The Problem with Ecumaniacs! Gavin Ashenden on Anglicans who refuse to pay the price to come home

Please visit www.catholicunscripted.com/ and pick up a Silver or Gold membership which provides daily news commentaries from Gavin Ashenden straight to your inbox, exclusive member blogs by Mark Lambert, discounts on live events, and much more. Your support is greatly appreciated and is the only way that we can sustain what we do.
Summary
In this episode of Catholic Unscripted, Katherine Bennett and Gavin Ashenden discuss an article titled 'Rome Moves Toward Full Communion with Orthodox Anglicans' by Dr. Jules Gomez. They address the concerns and confusion raised by viewers and provide insights into the article's claims. Gavin Ashenden explains that while the article may be alarming, it is unlikely to happen. He emphasizes the importance of understanding the principles of ecumenism and the need for Anglicans to fully embrace Catholicism rather than seeking a compromise. The conversation also touches on the topic of divorced Catholics receiving communion and the significance of paying the price for one's actions.
Keywords
#Catholic, #Anglicans, #communion, #ecumenism, Apostolicae curi, #Vatican, Calvin Robinson, Jules Gomez, #popefrancis , #sacraments, #annulment, #divorce, #marriage e
Takeaways
The article claiming that Rome is moving towards full communion with Orthodox Anglicans is unlikely to happen.
Ecumenism should be about Anglicans fully embracing Catholicism rather than seeking compromises.
Divorced Catholics can receive communion if they have received an annulment from the Church.
The importance of paying the price for one's actions and embracing the principles of Catholicism.
Understanding the sacraments and the significance of marriage in the Catholic Church.
Titles
Embracing Catholicism: The Key to Ecumenism
Divorced Catholics and the Importance of Annulment
Sound Bites
"Not in a million years, it's not going to happen."
"How much Catholicism can they get without paying for it?"
"It's all a bit of a smoke and mirrors exercise."
Chapters
00:00
Introduction
00:38
Discussion of the Article
03:20
Embracing Catholicism: The Key to Ecumenism
06:47
Divorced Catholics and the Importance of Annulment
13:48
Paying the Price: The Significance of Sacrifice in Catholicism

[@tamarawinget]

Thank you so much for this plunge into the fog ! I’m a recent convert after 58 years of Protestantism and so grateful for Catholic unscripted as well as the true church.. grateful from across the pond!

[@a.t.c.3862]

Ashenden is one of those 'converts' who brought his Anglican attitudes with him, and kept it.

[@stgertrudethegreat70]

@@a.t.c.3862 please troll somewhere else.

[@a.t.c.3862]

@stgertrudethegreat70 He calls himself 'Catholic' but obviously isn't. The Church is going to have to introduce a Right of Admission Reserved policy.

[@humbledandgrateful7411]

​@@a.t.c.3862Goodness, what ARE you talking about!

[@a.t.c.3862]

@@humbledandgrateful7411 If you don't know, you're part of the problem.

[@michaelhall5794]

Amoris Laetitia is slap in the face to any divorced Catholic who maintains fidelity to their (non- annulled) marriage vows. Their cross is made all the heavier by isolation from their children (who often side with the other parent) and the well meaning (nay, stupid) exhortations from friends to find a new 'partner' .

[@marygrotaers6636]

God bless you stay faithful, offer your pain for their conversion.

[@Mark3ABE]

Better to please God, rather than people. People let you down, God doesn’t. As my 94 year old mother says “Where are all those people I was once so anxious to please? Dead.”

[@humbledandgrateful7411]

Much love... This sort of thing is an especially difficult cross to bear ✝️🌹

[@oliverclark5604]

Who and/or what (a) annuls one's marriage vows, (b) has economic advantage from falsely purporting one's marriage is valid when one's consent requiring a double keeping of 1. roles and identity and 2. identities in covenant, non-presumed reciprocity is invalid? Why did male female couples in the C11th AD allow/encourage the roman catholic church role group to in error purport to presume to judge a marriage as sacramental? What occult as hidden, incest connected as substitute mate, economic advantage did Pope Francis' valid consent to consecrated celibate marriage vowed to man in Christ expose on c.17 June 2021 in exercising an absolute power of simultaneous authorisations of its ensuring and its insuring in respectively the case of its procreation role gift charity donations by Vatican state Cardinal Angelo Becciu and nine other citizens/employees and the case of an unacceptable risk to his identity in his consecrated celibate marriage by the Italian state Parliament "Zan" anti-homophobia bill?

[@miryambarnabas2424]

​@@humbledandgrateful7411Amen in Agreement with you! ❤

[@steamboy101]

Thanks for this excellent analysis & breakdown. I'm a very recent convert to the Ordinariate and say from experience that it has cost me something in terms of my personal relationships. I walked away from generations of Protestant associations to purchase the pearl of great price. I listened to the drawing of the Holy Spirit and realized there was no other way. TEC, ACNA, Anglo-Catholicism could not fill the longing. I'm home and I hate to think that the Mother Church would compromise herself in the name of being "nice".

[@catholicunscripted]

Thank you for your encouraging comment, and thank you also for sharing this beautiful testimony for others to read. There is a cost, yes, but it’s worth paying.

[@Mark3ABE]

The cost for most Protestants in being received into the Catholic Church is much higher than the cost of moving from one Protestant Church to another. If a Methodist decides to leave the Methodist Church and to join the Baptist Church, then, of course, there is a cost to pay, in terms of leaving one circle of friends and joining another. If the person is a Minister, then there might also be the loss of Church housing and an income from the Church. However, generally, there would be no open and overt hostility. The Methodist Church does not claim to be the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ, nor does the Baptist Church. They are both pragmatic about members moving from one Church to another. Often, this is simply a matter of practicality. If a Methodist moves from one place to another and there is no Methodist Church near his new home and there is a good Baptist Church around the corner, then he will join the Baptist Church rather than drive hours every Sunday to a Methodist Church in another town. However, most Protestants have a negative attitude towards the Catholic Church. Often, it is simply puzzlement, sometimes, overt hostility. “Going over to Rome” is seen as a rejection of the Protestant Faith. It is also seen as a threat - it challenges the Protestant idea that there is no such thing as “the one true Church” and that Jesus intended to found many, independent, loosely connected, assemblies, not bound together by any formal organisational structure. So, a Protestant who becomes a Catholic is seen as an existential threat to the very principle of Protestantism.

[@royquick-s5n]

@@Mark3ABE Mark, please support, back up, your observation from an official Protestant source that Protestants believe "Jesus intended to found many, independent, loosely connected assemblies, not bound together by any formal organizational structure." I can understand that individual laymen might espouse a view like that, just as individual Catholics may be espouse views not supported by the Magisterium.

[@Mark3ABE]

@@royquick-s5n Well, as I am sure you will appreciate, my comment was not intended to be entirely serious. I do not really think that Calvin, Knox, and the other reformers, actually got together and said “let’s dismantle the Church and re form it into thirty or forty thousand different sects, each free to believe exactly what they want and believing truths which are diametrically opposed to each other.” However, that is what they achieved, even if it was not their original avowed intention. So, no, I do not really believe that chaos was what they intended - it is just that that is what they achieved and it is an outcome which might have been reasonably predicted by anyone with any degree of common sense.

[@philiphumphrey1548]

I'm not sure I feel better for this conversation but I'm very glad I heard it. I'm an ex Anglican, converted to Catholicism after the women's ordination vote. Paid the full price, as Gavin puts it. Pope Francis's antics have been a terrible burden. I recognise the nonsense for what it is from my time in the Anglican church and you only have to look at what little is left of the Anglican church today to see where it leads. Pray that the next college of cardinals recognise the error for what it is and correct it.

[@tomthx5804]

The really great thing about "Catholic Unscripted" is that it is lay people who are actually evangelizing, in the way Vatican II called ordinarily laypeople to evangelize. Finally, people are starting to understand what Vatican II has called us all to do. Up to this point, very few people even thought about evangelizing. In this instance, an excellent discussion of the Catholic church's relationship to Anglicanism, and why being a half Catholic is simply not possible.

[@catholicunscripted]

Thank you for your encouraging words Tom ❤️

[@royquick-s5n]

Gavin Ashenden is more than your ordinary run-of-the-mill lay person. He has been a priest in the Church of England, and he has been an Anglican bishop. He is married. Were he to enter an Anglican Ordinariate as other married Anglican clergy have, go through being ordained again, it might be to the benefit of us all.🙂

[@Mark3ABE]

“Divorce” has nothing at all to do with it. The Catholic Church does not recognise “divorce” so it does not place any of the Faithful into the category of “divorced Catholics”. So, if a Catholic couple obtain a civil divorce, as far as the Church is concerned, they remain married. If one, or both of them, then enters into a subsequent civil marriage, then the Church simply does not recognise that relationship as a marriage. As far as the Church is concerned, the couple are simply “living together”. That, in itself, does not constitute a “sin”. So, if the couple in the new civil marriage have children, then the Church would not expect either of the parents to simply walk out and abandon the children. What the Church proposes, as the ideal, in such a case is that the couple should have separate bedrooms and live together, having joint responsibility for brining up their children, without engaging in further sexual intercourse. So, there is no question at all of the Church denying the Eucharist to a “divorced” person. If the Church does deny such a person the Eucharist, it can only be on the basis that they are living an unrepentant sinful life. So, they are treated in exactly the same way as a couple who are living together without being married in the eyes of the Church. So, essentially, it is up to the Pastor to treat each case individually. To deny any Catholic the Eucharist, the Pastor must be satisfied that the person is living an unrepentant sinful life. So, let us take this hypothetical couple - living together without being married in the eyes of the Church, good parents, living otherwise Godly and upright lives, having followed the advice of their Pastor to have separate bedrooms and not engage in sexual intercourse. If the Pastor is aware, as the Confessor to the couple, that they are making a genuine effort to live chaste lives and, on the rare occasions where they fail to do so, they seek forgiveness through Confession, he is able to let them receive the Eucharist, if he considers that they are in a state of grace at the time they come to receive the Eucharist. So, the whole question “can a divorced Catholic receive the Eucharist” is a non issue. The Church is concerned only as to whether the person wishing to receive the Eucharist is in a state of grace and it is perfectly possible that a couple, living together without being married in the eyes of the Church, are in a state of grace. Such a couple (where young children are involved) must weigh up all of the issues. On the one hand, living apart might make it easier for them to avoid sin - on the other hand, it would create unhappiness, or, indeed, trauma, for their children. So, there is no simplistic, easy, answer.

[@GordonSou]

Thanks for clear and informed summary Mark ... there is so much confusion on this subject. Complex. Reminds me on a three hour conversation I had in Dar es Salaam with an African priest about the messy situation of men with multiple wives who want to enter the Church. The CCC addresses this in essence - but difficult in application.

[@jesuslovesaves2682]

Mark, could you break that down into paragraphs? It is hard for me to read it in a single block form.

[@jameswall6270]

Thank God for Dr Ashenden. ❤❤❤

[@Mark3ABE]

Thank Dr. Ashenden for God - or, at any rate, a clearer understanding of God!

[@awaldron7743]

Age 75. 5 years RC. 55 years Anglo Catholic. Searching for something not offered. Gavin is right. It was all a murk for most of my life. Finally I swam the Tiber. Now all is clear and comfortable. Become a Catholic.

[@catholicunscripted]

Thank you for sharing this 🙏

[@royquick-s5n]

Age 82. 12 years Episcopalian (Neither High or Low, somewhere in between) Entered RC after having fought off sexual advances of High Church college chaplain.) 59 years RC. Found what I had learned as an Episcopalian about RC confirmed. Have found misconceptions on both sides. Concentration should be on Jesus, his life, his teachings, and his example for both!

[@humbledandgrateful7411]

​@@royquick-s5n Much respect, but concentration should be on receiving the sacraments - which both enable one to practice that 'life and teachings' you referenced and can be had only in the Catholic Church. It's of no matter to the reception of the sacraments what the RC said about the Protestant or vice versa. That 'Jesus' you mentioned is to be found intact and pure - even amidst all the muck and grime - in the sacraments of only the Catholic Church.

[@royquick-s5n]

@@humbledandgrateful7411 Reception of the sacraments should be a responce of Anglican and Roman Catholic alike. A relationship with Jesus, following Jesus, is not limited to reception of the sacraments alone. There is something heartening in Christians vying with each other to conform to Jesus, each telling the other we may still do it better. I suggest you read the Vatican II Decree on Ecumenism.

[@maryn8139]

​@@royquick-s5n😂

[@bridghemartin6896]

Thank you Dr Ashenden

[@giuliakhawaja7929]

If only Francis would work towards full communion with traditional Catholics ……

[@a.t.c.3862]

@@giuliakhawaja7929 They shouldn't have broken communion.

[@revelation1215]

@@a.t.c.3862 it shouldn’t have ever been an issue in the first place. No pope has the authority to abrogate the Mass of the Ages.

[@a.t.c.3862]

​@@revelation1215 The Lord himself gave Peter and his successors the authority to bind and to loosen. It doesn't depend on whether we agree or disagree.

[@HughTauerner]

After many years of being outside the church, having been raised Anglican/ AngloCatholic (I grew up in Walsingham!). I've returned to the church, having accidentally found an Ordinariate parish & formally converted to Catholicism. It would be a very sad day if the Ordinariate got reorganized out of existence in order to bring in the rest of the Anglican church

[@royquick-s5n]

It would be nice if more Anglicans found the Catholic Church to be a haven. Some Anglicans (how many?) might find the new Catholic liturgies, sprirtuality, and ritual more compatible than the Ordinariates'. What some cradle Catholic readers may not know is the Ordinariates have a penchant for ritual similar to the Traditionalists' Latin Liturgy. 🙂

[@davidoverton4030]

When I was an 'Anglo-Catholic', I bought into the erroneous notion that Catholicism was a loose fluid notion. Since being received, I can now recite the Creed with clarity, confidence & calmness. ie. There is, and can only ever be, ONE Holy, Catholic & Apostolic Church. Conversion always necessarily requires an element of sacrifice, but it brings great peace.

[@catholicunscripted]

Beautifully put 🙏

[@Apriluser]

Have you talked to the Eastern Church about your exclusivity?

[@GordonSou]

​@@ApriluserDo you mean the Catholic Eastern (or uniate) Churches or the Russian and Greek Orthodox Church. The former are Catholics with separate rites from Roman rite. The latter, as St John Paul II reminded us are one of the two "lungs" of the Church. Even so, as Lumen Gentium reminds us the Church in its fullness subsists in the Catholic Church.

[@oliverclark5604]

"ism" implies identity need when "Catholic" is a gift role.

[@mmmjd-usa]

The Church needs NOT "move towards" anything. The Church is the trunk, and the others are splintered branches. It is the branch that needs to graft back into its base to live. Is the ANGLICANS, or any other, who need to quit its error and move BACK INTO the teachings of Jesus AS HE INSTRUCTED THE APOSTLES and is preserved in Scripture and in the Magisterium. That applies to Modernists and to Bergoglio.

[@NapoleonSolo452]

As a 70 year old man, I am so glad I was Baptized Catholic as an infant. Things have gotten so much more complicated since then. 😊

[@frederickjones532]

Look at Wiki for a comprensive and fair discussion of Apostolicae Curae. As an ex-Anglican clergyman I joined the church convinced that ultramontanism had been largely rejected in favour of broadly speaking the views of St John Henry Newman. I came to accept Vatican I with its stress on the Deposit of Faith and am a happy member of the Ordinariate.

[@frederickjones532]

I am also an admirer of Pope Benedict and a member of the Latin Mass Society.

[@GordonSou]

From Australia. Thank you Catherine, Gavin and Mark for your excellent analyses of important, topical (and timeless) issues, especially in the confusion of the current papacy. The distincts gifts of each of you complement each other nicely. Your brief discourse on annulment could not have been more articulate Catherine.

[@oliverclark5604]

To Gordon Sou, not plural "gifts" in procreation roles but need of union of singular identity as in uncontrollable occult as hidden, incest connected as substitute mate, oscillation as at Mk 5:9: "My [singular] name is Legion; for we [plural] are many". Pope Francis' consecrated celibate marriage identity in need of union vowed to man in Christ in his in uncertainty of his belief keeping its inseparability and qualitative equality with consecrated male female marriage identity in need of union vowed to God also in uncertainty of his belief kept this with its procreation gift roles as on c.17 June 2021 in: (a) its ensuring in the case of embezzlements of its procreation role gift charity donations by Cardinal Angelo Becciu and nine other Vatican state citizens/employees, (b) its simultaneous insuring in the case of the Italian Parliament "Zan" anti-homophobia bill as an unacceptable risk of fraud on its need of union of its identity. Which of Gavin, Catherine, Mark and the "current papacy" of Pope Francis are vowed in consecrated male female or celibate marriage to obedience, chastity and poverty? Who and/or what (a) annuls one's marriage vows, (b) has economic advantage from falsely purporting one's marriage is valid when one's consent requiring a double keeping of 1. roles and identity and 2. identities in covenant, non-presumed reciprocity is invalid? Why did male female couples in the C11th AD allow/encourage the roman catholic church role group to in error purport to presume to judge a marriage as sacramental? What occult as hidden, incest connected as substitute mate, economic advantage did Pope Francis' valid consent to consecrated celibate marriage vowed to man in Christ expose on c.17 June 2021 in exercising an absolute power of simultaneous authorisations of its ensuring and its insuring in respectively the case of its procreation role gift charity donations by Vatican state Cardinal Angelo Becciu and nine other citizens/employees and the case of an unacceptable risk to his identity in his consecrated celibate marriage by the Italian state Parliament "Zan" anti-homophobia bill?

[@revelation1215]

“Pray and make sacrifices for many people go to Hell because there is no one to pray and make sacrifices for them” Our Lady of Fatima to the Shepherd Children. As Catholics, we need to remember that our role when storms surround the Barque of Peter is to pray, especially the Rosary which Our Lady has consistently requested at all her apparitions for the past 200+ years. If the confusion in the church is leading people into error, besides providing correction we must also pray and make sacrifices. Pray the Rosary every single day as Our Lady has requested. It is a powerful spiritual weapon against heresy. This is the “hard work” that we must do, not just wait for the Pope to die. Pray, pray, pray. 🙏

[@shortferal]

🎉 thank you, yes! If we get bad behaving prelates, it is our fault for not consistently praying for them. I have a notion Our Blessed Mother prayed for Peter after he denied knowing Jesus at all - 3 times he did it! Our Lady had to know he'd done it, too. What would happen if every Catholic prayed with a sincere heart for the holy father (who seems wholly confused or beguiled). Katherine touched on this, or around it, when she said Pope Francis had been a sort of blessing (in a roundabout way), by provoking us Catholics to a closer examination of what we profess to believe. Again, yes!👍

[@royquick-s5n]

Revelation, this may be shocking to you. In regard to Mary, Catholics are only required to conform to the dogmas on Mary, i.e. the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, and, of course, the Virgin Birth (Incarnation). Other Marian related beliefs or devotions are purely optional. Check it out.

[@revelation1215]

@@royquick-s5n That may be so, technically speaking, especially in the post-conciliar church, but we are surrounded by a cloud of witnesses, great saints and holy martyrs such as St. Padre Pio, St. Maximilian Kolbe, St. Louis de Montefort and countless others who attest to the Rosary as a great spiritual weapon against the evil one. We are all called to sainthood. Ad Jesus per Miriam.

[@royquick-s5n]

@@revelation1215 It is Christ Jesus who saves. He is not on far removed distant pedestal. We have direct access to him. "For there is only one God, and there is only one mediator betweem God and humanity, himself a human being, Christ Jesus, who offered himself as a ransom for all." 1 Tim 2.5 NJB. Jesus suffices.

[@revelation1215]

@@royquick-s5n One mediator but many intercessors. Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant, the New Eve and the Mother of God. She was greeted with the title “Kecharitomene” by the angel. She is on #TeamJesus. She is our spiritual mother.

[@julietteriitters451]

Catherin, you look beautiful in those colors! Sorry. 😅 Anyway, enjoyed your show, as usual.

[@catholicunscripted]

Very kind to say so. Thank you 🙏 glad you enjoy the show. Thank you for watching

[@CAMcCoy]

There is no such thing as “Novus Ordo annulments”. Cannon Law does not acknowledge any changes or nuance to the Laws pertaining to legitimate annulments. There are clear specific rules which govern the validity or invalidity of marriage. The rules (Laws) do not change.

[@marcokite]

Tell that to Jorge!

[@Mark3ABE]

You are correct, of course. Canon Law has not altered at all. However, the Church does now grant annulments in circumstances which are not within what was originally contemplated by Canon Law. The Church implies lack of initial consent to the marriage in many cases where there was, in fact, genuine consent but one or both parties later decide that they made the wrong decision. The Church now adopts the very simplistic approach that, if one or both parties claim to have made a decision not based on proper and careful consideration, there was no valid consent to the marriage and an annulment will then be granted on that ground. The fact that these modern annulments are fictitious is made clear only when the approach taken by the civil authority is contrasted to that taken by the Church. No Court would ever grant an annulment in the sort of circumstances where the Church is happy to grant one. The Court would require the parties to apply for a divorce, since there is, in most cases, no real evidence of lack of consent to give proper grounds for an annulment. In effect, the Church is now simply granting an annulment in circumstances where the civil authority is prepared to grant a divorce. Our own Parish Priest on giving a homily on Matthew 19 put the matter to the congregation in just this way - he informed the congregation that the Church cannot grant a divorce, so it grants an annulment instead and not to worry if it is taking rather longer than hoped for the annulment to come through, it will come through in the end and so plans can be made for a subsequent marriage. Ideally, of course, those waiting for their annulment to come through will not “anticipate” the new marriage, however, if they do, then there is always the Confessional to deal with that!

[@CAMcCoy]

@@Mark3ABE unadultered sophistry at its worst

[@Mark3ABE]

@@CAMcCoy Sophistry, pragmatism, accommodation to the spirit of the age, whatever you call it, the current approach adopted by the Church does not ring true. The common law is founded on Christian principles and has always granted annulments in those circumstances where, historically, the Church would have granted them. Today, there is a divergence. The Church now grants annulments where the civil authority does not consider there is any precedent for doing so. Then, having granted the annulment, the Church advises the couple to apply to the Court for a divorce - knowing, full well, that the civil authority would not entertain an application for an annulment because there are no grounds. Essentially, the Church is granting what is, in substance, a divorce, but calling it an annulment.

[@frederickjones532]

@@Mark3ABE Are there cases of people invoking the Pauline Privilege?

[@papadan3]

can you imagine that Iverson would say something like that about the distinguished African cardinals and bishops and faithful people, as discounting them as people with whom Iverson can never match nor command respect as African martyrs and hierarchy have ..

[@thomasmooney5653]

Thank you folk's for clearing this up. Good to know the significance of quotation mark's in newspaper headline's 👍.

[@eddiej9733]

Perhaps though Catholics aghast at the excesses of ecumenism (myself well included) are like the other son, equally aghast at his father’s acceptance of his wasteful and wanton brother being openly accepting him back without what he felt was sufficient repentance. We know not of the Fathers rationale, only that lost sheep are collected back into the flock

[@J-M-J.]

Great conversation thanks

[@miryambarnabas2424]

Am praying for Your Intentions Cardinal Vincent! 🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼 Renee from Kenilworth! 🤗

[@mrbaker7443]

Renee I’m near you

[@miryambarnabas2424]

​​@@mrbaker7443Thank you my dear! Have subscribed to Your Channel! ❤

[@miryambarnabas2424]

​@@mrbaker7443Thank you! Me too!

[@maureenelsden1927]

The Institutional Church has been getting its ecumenism wrong. And the Ordinariates do not have the answer - they were merely formed because Cardinal J H Newman wanted the RC Church to cater for his Anglo-Catholic friends.

[@frederickjones532]

@@maureenelsden1927 St John Henry Newman died in 1890. He was a great thinker but there is no evidence that he foresaw the Ordinariates. Thinkers who did such are Aidan Nichols OP "Anglican Uniatism" and Sheridan Gilley addresses to the Prayer Book Society. The Traditional Anglican Communion (a Continuing Anglican body} petitioned the Holy See for Corporate reunion.

[@Baggie201]

Haven't listened to this yet but I will. I see that you're over 8000 subscribers. Congratulations!

[@jamesdewanca]

One step forward and two steps back. Of course, Anglican orders are invalid. In no way, did Christ intend the monarch of England to be the head of the Church. The order of the day is obfuscation vs truth. Heaven help us. Excellent job again

[@royquick-s5n]

Extend you thought on the position of a monarch in relation to the Church to other kingdoms of Europe in time, but, I agree, the Church should be free of what we call secular control, government, or interference today.🙂

[@jamesdewanca]

@@royquick-s5n I understand cu jus regio cu jus religio. But Christ made Peter the head of the Apostles, Henry 8 put himself in that place

[@royquick-s5n]

@@jamesdewanca Water under the bridge on Henry. The final break did not occur till 1570 under Elizabeth I and twelve years into her reign.

[@jamesdewanca]

@@royquick-s5n a schism by any other name is still a schism. Even 500 years later

[@henryvonblumenthal7307]

The King doesn’t claim to be Head of the Church, but Governor. It’s an important difference.

[@harmonygordon6901]

Well done video ❤

[@CAMcCoy]

The Divine Office & the St. Gregory’s Prayerbook produced by the Oridnariate are both wonderful, and not merely “habits”, they are both thoroughly Roman Catholic and at the same time, honour the patrimony of the English Catholic Church throughout many centuries. The ACNA is far from Monolithic. . .you have all the different strains of Anglicanism within it that you had in TEC, except that they are more conservative on several issues. That said, none of them (including those who are W.O. Proponents) would support Fiducia Suplicans. Furthermore, I don’t imagine anyone (not even the Anglicans in conversation with Rome) would for a split second wish to abrogate the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. So the staw group (staw man) of “Ecumaniacs” is balderdash. As to your theoretical couple looking for an annulment, those are done by each diocese and has little bearing on who is sitting in the Chair of St. Peter, so that is a non-issue. As to the hope against hope of those who have ecumenical desires for Union, I would not call them Ecumaniacs,, but rather wistful perhaps.

[@GordonSou]

What a bombastic and aggressive tone in a supposedly Christian discussion!

[@CAMcCoy]

@@GordonSou and you good sir, reply with this nerdy wordy hurdy gurdy? It was not intended to be either bombastic nor aggressive, but be that as it may, appearances online are often misperceived. I wish you pax et bonum.

[@shortferal]

"the patrimony of the English Catholic Church"? Who begat who?

[@CAMcCoy]

@@shortferal Yes, well I suggest you might read about St. Augustine of Canterbury (not to be confused with the earlier St. Augustine whom we all know and love) among others, in 7th century England. A good overview is provided in Moorman’s “A History of the Church in England”.

[@papadan3]

who is worried?? we already know this papacy is full of indifference and corruption and discarding the truth of our dogmas and doctrines in full communion with the apostles and 2000 years of steady genuine truth. and then women priests??

[@sarahjaynescott545]

Yes there is - absolutely - a price to pay but, like Katherine said, its always better in the end. The other option of just doing whatever one likes because it feels good at the time is turning things into chaos. Especially at the family unit level. The number of people I know personally who have children outside marriage, don't understand that real sacrament of marriage, and then the amount of "blended" families there are is just outnumbering tradition. I always remember hosting a dinner for a family where there were seven children, all from three different mothers, same father, and some of them were attracted to each other (teenagers) 😱

[@user-ll9wh4jt2k]

Catherine please note this ruling refers to divorced AND remarried catholics. Divorce does not excommunicate a person. Annulment is not the same as a civil divorce. It is a statement by the Vatican that the marriage was not sacramentally valid for specific reasons. 3 reasons only. 1 Homosexuality 2. Marrying outside the Christian faith eg to a Muslim 3 . Immaturity of one or both of the partners such that it was forced, there was deception, or that the marriage was not consummated consensually. E.g. Minimum age 17 for females. There have been notorious examples of stupid decisions by the Vatican. In the 1950s a woman who was forced into a marriage refused to have sex but was drugged in order to consummate the marriage. She was refused an annulment on the grounds she consented to take the drugs therefore she consented to sex. A woman in USA has recently been refused an annulment when her husband underwent a gender reassignment. A royal marriage was defined by the Council of Trent to involve a girl aged 10 or older who was never asked for her consent, and a man aged 25 or older. These marriages were ordered by the Pope to create support for the church amongst royal families and the nobility. As the bride had a large dowry she was effectively bought and sold like a sex slave. This has not been practised for at least a century . All of these problems were reformed after Vatican II. However currently in Africa and some other countries women still have a bride price . It is a form of Slave trade in my opinion.

[@CarlosAldana-mo6jc]

It is impressive to me for many years,regarding the Christian states of life, that while consecrated people with permanent vows and priests,the Church allows dispensation from their vows ,while in the married state ,indissolubility is absolute. The Lord teaching is very clear. A total different thing are the nullity declarations,which you discussed in a very clear way. THANK YOU

[@Mark3ABE]

This arises from the fact that marriage is part of natural law. The Church believes in the sanctity of marriage because it is clearly taught in the Sacred Scriptures and was so, even from the beginning of creation. The Religious Life and the vows taken by those who voluntarily choose to enter the Religious Life are not part of natural law, nor do they go back to the very beginning of creation, nor is there anything in particular in Sacred Scripture which regulates the taking of religious vows. Clearly, in general, the Church does require a person to keep any promise which he or she has made. However, at the same time, promises have different levels of force. For example, if, in a moment of bravado, someone agrees with a group of friends to go and climb Mount Everest with them, the Church would not require him to honour such a promise at any cost - for example, fulfilling such a promise might run counter to his marriage vows and his duty to provide for his wife and children. So, while the Church does treat the vows taken by those entering into the Religious Life very seriously, such vows are not absolute and binding in the same way as marriage vows. A person may be released from such vows on the basis that he or she did not give full, informed, consent at the time the vows were taken. A person might have failed to correctly discern his or her vocation, and, while feeling that entering the Religious Life was the best decision, might not, in fact, have had a genuine vocation. Even in the case of marriage vows, which the Church takes much more seriously, the Church will dispense a person from those vows if there is any real doubt as to whether there was genuine full informed consent at the time those vows were taken.

[@markoneill771]

Can more than one annulment be granted? I had one marriage annulled unfortunately 8 years after that I made another I think invalid marriage where we never lived together & actual time from marriage to civil divorce less than 1 year. This last civil divorce was 12 years ago. Is there any chance the Roman Catholic Church will grant two annulments? I am humbly working through the paperwork & answering those difficult questions.

[@Mark3ABE]

Not to worry - the Church granted Boris Johnson two annulments so that he could marry his present “wife” in Westminster Cathedral. If he gets tired of his present wife and wants a younger model, the Church will grant him another annulment.

[@maureenelsden1927]

The application of papal infallibility is very limited in scope.

[@Mark3ABE]

Indeed - “confined” really, out of all existence!

[@maureenelsden1927]

@@Mark3ABE Infallibility is very limited. A liar like you would want to twist.

[@royquick-s5n]

Sadly, with the omission of theological pander on when the Body of Christ, People of God, may be infallible, not confined to the papacy alone. Behind it all, I suspect, is respect for the activity of the Holy Spirit and that God would not abandon his people. The promulgation, though, appearance, is hard to justify with the older Vincentian Canon (434 A.D.), i.e. what is Catholic. Too, how is it to be applied retrogressively and by whom?

[@frederickjones532]

@@royquick-s5n According to Vatican I , which defined Papal Infallibility, is the Pope bound by the Deposit of Faith? Please correct me if I am mistaken.

[@royquick-s5n]

@@frederickjones532 Good point, Frederick. It is my understanding that a pope may not create a new doctrine out of thin air. It must be precedent in Holy Scripture or in Apostolic Tradition. What is not said, how long in tradition, if from tradition? The Vincentian Canon (434 A.D.) : "Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all." To my knowlege, "always" is not a qualification to what may asserted to be infallible. Too, if the 1870 definition were to be applied retrogressively, who decides what may have been infallible.

[@papadan3]

the big word is “sorry” i was wrong. 33:34 33:35

[@ransomcoates546]

There is a complete falsehood asserted by the article, viz., that the SSPX claims the reformed Roman ordinations rites are invalid. The Society does not and has never said this.

[@DrGAshenden]

Yes. Thanks for pointing that unpleasantness out.

[@1907jdee]

The current ecumenical policy is one of “convergence” rather than “conversion” therein lies the issue or the heresy?

[@papadan3]

can you imagine that Iverson would say something like that about the distinguished African cardinals and bishops and faithful people, as discounting them as people with whom Iverson can never match nor command respect as African martyrs and hierarchy have .. 17:43

[@user-li2bo1qt1b]

Gavin’s definition of Ecuminism doesn’t make it clear whether he includes the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches as part of the ‘holy, Catholic and apostolic church’.

[@revelation1215]

All roads lead to Rome.

[@marcokite]

The Orthodox Church is the Church the Lord Jesus Christ founded, it is what it says on the box. Gavin misses the point, the next pope may be kind of moderate but the one after may be Francis II. Gavin doesn't understand that the RCC all revolves around the whim of the current Bishop of Rome. Gavin needs to pay the price and come home to Orthodoxy. ☦

[@berrowboy]

Yes tell that to the Jesuits who took the 30 piece of silver from the Judasising Synagogue of Soros and subvert traditional Catholic Teaching.

[@royquick-s5n]

I would compare Gavin's definition of ecumenism with thte Vatican II Decree on Ecumenism. Gavin is a rather recent convert.

[@revelation1215]

@@royquick-s5n A rupture from tradition no doubt.

[@jesuslovesaves2682]

The back-end conversation on Marriage and Annulments should probably be in a separate video. The actual practice of the Church on this topic is unfortunately not as clean as the official teaching. I had to go through a Convalidation and was refused the Eucharist until it was approved. But I know others who are not denied regardless of about anything. One who even teach in the Church in another parish who were never married in the Church and regularly receive Communion. They were married in another religion's ceremony. This particular person thinks anyone who believe the Church's teaching is backwards as the Pope has said about conservatives in the Church. This person also seems to think anyone who holds to the Church's teachings in many areas but especially Marriage and sexuality is Rad Trad even if they don't attend a Latin Mass showing how little the saying is understood and how broad it is being used. My parents were divorced, and both my parents were remarried outside the Church and regularly attending Mass and received Communion. Only my father attended with any regularity but my mom did about once a month or so. They tried to get an Annulment but were refused. They seemed to think other people were more easily given one than others and the process wasn't exactly fair. A doctor of mine left the Church because his wife of 35+ years with several children declared she was gay and left him for a woman. He was refused an Annulment so he left the Church and remarried outside the Church. He is now in a liberal Lutheran church were his new "wife" attends. He was a regularly attending member in leadership position at my local parish. I could go on, but I think it appears the Church isn't holding to this in practice as is often the case with many things. I am not sure many fully understand the Church's teaching to be honest, not many people read the Catechism much less the conversations that brought in about and the depth of thinking there.

[@maureenelsden1927]

The RC Church changes its rules - e.g. in Henry VIII's time, the children of a marriage considered invalid were illegitimate; today, they are legitimate.

[@revelation1215]

What constitutes "marriage" is not a rule, it is divinely established.

[@maureenelsden1927]

@@revelation1215 The RC Church changes its canon law rules, you stupid devil!

[@royquick-s5n]

There is nothing amiss about correction, amendment, reform inside or outside the confessional.🙂

[@pf4005]

God doesn't compromise. You can do it His way, or yours.

[@philiphumphrey1548]

"My Way" is supposed to be top of the pops in hell.

[@royquick-s5n]

Good point. One of the problems for those of us that appreciate democratic government is that a majority does not always necessitate what may be right moral or right belief, both inside and outside the Church.

[@pf4005]

@@royquick-s5n yes. Big difference between legal and moral.

[@royquick-s5n]

In reply to your comment there is a big difference between what is legal and what is moral, I agree. The LGBTQ crowd try to confuse the two to promote their sin. If there a conflict between what is moral and what is legal, then the moral should have priority, e.g. the martyrs. They certainly paid the price.🙂

[@pf4005]

@@royquick-s5n Amen. Which is why truth matters when talking about having Christian Unity.

[@Itsonlymakebelieve]

I note that you only offer an Annual Membership for the Gold but not the Silver or Bronze. Could you address this, please?

[@catholicunscripted]

Yes will do, thanks

[@Itsonlymakebelieve]

I have subscribed. Thank you.

[@williambaker2545]

And there I was hoping to become a Roman Catholic but whoops, I am divorced. Is that it for me? I hope not, but how can I fulfill my faith in God and His Son Jesus Christ if I cannot receive communion? For my sins my marriage has failed. Is this beyond forgiveness?

[@Mark3ABE]

Well, it all depends. Have you remarried following your divorce? If not, then you are free to receive the Eucharist, provided that you have repented of any antecedent adultery and propose to live a chaste, single, life. Divorce is not the issue. The Church does not recognise divorce. You and your wife are, as far as the Church is concerned, still married, but living apart. A married couple may choose, by mutual agreement, to live apart. That, in itself, is not sinful. It is any subsequent adultery which is sinful.

[@catholicunscripted]

Yes @Mark3ABE thanks for clarifying, we should have made this clear in the video

[@williambaker2545]

@@Mark3ABE Many thanks for this clarification. Will need to seek advice. Thanks to your team though for getting me on this path.

[@royquick-s5n]

First, it should be asked, were you Catholic at the time you married and was the marriage within the Church? I understand that Catholic canon law does not apply to marriages conducted outside the Church. In addition, there is the Pauline priviliege, applicable to a Catholic married to a non-Catholic. Check your status out with a priest.🙂

[@williambaker2545]

@@royquick-s5n Thank you. I am a protestant seeking to become catholic so what you say may help.

[@edh.9584]

Valid sacramentally. It is a legal marriage, of course.

[@TP-om8of]

_Apostolicae Curae_ was a pastoral, pragmatic document written at a particular point in time. The Dutch Touch was hardly in the picture then. We moan that the C if E has started ordaining women, and that is true. But before that Pius IX got himself made infallible, which is equally egregious. So we’ve both got cause to repent.

[@revelation1215]

There is no comparison at all. Papal Infallibility is a quite narrowly constrained dogma that the Pope rarely exercises. It exists when he speaks ex cathedra meaning “from the chair” and only in defining a doctrine on faith and morals. The doctrine of papal infallibility was formally set in 1870, but the Pope has made statements considered infallible before then. The last time the Pope spoke infallibly was 1950.

[@marcokite]

True! Time for Orthodoxy! ☦

[@hazchemel]

Infallibility wasn't Pius's ix idea. It wasn't his project, and already existed long before his papacy.

[@royquick-s5n]

@@revelation1215 You hit a point. Who decides what was infallible before the definition of infallibility? I want an authorative answer, not just an opinion.

[@revelation1215]

@@royquick-s5n Let’s let Wikipedia guide us: “The doctrine of infallibility relies on one of the cornerstones of Catholic dogma, that of papal supremacy, whereby the authority of the pope is the ruling agent as to what are accepted as formal beliefs in the Catholic Church.[4] The use of this power is referred to as speaking ex cathedra.[5] "Any doctrine 'of faith or morals' issued by the pope in his capacity as successor to St. Peter, speaking as pastor and teacher of the Church Universal [Ecclesia Catholica], from the seat of his episcopal authority in Rome, and meant to be believed 'by the universal church,' has the special status of an ex cathedra statement. Vatican Council I in 1870 declared that any such ex cathedra doctrines have the character of infallibility (session 4, Constitution on the Church 4)."[6]”

[@oliverclark5604]

My procreation gift roles include as an "ecumaniac". My consecrated marriage role identity exercises an absolute power of authorisation of advantageous combining of roman catholic and anglican gift roles. No price to pay by these gift roles.

[@marcokite]

The Orthodox Church is the Church the Lord Jesus Christ founded, it is what it says on the box. Gavin misses the point, the next pope may be kind of moderate but the one after will be Francis II. Gavin doesn't understand that the RCC all revolves around the whim of the current Bishop of Rome. Gavin needs to pay the price and come home to Orthodoxy. ☦

[@polemeros]

And Orthodoxy is so disunited that it couldn't even pull off a Great and Holy Synod after 40 years of planning.

[@GordonSou]

Deep and rich spiritual tradition in the Orthodox Church. But what price would Gavin be paying ... cotraception, divorce and maŕried priests:)?

[@royquick-s5n]

Gavin understands. You had better check on his background.

[@frederickjones532]

Do orthodox members of the Holy Orthodox Church, following St Cyprian, not regard all sacraments including Holy Orders outside their church as null and void?

[@royquick-s5n]

@@frederickjones532 Because of WO, the Eastern Orthodox Churches will have reason not to reconninze Anglican orders. Recently there was an Eastern Orthodox Church in North Africa which ordained a woman deacon. It is an unique occurence. With the Eastern Orthodox Churches I would think that you would need to go by each national church, e.g. Greek, Russian, etc., to find polity on recognition of orders outside of it.

[@johntaaffe4709]

Catholic Marriage needs to totally re-examine every thing about Marriage. From who's entitled to get married to the actual marriage ceremony preparation and how long it should be to helping marriage. To helping people who's marriage is in serious trouble. To the harmonisation of the difficult process of divorce with the process of anullment. In other words steps in the anullment could almost mirror or follow the divorce although at the end the divorce would have to be well established before the anullment proceeds. The reason being the trauma being relieved can be almost impossible.

[@leomullins]

While you are at, you might as well change all the other sacrements to suit your worldly concerns...

[@shortferal]

No such thing as divorce inside the Catholic Church, what you suggest is asking the tribunal to play along and get in step with the idea that a husband and wife can dissolve a sacramental marriage. Just because outside entities determine a marital bond doesn't exist, doesn't mean the Church agrees, or needs to. Nor will the Church merely rubber stamp an annulment based upon condition that a civil divorce has been "well established." You really don't seem to get it, there is no such thing as divorce inside the Catholic Church, as far as she's concerned, you you're either married or you aren't, it's a matter of determining if an impediment existed before the trouble started..

[@papadan3]

who is worried?? we already know this papacy is full of indifference and corruption and discarding the truth of our dogmas and doctrines in full communion with the apostles and 2000 years of steady genuine truth.

[@papadan3]

how would anyone know if you presented yourself in good conscience to receive communion as a divorced person. who would know???

[@GordonSou]

God would - and that's all that counts.

[@GordonSou]

God would!

[@Mark3ABE]

How would anyone know if, as the last person to leave the Church, you abstracted a five pound note from the collection basket at the door and put it in your pocket? God would know. You would know. As Jesus made clear, a righteousness which depends upon being seen (or not seen) by people, is of no account as far as Almighty God is concerned.

[@royquick-s5n]

Too many unknowns here. Ask a priest your question after sharing with him the background of your divorce.

[@denisjackson8310]

I might be wrong …but I think Kath & Gavin have got an idealistic and too legalistic view of Salvation . Their logic seems supra Christlike

[@denisjackson8310]

; mystics speak a different language.

[@revelation1215]

Jesus said be perfect even as my Father in heaven is perfect and to strive for the narrow path that leads to Salvation. He also said not everyone who says Lord Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven. The idea the road to salvation is easy is a lie from the father of lies himself.

[@marcokite]

The Western Church is legalistic yeah. ☦☦

[@thelastbrobo7826]

There is only one holy apostalic catholic church.

[@marcokite]

Exactly! It's the Orthodox Church! ☦

[@marcokite]

@@carolherbert1042 - Exactly! It's the Orthodox Church! ☦

[@royquick-s5n]

Whether you know it or not, as a Monsignor commented to me, Anglicans and Catholics say the same creeds.🙂

[@DD-bx8rb]

@@royquick-s5n Saying the same Creed? Saying is not the issue. The issue at hand is the meaning attributed to the Creed by heretical Protestants.

[@royquick-s5n]

@@DD-bx8rb And the meaning attributed to saying of the creeds by the good Monsignor? By the way, he was the same priest on whom Newsweek wrote for introducing the English "Dialogue" Mass in the U.S.

[@DavidOatney]

"Ecumenia" is a word that one of my old University professors first used to describe those who are so ecumenical that they will water down even the Truth to suit ecumenism. I believe that Father Calvin's problem is the present Pope...but that is the problem. Popes come and go, and either you are going to be a Catholic or you are not.

[@JulesBeauchene]

Didn't Pope Francis just give a homily on 'closed' Catholic communities? I keep hearing that haunting theme music from 'The Remains of the Day', and there's too that tune from a Mr. B. Dylan: Come gather 'round people Wherever you roam And admit that the waters Around you have grown And accept it that soon You'll be drenched to the bone If your time to you is worth savin' And you better start swimmin' Or you'll sink like a stone For the times they are a-changin' Come writers and critics Who prophesize with your pen And keep your eyes wide The chance won't come again And don't speak too soon For the wheel's still in spin And there's no tellin' who That it's namin' For the loser now Will be later to win For the times they are a-changin' Come senators, congressmen Please heed the call Don't stand in the doorway Don't block up the hall For he that gets hurt Will be he who has stalled The battle outside ragin' Will soon shake your windows And rattle your walls For the times they are a-changin' Come mothers and fathers Throughout the land And don't criticize What you can't understand Your sons and your daughters Are beyond your command Your old road is rapidly agin' Please get out of the new one If you can't lend your hand For the times they are a-changin' The line it is drawn The curse it is cast The slow one now Will later be fast As the present now Will later be past The order is rapidly fadin' And the first one now Will later be last For the times they are a-changin'

[@philiphumphrey1548]

I used to like Dylan but I don't anymore. I now sense arrogance and ignorance in his words. The times were changing, but the problem is that his generation (and mine, although I was a few years younger) thought we knew everything and in fact we knew nothing. The generation before, my parents generation had been through the war and terrible hardships, they knew more about life than we could ever imagine. Maybe it's part of growing up, you start off thinking your parents know everything, then they know nothing and can't understand, and then maybe you realise they were right about some things all along. The times are indeed changing, but not necessarily for the better.

[@JonathanRedden-wh6un]

Since Jesus said not a jot can be removed from the law then divorce under certain circumstances as described in Matthew’s Gospel is allowable.

[@Mark3ABE]

I assume that you are referring to Matthew 19:9. “he who puts away his wife, nor for any unfaithfulness of hers, and so marries another, commits adultery; and he too commits adultery, who marries her after she has been put away.” Monsignor Knox adds the following explanatory note: “The apparent exception made here in connection with unfaithfulness, not recognised in Mark or Luke, or by St. Paul, has been variously explained. It is to be observed in any case that Our Lord is speaking of the man who puts away his innocent wife in order to marry another. He considers the case of the guilty husband with the innocent wife, and that of the innocent husband with the guilty wife; not that of a man who has a guilty wife and himself wants a change of partners. Thus, it would be unsafe to infer that the husband has a right to remarry.” As we know, the civil law takes the view that adultery by either party to the marriage gives the other party the right to divorce and remarry. However, properly interpreted, Matthew 9:9 does no more than give the innocent husband the right to put away a wife who has committed adultery. It is not possible to read into this verse a definite right for a husband whose wife commits adultery to divorce her and then remarry.

[@philiphumphrey1548]

​@@Mark3ABEBut that is more or less exactly what the scripture does say. I can appreciate that in an adultery case it's almost impossible for the church to sort out who is telling the truth, therefore it's much safer to say no second marriage after a valid first marriage regardless, at least while the first partner is still alive. That way no one is likely to receive communion while in the state of sin.

[@royquick-s5n]

I would think Jesus was criticizing the letter and intent of the law. It would not be the first time. Mt 19.6 is pretty clear. Most, I assume, understand why the Catholic Church allows resort to civil divorce for protection of a party of the divorce. Remember, the canon law applies in a valid marriage between a Catholic and another Catholic.

[@jesuslovesaves2682]

@@philiphumphrey1548 The Church's teaching for a valid marriage is no divorce for the saving of the soul at fault from my understanding. If you ever truly loved your spouse and they commit fornication that person would be in a continued state of moral sins with no hope for redemption if they remarry continuing in a state of adultery. So, the person who was sinned against leaving the door open to repentance for the love of their spouse who committed adultery is truly a sacrificial act and worthy of praise. While remarrying (if it were allowed) would be rather selfish if understandable.

[@jrcovert]

The man's name is "Jules Gomes" not "Gomez". A Portuguese name. Pronounced like "Lopes", not "Lopez".

[@shortferal]

*"Don't ask the Church to meet you in the pigsty."* I've long said converts are more passionate than us cradles! 😆

[@royquick-s5n]

I think Jesus commented on it, i.e. how the scribes or Pharisees strained in going after converts, making them worse than themselves. Mt 23.15

[@maureenelsden1927]

The Ordinariate is not Roman; it is Sarum Rite with 1st Prayer Book Lutheran.

[@user-li2bo1qt1b]

In one sense the Ordinariate IS Roman: it recognises the authority of the Bishop of Rome i.e. the Pope. It is therefore part of ‘the Roman Church.’

[@royquick-s5n]

You have been misinformed. The Ordinariates are fully Catholic, meaning to some fully Roman Catholic. In 1984 they used a Book of Divine Worship made of parts of the 1928 and 1979 Books of Common Prayer and old Sarum Rite. In 2015 it was replaced by the Divine Worship Missal, which is the Novus Ordo with a few non-offensive Anglican Prayers. Today there are Ordinariate priests serving in regular Catholic parishes, not just Ordinariate parishes.

[@maureenelsden1927]

@@royquick-s5n I most certainly have not been misinformed. How careless you are in your conclusions and statements. The Ordinariates are from Anglo-Catholicism. They are not like the way the Roman Catholic Church has been always and everywhere. They are not Roman Catholic.

[@royquick-s5n]

@@maureenelsden1927 Check with your local parish or diocesan office.

[@maureenelsden1927]

@@royquick-s5n Don't tell me what to do - diabolical cheek!

[@catholic3dod790]

Protestantism is bizarre.

[@Mark3ABE]

Protestantism is “brilliant”. Like a diamond, having 30,000 facets. It glitters and throws off multi coloured light.

[@papadan3]

how would anyone know if you presented yourself in good conscience to receive communion as a divorced person. who would know??? 21:51

[@catholicunscripted]

God

[@royquick-s5n]

I suggest you consult a priest inside or outside the confessional.

[@jesuslovesaves2682]

There reply is correct God. But I would add priests should really do a better job letting people KNOW they aren't supposed to do so and the consequences of doing so. There should be more discussions on the topic of when we aren't supposed to receive for various unabsolved moral sins. The ones most people aren't likely aware and are doing especially.

[@royquick-s5n]

@@jesuslovesaves2682 Parish gossipers and busybodies may not know particular circumstances which a priest would ascertain.

[@jesuslovesaves2682]

@@royquick-s5n That is no excuse for not keeping people informed nor would it be acceptable to create scandal over known unrepented sin. Members of the Parish may in fact know things the Pastor is unaware. This sword goes both ways.

[@mateoclemente6751]

Of course it’s not going to happen.

[@user-sd6yu1xs4g]

The Ex. Cathedra statement targeting Rome governance is very predictable and bankable.....before the next pope - (Pizza)

[@EpoRose1]

It’s time for Ecumaniacs and we’re zany to the max

[@murphyorama]

Gavin is a star.

[@Mark3ABE]

The current practice of the Catholic Church of granting divorces but calling them annulments causes major problems. The civil authority, having more honesty and integrity than the Catholic Church, will not grant an annulment in most cases. It considers the approach adopted by the Catholic Church, that, if the couple now want to bring the marriage to an end, their original consents cannot have been sufficient to create a valid marriage in the first place, as a complete fiction (which it is). The Catholic Church applies this fiction because of the clear words of Jesus, forbidding divorce outright. So, the Catholic Church, wishing to follow the world in granting divorces, is forced to apply the fiction that the marriage never existed in the first place. Therein lies the problem. The couple don’t wish to separate, in reality, because they repent of having given false consent (they know perfectly well that their consent was genuine). The wish to divorce so that they can validly remarry. So, they must apply for a civil divorce. In those proceedings, they must state to the Court that they consider that the marriage was a genuine one (that is, that they gave a genuine consent). If not, the Court would not entertain the application for a divorce, but would require them to apply for a civil annulment, which the civil law would not grant, because the civil authority has more honesty and integrity than the Catholic Church. So, they must make statements to the Court which contradict the statements which they made to the Church. Don’t worry, the Church tells them. Lie to the Court, then go to Confession afterwards. After all, Confession is there to deal with the fact that you lived in fornication during your purported marriage, that you brought illegitimate children into the world, that you “anticipated” your annulment by committing fornication with your new spouse pending the granting of your annulment. So, the couple must lie (according to the Church) to the Court to obtain their civil divorce and civil remarriage (although, in reality, what they tell the Court is the truth and what they tell the Church is a lie) and then make it all right afterwards by going to Confession. When St. Thomas Moore was advised to swear the Oath publicly but not consent in his heart, going to Confession afterwards to deal with his false Oath, to save his life, he refused. He refused to swear a false Oath, because that would not only offend God, but would deceive others into thinking that he believed what he swore. However, today the Church readily advises the Faithful to swear false Oaths in the civil proceedings, then go to Confession afterwards, but, since the civil Oaths are, in fact, true and the statements made in the Church annulment are, in fact, false, there is the further sin of making a false Confession! Oh, what a tangled web the Church weaves, when now it practices to deceive !

[@revelation1215]

That was quite long winded old chap.

[@Mark3ABE]

@@revelation1215 There are some, such as yourself, who are capable of maintaining a sufficient level of concentration so as to be able to follow a line of argument. Not, of course, everyone - they prefer a one liner.

[@jesuslovesaves2682]

@@Mark3ABE It is a long poorly edited comment. It is rude for anyone you expect to read it put in such a way or at the least selfish.

[@jesuslovesaves2682]

The above is non-sense. The Church's position is the best I have ever read on the topic and MUCH more well thought out than the comment you just posted. The marriage never existing is based on the person either not being competent enough to engage in the marriage, being forced into against their will, or not having needed information like being lied to or withholding information vital to making a willful informed decision. The State does the same thing for contracts for many of the same reasons btw. Few examples: -Shock gun wedding, where parents force their children into the marriage -mental conditions that would void it -drug related issues. -if one party lies or withholds a major issue or issues. How about if in the modern day someone married a trans individual only to find out post marriage this was so? The list could go on and on. If your point is that the system is abused. Then why not just simply point that out? If that is your point well guess what good luck finding a Church for of saints, you and I certainly wouldn't be there. But the actual teaching in the Catechism and surrounding documents are as perfect as anything I have ever read on the topic. So, if your point it is attacking that then you are dead wrong and in grave error.

[@Mark3ABE]

@@jesuslovesaves2682 My point is that the common law was developed at a time when Christianity was part of the Law of England. The Law does provide for a marriage to be annulled, on the same basis as the Church once permitted a marriage to be annulled. Now, to accommodate Catholics who want a divorce, the Church will grant an annulment in circumstances where the Law, founded on Christian principles, would not grant an annulment. The truth of this is apparent. After the Catholic couple have obtained their “annulment” from the Church, the Church advises them that they will now need to apply to the Court for a divorce. Why a divorce? If there were genuine grounds for the Church to grant an annulment, why not advise the couple to apply to the Court for an annulment, rather than a divorce? The fact is, the Court would not grant an annulment because there are no valid grounds for an annulment. The Church has, quite simply, granted a divorce but called it an annulment.

[@mateoclemente6751]

Is it possible that your Pope hates traditionalists so much, especially ones like Gaven, that he may make this sort of move? I think it’s more possible than Gaven is willing to admit.

[@royquick-s5n]

I beginning to think that "traditionalist" is a benevolent term for reactiionary, as "Evangelical" is for fundamentalist.

[@jameswall6270]

Eccles cakes are fantastic

[@TP-om8of]

No, British baking is horrific. British cuisine is horrific. So is the weather, come to think of it..

[@CBlackartist]

magical worlds seems to be running everything...😂

[@theoldsailor2884]

You two are the BEST! I was stationed in Scotland for two years but toured all over the country. It was the best tour of duty I had in my naval career. I know what and Eccles cakes are. Ate some, like them. This was in the late 1960's so the country was not in the condition it is now. So sorry.

[@davidmorrison2739]

I'll try not to be naughty on Gavin's website. I have deleted my comments which are out of place here. By the way, "ecumaniacs" has been in use since Vatican II, coined (I think) by Protestants concerned with the kind of murky thinking, in World Council of Churhes pronouncements and the like, that Gavin is rightly complaining about now. We fiery Protestants used the word from time to time in the 1960s and later.

[@royquick-s5n]

David, I participated once in an ecumenical Benedictine community sponsored by a Roman Catholic bishop and an Episcopal bishop. My superior was a learned and respected RC priest. The community was quashed by two conservative cardinals in the Vatican, not from lack of local support. What on God's green earth is amiss about Christians trying to find unity? Something Christ emphasized in the Gospel of John.

[@davidmorrison2739]

@@royquick-s5n In one sense all true Christians, the truly believing remnant in Catholicism, Protestantism etc already have full unity in Christ. Outward unity is important but it has to be built on the truth as people see it. The big differences in doctrine mean that it isn't going to happen till the resurrection.

[@royquick-s5n]

@@davidmorrison2739 I not going to place any limit on what God may do. Consider Jesus meant he said in the Gospel of John.🙂

[@davidmorrison2739]

@@royquick-s5n OK. I'll change my last sentence to "from a human point of view it seems extremely unlikely..." etc. I don't see Rome changing (except in a temporary woke direction) and I don't see real Protestants changing. But God is indeed sovereign, in salvation and in everthying else, as we Calvinists insist.

[@royquick-s5n]

@@davidmorrison2739 David, keeping up with Catholic Unscripted should show how many, if not most, Catholics, clergy as well as laity, bishops, are concerned with Pope Francis's moral ambivalence or prevarication. It is not the first time the Church has had to deal with a pope who has gone downhill. Church institutional structure seems to be a problem for more than one denomination. I seriously doubt whether Francis will take the Church down the path of TEC or the Church of England. I am not a Calvinist. I see what Calvinists tried to do to the Church of England, especially the Puritans. Look into the Interregnum, if you have the time. The influence of the Puritans kept both the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church from having bishops in the North American colonies sooner than they did. Look what the direct descendents of Calvinists, the Congregational and Presbyterian Churches, have become, liberal woke denominations. To believe that we are saved by what Jesus has done for us is not just a Calvinist, Lutheran, or Catholic thing. It is plainly Christian! Compare what people say about the Catholic Church with the what is said about it in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.🙂

[@530jazzercise]

novus ordo annulments are "catholic" divorces..bergoglio insists that annulments be granted without let or hindrance

[@johntheunready8331]

Gavin you are more charitable than me, a sinner indeed. This editor is like the serpent in Genesis. He does not care about truth, but manipulates language for his own gains

[@marcokite]

The Orthodox Church is the Church the Lord Jesus Christ founded, it is what it says on the box. Gavin misses the point, the next pope may be kind of moderate but the one after will be Francis II. Gavin doesn't understand that the RCC all revolves around the whim of the current Bishop of Rome. Gavin needs to pay the price and come home to Orthodoxy.

[@maureenelsden1927]

Anathema sit to this pair in all their errors, or I should say anathema sint.

[@revelation1215]

I am beginning to think you need the services of an exorcist.

[@maureenelsden1927]

@@revelation1215 I am good at exorcising devils from me such as you clearly are. BE GONE SATAN1215 IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST!!!

[@maureenelsden1927]

@@revelation1215 Cheeky devil!

[@revelation1215]

@@maureenelsden1927 I’ll own it.

[@quireman8329]

Why are you anathematizing these people? Don't be a bully!

[@wilts43]

Wow! You really messed up this episode. Over & over & over again you said "divorced Catholics" can't receive communion!! NOT TRUE..... Neither Gavin nor Katherine said it was "divorced-&-REMARRIED Catholics" who should not receive. (Leaving aside Benedict & the internal-forum process). This was so bad, so repeated and so wrong you need to delete and re-do. Sorry. But I do appreciate your usual efforts greatly. You need to be CLEAR that "divorced Catholics" are in no way prevented from receiving (by this status alone). There are a vast number of divorced catholics who live chastely according to their state. They were wrongfully insulted by this piece. And they may be wondering if they can now receive. Over & over you said "divorced Catholics" (can't receive) without the essential caveat "remarried" Please delete or re-do.

[@danocinneide1885]

Apologies, Gavin, but....the idea of denominations in Christianity is not a Christian idea...

[@marcokite]

Exactly! the Orthodox Church is the Church the Lord Jesus Christ founded, it is what it says on the box. Gavin misses the point, the next pope may be kind of moderate but the one after may be Francis II. Gavin doesn't understand that the RCC all revolves around the whim of the current Bishop of Rome. Gavin needs to pay the price and come home to Orthodoxy.

[@Apriluser]

@@marcokite What price is there to pay?

[@danocinneide1885]

@@marcokite Careful....Peter has the keys, Matt 16:18, but is also a scandal

[@maureenelsden1927]

There is a lot Rome does not understand about marriage.

[@revelation1215]

Criticism without convincing evidence is moot.

[@royquick-s5n]

I think Jesus knew perfectly well, and, since, people have been trying to find exceptions.

[@maureenelsden1927]

@@royquick-s5n His encounter with the Samaritan woman at the well of Sichar (John Ch 4) is amazing.

[@jesuslovesaves2682]

Have you ever actually read the Catechism and the footnotes documents on the topic? It is highly doubtful by your comment.

[@royquick-s5n]

@@jesuslovesaves2682 Here I had Mt 19.6 particularly in mind. (It is quoted in the Catechism.)

[@maureenelsden1927]

Ashenden has very erroneous ideas on "Catholic", as well as about his slanderous "ecumaniac".

[@veronica_._._._]

Libel or slander? (as it's both written and spoken here). Can you libel a collective noun? Can you slander a made up word? I would suggest a "discuss not dismiss" stance, otherwise it comes across as a reflexive personal ego defence, perhaps

[@soniavadnjal7553]

In what sense erroneous re ''catholic".

[@maureenelsden1927]

There is nothing theologically against the ordination of women; it is a matter of discipline.

[@revelation1215]

In the Catholic Church, this position is patently false and has been infallibly refuted. In 1994, Pope John Paul II declared, “Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force. Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Luke 22:32), I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful” (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis 4).

[@catholicunscripted]

Women simply cannot be priests. To think they can requires dismissal of or editing of, divine revelation. It’s no surprise that those who protested against Him went on to ordain women.

[@soniavadnjal7553]

Actually it is a question of both discipline (in the sense of obedience), and theology.

[@revelation1215]

@@soniavadnjal7553 Incorrect. A Discipline is man-made and can be changed as often as the Church desires. Priestly celibacy, for instance, is a discipline. Ordination of women in the Catholic Church is impossible, infallibly speaking.

[@marcokite]

LOL - the reasons there cannot be women bishops/priests is 100% theological.

[@antonralph6947]

Come on, Gavin. How do you arrive at the conclusion that Calvin has lost credibility? I listened to Calvin conversation with Taylor, and I think Calvin came across well. I'm a Christian. I grew up Catholic. I became a Christian outside the Catholic and have remained outside Rome. There's no way the Rome Catholic Church is the one true Church. Look at the present pope, Judas 1st . There is salvation outside Rome. Salvation is in Christ Grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

[@revelation1215]

The true church bears the four marks. The Catholic Church is the only church that has spread Christianity to the four corners of the earth. You cannot claim universality even if you piggyback on what the Catholic Church has already established. Jesus also said that the true church would contain both sheep and goats. If your church only got sheep, wrong church. And finally, Satan will mercilessly attack the true church. Which church is under attack the most? Time to reevaluate.

[@marcokite]

@@revelation1215 - yup, the true Church is the Orthodox Church which bears the four marks.

[@berrowboy]

​@@revelation1215 You are correct. The Church most attacked by the Synagogue of Satan is the Orthodox Church. Russia is the last Christian Citadel whilst the Western churches are in the Catacombs fearful or Judasising with Zionists. It is merely nationalist conceit that presumes"exceptionalism," when it is meant instead to be an 'exemplar," to the nations. The Light bearing Christ's Truth.

[@marcokite]

The Orthodox Church is the Church the Lord Jesus Christ founded, it is what it says on the box. Gavin misses the point, the next pope may be kind of moderate but the one after may be Francis II. Gavin doesn't understand that the RCC all revolves around the whim of the current Bishop of Rome. Gavin needs to pay the price and come home to Orthodoxy. ☦

[@royquick-s5n]

You and I are saved by what Christ has done for us.

[@papadan3]

the big word is “sorry” i was wrong. 33:34 33:35