Apologists Concerned About Rick Warren's Alignment With 'Holy Father'

If one believes they were adversaries this day, one comes to a completely different conclusion, thinks she interfered with his Messianic ministry, he rebuked her for it, but did a miracle anyway; cognitive dissonance.

Don't you dare apply that "cognitive dissonance" result to myself in this regard.

When you originally said "the Catholics had it right" I did not challenge you as to the usage of the term "woman", or ever claimed that it was a rebuke --- but instead challenged you on something else which you had said...but which has now become lost amid all the noise -- and now you focus here on this other thing which I did not say, substituting that in place of that which I have been speaking towards (as if what you are apparently attempting to infer was my own contention all along) reversing the initial order of our disagreement, and falsely attributing to myself a position which I did not take.

Do you have any idea how infuriating that is?

The grounds you had to cover to get to the accusation, I am not guilty of in the least...

Yet this sort of thing here is what I meant when I mentioned "trainwrecks" and things hopelessly tangled (in your own comments)-- which are a real pain to have to untangle. And it is like that with just about every single exchange -- with you and few of the other Roman Catholic BIGOTS who infest the pages of the FR 'religion forum'.

As for "your answer" I was not seeking that, but was speaking rhetorically, for I know better by now to take your own word for anything which relates beyond the most shallow of considerations as for the things of God.

Ok mr. know it all -- Explain why Christ included "my hour is not yet come" in his response to Mary.

What else but the sort of thing I just went over with you works better?

It cannot be limited to being that the "hour" Jesus was speaking of be only the time when He performed miracles, or possibly even that He was speaking of that sort of "hour" at all --- by even your words.

Yet we are supposed to consider that it was chiefly for cause that He was doing "Mary" a big favor, showing her He would always be there for her =--- oh, and these "bonds of the holy spirit" you mention --- is that to imply that Mary knew all about it, knew what He could do in the way of miracles, and so went to Him asking for one?

What a load of supposition and *special pleading*.

And that, for as you just said -- the wine produced by such a miracle to be simply and merely for wine for the people there to drink???

The wedding was over (so you say)... so the wine there in that setting not symbolize life and abundance?

No, you are simply wrong regardless of some obscure internet link which suggests the toast I mentioned by traced no further back than the 13 century, for the concept I was hoping one would open themselves to seeing does not rely upon the "toast" but is reliant upon what wine represented in the cultural setting which this miraculous occurrence took place.

If one desires to more fully understand the Gospels, and the rest of NT teaching, the more which is known and accepted as real of Hebrew traditions and religious concepts the more complete the picture of what He was saying and doing becomes. One can know the traditions and the setting -- without having to adopt them entirely, any more than we would have to have an actual time machine to travel back to nearly 2000 years to be able to understand today -- what was said then, and what it meant at THAT time.

One may turn their back upon those traditions of the Jews, close eyes-ears-and mind to all of it (or nearly all?) but do not expect me or anyone else with a lick of sense to then take serious appeals to "tradition" which can be as much as anything just mere custom which has arisen in the intervening centuries.

You did just say;

They needed wine. Sometimes people needed food. He went about doing good. His mother had faith to ask him to help others.

The miracle of Jesus having turned water into wine at the wedding of Cana goes so far beyond and deeper than that to render that sort of explanation, that sort of view or response to be missing the meaning for having over-emphasized Mary's own role.

But how so utterly "cult of Mary" type of thinking -- which as often is the case leads one astray from the message and Word which God was revealing -- to the Jews first, for salvation is of the Jews...

"So; is this an admission that the Catholic Leaders of the past were POORLY Catechized? Or that they had no idea what they were writing about?"

I think it's both, really.

Jorge Bergoglio received his main education and priestly formation in 1960-1969 (ordained in Dec 1969) at precisely the time when Jesuit formation and theological teaching was more or less going to hell. His major was in the humanities: literature and psychology. Not bad in itself, but I think in his subsequent theological training, such as it was, was thoroughly imbued with humanism and Modernism.

This goes for many in his generation.

He seems not to have absorbed much from either before the Vatican II period, nor from his immediate predecessors John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

For instance, Bergoglio's "Amoris Laetitia," supposedly on marriage and family, got NOTHING JPII's truly Magisterial "Familiaris Consortio."

As for JPII's "Veritatis Splendor" ("The Splendor of the Truth"), which affirms the permanent and unchangeable nature of Moral Law and is one of the most comprehensive and philosophical teachings of moral theology in modern history --- Francis seems to be intentionally unraveling it with every word and action.

So no: I don't think Francis and his fave bishops and cardinals are grounded in the true and permanent Magisterium.

Know what their problem is? They don't know enough about Catholicism.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.