Posted on 05/23/2015 8:15:24 AM PDT by ebb tide
That's what Pope Francis said couples shouldn't do: breed like rabbits.. He didn't say that's what this particular woman was doing!
Not only that, but the allusion to fatal risk (e.g. uterine rupture) after seven Cesareans is just medical fact. The Pope said "This is to tempt God" --- which means, she need not take on additional risks by exposing herself to yet another pregnancy.
Generally speaking, I think obstetrical risks vary a great deal from woman to woman, and some individuals could have 9 or 10 C-sections and do just fine. But where there's scarring and a big risk of uterine rupture, the baby and mother could die in minutes.
Even if the Pope's language was indelicate, his concern was not misplaced, nor was his moral advice --- recommending NFP --- objectionable in any way from a Catholic/ethical point of view.
It sounded like you were talking about one particular woman: “seven consecutive Cesareans was mentioned, an objectively heightened risk of uterine rupture, especially during a VBAC. In such case, the woman and baby would die quickly and badly.”
St. Gianna Beretta Molla pray for us!
He told the poor woman she was temping God. If anybody is tempting God, it's Francis.
Give it that in 2 years time, once Pope Francis reaches “80”, he will most likely be stepping down.
Recommending NFP willy-nilly is neither Catholic nor ethical. Why do you think the majority of Catholic couples ignore Humanae Vitae? When my wife and I went through pre-Cana classes, all that we were taught was NFP. It was disgusting.
That's an odd rhetorical strategy on your part, since it would only take one example from you, of a papal statement denying traditional doctrine after the August 2014 synod, to prove me and Magister wrong.
So do it.
You just need one.
"Until Francis, those same topics were indisputable: Francis and Kasper have opened a Pandora's box and made them disputable."
Surely you jest. These things have been continuously disputed over the past 40 - 50 years, beginning even before the German bishops collegially trashed Humanae Vitae with their “Königsteiner Erklärung”--- and the “Mariatroster” declaration by the Austrian bishops, both in 1968. They --- along with many others in the "Catholic" "leadership" (which is often neither leadership nor Catholic) have never STOPPED debating the essentials. Where have you been?
"Why can't Francis put them to rest with one pontifical pronouncement? It's that simple; he's the Pope after all."
This is an utterly naive view of the supposed ability of a Pope to put internal dissent "to rest" with a "Roma locuta est, causa finita est." Popes Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI all spoke and wrote authoritatively on this. Did this stop the incessant din of mutinous talk? It certainly did not.
"Yet, he's holding a second synod, knowing full well of Cardinal Marx's warning and threat of schism if the apostate Germans don't get their way."
The first, in August 2014, was an "Extraordinary" Synod, meaning, as I suppose you know, not the "ordinary" one. It was to set the agenda for discussion of the actual, real (in churchytalk, "Ordinary") synod. You don't set an agenda for discussion and then fail to hold the actual Synod!
As for the apostate Germans, they are already, as you correctly note, apostates. They are already giving the Blessed Sacrament to couples in objective, publicly-licensed adultery. They are already in material schism.
Marx, Kasper and the rest know the Synod is not going to go their way. Their agenda is going to be put down hard by a decisive majority of the other bishops.
This may have been Pope Francis' objective all along. I don't know. But my personal opinion is that Pope Francis thinks it will be good to force the debate --- smouldering underground for 47 years -- out in the open where it can be argued down and stomped out by other bishops.
A direct (and very legitimate) order from Pope John Paul II to "SHUT UP, ALREADY, ABOUT WOMEN'S ORDINATION!" was not enough to silence that particular controversy. It looks to me like Pope Francis strategy is, "Let them talk, talk, talk about it. All out in the open. And then --- BAM. The majority of bishops will make it clear to Marx and Kasper that that ain't gonna fly."
That puts Kasper/Marx in a tight spot, since it's actually harder for them to come out against synod "collegiality" than to come out against solo "papal authority."
They're already in their weak fallback position, which you could call "localism." They've been pouting, "Well, we Germans, we will still do what we think best."
They are totally sold out to the Kirchensteuer --- the source of 70% of their income. That is the big, BIG underlying consideration for these "Bling Bishops."
They make me really, really angry. But God will judge with a righteous judgment.
I am sincerely sorry for your wife and you.
Always. Amen.
I wonder if the Great Tribulation will occur before that?
Neither Kasper nor Marx are in tight spots. Francis presented Kasper to the Extra-Ordinary Consistory thus: ""Yesterday, before falling asleep, though not to fall asleep, I read, or re-read, Cardinal Kasper’s remarks. I would like to thank him, because I found a deep theology, and serene thoughts in theology. It is nice to read serene theology. It did me well and I had an idea, and excuse me if I embarrass Your Eminence, but the idea is: this is called doing theology while kneeling. Thank you. Thank you.”
Francis then allowed Kasper to preach his same heresy at the "Extraordinary Synod".
Lastly, Cardinal Marx is still a member in good standing in the Pope exclusive Gang o' Nine.
So please don't tell me the above apostates are in tight spots, until Francis grows a spine and threatens to excommunicate them.
Oremus.
I'm not jesting at all. Of course these things have been disputed between Catholics , the good against the heretics, in the Church before. But never before did a pope give an open floor for such to be discussed at the highest level, under his authority, as being worthy of consideration.
Leave any church that scoffs at the Apostles and Scripture.
Doesn't cancel out the bizarre, objectively heretical statements he has also made, and his enthusiastic support for Kasperian "serene" theology. But worse than that are his horrible appointments (well in excess of 40). When weighing the evidence, actions speak louder than words, and the evidence is painfully clear. He is providing material support to the modernist agenda, and the world is applauding him for it.
Prayers and fasting I beg you, for the Successor of Peter.
Amen to that.
At all of the first seven Ecumenical Councils, all of the essentials of basic Christology were debated. God? Man? Angel? Incarante? And Arianism was debated and condemned, only to keep being brought up and keep being condemned, over and over. Do not imagine that all the Councils and Synods debated was wallpaper designs, prior to August 2014.
Rather mordantly, I must observe that Pope Francis rarely communicates anything in such an unambiguous way as to be formally heretical. In fact, that is his main problem, it seems to me: mushiness and equivocation. It's loose, off-the-cuff blather. It's damaging. It emboldens the wolves and perplexes the sheep. (I must interject for the dozenth time, "Oh, how I miss Benedict!")
But clear-cut heresy? -- It would almost be a relief if something he said WERE so clearly that it could not be shuffled back into the deck with "I didn't mean it that way!"
Were sodomy and polygamy ever brought up at those earlier councils as topics of debate?
Of course not! Why do it now?
Francis, et al, are now stepping into questioning the Ten Commandments. Who is tempting God?
The pope is playing a jesuitical game. As in so many cases, we have a hard time deciding on which side. As for Dolan, the less said the better.
Heresy need not be packaged in a formal statement in order to be recognized as such.
For example, the Pope stated: “In the Gospel, Jesus does not become angry, but pretends to when the disciples do not understand him”.
Fr. Ray Blake, regarding the above statement by the Pope:
"The ancient Fathers would baulk at such a suggestion, I can't think of one who would be be comfortable with the idea that the Gospels did not reveal the plain meaning of what Jesus said and did, it is only the Jesuits of the 17th century who would begin to suggest otherwise.
There is no suggestion in the Gospels that Jesus feigns, or pretends anything, on the contrary he is the 'Truth', he says, "Let you 'yes' mean 'yes' and you 'no' mean 'no'". His Kingdom stands in contradistinction to that of the kingdom of the Father of Lies.
If Jesus really does 'pretend' to be angry but isn't really what else does he pretend? Is he really just 'acting' in other emotional responses, when he sighs, when he weeps, when he rails against the Pharisees. Is he really grinning broadly when he calls Simon Peter, 'Satan'?
I do not agree with Pope Francis on this, we do not need smiley or angry face marks to interpret the Gospels. Perhaps this says more about the Pope than it does about Jesus. Rather than Jesus pretending, is Pope Francis 'pretending'? After all if one believes the Son of God can and does 'pretend', why shouldn't the Pope? and if the Pope can 'pretend', why not the Church?
I really do think this is a very big issue, the ramifications run very deep, the implication is that the plain meaning of scripture is not readily available to the ordinary reader or hearer, it also means that for ordinary Catholics it is alright to 'pretend' for affect or for some other reason. If Jesus did it, why is shouldn't the Vatican Bank in its accounts or a Bishop defending his diocese against accusation of sexual abuse of minors, or why not a divorced and remarried Catholic 'pretend' and receive Communion anyhow. If 'pretending' is alright, why not hypocrisy, or downright lying?"
http://marymagdalen.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/pope-says-jesus-pretends.html
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.