FATHER MARTIN: HOMOSEXUALS NOT BOUND TO CHASTITY

Church MIlitant ^ | September 20, 2017 | Trey Elmore

[Secret Agent Man]

Ha!

[Salman]

James Martin's Facebook pic

Boy oh boy does that set off my gaydar.

[foundedonpurpose]

Just put the whole book back into context! Then we don’t have to wait for them to go to hell. Purge the evil from your midst!!

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

In other words, Martin is pushing the protestant notion that teaching only becomes magisterial if the people "receive" the teaching.

Pardon?

[LukeL]

A shot at protestants. In actuality the teaching becomes law the second God utters it. The idea the teaching is only binding once it is received could be said to be Jewish as the ceremonial and purity laws of the OT only apply to Jews, but the MORAL law applies to ALL.

[amihow]

Well well.

As has been pointed out by many deep, orthodox thinkers contraception opened to door to homsexual activity.

What objection could there be to sodomy if pleasure could be separated from the possibility of conception and self control no longer a necessary attribute of those deserving of being known as truly human in the sexual sphere?

We should listen to our betters who stand on the shoulders of those giants of civilized humanity.

[ebb tide]

To compare the dogma of Our Lady’s Assumption to homosexual acts is absolutely disgusting.

[Some Fat Guy in L.A.]

This satanic priest is a fudge packer himself, I take it?

[ebb tide]

I was referring to the Jesuit, Martin, and his enablers, including the Jesuit pope; not to you amihow.

[stevio]

So all this time wasted in the seminary to be on a fast track to Hell?

[amihow]

Do not think you would be Ebb. Martin is scum!! The problem is these guys do not know Church history or philosophy or theology or dogma from opinion.

I appreciate your posts and hope you will forgive my phone typos.

[daniel1212]

In other words, Martin is pushing the protestant notion that teaching only becomes magisterial if the people "receive" the teaching.

Which is actually contrary to Sola Scriptura, under which the veracity of a teaching must rest upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation, not the popular vote, or the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults).

Meanwhile, you can only wish that Catholics "received" the Scriptural condemnation and exclusion of homosexual relations and eroticism to the degree that those who most strongly esteem Scripture have .

[circlecity]

"because it has not been "received" by the people."

What does that even mean? How do you objective determine when a teaching has been "received" by "the people"? Also, didn't Jesus say the world would not receive his teaching - "If they hated me they will hate you also". The true Gospel will never be received by the people, only by the regenerate. Classical jesuit - they speak in vague, meaningless platitudes and consider it profound.

[usconservative]

In other words, Martin is pushing the protestant notion that teaching only becomes magisterial if the people "receive" the teaching.

Thank you for catching that too! Protestants believe no such thing. What a smear-job. Typical.

[daniel1212]

At Vatican I, Bd. Pope Pius IX declared at Vatican I: "Likewise I accept Sacred Scripture according to that sense which Holy mother Church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures; nor will I ever receive and interpret them except according to the unanimous consent of the fathers."

Which “unanimous consent” of the (so-called) "fathers" is misleading at best.

[daniel1212]

Vatican II teaches in Lumen Gentium that the definitions of the Catholic Church "must be adhered to with the submission of faith." This teaching is referenced in the Catechism of the Catholic Church in paragraph 892.

So do you now believe and render religious assent of mind and will (at least) to all that V2 and the CCC teaches? Or is the validity of both subject to your judgment of what faithful Catholic teaching is?

[metmom]

In other words, Martin is pushing the protestant notion that teaching only becomes magisterial if the people "receive" the teaching.

What a crock.

From the guy who calls the Holy Spirit *SHE*????

Yeah, I trust his opinion on matters. /s

[metmom]

IOW, another Protestant hit piece has been posted on FR.

[metmom]

I suppose that the Ten Commandments aren’t binding on people either if they don’t like them or want to believe them.

And then Catholics wonder why we tell them their church is is in BIG trouble.

But then again, they have not *received* the warnings so it’s not true after all, eh?

[daniel1212]

"For a teaching to be really authoritative," he said, "it is expected that it will be received by the people of God, by the faithful. So you look at something like say, the Assumption. So the Assumption is declared and people accept that. They go to the feast of the Assumption, they believe in the Assumption, it's received."

It certainly did not begin as well received by those who should have known better:

As a man named Ratzinger testified:

Before Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers' answer was emphatically negative... Altaner, the patrologist from Wurzburg¦had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the 5C; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the "apostolic tradition. And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared.

But...subsequent "remembering" (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it has not caught sight of previously ["caught sight of?" Because there was nothing to see in the earliest period where it should have been, before a fable developed] .." (Joseph Ratzinger, Milestones (Ignatius, n.d.), pp. 58-59; emp. mine).

And Jn 16:4 refers to things which the Lord had told them, which was not the Assumption. More , by God's grace.