Posted on 09/20/2013 8:30:54 AM PDT by cleghornboy
The shock waves are reverberating throughout the Church and around the globe. Pope Francis has insisted that the Church founded by Jesus Christ must focus beyond "small-minded rules" or it may very well "fall like a house of cards." Translation: Doctrinal truths which the world finds offensive must be watered-down or pretty much ignored to accommodate the zeitgeist.
Doctrinal truths constitute "small-minded rules"?
Dr. Germain Grisez, in a talk entitled "Legalism, Moral Truth and Pastoral Practice" given at a 1990 symposium held in Philadelphia, had this to say: "Theologians and pastors who dissent from received Catholic teaching think they are rejecting legalism because they set aside what they think are mere rules in favor of what they feel are more reasonable standards. Their views are thoroughly imbued with legalism, however. For dissenters think of valid moral norms as rules formulated to protect relevant values. Some even make their legalism explicit by denying that there is any necessary connection between moral goodness (which they restrict to the transcendental level of a love with no specific content) and right action (which they isolate at the categorical level of inner-worldly behavior). But whether their legalism is explicit or not, all the dissenters hold that specific moral norms admit exceptions whenever, all things considered, making an exception seems the best - or least bad - thing to do. Most dissenters also think that specific moral norms that were valid in times past can be inappropriate today, and so they regard the Church's contested moral teachings as outdated rules that the Church should change."
Dr. Grisez reminded his listeners at the Philadelphia symposium that, "During the twentieth century, pastoral treatment of repetitious sins through weakness - especially masturbation, homosexual behavior, premarital sex play and contraception within marriage - grew increasingly mild. Pastors
(Excerpt) Read more at lasalettejourney.blogspot.com ...
He’s saying what the church has always said....love the sinner, hate the sin.
That is not what he said, and this publication is perfectly aware that the headline is deceptive and malicious.
But they don’t care, because this version promotes whatever their agenda is.
No Thanks.
Not interested in pandering to the homosexuals and other perverts......
Not sure who you mean by "they", but I think you are correct in many respects. Francis seems to be saying that focus on behavioral matters does not express the doctrines of the RCC. This is true. And, the Scriptures make it clear that attempting to alter sinful behaviors of a sinful world will not rescue them.
However, it seems, that there is confusion in the "welcome mat" he is putting out. The Apostle Paul made it clear that gross immorality excluded a man from fellowship with a gathering (I Cor.). So, is Francis saying that homosexuals are welcome as long as they are sincerely "searching for God"? Can they continue their behavior (and their attendance), as long as they are made aware that the RCC does not endorse? The ambiguity is confusing.
But, let me be clear...many of the doctrines of the RCC are not supportable by Scriptures, even if he decides to change the conversation. Nevertheless, no one should try to alter his intentions by twisting words.
By “they,” I meant the people who published this article. I don’t know who they are, or what their beef is, but obviously they’ve got one, because the title grossly misstates Pope Francis’s comments.
I suppose I could consider the possibility that they’re stupid, but I usually prefer to pay people the compliment of assuming they’re corrupt.
And I know you disagree with the Catholic Church. Whatever.
What I said was that many of the doctrines of the RCC are not supported by the Scriptures. And, it is not a "whatever" matter, as far as I am concerned. The distance between Rome & the Scriptures concern me greatly...for the people.
It does seem that people who absolutely must endlessly point out what they perceive to be others’ errors are motivated by their Concern. It’s altruistic, in its way. Meritorious, perhaps.
WHO REALLY IS POPE FRANCIS?
Pope Says Church Is ‘Obsessed’ With Gays, Abortion and Birth Control
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
Six months into his papacy, Pope Francis sent shock waves through the Roman Catholic Church on Thursday with the publication of his remarks that the church had grown “obsessed” with abortion, gay marriage and contraception, and that he had chosen not to talk about those issues despite recriminations from critics.
(“OBSESSION” in defense the unborn baby and opposing abortion, the “most abominable of crimes”, as stated in Vatican II, is not a sin but a virtue, and Pastors of the Church who disparage those who fight for the unborn, are betraying one of the main tenets of the Catholic Church.)
The BBC reported that Pope Francis turned down the red cape with ermine by saying this: “No thank you, Monsignore. You put it on instead. Carnival time is over!”
And he walked into the papal apartments and said “There’s room for 300 people here. I don’t need all this space.”
(ISN’T to brag about your own humility denoting a form of arrogance? Isn’t Pope Francis in fact belittling the virtues of previous Popes?)
Pope Francis: ‘I have never been a right-winger’
By Steve Ahlquist on September 19, 2013
In an almost direct rebuke to critics, including Rhode Island’s own Bishop Thomas Tobin, leader of the Providence Diocese, Pope Francis, in his first extensive interview since being elected to the head of the Roman Catholic Church, has said, we cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible. I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that. But when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context. The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.
(SHOULDON’T Bergoglio rather answer that a Pope must be above labels and state firmly and clearly that his duty is to defend unequivocally the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ and the Magisterium of the Church?)
What was the position Bergoglio had then regarding Liberation Theology?
He was completely against it. In fact, as Theology students, we had never studied a single book by, for instance, Gustavo Gutiérrez, one of the founders of Liberation Theology, of by [Leonardo] Boff, or by Paulo Freire, with his studies on an education that is not a cultural “dependency” [of the “imperialistic powers”]. In Philosophy, we had read little, very little, of Heidegger and Kierkegaard, one single chapter of Thus Spoke Zarathustra... Not to mention Marx, Engels, Sartre, Foucault, the Post-Moderns, etc. Nothing that could contradict Catholic doctrine or dogmas. All that under strict orders of Jorge Bergoglio.
(BERGOGLIO was against Liberation Theology… before he was for it. Why, otherwise, Leonardo Boff, the Maryknolls, and all the main advocates of Marxist Liberation Theology, are elated with the new Pope?)
Note: (my commentaries in parentheses)
If one looks around FR, there is no group more self-congratulating than the RCC. What is your assessment of those who must constantly parade themselves?
If a Catholic feels the need (virtually) to jump up in front of people who weren’t talking to or about him in order to ... again ... express his opinion that their beliefs are erroneous, then perhaps he is motivated by sincere concern for their wellbeing. Only he can say.
There are people who are agitated by the existence of people holding different beliefs, and there are people who aren’t agitated. I’m not agitated. My real life is more than sufficiently exhausting.
Assuming that you are a CPA, I relate. I am not agitated, either, but your remarks are non-sequitor. I noted that the great majority of OPs here are from RCs posting chest-pounding articles saying, “Look at us, we are good, we are best, we are the real ‘church’, our guy saw Mary eating a bagel.” or some such claim.
And, just as you would say (without being agitated), “Sorry, you misunderstand, the IRC does not allow that deduction.”, it is not unkind to say, “Sorry, my FRiend, your group’s doctrines do not comport with Scripture. They are fabrications of traditions (layers & layers & layers, etc.) not based on the text.” My concern is only that the “code” says something quite different than what Rome claims and this affects people’s safety.
Actually, your previous post was the change of subject, not that there’s anything wrong with that. I ignored it and continued on the original topic.
May wish to audit...
But instead, I have to cook meals, lead Cub Scouts, and plan music for a funeral. Hoping your Monday is going better than mine ...
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.