Vatican cracks down on liturgical abuse: Last Week in the Church with John Allen Jr.
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 тра 2024
- In this episode: 0:00 Introduction
5:17 Vatican cracks down on liturgical abuse.
11:00 Jewish community unhappy with Pope’s letter.
16:31 Could the next Pope come from Congo?
21:28 Vatican shirking responsibility for ‘vulnerable adults’?
25:41 ‘Vatican Girl’: brother supplies ‘new’ evidence.
Magisterium AI: Catholics have a new powerful tool. It's an AI that references over 6000 magisterial documents of the Catholic Church and more than 2000 Catholic theological and philosophical works from notable thinkers like St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, Fathers of the Church, etc. The Bible and important biblical commentaries are also available in "Scholarly Mode". Have a question on Church teaching? Need help preparing a homily? Doing academic research? Every response of the AI comes with references. Check it out! www.magisterium.com/
ABOUT CRUX
Crux offers the very best in smart, wired, and independent coverage of the Vatican and the Catholic Church.
Visit us at cruxnow.com/
WHERE TO LISTEN
Web
cruxnow.com/podcast
Apple Podcasts
podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Spotify
open.spotify.com/show/3Rs92xe...
Stitcher
www.stitcher.com/show/last-we...
Amazon Music
music.amazon.com/podcasts/ee9...
Google Podcasts
podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0...
TuneIn
tunein.com/podcasts/Religion-...
FOLLOW US
Facebook
/ crux
Twitter
/ crux
UA-cam
/ cruxmedia
LinkedIn
/ crux-now
I'm not a theology expert but it's fascinating to think about the original wording of the sacrament, which focused on *being* baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This pattern highlights the idea of receiving the sacrament rather than it being primarily the action of the minister or the congregation. Instead, it emphasizes the agency of God. It's interesting to note that a similar formula is still used in the Orthodox Church. There's so much depth to explore and learn from different religious traditions!
'In the Eastern Catholic Churches of Byzantine Rite immersion or submersion is used, and the formula is: “The servant of God, N., is baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Though sprinkling is not normally used, its validity is accepted, provided that the water flows over the skin, since otherwise it is not a washing.'
'Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism, 1993. n. 93. “Baptism is conferred with water and with a formula which clearly indicates that baptism is done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”'
Another great show John. Thanks for your reporting, analysis and humor.
I am glad to see you John back in the good shape.
Another week of confusion and ambiguity.
An end to confusion from Fidducia.
Form and Matter. Blessing couples in irregular situations is no more valid sacramentally than "we baptise you in the name of mama and papa".
Thank you,John, for your remarkable communications to us on UA-cam. I am grateful. 🙏 ❤😊
Ditto!
Man, are you naive. Consider a source not bigoted against Catholicism.
Because of the importance of Baptism, the Church has allowed any human being, even an unbaptized person, even an unbeliever, to administer the sacrament, provided they use the correct formula with the correct intent. For example, many nurses in maternity hospitals have had instructions on what to do and how to do it.
The key phrase here is "the correct formula." Certainly if the three Persons are changed to "Mother, Daughter and Spirit" as some non-Catholic pastors have been doing, it is a material change. But changing "I baptize" to "we baptize" is not material: the plural "we" always includes the singular "I." The first-person plural has been often used as a "majestic plural" by monarchs and even by popes, who have frequently written "we have decided" when they meant "I have decided." That did not make the royal or papal document invalid.
Let's come up for air and remember the great mandate that is at the heart of the sacrament: "Go forth (plural imperative) and teach all nations (plural imperative), baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." (Matthew 28:19) The mandate says neither "I" or "we" but the plural "you." The church herself transposed the pronoun to first person. So those who tamper with the formula have altered the Church's words, not Christ's. It seems, in my humble opinion, that we are dealing with something clearly illicit but not certainly invalid.
Of course, the ordinary minister of the sacrament is the ordinary bishop, or his appointed pastor or deacon. Under threat of life or death, however, if an ordinary minister is not available, anyone can step in. Now we must instruct them to clearly state "I baptize ..."
@@thebiblepriest4950 No doubt God will check whether the baptism was meant to be in the Eastern or the Latin rite and welcome (or not) the baptized person to His bosom.
a simple fact is that the revised liturgy promotes creativity. The problem is when you have a priest who gets a little 'too' creative. The vernacular liturgy makes the celebrate to be spontaneous, to make it alive, personal. if you just read the liturgy as is, its just stale. None of this is present in the Traditional liturgy in Latin.
I’m sorry but Fernandez is a creep!
Roman churchmen seem particularly prone to that condition.
If you don’t know the difference between a sacrament and a blessing then you may want to acquaint yourself with church teaching.
Love is essential by all means
How would huge parts of the U.S., Asia, Eastern Europe, and Latin America be different from Africa in Cardinal Fernandez's mind?
The Africans are different because they are not yet as enlightened as the West so the Priests have been told to use their discretion when giving a pastoral blessing to any person.
Will not to baptiize, correctly according to canon law, people from 26 years back in time take a lot of time away from a lot of other important tasks. And those who have died in the meantime?
How can Anti-Judaism be a sin against God when we are competing religions with fundamentally opposed truth claims? If Judaism is correct then we are idolaters who are damned, and if Christianity is correct then they have rejected God and are damned without Christ. How can we evangelize if it is a sin? Is Anti-Islam also a sin against God? How about Anti-Hinduism?
We are not "competing" religions at all. The question you should be asking is how you attempt to justify being anti Jewish when everything about Catholicism says you cannot be that.
@@tomthx5804 How? Do Orthodox Jews who reject Christ go to Heaven when they die? I'm not Anti-Semitic.
Presumably because it's unedifying.
And we as Christians are supposed to evangelise not make enemies.
Jesus was a proud Jew.
Here, here!!
@@Jimboken1Jesus was not a proud anything, and by the time he was in ministry the Jews were distinguished by name as those who opposed him. That is still true.
Who are 'the more contemporary figures'. I'm not sure if I'm 'gonna dig it'.
🇻🇦🇻🇦🇻🇦The Romans say and know by a preponderance of experience that he who enters the conclave as Pope leaves it as a cardinal!🇻🇦🇻🇦🇻🇦
Regarding the decree on baptism, I can certainly understand issuing guidance stating/reiterating the correct form of administration and why it must be used, but to say that a baptism previously administered with pure intent is invalid due to an error in a pronoun used strikes me as ridiculous and fundamentally unsound. Would Jesus have issued this? Really? Something that makes the church look absurd, as was the case, in my view, with the Detroit priest situation a few years ago.
It may seem scrupulous, but so is the matter for the Eucharist. Maybe it has to be “I” because the priest or person is in persona Christi in that moment. Besides, it’s just so modernist to take away the priest’s special function and share it with the laymen.
@@angelamalek I’m not arguing against reiterating what the formula should be and why, just the implication for previously administered sacraments
Invalidity of the sacraments?
Does this mean I might not have been baptised? Perhaps I’m not a Catholic…could this be true? 😮
now known as the unholy office!
The African Bishos TOTALLY support Fiducia Supplicans.
You can’t compare a blessing with a Sacrament. You know that!!!
A blessing is a sacramental
How many times now have the Pope and Fernandez clarified that it is impossible to bless SS unions, but only persons. And yet here we go again with Mr Allen insisting on the opposite once more.
Couples. It says couples.
@@TP-om8ofOne's own interpretation of the document is irrelevant. The Magisterium has made it clear what the real meaning is. Anyone using it contrary to this and attempting to bless the relationship is both sinning in blessing sin and in disobedience to Holy Mother Church. And anyone holding that it means else than what the Holy Father says it means is simply mistaken or speaking falsehoods.
You are so silly and uninformed. The document says "couples" are to be blessed. No matter what garbage the Vatican puts out saying the blessing is only for the "couples" not the "unions" nobody is going to believe them because those two things are exactly the same thing. I see you need some education about the use of language, and the means by which evil people pervert language to make others fall into sin.
What nonsense. The document says "couples" are to be blessed. In what way are two gay guys a "couple"? Well they are a couple in the sense that they have sexual relations like heterosexual couples, they live together and perform sinful sex acts on each other. So if you bless the "couple" you are in fact blessing the union, no matter what the porn king in the Vatican (Fernandez) says about things. He is laughable. @@LostArchivist
@@tomthx5804The Pope has the Keys of the Kingdom. What he says is how it is. Also, all disciplinary standards are set by him. If it is a moral matter, it does not matter what anyone else says either because the Magisterium is the teaching authority of thr Church on faith and morals and the Pope is in charge of that and is guarded by thr Holy Spirit so he can not promulgate such a thing.
Besides, if the Pope, who you are criticizing says it means something else and continues to, then you are not arguing against them, but a strawman of an opponent that does not exist because you or someone leading you wants the Vatican to be promulgating something sinful to suit a narrative. It is a phantasm.
This is not of God.
I love it when Smoochy gets strict....
The minister of Baptism need not be baptized once they administer it with the proper intention.
As if sacramental form was the only part of the liturgy; this is too little too late
John, you said that the baptisms performed by the Detroit priest would have been invalid. Are you sure?
A person does not need to be a priest, or even a Catholic, to perform a valid baptism. So presumably the baptisms performed by the invalidly ordained priest would still be valid.
Believe the validity in this case has to do with the form/language...“I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” VS the incorrect "We" baptize you..."
Yes
New pope ? What’s the job pay?
You want money?
"Angels on pins…" Hardly. It can have profound psychological effects.
“It's leviOsa, not levioSA!” "It’s baptizO, not baptizAMUS!"
Only in the Dark Arts does so much depend on so little.
"If you can't say anything nice...", perhaps not say anything at all? it feels like you came to this video with a hostile attitude because correcting pronunciation is a little unnecessary, and his comment on 'angels on a pin' was clearly misunderstood by you. Give it a re-listen to understand the actual content in which he said that.
I was a Capuchin and left because of their infidelity to their vows and lack of prayer.
The African bishops did NOT say "with one voice" against the papal mandate. The bishops of Northern Africa DISSENTED.
I greatly admire Cardinal Robert Sarah for his anti-LGBT stand. He would have made an excellent Pope, but I do not think he will be, as he is 79 this year, and he will be ineligible to attend the next conclave if it begins on or after June 15, 2025.
John, John, John, you are so obtuse and glib in your gossipy analysis.
The Catholic Church is the Greatest Lunatic Asylum on earth.
You are misinformed about the archbishop of Kinshasa. The bishops of Southern Africa are among those who took exception to Ambongo's claim that he spoke for the bishops of Africa. Perhaps it is more accurate to say that he claimed to speak for those he had not cosulted
Popesplainers paddle so furiously to stay afloat.
I greatly admire Cardinal Robert Sarah for his anti-LGBT stand. He would have made an excellent Pope, but I do not think he will be, as he is 79 this year, and he will be ineligible to attend the next conclave if it begins on or after June 15, 2025.
He is Not the Pope
Unfortunately he probably iw
@@user-xj1cj4nm7s iw indeed
The new pope will be the Bishop of Jerusalem.
Impressive flexibility between 2020 the church can’t bless sin and 2023 actually the church can bless sin. What does this pope actually stand for???
The Holy Magisterium has made it clear that we can not bless such unions and only the persons held by them as a means to aid them to return to the Lord and strive against their sin to be able to repent of them.
Anyone whether to attempt to justify attempting to 'bless' such a false union or those attempting to rail against the Holy Magisterium, both speak falsely when they claim otherwise.
He apparently stands for a big 'ol mess and the Africans can have special consideration because, like conservatives, they have a backwardist/indietrismo culture.
But Pope Francis is not a racist, you understand.....
John Allen continues to refer, mistakenly, to "blessing of same sex unions."
Finally you fixed your stupid microphone
🤣🤢
Your podcast news makes the catholic institution seem like a joke. Many catholics just don't believe many aspects & teachings of the catholuc hierarchy. NOW it is paramount that when baptizing in the name of THE FATHER. SON, & HOLY SPIRIT it is invalidated because of "I baptize you" vs. "We baptize you." This says it all... "JOKE." Isn't " the Father, Son, & Spirit" the IMPORTANT aspect? It makes those inside and outside the catholic institution laugh, sadly.😢
why do you continually refer to the blessing of same-sex unions? The DDF document refers specifically to blessing the individuals and NOT the union. There is no confusion. no public blessing, no pfficial liturgical blessing. I advise everyone to actually read the document.
John, please do not circle around. Call the crooks in Vatican by their names. 😳💥😳
The war on Hamas has only had 28,000 Palestinian deaths as collateral damage. You are so unbalanced.
uniformity in homophobia seems to be the order of the day. all im seeing is venom not pastoral concern or sensitivity as the second part of the CCC demands
What I see is the majority supporting the two year old statement by the DDF saying that God cannot bless sin, in terms of same sex duos. If there is an angry tone, it is towards the agressivity of the queer community and the Church’s capitulation.
i admire Cardinal Robert Sarah for his anti-LGBT stand. He would have made an excellent Pope, but I do not think he will be, as he will be 79 this year, and he will be ineligible to attend the next conclave if it begins on or after June 15, 2025.
We are sick of seeing all the homo sapiens dragging down the Church
I think the blessing of same sex marriages is a good and wide idea.
NO, it is an ABOMINATION.
Ecclesia supplet
🇻🇦🇻🇦🇻🇦The Romans say and know by a preponderance of experience that he who enters the conclave as Pope leaves it as a cardinal!🇻🇦🇻🇦🇻🇦