sacramental Marriage as an indissoluble bond, the Holy Father has sought to show mercy and exercise charity toward those in irregular marital situations.  

The Holy Father has endorsed the Pastoral Guidelines of the Bishops of Buenos Aires who have sought to provide guidance to sacred Pastors in the journey of accompaniment and discernment.

For his charity and forbearance, Pope Francis is berated, insulted and challenged in his Office as the Vicar of Christ by stiff-necked and pharisaical individuals and groups who seek to impose their will rather than the Divine Will (manifestly expressed by the Holy Father) in his Apostolic Exhortation and by his endorsement of the Buenos Aires Guidelines.

And for what reason?  

To uphold the dignity of the Sacrament while undermining the authority of the Office of Peter which is the foundation, the rock upon which the Church itself is founded?  

Or is it rather to impose a nostalgic, a romantic yet unrealistic and untrue image of the Church as a monolithic, perpetual and unchanging guarantor of Divine truth?

Every person of Faith is called upon by the Holy Father’s teachings and practice to take a stand.

You stand either with Peter or apart from Peter? 

To stand with Peter is to stand with Christ.  To stand apart from Peter is to stand apart from Christ.  

There is no middle ground.

It is not for me, a sinner in need of constant forgiveness, to judge the state of other men’s souls.  Yet, I admonish myself and others as well that opposition to Pope Francis' call to compassion may very well indeed be opposition to the Holy Spirit, the Church’s Paraclete, the Lord and Giver of Life.

As the Fathers of Vatican Council II encourage us, let us show deference, respect and allegiance to the Office of Peter and, by so doing, create an atmosphere of peaceful harmony within which the Church can fulfill its mission of being an instrument of the salvation of souls.

THE AUTHENTIC MAGISTERIUM OF AMORIS LAETITIA AND THE BUENOS AIRES GUIDELINES: Part Two

Pope Francis’ letter to the Argentine Bishops Conference, approving their implementation of the Apostolic Exhortation, Amoris Laetitia,  as well as the Buenos Aires Pastoral Guidelines for its implementation were published recently in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (AAS), which is the official gazette of the Holy See containing all the principal decrees, encyclical letters, decisions of Roman congregations, and notices of ecclesiastical appointments. The laws contained in it are to be considered promulgated when published, and effective three months from date of issue, unless a shorter or longer time is specified in the law.

An accompanying note from the Secretary of State, Cardinal Parolin, states “the Supreme Pontiff decreed that the two proceeding documents be promulgated through publication on the Vatican website and in Acta Apostolicae Sedis, as authentic Magisterium.”

As expected, the neo-conservative reactionaries have decried the actions of the Holy Father and engaged in a frantic and tortuous plethora of outcries that bemoning Pope Francis’ ways of doing things and the resulting confusion and uncertainty surrounding Amoris Laetitia and the manner in which the Pope desires that its merciful call for the pastoral care of the souls of those in invalid second marriages be implemented.

These self-proclaimed defenders of the Faith are well aware of  Canon 8, Paragraph 1 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law: “Universal ecclesiastical laws are promulgated by publication in the official commentary Acta Apostolicae Sedis, unless some other manner of promulgation has been prescribed in particular cases.” 

While most papal documents appearing in AAS lack canonical or disciplinary force, they are fully aware that the Pope's rescript at the hand of Cardinal Parolin explicitly gives the Buenos Aires Guidelines Magisterial authority in the interpretation of Amoris Laetitia.

Furthermore, they know full well and correctly that the Holy Father’s specific reference to "authentic Magisterium" clearly invokes the prescription of Canon 752 which thereby requires a "religious submission of the intellect and will" to the Buenos Aires Guidelines'.

Other Catholic conservatives are rallying behind Canon 915 which decrees:  “Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion,”.   They argue that, unless Canon 915 itself is directly revoked, gutted, or neutered, it binds ministers of holy Communion to withhold that Sacraments of Reconciliation and Holy Communion from, among others, divorced-and-remarried Catholics except where such couples live as brother-sister and without scandal to the community.

The first group of dissenters, who argue that any certain ecclesiastical disciplines are irreformable or indispensable, are willfully ignorant of the examples evident in both the Sacred Scriptures and throughout the history of the Church.

The simple reality is that no discipline is so long-standing and so thoroughly established in Church practice that it is irreformable. The Old Testament disciplines were established by Divine Revelation, and they stood for about 1500 years, until the Divine Teaching Ministry of Christ.

Let us recall when Jesus was confronted with the woman caught in adultery, He dispensed the Mosaic death penalty, changing Scriptural discipline very substantially.  And yet, by so doing, He did not give any indication that He approved of adultery. 

The laments of Cardinal Burke and the neo-conservative reactionaries who uplift and encourage his and their dissent notwithstanding, the fact remains:  discipline is not doctrine.

Moreover, Jesus and the early Church after Him together did away with all of the Old Testament disciplines. None remain in force at all. However, this did not dispense or change any Old Testament teaching on faith or morals. 

The New Testament gives us a better understanding of the fulfillment of the promise of faith and morals, but nothing truly taught by the Old Testament has been changed or negated by the New Testament.

When Jesus comes again, Church disciplines will pass away, just as the Old Testament disciplines passed away. There will be no Mass, no liturgical form, no Canon Law, no days of fasting, no holy days of obligation, no discipline at all. But of course the truths of faith, morals, and salvation will remain true forever.

But not only will all disciplines will eventually cease,  all disciplines can change. 

The length of time that a discipline has been in force does not deprive the Church of Her authority over that discipline.  The Church has the full authority given to Her by Christ, and that authority cannot diminish with time or custom.

Peter and his successors, the Popes, hold the keys. When they open, no one can close. When they close, no one can open.

And to those who defend their dissent and irreverence by invoking the prescriptions of Canon 915, let me offer the following for their consideration.  

Canon 915 can only rightfully be understood and applied with reference to Canon 916 which prescribes:  “A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.”

Canon 915 address matters in the “external forum” as it concerns a judgment of the Church and the minister of the Sacrament which prevents a person from reception of Communion. In addition, others “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin” are not to be permitted by ministers to receive. 

But to the extent that Canon 915 concerns the “external forum” it is ineffective and unenforcible.  For how can the minister of the Sacrament know at the moment of Holy Communion itself whether or not a person is objectively and subjectively “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin.”  

For its part, Canon 916 addresses the “internal forum” and the recipient of the Sacrament.  The individual who has a grave sin on his conscience is not to celebrate Mass (applies only to Priests and Bishops) or receive Communion (any Catholic) until he or she repents and confesses — unless there is a grave reason and no opportunity to confess. Both are needed. You can’t receive Communion merely because you had no opportunity to confess before that particular Mass. You also need a grave reason.

Pope Francis has indicated that the Church’s authentic Magisterium (contained in Amoris Laetitia and the Buenos Aires Guidelines) may consider that a person in an invalid marriage could have any number of grave reasons which would afford them no opportunity to confess and amend their marital situations.

And so, while not abrogating from Divine Law and in accord with the canonical precepts of the Church, Pope Francis has introduced disciplines which provide a compassionate approach to those in irregular marital situations.

In Part Three, I shall address the impact which the neo-conservative reactionaries are having upon the unity of the Catholic Faith and the burden of responsibility they bear for the confusion they seem hellbent on fomenting within the ranks of the Christian faithful.

THE AUTHENTIC MAGISTERIUM OF AMORIS LAETITIA AND THE BUENOS AIRES GUIDELINES: Part One

Pope Francis’ letter to the Argentine Bishops Conference, approving their implementation of the Apostolic Exhortation, Amoris Laetitia,  as well as the Buenos Aires Pastoral Guidelines for its implementation were published recently in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, which is the official gazette of the Holy See containing all the principal decrees, encyclical letters, decisions of Roman congregations, and notices of ecclesiastical appointments. The laws contained in it are to be considered promulgated when published, and effective three months from date of issue, unless a shorter or longer time is specified in the law.

An accompanying note from the Secretary of State, Cardinal Parolin, states “the Supreme Pontiff decreed that the two proceeding documents be promulgated through publication on the Vatican website and in Acta Apostolicae Sedis, as authentic Magisterium.”

News of the publication sent shock waves through the corridors of neo-conservative reactionaries around the globe.

Retired Catholic Bishop of Corpus Christi, Texas, Rene Henry Gracida said on his blog over the weekend, “Francis’ heterodoxy is now official.” Meanwhile, England’s internet-famed Deacon Nick Donnelly wondered on Twitter, “Has Francis deposed himself as the successor of St Peter by attempting to make the heretical interpretation of AL authentic Magisterium?”

The Pope’s actions as well as the neo-conservative reactions to the publication afford us the opportunity to revisit the issue of Papal magisterial authority and the ways it has been exercised over the course of the Church’s history.

And so, in this three-part article, I shall attempt to provide a brief overview of the weight of authority behind a teaching of the Papal Magisterium. 

Papal documents and declaration invariably contain teachings in several categories of authority.

Certain Papal teachings will address matters "of the faith" (de fide).  As such, these teachings require the assent of Catholics by virtue of Divine Revelation. 

Examples of such de fide teachings include those which have been solemnly defined (such as the divinity of Christ, or, the Immaculate Conception of Mary), and those which, while they have not been solemnly defined, belong to the infallible ordinary Magisterium, having been taught "semper et ubique" (always and everywhere). Examples of the latter include the evil of certain sins, such as abortion or adultery, or the restriction of the priesthood to men.

But, Papal acts of authentic Magisterium in the form of documents or declarations may also contain teachings which are not de fide, but which nonetheless provide new insights and explanations which manifest the mind Church doctrine or discipline. 

Such Papal teaching enjoys a presumption of correctness and deserves the reverence and submission of Catholics so that communion in matters of the faith is maintained throughout the Church, properly gathered around the principle of unity in faith founded upon the Office of Peter and his successors. 

The Fathers of Vatican Council II explicitly addressed this matter in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium:

This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme Magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking. [Paragraph 25]

Among the elements mentioned by the Council for determining the mind and intention of the Pontiff is the character and nature of the document or the declaration itself. 

Accordingly, Papal declarations and documents fall into certain recognized categories with levels of authority relative to each other.  The following lists those categories from those with the highest weight to those with the least.

1)  The Moto Proprio, a document promulgated by the Pope on his own initiative, and not in response to a request or at the initiative of others. Its legal determinations carry the full force of Papal sovereignty, though it does not abolish existing laws unless specifically stated. 

2) Apostolic Constitution which are customarily acts of the Pope in matters pertaining to governance, erecting dioceses, changing their status, rules for a Papal election and the like.

3)  Encyclical Letter, a circular or general letter expressing the mind of the Pope, generally related to matters of faith and morals.  Encyclical Lettters may be a letter to the entire Church or to a particular Church or people.

4)  Apostolic Letter, a declaration or document of lesser authority than an encyclical, concerning a doctrinal matter, a discipline, or any other act of the Papal will.

5)  Apostolic Exhortation, similar to an Apostolic Letter, which to communicates to the Church the mind and will of the Supreme Pontiff based upon consideration of the recommendations of a Synod of Bishops.

6) Common Declaration, a joint statement of the Holy Father and another religious leader concerning a common understanding of some teaching.

7) Homilies, sermons or reflections of the Pope on the Scripture readings at Mass.

8)  General  or Private Audience Discourses on a pertinent subject, such as on medical issues to groups of doctors, world affairs to diplomats and Church teaching and procedures to curial officials.

9) Discourses, in settings outside Masses or Audiences.

10)  Messages,written or spoken, often conveying a personal greeting, to individuals or groups. 

Again, these are among the elements mentioned by the Fathers of Vatican Council II for determining the mind and intention of the Pontiff as communicated by declarations or documents  which fall into these recognized categories of descending authority yet all of which deserve a “religious submission of mind and will” respecting the authentic Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff and acknowledging, with reverence, the judgments made by him so that they are sincerely adhered to, according to manifest mind and will of the Papal Office.

In Part Two, I will consider the character and and nature of the recent publication of Amoris Laetitia and the Buenos Aires Pastoral Guidelines as well as the declaration by the Cardinal Secretary of State to determine the extent to which these documents deserve a religious submission of mind and will and be both reverentially acknowledged and adhered to by Catholics everywhere.

HE'S BACK!

I pray that all of you had a truly Blessed Thanksgiving day celebration with family and friends.

We have so much for which to be grateful to the bountiful goodness of Almighty God.  In that sense, everyday is Thanksgiving Day.  Let us not forget ever to thank God even ask we ask His additional blessings in our daily prayers and entreaties.

As I explained prior to the holiday, I would be taking a week or so to update my internet service and would not be able to post articles during that time frame.

I am happy to announce that the update has been completed and I am back in service, although a bit out of contact with developments which occurred during the past week.

I shall return to my practice of posting an article a day.

I am grateful for your patience and hope you continue to enjoy the articles I post related to events related to the Church in our time.

God bless you always.

Father Joe

HAPPY THANKSIVING -- WILL NOT BE PUBLISHING POSTS FOR A WHILE

I wish to take the opportunity of this post to extend to all those who regularly read my posts and  to those who occasionally visit , to all family members and friends, my most sincere wishes and prayers for a safe and Happy Thanksgiving Day celebration.

Permit me also to inform you that, beginning today until December 4th or thereabouts, I shall not be publishing any posts.

The reason?

I shall not have access to the Internet during this period of time.

When I do return to posting again, I am assured by my cable provider that the new service to be installed will allow me to offer a variety of features my present service does not.

I am told that the upcoming Holiday Season is adding to the delay for the installation of new fiber optic equipment in the area.

I apologize to all those who find my posts interesting and worthy of their attention and comment.

Thanks to all of you for your kindness and encouragement.

I hope to see you here again after the new service is installed, up and (please God) actually running.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Father Joe

CARDINAL BURKE'S FINAL PLEA: CAN WE BUT HOPE SO

Cardinal Raymond Burke has again addressed the Pope, in what he calls a “final plea”, emphasizing “how urgent it is that, in exercising the ministry he has received from the Lord, the Pope should confirm his brothers in the faith with a clear expression of the teaching regarding both Christian morality and the meaning of the Church’s sacramental practice.”

The Holy Father has not yet responded to the original five-question dubia, signed by Cardinal Burke, along with Cardinal Walter Brandmüller and recently deceased Cardinals Joachim Meisner and Carlo Caffarra. 

The Cardinals have sought to ascertain, among other matters, whether previous Church teaching forbidding civilly “remarried” divorcees engaging in sexual relations to receive the Sacraments remained in force.

Cardinal Burke has insisted that Amoris Laetitia has subverted essential teachings and practices pertaining to the Church’s Deposit of Faith (Scripture and Tradition).  His Eminence alleges that the Holy Father and proponents of his Apostolic Exhortation have relativized absolute moral norms given “subjective, self-referential conscience” primacy in moral matters.  Cardinal Burke further claims that the Exhortation represents a “paradigm shift” regarding the Church’s entire moral practice.

What is bothersome about Cardinal Burke’s assertion that Amoris Laetitia’s subversion of Church teaching is that he must know that his claim is untrue.  Nowhere in the document does the Holy Father assert that Sacramental Marriage is dissoluble by any human agency, including the parties to the marriage itself, civil authority, or even the Church itself.

Cardinal Burke is fully aware that nowhere does the Exhortation suggest that couples in invalidly attempted second marriages, who fully engage in conjugal relations, are not engaged in actions clearly in violation of the teachings of the Gospel and Church Magisterium.

And His Eminence must admit that the Exhortation calls upon those precisely in such situations to seek the counsel of their Sacred Pastors in the process of seeking Sacramental absolution and a return to a full practice of their Catholic Faith.

What is troubling is the fact that Cardinal Burke must know and admit these truths, but denies them nonetheless.

But His Eminence is indeed correct that Amoris Laetitia does represent a “paradigm shift”.  The shift itself, however, is not in Church teaching, but in the Church’s dispensation of mercy and forgiveness.

Pope Francis has been exceedingly clear.  Couples in invalid marriages find themselves in situations which objectively contravene the moral prescriptions of the Scriptures and the consistent moral teachings of Church Magisterium.  There is no “paradigm shift” in this position.

The “paradigm shift” to which His Eminence refers is found in the Holy Father’s offer of mercy in affording these couples access to the Grace of the Sacraments.  Pope Francis chooses to embrace rather than punish and abandon these souls to a state of hopelessness and isolation.

The “paradigm shift” to which the Cardinal alludes is not one of moral doctrine, but one of charity and reconciliation.

To Peter and the Apostles, Christ gave the absolute power to release or bind from sin.  No one can deny that, throughout its history, the Church has been all too eager to bind and overly hesitant to release.

Now comes Francis who is eager to emulate the generosity of Christ in the dispensation of mercy, the same Christ Who -- while we were still sinners  -- offered His Life for the forgiveness of sins, all sins, for all time.

In His Death on the Cross, Jesus did not deny that mankind had sinned, was in the state of sin or would continue to sin in the future.  Jesus chose to forgive and offer that forgiveness to anyone who would hunger for Divine Mercy and pardon.

Pope Francis does not deny the objective sinfulness of invalid second marriages, he chooses instead to offer a pathway to pardon and redemption.

Why are Cardinal Burke and the neo-conservative reactionaries which he eagerly enables and from whom he seeks constant affirmation so offended?

I am reminded of the haunting words of Jesus in the Parable of the generous householder who pays the laborers who came late to the field the same as those who toiled in the sun all day.  “Are you jealous because I am generous....”

His Eminence is correct.  The Pontificate of Pope Francis shifts the mission of the Church from judgment to mercy, from the Tribunal of Divine Justice to the Altar of Sublime Charity.

The Holy Father chooses to be as generous in forgiveness as was Jesus Himself.  For this, the Pope should be commended.  Instead, Cardinal Burke and his associates castigate him.  

Why?

I have always been confused by those who would deny sinners access to the very Graces which could assist in their conversion.  

If Sacramental Absolution requires the conversion of spirit evidenced in a full purpose of amendment which the Church has consistently taught is necessary, then what need is there for the Sacrament itself.  If the penitent has already achieved the full conversion which the Sacrament requires, what does the Sacrament itself effect?  Or is Absolution just the official seal of approval of a conversion of spirit which has and must already precede it?   

Conversion is a process not an event.  It requires patience, understanding, the acceptance of human frailty and repeated missteps.  Along the way, there are many victories and many defeats. 

 The Church must be present ALL ALONG THE WAY, not employing the tactics of spiritual blackmail or ultimatum, but offering words of comfort and hope.

Any true Pastor of souls understands this.

Cardinal Burke insists upon the dotting of every “i” and the crossing of every “t” in respecting the laws and disciplines of the Church.

Sadly, he forgets the most fundamental of all those laws:  the salvation of souls.

There is a hardness of heart lurking beneath the clamor and laments of His Eminence.  

That saddens me greatly.  For, the Cardinal himself suffers most by denying that Christ and His Bride, the Church, want to offer a sinful and wounded humanity the inspiration and hope which Our Savior wishes us to know and experience in this life as well as the life to come.

Asking first and foremost, as I must, that the Lord to forgive my own sinfulness, I ask the Lord to melt that hardness of heart in His Eminence and all those so prone to judge others and deny them the assistance, encouragement and refreshment of spirit that come from the Sacraments.