Posted on 10/15/2014 8:46:30 AM PDT by Salvation
Monsignor Pope Ping!
Yet this strong and accurate viewpoint is CONTRARY to what is the Relatio document which is supported by the purported-homosexual Cardinal Wuerl.
Thank-you and God Bless!
There’s another thread that says the Bishops have done a 180 on this. I’ll get the link for you.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3215365/posts
It was a 180-degree turn such as may never have been seen in so short a radius on Vatican soil.
Hate to sound like a politician, but “I’m an Anglican, and I approve this report.”
Congregation after congregation is caving in to the demands of the “world gone mad.” Whole denominations are falling prey to distorted views of life and perverted practices. Sometimes, like Martin Luther, you just have to drive a nail in the door, post your statement, and say, “Here’s where I stand.” This time, it looks like the Roman Catholics have the hammer in their hands, and I say, “Good for you.” Roman Catholics may well be positioning the Church to save the world from the Dark Ages AGAIN.
Most of the bishops never even saw the document until it was read aloud to them at about the same time it was released to the press.
Now many of them are breaking silence and saying that some of those statements that the document “reports” were not even made.
It seems that the document may have been written in advance, in fact, by Forte (one of the Pope’s appointees to the last-minute committee of six [”progressives”] that supervised the production of the document).
Thanks for your comments.
**Now many of them are breaking silence and saying that some of those statements that the document “reports” were not even made.**
I pray they keep voicing the truth.
Gradualism was something used by the missionaries to the Indians in what is now the US, but it was gradualism in the sense that they had to do certain basic things (give up polygamy, for example) if they wished to be baptized and then would live as catechumens for some time until it was decided that they understood the reasons for this, knew enough and were conformed enough to Christian moral teachings.
But there was always a goal, and the goal was not for the Church to accept the practice of the converts (such as polygamy) but for the converts to conform themselves to Christian morality and practice. In the meantime, they weren’t a full part of the community.
Can one be a homosexual if you have never had sex? Can anyone prove that the Cardinal is a homosexual? I think it's combination of conjecture, bitterness and slander.
This man is the last person on earth who should be a Catholic priest. Apparently the ones that wanted him in the Vatican blind-sided Benedict on his elevation to Cardinal.
Ignoring his reputed homosexuality, just his shameful desecration the Eucharist by openly allowing pro-abortion politicians to receive communion is enough to make him unworthy of being a priest.
I think Monsignor makes a brilliant point about the difference between the pulpit and the confessional. I think outsiders may very well miss this very important point. Having had the pleasure of knowing some fine priests fairly well, I can attest to the need to strike a balance when homilizing. The last thing they want to do is make an individual think that everyone is looking at them. Far better to take this up in private and then the guidance can be individualized.
I have occasionally shared various pieces of advice given to me by priests in the past. I have had people say that it was not very nice of the priest to say that. Well I assure them that the priest said it because,
A: They knew me and what the issue was. B: It was fatherly advice. C: Priests are not POD people. They are sons, brothers, grandsons, friends, brothers in law etc. They do know a lot about human relationships. E: When they are in the confessional they are in Persona Christi, so of course they are the human whom Jesus speaks to you, through. F: They are very educated individuals who have a wide variety of interests and hobbies. They don't sit around all day contemplating their navels.
So in conclusion, just because a priest poses a question or scenario in a discussion, that does not mean that it is cast in stone.
I looked at this sort of stuff before I posted what I did. Needless to say I know how to google. Is there perhaps some personal references rather than posting by random people on the internet?
Sounds political.
Such moves are made to force the rest of the corporation to follow along, or look divided.
Kudos for the other bishops saying “STOP!”
Pandora’s box has been opened. They can’t shut it and they know that. Call me a skeptic.
Funny. somehow I am reminded of the fight between the Jansenists and the Jesuits in France in the 17th Century. Odd that Kasper should talk about “fundamentalists,” in reference to Burke and other critics. From my vantage point it looks like someone in the Vatican wants to use “gradualism” to disguise the casuistry in the documents. Maybe Burke should furnish the bishops with copies of Pascal’s “Provincial Letters.”
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.