Posted on 11/17/2017 3:03:09 PM PST by ebb tide
As an outsider, I can’t help but wonder whether the pope and the USCCB were particularly provoked by Weinandy’s suggestion that Jesus had allowed this controversy in order “to manifest just how weak is the faith of many within the Church, even among too many of her bishops.” Catholics will have to make up their own minds—but I’ll admit I have questions about the faith of Pope Francis, which seems, if not weak, at least different from that of the Catholic tradition.
Even before the release of Amoris Laetitia in March 2016, Francis had caused many to question his fidelity to that tradition. In 2014, the midterm report of the Extraordinary Synod on the Family recommended that pastors emphasize the “positive aspects” of cohabitation and civil remarriage after divorce. He said that Jesus’s multiplication of bread and fish was really a miracle of sharing, not of multiplying (2013); told a woman in an invalid marriage that she could take Holy Communion (2014); claimed that lost souls do not go to hell (2015); and said that Jesus had begged his parents for forgiveness (2015). In 2016, he said that God had been “unjust with his son,” announced his prayer intention to build a society “that places the human person at the center,” and declared that inequality is “the greatest evil that exists.” In 2017, he joked that “inside the Holy Trinity they’re all arguing behind closed doors, but on the outside they give the picture of unity.” Jesus Christ, he said, “made himself the devil.” “No war is just,” he pronounced. At the end of history, “everything will be saved. Everything.”
Weinandy and other Catholic critics have pointed to alarming statements and suggestions in Amoris Laetitia itself. The exhortation declares, “No one can be condemned for ever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel!” In December 2016, the Catholic philosophers John Finnis and Germain Grisez argued in their “Misuse of Amoris Laetitia” that though this statement reflects a trend among Catholic thinkers stemming from Karl Rahner and Hans Urs von Balthasar, it contradicts the gospels’ clear statements and the Catholic tradition’s teaching that there is “unending punishment” in hell. Finnis and Grisez charge that, according to the logic of Amoris Laetitia, some of the faithful are too weak to keep God’s commandments, and can live in grace while committing ongoing and habitual sins “in grave matter.” Like (Episcopalian) Joseph Fletcher, who taught Situation Ethics in the 1960s, the exhortation suggests that there are exceptions to every moral rule and that there is no such thing as an intrinsically evil act.
I take no pleasure in Rome’s travails. For decades, orthodox Anglicans and other Protestants seeking to resist the apostasies of liberal Christianity have looked to Rome for moral and theological support. Most of us recognized that we were really fighting the sexual revolution, which had coopted and corrupted the Episcopal Church and its parent across the pond. First it was the sanctity of life and euthanasia. Then it was homosexual practice. Now it is gay marriage and transgender ideology. During the pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, we non-Catholics arguing moral theology could point to learned and compelling arguments coming out of Rome and say, in effect, “The oldest and largest part of the Body of Christ agrees with us, and it does so with remarkable sophistication.”
Those of us who continue to fight for orthodoxy, in dogmatic as well as moral theology, miss those days when there was a clear beacon shining from across the Tiber. For now, it seems, Rome itself has been infiltrated by the sexual revolution. The center is not holding.
Though we are dismayed, we must not despair. For the brave and principled stand made by Tom Weinandy reminds us that God raises up prophetic lights when dark days come to his Church.
Gerald McDermott holds the Anglican Chair of Divinity at Beeson Divinity School.
Run down a list, they’re inevitably the ones gone off the rails the worst.
***
I’d like to claim an exception for the LCMS.
But as for the ‘ritual being done correctly,’ in the case of the Missouri Synod, it’s not because the pastor is pure as the driven snow and has power because of some special grace, but because the Word of God has the power, even when given through (currently) imperfect vessels.
If that’s what you think, why do you continue to bite?
***
I can’t speak for mm, but in my case, it’s because it’s fun!
And because I care about the souls of the Catholics who post here, and so I’m gonna bite, prod, poke, cajole, explain, and even counter-insult in order to get them to defend their faith in the face of reason and Scripture, just like I would want other people to do for me.
Because how true can a faith be that can’t stand up to reason and Scripture? But if it can not only stand up but be one with reason and Scripture, then it comes out of the fire stronger than before.
Many Roman Catholics view this as Catholic hatred.
. Not true. If we didn't care or attempt to correct the error that would be error on our part. We have the example of Paul and the other disciples engaging in these very kind of discussions. Plus,muon learn a lot when you're in these discussions. I know I have.
There are those who call themselves Catholics, go to Mass on Sundays, give alms, etc. But they do not work on aligning their thoughts and beliefs with the Magisterium. In fact, they see no reason to do so, see no duty to engage with the Magisterium.
They profess Catholic Xtianity with their lips, they think of themselves as Catholic, but they don't take the Gospel into their lives and minds. They've dipped their toe in, but they haven't taken the personal or intentional plunge.
I would be very surprised if any of the priests at the church you go; to would think its a good thing to post the divisive threads you have started.
I t would be very interesting to hear of you sharing this with them, and hear their response.
I consider Catholics my Christian brothers and sisters. I don’t agree with some of their beliefs and practices; but I’m not God to call balls and strikes in that area.
I have Proverbs 29:22 written on a postcard:
“An angry person stirs up conflict,
and a hot-tempered person commits many sins.”
and Proverbs 15:1
“A gentle answer turns away wrath,
but a harsh word stirs up anger.”
Much other great wisdom in there.
Have a good weekend.
No. And He never has. Otherwise all elections would have occurred on this first vote with an unanimous decision.
The answer by ET might eliminate Mattias, chosen by the non-political OT means of casting lots, (Prov. 16:33) - which Rome has never used - as being guided by God, but to deny that Holy Spirit guides the college of cardinals in the selection and election of the new pope, so that the man they choose is His choice as in selecting Saul and David, need not mean that God does not make the carnal choices of men work toward His plan. Which He does even with the reprobation of the devil and the Fall of man.
And which appeal to Divine Providence is a recourse of RCs (https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=1454) who admit that God does not guide the college of cardinals in the selection and election of the new pope. Catholics can rightly argue that God enjoins obedience even to evil civil rulers, insofar as this obedience does require disobedience to God, and as with Caiaphas, such can speak Divine counsel due to being in the office of the High Priest.
However, Caiaphas did not define doctrine not intend to, but prophesied as per his office, nowhere is the promise given that those in that office will forever be infallible whenever they speak according to an infallibly defined scope and subject-based criteria.
Nor does possessing valid authority mean that dissent must be wrong when when speaking on the next magisterial level, under the premise of protection from salvific error, even if not speaking infallibly. God provided Truth and preserved faith by sometimes raising up men who were without the established magisterium and who reproved those in it. Which is how the NT church itself began.
And thus there can be no assurance of veracity and requirement of implicit obedience based upon the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults), or even protection from only salvific error. The only wholly inspired substantive body of the words of God is Scripture, not the words of RC popes.
And thus the appeal to Divine Providence does not ensure that the choices of the Cardinals (whom RCs are enjoined to follow as docile sheep under the headship of the pope) will not be that of electing a devil, but neither can implicit obedience be required to such.
Moreover, while traditionalists contend for the validity of dissent from the pope and parts of V2, charging him and the body of cardinals with bd judgment and even heresy based upon their judgment of what valid church teaching is and means, this is contrary to the RC model which they tell us we need to submit to the pope and bishops overall, and not ascertain the validity of church teaching based upon our judgment of what valid church teaching is (the NT) and means.
Never deny.
Rarely affirm.
Always distinguish.
There are a number of ways a thing, a person, or a group of people can be guided by the Holy Spirit. One is “in spite of [itself/himself/themselves.]
There are also a number of ways one can appropriately “submit” to a pope. As I think I may already have said, one is like the way one submits to a “difficult” grandparent: one listens with respect and affection, one looks for what is good in what he says or does, one cuts him some slack.
As I approached the banks of the Tiber to swim across I considered that while the then pope was wonderful (IMHO,) there was a lot of history of popes who weren't. So my entering full communion had to be viewed not in the context of J2P2, but with respect to the “matrix" in which he arose.
IOW, I was prepared for PapaFran. For me he is an occasion and opportunity to develop patience and humility, in both of which I am deficient. I am not scandalized by him — irritated yes, but not scandalized.
Guide. Yes.
Choose. No.
He does not usurp or substitute for the vagaries of fallible human choice.
Analogy: Holy Matrimony us just as much a Sacrament as Holy Orders. I asked God to guide my choice of a spouse, and I am convinced He did. But: “my” choice. I made the choice.
No. He’s a communist.
This is the height of illogical reasoning. Of course, the Holy Spirit does not choose the successor to St. Peter otherwise there would be no freedom of will. We all pray to the Holy Spirit for guidance just as we do in our daily prayers and invocations. But in the end we are free to disobey the will of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, Popes may even be corrected. But when a successor to St Peter acts ex cathedra in union with all the Bishops in proclaiming dogma this is where infallibility attaches.
Before the Bible there was the Church. Hence when the Church formally announced the Books in the Bible as the true Word of God somewhere around AD 380 in the Council of Rome, this act became infallible, and hence the authenticity of the written Word of God.
The Church alone may provide authoritative and authentic interpretation of scripture. Otherwise we allow the Billy Grahams, Joel Osteens, Rev. Al Sharptons; Rev. Jeremiah Wrights, the Benny Hinns and every other Dick, Tom and Harry and half-witted foursquare church pastors to tell us what scripture instructs.
Go check out the large number of Protestant denominations that says scripture allows for married gay and lesbian pastors.
Ironic, isn't it?
I see...
Wouldn’t that be more commonly called necromancy? 😂😊😆
Then how can the church be protected from error in teaching in faith or morals if some free will toes are not going to be stepped on?
If the church is going to be protected from error, then it goes without saying that those propagating the error are going to be stopped somehow and that would violate their free will.
For that matter, if it's free will uber alles, then that hog ties God in dealing with man.
Were they not and are they not allowed to continue in their priestly duties, administering sacraments that Catholics consider valid no matter what the sin in their lives because their intent is pure, or some such nonsense?
Y'all need to clean house according the the very Scripture y'all claim your church gave us before throwing any stones.
1 Corinthians 5:1-13 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you.
For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing. When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.
Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”
1 Timothy 3:1-13 The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.
Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. For those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.
Titus 1:5-9 This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you— if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. For an overseer, as God's steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.
The answer to the original question is...YES, the man is a Jesuit, therefore, anything but a good Catholic.
But we have weathered worse than Francis in over two thousand years, and we shall overcome this current problem. After all, he is only one man and he, too, will be part of the history of the Church in the not too distant future.
Have patience.
Then there can be no claim of the church being kept from error in teaching of faith or morals.
They really should have defrocked and excommunicated these so-called priests, and then co-operated to prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law.
THEN (and here I get into sacramental theology, so YMMV) they should have told the people who were worried about the invalidity of their baptisms and communion that it wasn’t the frock-ness of the priest, but the Word of God that gives the promises of salvation that are present in Baptism and Holy Communion.
So even if a church leader who turns out to be an unrepentant reprobate should get thrown right out on his face, the people can still be assured of salvation because it’s the Word of God that does it, not any particular priest.
...the problem is that I think that would violate Catholic doctrine about how ordination gives special grace, so I guess that’s why they can’t do it. Would just give too much power to the Word of God, and you can’t do THAT; it’d take away the power that the clergy has! </sarc>
Beginning from the Incarnation to the Crucifixion, its been the free will of man. “My kingdom is not of this world.” But you see the problem goes deeper. Many Protestants are unread and untutored in theology. The works of Augustine, Aquinas, Newman, Benedict et al, go over their heads. They listen to their stupid foursquare church corner street pastors and think their weekly rituals of “Bible readings” and guitar and piano kumbayas are all about faith. Try telling that to the scores of prominent theologians, professors, intellectuals, and preachers who have spent a lifetime studying theology in major universities and have after much thought and debate converted to the Catholic faith. There is one authoritative and only ONE authoritative body founded by Christ. The rest is all manure for feeble minded individuals who use a fourth-grade literacy to seek literal interpretations of text unhinged from context, and the tradition of received revelation.
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.