Editor’s Note: The following interview with Bishop Marian Eleganti O.S.B was conducted by Dr. Maike Hickson on behalf of OnePeterFive. Eleganti is Auxiliary Bishop of the Diocese of Chur, Switzerland and the Youth Bishop of the Swiss Bishops’ Conference. Bishop Eleganti has signed, a few days ago, the “Profession of the truth about sacramental marriage” of the bishops of Kazakhstan which responds to the confusion stemming from the post-synodal exhortation Amoris Laetitia.
Maike Hickson (MH): You have signed a few days ago the statement of the Kazakh bishops concerning Amoris Laetitia in which the traditional Catholic moral teaching is being confirmed and the novelties concerning the “remarried” divorcees and their access to the Sacraments is being rejected. What has moved you to take this step?
Bishop Marian Eleganti (BME): My conscience. Inconsistency is for me not a signature of the Holy Ghost. But now there exist several contradictory interpretations of Amoris Laetitia which are being promulgated and defended by bishops and bishops’ conferences; not to mention the chaos at the basis how every individual priest himself has to deal with the question, together with the concerned couples. Where are there any objective criteria left for the examination of conscience and the decision?After all, nobody can assess the state of grace. Since Pope Francis has remained silent concerning the serious questions connected with these problems, such as whether the heretofore teaching of the popes is still valid (here I think especially of John Paul II’s Veritatis Splendor and also in this context of the traditional teaching on the intrinsically evil acts) – see here also the pope’s own conduct toward the Dubia – all kinds of people are talking. Why then not we, too? It is about the question as to whether the proclaimed, so-called “paradigm shift” through Amoris Laetitia is truly a breach (with Tradition) of the Church’s teaching or not, in accordance with the substance of this newly created word. If yes, the popes would contradict each other in their Magisterium, and even cancel each other. That would be fatal. This questions is currently also being discussed with regard to the so-called re-reading of Humanae Vitae. Here is indeed more at stake than a mere footnote.
MH: As bishop in Switzerland, do you see the concrete consequences of the reigning confusion among the faithful since Amoris Laetitia?
BME: It is more or less the same picture as everywhere.
MH: Do you know of concrete cases where now “remarried” divorcees, without changing their state in life, go to the Sacraments?
BME: This is not only since Amoris Laetitia the case. Many have praised themselves now with the fact that their heretofore illegitimate practice seemingly has now become official. I think of many pastors who have given access to Holy Communion to such couples for years, and for reasons of mercy and of conscience.
MH: How do you see the danger that Amoris Laetitia and its claim that a couple in an “irregular situation” does not necessarily need to be in the state of mortal sin may have as a consequence the watering down of the whole moral law? That is to say – as is now already being stated for example by Father Chiodi in Rome with reference to Amoris Laetitia – that the use of the pill or of other contraceptives might sometimes be, not only not sinful, but even necessary?
BME: No one can dare to make a judgment about the state of grace, neither the pastor nor the concerned couples themselves. Saint Pope John Paul II has stated in this context that only the objective situation of the civilly remarried couples itself is decisive as to why they may not go to Holy Communion, unless they abstain from sexual marital acts. He also then stated that this is also about the clarity of the teaching and the coherence between the doctrine and the sacramental practice in the Faith. With it, however, no judgment was made concerning the state of grace of the concerned persons. It was a great mistake at the two Synods on the Family that this differentiation has not been made understandable, but, rather that priests and civilly remarried couples have been misled by asking them to make an assessment of the state of grace which, with the best will, they can not make at all. Instead of holding on to objectively assessable facts – as done in the heretofore teaching tradition and sacramental practice – such as the nullity of the first marriage (the only legitimate reason for the justification of a so-called second marriage) and the existence of absolute norms that forbid everywhere and always intrinsically evil acts such as adultery (independent of circumstances, good intentions, and mitigating circumstances), one has created, in the meantime, more confusion and chaos of interpretations, rather than clarity. After all, there is no such a thing as a right life in the wrong [das richtige Leben im Falschen]. With other words: when there exists a valid, indissoluble marriage bond, nothing – not even the much invoked well-being of the children of a second union – justifies the living together more uxorio in a second civil marriage, unless one abstains from the sexual acts that are only reserved for the sacramental marriage. That is the case because they are – just like the Holy Eucharist – a real symbol and in both cases (Christ-Church; Bridegroom-Bride respectively Husband-Wife) they represent and at the same time realize the indissoluble covenant. Otherwise, we would really have the pastorally accompanied divorce and remarriage which Jesus very clearly rejected. Chiodi represents obviously a situation ethics which has been rejected by the heretofore Magisterium of the popes.
MH: Cardinal Reinhard Marx – the President of the German Bishops’ Conference – has shown himself now to be fundamentally open toward possible blessings for homosexual couples. Would you like to comment on this step?
BME: This is not really surprising and follows the logic of the “individual case-exception-rule” [“Einzelfall-Ausnahme-Regelung”] which, by the way, at the long run becomes the rule and the normal case. For now, he speaks about individual cases, but the criteria for it are not being given.
MH: As bishop, what is your concern in our situation of moral confusion, and what would you like to tell your fellow bishops?
BME: This historical process, respectively this moment in the Church’s history in this question and other questions about which – as it says so nicely – one now “has to think anew” – such as, for example, the assessment of artificial methods of birth prevention 50 years after Humanae Vitae, and more, is not yet closed. As we know, time is greater than space and hopefully will prove where Christ stands. Therefore, the bishops have to come out and say what they believe in their consciences. Like Saint Ignatius, I always make the decisions with the view of a possible better insight and then act according to my conscience. Deeper insights can always come. It is, however, often a martyrdom to get to them or to present them according to one’s best will and conscience and with honorable and reasonable arguments and intentions.
MH: What do you think, how could the Catholic Church come back to a clear voice with a clear teaching concerning the question what kind of conduct is pleasing to God and what kind of conduct puts the souls of people in danger and at risk?
BME: In standing all together with the pope and in leading an honest dialogue, without manipulative tricks, intimidations, or taboos concerning what to say or what to think; but, rather in truth and with love, in mutual respect and with reverence for the consciences of the others. Up to this point, however, the pope has in this context not yet presented an infallible new teaching, but, rather, has renounced to exercise his teaching office in not giving a clear, magisterial and unmistakable answer to the dubia. This is troubling to the Little Ones [the Parvuli] – of whom Jesus speaks in the Gospels and who write to me personally. I also think of them when I speak publicly.
Well said by a Bishop who is not emeritus and can’t be dismissed as a ‘traditionalist rigid Lefebvrian’. This is all the more reason to ask our local bishops on where they stand as there’s been too much fence-sitting concerning AL.
Dear Mark. Twice I have written to my Bishop and he hasn’t responded yet he prolly wonders why I am not responding to his Annual Bishop’s Appeal.
Sorry, No Tradition, no money….
I have also written numerous times to my bishop. I have not received a response. I will again write my bishop today. My problem is all I have is a generic email to the dioceses. This is a recently installed bishop, so I think I know where he stands.
His diocese is couched and run by very liberal men and women.
He is not a fan of the TLM, btw……..somewhat telling.
He is a big pro immigration, diversity, social justice guy…….telling.
And of course appointed by Francis……….telling.
Don’t waste your stamp in other words.
Yes, but some “allegation” against him or one of his priests may mean an early retirement…
Well spoken Bishop Eleganti. Yours answers constitute an eloquent exposition of traditional Catholic theology and it is a pleasure to read them.
“With it, however, no judgment was made concerning the state of grace of the concerned persons. It was a great mistake at the two Synods on the Family that this differentiation has not been made understandable, but, rather that priests and civilly remarried couples have been misled by asking them to make an assessment of the state of grace which, with the best will, they can not make at all.”
Amen and well said, Bishop Eleganti. Both synods began from this false premise that the d&r were excluded from Holy Communion on the grounds that they were not in a state of grace. While it may reasonably be assumed that the great majority of them are not, this has never been the rationale for Canon 915. They are excluded because they “obstinately persevere in a state of MANIFEST grave sin” which is objectively and fundamentally opposed to the truth of the Gospel irrespective of their subjective state of grace.
The fact that this was ignored in the synods and totally absent from AL is testimony to the woeful ignorance of the faith on behalf of the majority of the world’s bishops. Even bishops who are otherwise orthodox in their doctrine appeared to be ignorant of these facts.
The rot is so deep-set that even if Bergoglio were summoned to his eternal reward and replaced by a pope in the mould of St Pius X, it will take generations to clear out the dross.
Revoking AL needs to be solemn, official, and public, either by Pope Francis himself, or his successor.
Thank God the youngsters have a faithful Shepherd. in Bishop Eleganti.
Thank the Lord! Another bishop defends the Faith. In an edited version of Oliver Twist:
Please, Lord, can we have some more?!
In standing all together with the pope ,,
To stand with this heretic is to stand against Jesu Christ and His One True Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church.
And why the sly references to Since Pope Francis has remained silent concerning the serious questions connected with these problems, such as whether the heretofore teaching of the popes is still valid (here I think especially of John Paul II’s Veritatis Splendor and also in this context of the traditional teaching on the intrinsically evil acts) – see here also the pope’s own conduct toward the Dubia – when it is the plain and simple truth is he wrote the damn thing.
STAND-UP LIKE A MAN AND CONDEM HIM FOR THIS BLATANT HERESY- that one can be an active adulterer and still remain in Sanctifying Grace.
Sorry, but this is another nothing burger
It is a type of game. I am sure behind closed doors these guys talk about what Francis is doing and how bad he is. In public they put on a face. Why? I think multiple reasons.
There are rules even within a boxing ring. There are steps before a K.O.
I tend to agree with you. I give this bishop credit for doing his job, but that is all that he is doing – his job. The problem is that he is a “man of the council,” and that has distorted him. This is evident from his statement about “dialogue” with this pope. But also from his second sentence in this interview, it was apparent to me that he has been infected by the wishy-washy sentimentality that is common among the modernists:
“Inconsistency is for me not a signature of the Holy Ghost.”
“…for me…” It is an objective truth that inconsistency or confusion is not a signature of the Holy Ghost, not a subjective one. I do not suggest that he does not believe that it is objective, but this sort of weak language must be recognized and avoided.
Eve had dialogue with the Devil. How’d that work out?
Exactly. One does not “dialogue” with one who is in error. You correct him. Dialogue is meant to be a sharing of ideas, where each may benefit from the other. It is weak and sentimental. If you wish to avoid hurting the feelings of another, you “dialogue” with him. It’s so much nicer than correction.
You’re far too harsh with the bishop. He methodically states the case just as it is and spares us nothing but unnecessary histrionics. Take a lesson from how the Allies proceeded in WW II. The dashing and slashing approach, the histrionic approach if you will, was shown to be a huge mistake at Dieppe. But meticulous planning, extensive reconnaissance, and sufficient force — the methodical approach that is — paid off handsomely in June 1944, some two years after the bloody fiasco of Operation Jubilee.
Inapt metaphor for the Generals did not have Traitors higher-up in the chain of command
You miss the point. Your suggestion of a frontal, full-throated charge on the part of the bishop here would accomplish little or nothing beyond giving a few of Francis’ opponents a passing thrill. His strong but fair criticism of papal wrongdoing is apparent to anyone who attentively reads what he says.
Dear Johnny. OK, we disagree but a Bishop has the duty to Teach, Rule, and Sanctify and I think he should simply say that Francis is a heretic and demonstrate why he is calling him that rather than pretend he really does not know…
Since Pope Francis has remained silent concerning the serious questions connected with these problems, such as whether the heretofore teaching of the popes is still valid (here I think especially of John Paul II’s Veritatis Splendor and also in this context of the traditional teaching on the intrinsically evil acts) – see here also the pope’s own conduct toward the Dubia – all kinds of people are talking
That is simply disingenuous; rather, it is a lie.
The Bishop knows that Francis has already. repeatedly, cited the opinions of other Cardinals about A.L. which align with his personal agenda he arrived at the Papacy with.
Of what use is such a deception?
It only serves to prolong the lies and heresies of Francis to pretend he doesn’t know what Francis believes. He wrote the damn thing and his actions since he wrote it can are so loud it be heard from inside the space shuttle
Although we disagree on this question of proper tactics, I think you’ll agree with me when I say we are not about to wipe away quickly what are now 5 years of confusing and disrupting behavior on the part of the pontiff. It always takes longer to clean up the stall of a stable than it takes a horse to create the mess in the first place.
We have had 5 years.
We must all praise and stand behind the Kazakh bishops and all other bishops who join them. Paradoxically we should also praise Marx and his cohorts for their boldness and then instantly rebuke them.
But those who remain on the sidelines, who refuse to enter the arena are contemptable; they sow confusion and leave their sheep confused and vulnerable. Any by enter the arena, I don’t even intend to mean signing the Kazakh statement or making their own gesture towards the pope, I mean just being silent, saying nothing. Issue a pastoral letter, record a message to be played after mass or during the homily (no problem with that when they need money) or meet with your priests and instruct them on what to do and what to preach about during their homilies.
Keep on climbing, Folks. At the end of the day, nothing is in YOUR way except YOU. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2bcdae1a0fc0b33f69d6e474d291edf35c9d32160c5c11785638186886d60656.jpg
True but don’t short sell the very real presence of demons and Satanic force in this world. All of the saints had to battle it, some more severely than others. Ultimately, we do make our own choices and need to pray for God’s grace and strength to pilot us.
Brian, I wouldn’t dream of short selling such “presence” since I have had (and indeed many of us have had)
such encounters which are not reserved for the very holy.
If a pope can contradict his predecessors’ magisterium, why should I take any magisterium seriously in the first place?
With the approval of Pope Saint John Paul II , that is exactly what Bishop Emeritus Ratzinger did when he was the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
He was a sapper of the very authority he was later to assume and yet we we’re supposed to be bond by his magisterial claims?
“If it is desirable to offer a diagnosis of the text (Gaudium et Spes) as a whole, we might say that (in conjunction with the texts on religious liberty and world religions) it is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of countersyllabus. Harnack, as we know, interpreted the Syllabus of Pius IX as nothing less than a declaration of war against his generation. This is correct insofar as the Syllabus established a line of demarcation against the determining forces of the nineteenth century: against the scientific and political world view of liberalism. In the struggle against modernism this twofold delimitation was ratified and strengthened. Since then many things have changed. The new ecclesiastical policy of Pius XI produced a certain openness toward a liberal understanding of the state. In a quiet but persistent struggle, exegesis and Church history adopted more and more the postulates of liberal science, and liberalism, too, was obliged to undergo many significant changes in the great political upheavals of the twentieth century. As a result, the one-sidedness of the position adopted by the Church under Pius IX and Pius X in response to the situation created by the new phase of history inaugurated by the French Revolution was, to a large extent, corrected via facti, especially in Central Europe, but there was still no basic statement of the relationship that should exist between the Church and the world that had come into existence after 1789. In fact, an attitude that was largely pre-Revolutionary continued to exist in countries with strong Catholic majorities. Hardly anyone today will deny that the Spanish and Italian Concordats strove to preserve too much of a view of the world that no longer corresponded to the facts. Hardly anyone today will deny that, in the field of education and with respect to the historico-critical method in modern science, anachronisms existed that corresponded closely to this adherence to an obsolete Church-state relationship…..
Let us be content to say here that the text serves as a countersyllabus and, as such, represents, on the part of the Church, an attempt at an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789.”
These words of Cardinal Ratzinger are absolutely astounding. Cardinal Ratzinger places himself and Gaudium et Spes in direct contradiction – countersyllabus – to the central teachings of Blessed Pius IX and St. Pius X. This, however, is a gross understatement. He actually places himself and this non-doctrinal document in direct opposition to the absolutely consistent teaching of at least nine Popes in dozens of documents covering a period of almost 175 years. Further, his statement that there was a new “ecclesiastical policy” under Pope Pius XI which somehow foreshadowed the “countersyllabus” teaching of Cardinal Ratzinger and Gaudium et Spes is simply false. In order to thoroughly dispel this error, I quote again the following words from Pius XI’s encyclical on The Kingship of Christ:
“He, however would be guilty of shameful error who would deny to Christ as man authority over civil affairs, no matter what their nature, since by virtue of the absolute dominion over all creatures He holds from the Father, all things are in His power…. “His (Christ’s) empire manifestly includes not only Catholic nations, not only those who were baptized, and of right belong to the Church, though error of doctrine leads them astray or schism severs them from her fold; but it includes also all those who are outside the Christian faith, so that truly the human race, in its entirety is subject to the power of Jesus Christ.’ Nor in this connection is there any difference between individuals and communities whether family or State, for community aggregates are just as much under the dominion of Christ as individuals. The same Christ assuredly is the source of the individual’s salvation and of the community’s salvation: Neither is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given to men whereby we must be saved.”
Cardinal Ratzinger cannot have directly contradicted all these magisterial documents of so many Popes without at the same time attacking the integrity and sanctity of the Magisterium. On May 24, 1990 Cardinal Ratzinger and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published an Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian. The Cardinal also presented to the press a fairly long statement regarding the structure and purpose of the document. This statement was also published in Part III of his book The Nature and Mission of Theology. It contains the following passage:
“The text also presents the various forms of binding authority which correspond to the grades of the Magisterium. It states – perhaps for the first time – that there are magisterial decisions which cannot be the final word on a given matter as such but, despite the permanent value of their principles, are chiefly also a signal for pastoral prudence, a sort of provisional policy. Their kernel remains valid, but the particulars determined by circumstances can stand in need of correction. In this connection, one will probably call to mind both the pontifical statements of the last century regarding freedom of religion and the anti-Modernists decisions of the beginning of this century, especially the decisions of the then Biblical Commission.”
Can any of us imagine telling Popes Pius VI, Pius VII, Leo XII, Pius VIII, Gregory XVI, Blessed Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, or Pius XI (or any of the other almost innumerable Popes who taught against religious indifferentism) that their condemnations and teachings were provisional and in need of correction?
Pope St. Gelasius (492-496), in his epistle Licet Inter Vari pens the following instruction, profoundly applicable in the case of Cardinal Ratzinger;
“What pray permits us to abrogate what has been condemned by the venerable Fathers, and to reconsider the impious dogmas that have been demolished by them? Why is it, therefore, that we take such great precautions lest any dangerous heresy, once driven out, strive anew to come up for examination, if we argue that what has been known, discussed, and refuted of old by our elders ought to be restored? Are we not ourselves offering, which God forbid, to all the enemies of the truth an example of rising again against ourselves, which the Church will never permit….Or are we wiser than they, or shall we be able to stand constant with firm stability, if we should undermine those [dogmas] which have been established by them?” (Denzinger, 161)
http://waragainstbeing.com/parti/article1/
Countless men have argued that Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation was invalid and that he is still Pope.
So what?
The only difference I can see is he was a heretic of regal bearing who spoke in elegant sentences but Francis is right in step with where Benedict was walking but his bearing and speech patterns make his heresies more noticeable
Thanks Maike for good news. Bishop Eleganti is right on two essential points. That there are no discernible criteria to judge another’s conscience if the objective state of grave is in question. Only God can do that. The Pontiff has never given any criteria to make such a judgment simply because there are none. The other is the Pontiff “renounced to exercise his teaching office in not giving a clear, magisterial and unmistakable answer to the dubia”. Eleganti acknowledges priests as a conscience matter have “for years” offered communion to D&R. If there were exceptions nonetheless the best clergy can do is make a prudent judgment, in fact a guess. Personally I believe that is a mistake. The major error resulting from these mistakes is that the Pontiff, again as noted by Eleganti has created a universal policy by which all priests are now compelled, if they blindly accept the blind leading the blind to attempt an impossible discernment. Its effect is an inexorable decomposition of doctrinal practice coherence and the dissolution of indissolubility. Hierarchy have a grave responsibility to address this issue exactly as Bishop Marian Eleganti has hopefully compelling others to follow suit. Marian was a prophetic choice of name for this man.
And it violates Veritatis Splendor.
Essentially they’re trying to run the Church like a secular government which frequently instructs law enforcement to stop enforcing laws (Obama did this several times) which are widely broken. An example that comes to mind are laws around marijuana, which were widely disregarded.
Clearly we’ve come a long way from the notion that “an unjust law is no law at all” to the idea that a law is only a law as long as those subject to it consent. This new approach by the Vatican–which, by the way, is quite funny since Francis always accuses the orthodox of legalism–is not appropriate in the context of the Church. The Church is not a secular government founded by men with laws proscribed by men.
This mentality, however, is clearly the underlying problem. This mentality is truly THE cause, not a symptom, of the issues the Church faces. People like Marx and Jim Martin are only following this to it’s logical conclusion (note Martin’s stance that teachings are not valid unless “Received”….).
A well made point Brian on the essential diff between secular and ecclesiastic law.
[PRONAĆI PRAVU MJERU]
Kakav je čovjek, osobito se pokazuje kad vozi auto. Ima ljudi koji odmjereno voze, držeći se pravila i znakova na cesti, tako da u svakom trenutku mogu zaustaviti auto te u nezgodnim slučajevima spasiti sebe i druge. Ima drugih koji neprestano zaobilaze, jure, dodaju gas, naglo koče, mrmljaju, psuju, onemogućuju miran promet na cesti. Oni su nervozni, iznutra gore, nezadovoljni su i nesretni, ili pak oholi, nezreli i naivni, te se prave važni, hoće svoj nutarnji bijes iskazati vožnjom. Postoje i treći, koji svaki čas zastaju ili koji zastaju kad bi trebalo brže voziti, a brže voze kad bi trebalo polaganije. Oni su nesigurni, gledaju lijevo ili desno, ne snalaze se, na njima možemo prepoznati da su puni straha, nesigurnosti, tjeskobe i u stalnom očekivanju nesreće. Oni znaju da će ih netko kritizirati sa strane, oni se boje kad ih netko zaobilazi ili netko ide iza njih, oni su jednostavno na trncima, znoje se i muče. To su ljudi koji pate, koji na svoje stresove iz djetinjstva nagomilavaju nove stresove. Ima pak ljudi koji su pažljivi u prometu. Oni kao da jedva čekaju da nekome dadnu prednost, da zastanu pred zebrom, da nekom pješaku pomognu da se ne boji prijeći preko ceste, ili pak da nekoga prevezu, nekom pomognu ili nekoga pozdrave. To su najdraži ljudi. Oni se osjećaju sretnima, ali i takav njihov postupak još više usrećuje, jer ih ljudi kojima daju prednost, kojima pomažu, blagoslivljaju, žele im dobro i na taj način u njima raste zadovoljstvo, mir i zdravlje. Ima pak onih koji su u prometu grubi, oni otvore radio do „daske“, oni otvore prozore svoga auta i nekoga dozivaju, zastaju, smiju se, prave šale, te tako zapravo cijeli promet iza sebe zaustavljaju i ljude čine nervoznima. Oni osjećaju zadovoljstvo kad nekoga natjeraju na bijes. To su nedozreli mladići, nesretne egzistencije, ljudi bijesni na društvo, na čovjeka i na ljude oko sebe. Oni su iznutra ranjeni, bilo od svojih roditelja ili od koga drugoga, te se osvećuju svima oko sebe. Njihova agresivnost pokazuje da su pretrpjeli manjak ljubavi i nježnosti, da nisu bili u skrovitosti svoje obitelji, da su izbačeni na ulicu i da im auto sada predstavlja način osvete. Ima onih kojima se uvijek žuri, koji trube ako oni ispred njih zastanu, koji ne mogu pričekati da se pojavi žuto ili zeleno, nego već daju gas i tako stvaraju nervozu u svima oko sebe. Ima neodgovornih koji će se napiti i ne pitaju se hoće li time ugroziti život bezbrojnih vozača i pješaka. To su ljudi sebični, samoživi, kao mali bogovi, kojima nitko ne može ništa reći, jer oni sve znaju i sve mogu.
Treba puno discipline, duševne snage, karaktera, ljudskosti, dobrote i puno samoprijegora da bi čovjek vozio kako treba. Treba puno ljudske jednostavnosti i ljubavi prema sugrađanima i suvozačima da bi čovjek vozio onako kako je ispravno.
(prof. Tomislav Ivančić)
Ima drugih koji neprestano zaobilaze, jure, dodaju gas, naglo koče, mrmljaju, psuju, onemogućuju miran promet na cesti. Oni su nervozni, iznutra gore, nezadovoljni su i nesretni, ili pak oholi, nezreli i naivni, te se prave važni, hoće svoj nutarnji bijes iskazati vožnjom.
Ima pak onih koji su u prometu grubi, oni otvore radio do „daske“, oni otvore prozore svoga auta i nekoga dozivaju, zastaju, smiju se, prave šale, te tako zapravo cijeli promet iza sebe zaustavljaju i ljude čine nervoznima. Oni osjećaju zadovoljstvo kad nekoga natjeraju na bijes. To su nedozreli mladići, nesretne egzistencije, ljudi bijesni na društvo, na čovjeka i na ljude oko sebe. Oni su iznutra ranjeni, bilo od svojih roditelja ili od koga drugoga, te se osvećuju svima oko sebe. Njihova agresivnost pokazuje da su pretrpjeli manjak ljubavi i nježnosti, da nisu bili u skrovitosti svoje obitelji, da su izbačeni na ulicu i da im auto sada predstavlja način osvete. Ima onih kojima se uvijek žuri, koji trube ako oni ispred njih zastanu, koji ne mogu pričekati da se pojavi žuto ili zeleno, nego već daju gas i tako stvaraju nervozu u svima oko sebe. Ima neodgovornih koji će se napiti i ne pitaju se hoće li time ugroziti život bezbrojnih vozača i pješaka. To su ljudi sebični, samoživi, kao mali bogovi, kojima nitko ne može ništa reći, jer oni sve znaju i sve mogu.
Treba puno discipline, duševne snage, karaktera, ljudskosti, dobrote i puno samoprijegora da bi čovjek vozio kako treba. Treba puno ljudske jednostavnosti i ljubavi prema sugrađanima i suvozačima da bi čovjek vozio onako kako je ispravno.
Postoje i treći, koji svaki čas zastaju ili koji zastaju kad bi trebalo brže voziti, a brže voze kad bi trebalo polaganije. Oni su nesigurni, gledaju lijevo ili desno, ne snalaze se, na njima možemo prepoznati da su puni straha, nesigurnosti, tjeskobe i u stalnom očekivanju nesreće. Oni znaju da će ih netko kritizirati sa strane, oni se boje kad ih netko zaobilazi ili netko ide iza njih, oni su jednostavno na trncima, znoje se i muče. To su ljudi koji pate, koji na svoje stresove iz djetinjstva nagomilavaju nove stresove. Ima pak ljudi koji su pažljivi u prometu. Oni kao da jedva čekaju da nekome dadnu prednost, da zastanu pred zebrom, da nekom pješaku pomognu da se ne boji prijeći preko ceste, ili pak da nekoga prevezu, nekom pomognu ili nekoga pozdrave. To su najdraži ljudi. Oni se osjećaju sretnima, ali i takav njihov postupak još više usrećuje, jer ih ljudi kojima daju prednost, kojima pomažu, blagoslivljaju, žele im dobro i na taj način u njima raste zadovoljstvo, mir i zdravlje
Kakav je čovjek, osobito se pokazuje kad vozi auto. Ima ljudi koji odmjereno voze, držeći se pravila i znakova na cesti, tako da u svakom trenutku mogu zaustaviti auto te u nezgodnim slučajevima spasiti sebe i druge.
svi bi tribali ucit avtoskolu u micim letima da svatiju ne kada vec si star za pamtit jer trafik je v nego didovo v
I am sure those instructions for considerate and safe driving are very worthy, but how are they pertinent to the OP? Or is driving a Croatian metaphor for living the spiritual life?
The bishop has stated what exactly is at stake.
-Draga braćo i sestre!
I u današnjem evanđelju nastavlja se govor o čistoći i nečistoći. Ovaj put Isus okuplja mnoštvo i govori mu nešto što se protivilo propisima i zakonima onog doba. Znamo kako su židovi imali do u detalje izrađene propise i zakone o onečišćenju. Ti su zakoni na kraju postali neobdrživi. Sve im je bilo određeno. Što, kada, kako, koliko, dokada… sve je bilo određeno. Koliko su ti propisi dosegnuli razinu banalnog govori nam i činjenica da je čak postojao propis koji određuje točno određen broj dozvoljenih koraka u subotnjem danu. Kad bi osoba prešla taj broj koraka trebala bi stati i na tom mjestu čekati zalazak sunca. I rekli bismo da su farizeji i pismoznanci bili jedini koji su to mogli i izvršiti jer – rekli bismo – nemaju pametnijeg posla. I kad bi malo pogledali onda bi uvidjeli kako su farizeji bili savršeni vjernici. Sve zakone i propise oni su izvršavali. Pravi sveci – rekli bismo za njih danas. Ali zašto je onda najviše Isusovih ukora upućeno upravo njima? Zato jer je njihova vjera bila tek ona izložbena, fasadna, izvanjska vjera. Isus želi dubinsku vjeru. Isus želi nova srca a ne nove zakone i propise. Rekli bismo da su ovi farizeji i pismoznanci bili poput debla koje izjeda crvotočina oholosti. Izvana se to ne primijeti. Ali iznutra… Iznutra je sve trulo i u stanju raspada. Dovoljan je jedan dodir da ona fasada spadne, da se kora oljušti i da ona trulež postane jasno vidljiva. A Isus nije došao uništiti nas. On je došao da nas spasi i preobrazi. Njegov dodir doduše će skinuti fasade i izvanjske čine ali će i obnoviti one dubine koje su trule. On će istjerati onog crva koja nas izjeda. On će nas dotaknuti i obnovit će ono trulo i ranjeno. A što je nama činiti? Na nama je samo da se čvrsto ukorijenimo u vjeri. Iz vjere se crpi snaga da bi dozrijevali plodovi i kako bi mogli ozdraviti. Vjera je poput korijena jednog stabla – ona nam osigurava život. Dakle potrebno se ukorijeniti. A kako ćemo to? Odlukom srca. Moramo se za Boga odlučiti svim svojim srcem, svim umom svojim i u to utrošiti sve svoje snage. Moramo svim svojim bićem prionuti uz Gospodina. Ne samo svojim razumom. Ovi pismoznanci i farizeji bili su razumski vjernici. Vjerovali su umom, vjerovali su jer su se Boga bojali i jer je to bila tradicija i predaja njihovih otaca. A Isus traži vjeru iz dubine srca. Isus traži povjerenje. Isus traži ljubav. A brate i sestro, znaš li koliko te dijeli od pakla? Petnaest centimetara, točnije upravo onoliko koliko je tvoj razum udaljen od tvog srca. Ako sve ostane u razumu – zaludu je sve. Ali kad se spusti u srce, kada vjera postane djelo ljubavi koje izvire iz dubine srca. Kada vjera preraste u ljubav prema Gospodinu – upravo tada počinje život koji nema kraja. Brate i sestro, tvoj Bog je ljubav. Tvoj Bog traži duboko intimni odnos s tobom. Doslovce, On je tvoj zaručnik. A kad si s zaručnikom, zar činiš nešto točno propisano? Naravno da ne. Sa zaručnikom si slobodan, otvoren, pun ljubavi, pun radosti, u miru, neizmjernom predanju… Budi takav sa Isusov. A što za zakonom? Zakon propisuje post! A zar se zaručnica ponekad ne odriče nekog svog užitka radi Zaručnika? A zakon propisuje čistoću! A zar zaručnica ne čuva svoju čistoću za svog Zaručnika? Zaručnik i zaručnica nisu u službenosti već hode u ljubavi vodeći se i hodeći jedno uz drugo. Brate i sestro, i svaki zakon – od Boga utemeljen – dakle u ovom odnosu ljubavi nalazi svoj smisao. Svaki zakon ispunjava se tek u ljubavi. I to mijenja tvoja nutrinu. Taj odnos, ta intima sa Isusom transformiše trulež tvog srca. I samo iz takvog odnosa mogu doći plodovi za kakvim čeznemo. Zato se, brato i sestre, odluči za Krista. Daj Mu svoju ruku i prepusti Mu svoju ruku i pusti da te vodi za ruku. Neka bude tvoj Zaručnik. I promisli malo o svemu što činiš u vjeri. S kakvim nakanama činiš to? Zašto postiš? Zašto moliš? Jer Zakon propisuje ili pak zato što Ga ljubiš? Kad Ga budeš ljubio, onda ti neće biti teško jer zaručnica želi, ne trenutke, već cijelu svoju vječnost provesti s Zaručnikom. Promisli o tom.
-PITANJA ZA PROMIŠLJANJE
1.) Trudiš li i ti ponekad graditi svoj imidž na vjeri?
2.) Zadovoljavaš li se izvanjskim činima?
3.) Koliko vremena posvetiš svom Zaručniku?
is this an okay translation – je dobar prijevodIs this close????
-Draga brothers and sisters!
And in today’s Gospel, the talk of purity and impurity continues. This time, Jesus gathers the crowd and tells him something that contradicts the laws and regulations of that time. We know how the Jews had come up to the details of the regulations and the laws on contamination. These laws eventually became unsustainable. Everything was fixed. What, when, how, how long, until … everything was determined. How many of these regulations have reached the level of banal talk to us and the fact that there was even a regulation that determines a certain number of allowed steps on Saturday. If a person exceeds this number of steps, they should stop waiting for the sunset. And we would say that the Pharisees and Scribes were the only ones who could do it because – we would say – they do not have a smarter job. And when they looked a little, they would see that the Pharisees were perfect believers. All laws and regulations they did. True saints – we would say to them today. But why is the most of Jesus’ reprimands then directed to them? Because their faith was only the exhibition, the facade, the external faith. Jesus wants a deep faith. Jesus wants a new heart, not new laws and regulations. We would say that these Pharisees and Scribes were like a trunk that was the witchcraft of pride. This is not the case. But from the inside … It’s all rotten and in a state of disintegration. One touch is enough for the facade to fall, to bark the bush and to make the rot become clearly visible. And Jesus did not come to destroy us. He came to save us and transform. His touch, though, will remove facades and exterior faces, but they will also rebuild those depths that are rusty. He will drive out the worm that makes us eat. He will touch us and rebuild the rotten and wounded. What about us? It is only for us to be firmly rooted in faith. The faith is drawn to the power to digest the fruits and to be able to recover. Faith is like the roots of a tree – it gives us life. So it needs to be rooted. And how do we do that? By the decision of the heart. We have to decide for God with all his heart, with all his mind and with it to spend all his strength. We have to go with all of our creatures to the Lord. Not only with your mind. These scribes and Pharisees were reasonable believers. Believe in their mind, they believed because they feared God, because it was the tradition and surrender of their fathers. And Jesus seeks faith from the depths of the heart. Jesus is looking for trust. Jesus seeks love. And brother and sister, do you know how much it separates you from hell? Fifteen inches, exactly as much as your mind is away from your heart. If everything remains in the mind – everything is alright. But when it comes down to the heart, when faith becomes the work of love flowing from the depths of the heart. When faith grows in love for the Lord – then life begins to end without end. Brother and sister, your God is love. Your God requires deep intimate relationship with you. Literally, He is your fiancé. And when you are with your fiancé, do you do something exactly prescribed? Of course not. With your fiancée you are free, open, full of love, full of joy, in peace, in immense surrender … Be like Jesus. What about the law? The law prescribes the post! Does not the bride sometimes give up his pleasure for the bride? And the law prescribes purity! Does not the bridegroom keep his purity for his Bridegroom? The bridegroom and the bridegroom are not in office, they are already walking in love, leading and walking one at another. Brother and sister, and every law – founded by God – therefore in this relationship of love finds its meaning. Every law fulfills only in love. And it changes your innermost. That relationship, that intimate relationship with Jesus transforms the rottenness of your heart. And only from such a relationship can be fruits for what we do. Therefore, brother and sister, decide for Christ. Give him his hand and give him his hand and let him lead you by the hand. Make it Your Spouse. And think about everything you do in faith. What kind of plans do you do? Why do you get it? Why do you pray? For the law prescribes or because you love it? When you love Him, then you will not be difficult because the bridegroom wants, not the moments, but to spend all your eternity with the Bridegroom. Think about it.
– REASONING QUESTIONS
1.) Do you also sometimes try to build your image of faith?
2.) Are you satisfied with external acts?
3.) How much time do you devote to your Lover?
No. Jesus is My Creator, Redeemer, and Saviour. He is not my fiancé.
Jesus established His Church for two reasons;
Salvation
Sanctification
and those two ends can be attained only by following of of His Commandments – If you love me keep my commandments – and by receiving the Sacraments.
This entire approach is advocating a practice no different than that offered by evangelicals who also see no need for any minister between Jesus and them – personal relationship. The approach is highly emotional and sentimental and, frankly, very feminine.
Just for fun, look-up to see who was the first Pope to speak about that protestant principle.
I did look it up – it was Pope Saint John Paul II
Blech. Somebody give me a barf bag, quick!
There’s a lot in this Croat post but the thrust seems to be that love of Christ will overcome all and that one needn’t be Pharisaical. Maybe I’m reading too much into it, but the point seems to be that we can safely ignore Bergoglian attempts to make the law inoperative by heteropraxis, that love will overcome everything in the end. Frankly, I cannot think of a more dangerous POV, of one more probable to favor heresy than that. Yes, love of Jesus is important, so important in fact that it should prompt actions on our part to suppress heresy (heresy means lies, after all). If St. Athanasius had adopted vis-a-vis Arianism what I infer to be Suzy’s stance, what a fix we’d be in today!
All we need is love (Beatles) is exactly the message read by Pope Saint John XII in his opening speech at Vatican Two – the speech written by Cardinal Martiini of Milano.
The claim is there is no requirement to face error and condemn it and that claim is a complete and utter surrender to one’s enemies.
O, and that claim was also included in Montin’s message (as Pope Pul VI) to the Roman Clergy. He said he could use discipline but he preferred not to because, ” I desire to be loved.”
Cardinal Martini of Milan wrote the opening speech at Vatican II??!!! Can you give a reference for that?
I presume you know what Malachi Martin thought of him. It’s in Windswept House; I don’t know if it’s elsewhere, but even I figured it out.
This post sounds an awful lot like Suzana Saloma.
Good to see a Catholic bishop who isn’t totally Biblically illiterate, and understands who the “little ones” in the New Testament are. Most of them don’t.
………what can the catholic hierarchy do about these…………”Free Thinkers”?
“IRISH PRIEST CLAIMS THAT JESUS CHRIST NEVER EXISTED!”
…Father Thomas Brodie (phd in pontifical studies at the Roman College and director of the Dominican Bible Institute), claims that Jesus Christ NEVER existed!…..”….when I was in the seminary in the 1970’s, I concluded that Jesus and Christianity were copied from ancient pagan myths and a rip-off from the ancient Hebrew texts!”.
Brodie was commenting on his forthcoming book…”Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus” (2013)
“IRISH CENTRAL” 23 January 2013
He obviously escaped from an institution other than The Church. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b2303886665d4643ab12f353ec6606d678785a78a071376979d56e321a182d50.jpg