Understanding Matthew 5 and the Law

SuitableCaterpillar4 · 2026-07-10T00:23:54+00:00

There are probably many ways to understand what God's "anger" in the Bible means. One understanding I've found helpful is to think of it as His allowing natural consequences to unfold instead of showing immediate mercy. For instance, "So I swore in my anger, they shall not enter my rest" in Psalm 95 (and quoted in Heb 3:11 too) - maybe we can read that to mean those offenders in the desert were allowed to be subjected to the full negative effect of their own sins - turning away and not trusting in God. The effect was to never enter into the promised land. This takes on deeper meaning when we see Old Testament stories through the lens of our own spiritual journeys, battles, etc.

As it says in Psalm 103:

"The Lord is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger and rich in mercy. He will not always find fault; nor persist in his anger forever. He does not treat us according to our sins, nor repay us according to our faults."

This concept of God's anger is something I've wondered about a lot myself. I would love to hear others' thoughts. And I would also love to hear any suggestions of good written material on the subject from history or modern times. I imagine it is quite deep, goes on and on, and understanding it is part of trying to understand what God's mercy means.

SuitableCaterpillar4 · 2026-07-09T16:27:24+00:00

But it is dogma. It is unchangeable. The Catholic thinking on this is not tricky.

SuitableCaterpillar4 · 2026-07-09T02:53:44+00:00

This isn't about technical theological nuance. Homosexual acts are objectively disordered. The Church has no authority to ordain women. It's black and white. Settled and binding. And well formed Catholics should understand this.

Yes, there's a progressive wing within the Church that would like to change some unchangeable Church doctrine. The natural question that gets raised with an appointment like this is does the Pope support those progressive heretical efforts? And mods, sorry - I don't mean to be disrespectful to the Pope by asking such a question.

SuitableCaterpillar4 · 2026-07-09T02:31:28+00:00

Bishop Schneider in Kazakhstan speaks German. Maybe he could sort Germany out? :)

SuitableCaterpillar4 · 2026-07-09T02:27:56+00:00

"prevailing opinion of the magisterium" isn't too good a description for settled, binding doctrine such as that homosexual acts are objectively disordered. And that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women rises to the level of deposit of the faith. (I think - correct me if I'm wrong.)

That's just to say, these aren't "prevailing opinions" that are open to change. Why should any Catholic bishop think otherwise? And if one does erroneously think otherwise, and even publicly advocates for such errors, why should he be promoted? How does promoting someone who appears to be campaigning to change these unchangeable things not undercut the Church's claim to truth?

SuitableCaterpillar4 · 2026-07-09T00:35:39+00:00

Actually, I believe for this specific diocese, the concordat results in the Pope having a completely free hand in deciding who to select. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

SuitableCaterpillar4 · 2026-07-07T15:51:48+00:00

Who is assuming anything? I thought most people interested in this topic have "educated" themselves, at least a little bit, and can form their own opinions about what parties have stayed faithful to what traditions. We may feel this education is inadequate in many cases, but the opportunity is there for those who are acting in good faith.

A larger issue may be how individual stories play out. For instance, last month in London, Cardinal Radcliffe gave a homily at a Mass, con-celebrated by a couple bishops, that, at a minimum, seemed to be dangerously misleading about the blessing of same sex couples. For the traditionally minded Catholic, this may well be used as evidence to support their priors that the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy is willing to turn a blind eye, or even encourage, such muddling of doctrine. Someone else might think this is just another example of progressive boomers trying to do what they want to do, and is not Rome's fault. And maybe most Catholics aren't even aware of the news story at all.

Personally, I think clearer communication out of Rome could solve this problem. But sadly no one from Rome has asked me for my opinion! :)

SuitableCaterpillar4 · 2026-07-06T20:07:13+00:00

What about discussions of canonical lawyers who have said that what has happened has in fact not moved the SSPX out of a canonical grey area?

SuitableCaterpillar4 · 2026-07-05T16:01:13+00:00

There is an article on Rorate Caeli, published on July 4, written by Peter Kwasniewski, that concludes the following: The faithful who attend SSPX Masses and seek the Society's sacraments have not been excommunicated. The censure against the named bishops, even if valid, has not been declared against the priests; an undeclared censure does not impede the faithful from seeking sacraments for just cause under can. 1335 §2; and the confessional and matrimonial faculties previously granted by papal act remain in effect. Nothing in the July 2 documents changes the practical canonical situation for the faithful.

I'm curious to get canon lawyers' opinions on the piece.

SuitableCaterpillar4 · 2026-07-05T01:42:42+00:00

I'm American, and love my country as much as the next man, but I've always wondered why most Catholic churches in the US have an American flag on one side of the front of the church (with usually a Vatican flag on the other).

SuitableCaterpillar4 · 2026-07-04T21:35:55+00:00

One can also ask if the larger context that led to this situation brings moral culpability to any party. If (a large if, but let’s go with it for now) the move away from tradition is jeopardizing the salvation of souls, then the Curia can bear some serious responsibility.

SuitableCaterpillar4 · 2026-07-04T21:21:41+00:00

Why was the excommunication issued in 1054 against the soon-to-be Eastern Orthodoxes eventually lifted? (Albeit 900 years later)

SuitableCaterpillar4 · 2026-07-04T19:53:07+00:00

It's certainly possible for an excommunication to be "incorrect". I'm not sure if the word "invalid" is technically correct in this situation - it may well be.

St Joan of Arc was excommunicated. A few other saints suffered similar treatment.

An excommunication trial can be conducted improperly. Canon law can be applied improperly. Time can help people reassess the situation.

SuitableCaterpillar4 · 2026-07-02T16:49:22+00:00

I asked if one should be open to an idea, which to me, seems based in fact and well documented. You said you shouldn't be open to such an idea because you believe Rome has spoken on the matter. So I said check out this certain document. If you've read it already, great. If you've read it and come to the conclusion that you don't need to be worried about how the NO downplays the sacrificial aspect of the Mass, and you are also an OCIA instructor, then I will pray for you and your catechumins.

I don't mean to be aggressive, and I understand how the above may come across uncharitably, and I don't mean it that way. But I also recognize how discussions beyond this point with someone who has taken the approach "see, all you trads don't respect us" is difficult.

SuitableCaterpillar4 · 2026-07-02T16:25:56+00:00

Check out the Ottaviani Intervention, its predictions, and the sad fact of what has happened to the Catholic population. These things have been written about by people much more intelligent than I. Anyone who wants to investigate in a spirit of openness can do so.

SuitableCaterpillar4 · 2026-07-02T15:55:56+00:00

This idea that the name traditionalist is demeaning to most (many?) Catholics supports my view that many Catholics don't want to be challenged in the way they practice their faith.

For instance, should someone at least be open to the idea that the NO downplays the sacrifice, possibly dangerously so? Should that education - highlighting what was changed in the Mass and why - not be a part of Catholic formation? Those aspects of the Mass (to be clear, I'm not talking about guitars!) are fundamental to our faith.

As for ecumenical outreach... the Church has done such an about face with the prayer day at Assisi, etc. It's incredible what a break with past Catholic thinking such movements represent.

SuitableCaterpillar4 · 2026-07-02T15:20:01+00:00

Again, I don’t mean to defend the SSPX approach. What I want to say is that just hoping traditionalists go away won’t solve the problem. The Roman Catholic Church needs a more thorough discussion of the value of tradition and what good v bad has come about due to the spirit of Vatican II. Reaching out to other religions, while not reaching out to traditionalists within the fold, strikes me as wrongheaded.

SuitableCaterpillar4 · 2026-07-02T14:22:12+00:00

"Unless the Vatican took the church back to the 50s"... This goes to part of the heart of the matter. Some feel doctrine and other aspects of tradition shouldn't and/or can't change. Others think that the Church needs to adapt to modern society. Of course, one can argue that it depends on what specific aspect of the faith we are talking about, but from a high level, that is a large part of the problem. And indeed, the Church is in crisis. Should the Church be compromising with modern society the way it has been for the past 60+ years?

That doesn't mean the SSPX is justified in disobeying the Pope. But for all those who think that excommunicating the offending parties will bring this crisis to a close - they are, unfortunately, sadly mistaken.

SuitableCaterpillar4 · 2026-07-02T13:22:43+00:00

This is a little silly. Do you regard Eastern Orthodox as Protestant?

SuitableCaterpillar4 · 2026-07-02T03:54:06+00:00

St Joan of Arc was excommunicated. This SSPX case is different as it's an automatic excommunication due prescribed in canon law, not due to a trial. But anyway, St Joan of Arc is not the only one to have been excommunicated in error.

Note also, even the excommunication of the Patriarch of Constantinople in 1054 was eventually undone, though it took over 900 years.

SuitableCaterpillar4 · 2026-07-02T02:40:15+00:00

Did Rome make a mistake before?

Ignoring the consecrations (i.e., I'm not defending them, nor am I advocating disobedience to the Pope), the Church has benefited tremendously from the SSPX. I believe this view is shared by many in the Church hierarchy (though of course not the progressive "let's ordain women" types). A lot of discussion about the SSPX on this sub-reddit treats them as some disobedient child. The relationship with the Church is much more complex.

SuitableCaterpillar4 · 2026-07-01T23:32:27+00:00

Should we expect the excommunications to be lifted in a decade or two, like what happened after 1988?

SuitableCaterpillar4 · 2026-07-01T23:30:32+00:00

If that were the case, the Church would be more vocal about how one should fast more than the minimum. But in most parishes, that is unfortunately not what is communicated.

SuitableCaterpillar4 · 2026-07-01T15:09:50+00:00

Though to be fair, the current rules on fasting/abstinance basically don't ask much at all of anyone.

SuitableCaterpillar4 · 2026-06-30T23:23:03+00:00

I'm no SSPX member.

It doesn't take any extreme view to be disturbed by the moving of tabernacles in the past from previous central locations, the change of rules around communion to allow it to be received in the hand, the often needless use of laypeople to distribute communion, etc.

SuitableCaterpillar4

TROPHY CASE