Posted on 10/06/2015 4:31:09 PM PDT by Legatus
Whatever one might say of the sacrilegious "Kasper proposal" (the very embodiment of what Saint Thomas Aquinas warns us not to do in the Lauda Sion - not throw the Blessed Sacrament away...), at least it has a very tenuous link to some structure one might identify as a "couple".
The Tennis Court Oath was made by the Progressive Bishops in Rome a few months ago, and the Revolution is in full swing, in the Jacobin phase -- they will not let go of their chance to strike deep, fast, strongly, and in all directions, and nothing is a coincidence.
Some of the "faith and family" issues debated on this third day?
The "ordination" of women to the Diaconate...
Polygamy - a matter to be better decided locally.
After the high hopes of the Erdo report yesterday, it has gone downhill fast - into freak-show territory.
The Vatican II church is really showing its true colors.
“Becoming Vatican III?” Yes, if and only if that means absolutely no doctrinal changes! And that’s exactly the way this is going despite the hysterics in the media (including Rorate Caeli). So stop whining, RC, and look at the substance before declaiming the ephemera. (Thank you, Legatus, for the post.)
I don’t know anymore, if BISHOPS in communion with the Holy See are officially calling for women deacons (still and again) and the allowance of polygamy (this is a new one on me) then it’s time to start panicking. When the pope doesn’t shut that kind of talk down but seems to endorse it things are not as they should be.
It was Francis himself who brought up polygamy.
>>”Regarding the idea of divorced remarried Catholics being able to receive communion, he [Francis] noted how some assert it would be more difficult to come up with a universal response, but instead makes sense to come up with a regional treatment. He said it may make sense to examine and perhaps treat the situation on a more local, regional, even continental level.
Certain other issues, he shared, may also make sense to consider locally, such as polygamy.
“The Jubilee of Mercy requires a language of mercy,” he stated. Father Rosica underscored how language ought to always be inclusive, rather than exclusive, particularly for homosexuals.
“In particular, when speaking about homosexuals or gay persons,” he said, “we recognize them for who they are: They are our sons, our daughters, and brothers, sisters, neighbors and colleagues.”<<
http://voxcantor.blogspot.com/2015/10/father-thomas-j-rosica-spokesman-for.html
The Archbishop of Quebec called for the discussion of women deacons I read in an article earlier today.
Calm, calm....try this...Jesus, I trust in You....faith, hope,charity
It can’t be Vatican III. It isn’t a Council.
“The refusal to take sides on great moral issues is itself a decision. It is silent acquiescence to evil. The tragedy of our times is that those who still believe in honesty lack fire and conviction, while those who believe in dishonesty are full of passionate conviction.” Venerable Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen
Oh I trust Jesus, so stop insinuating that I don’t. I don’t trust the frauds in the Vatican.
In the end, the Catholic Church will prevail.
” . . . I am with you even unto the consummation of the world.”
I can’t help thinking that if we made it through Medicis and Borgias AND Vatican II, we can weather anything, even if we don’t have apologists like Bill Buckley defending Mater et Magistra. Ebb Tide, I certainly share your apprehensiveness about the ostensible pronouncements of Francis, but what he says is, more often than not, not what’s reported. The request to “love” and “incude” gay persons doesn’t translate to condoning their self-identified activity or their right to marry. Hate-the-sin-love-the-sinner seems never to have been covered in journalism schools.
So far as divorced Catholics are concerned, the Church could do a much better job of explaining what divorce and remarriage is and is not (e.g., it’s not excommunication!) and how to return to the sacraments (make a good confession, live as brother-sister, e.g.). And perhaps Francis will address all of this.
And, contrary again to what we’re hearing from the various media, annulment is not the acceptable name for “Catholic divorce.” And the annulment process does need attention and streamlining.
Semper fi . . .
We made it through Vatican II?? You must be joking. We are still experiencing the after-effects of Vatican II. What we are seeing now is just going further down the same Modernist slippery slope.
John Paul II came after VatII, remember? And so did Benedict’s instructions on returning to the Mass’s traditional language. Unfortunately, so did the molestation-scandal and the closures of hundreds of Catholic elementary schools. Yes, I GET the damages; but the Church went on, and not one change of doctrine took place. And none will happen now.
No change in doctrine? Read my tag line. Please tell me what pre-Vatican II teaching ever even suggested that non-Catholic churches were “means of salvation”.
And that’s just one example.
First, that pronouncement would need to have been ex cathedra and VATII contained no ex cathedra statements.
Second, the old Baltimore Catechism described three types of Baptism, only one of which was by water (the most easily recognized “outward sign” and practiced by nearly all Christian, nonCatholic sects). The other two were listed as “by fire or blood” and “by desire.” Fire or blood covers individuals who, never having been baptized by water, gave their lives for their (Christian) faith (think martyrs who haven’t finished instruction); and desire covers individuals who, through no fault of their own and while striving for goodness/holiness in their lives, were never exposed to Catholic or even Christian teaching (think remote locations, lack of education, etc.). Thus, it would follow that any entity, “church” or otherwise, that promoted adherence to natural and/or God’s law in the absence of access to knowledge of Christ and His Church, COULD be a “means of salvation.”
Um, no. Ever heard of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium? The Extraordinary Magisterium (ie. ex cathedra statements, etc) is only one way that the Church is infallible.
And no again to the BOD and BOB argument. Those have nothing to do with false religions. It is NOT the same thing as saying that a false religion is a means of salvation.
Looks like I’m even more cynical than you! The so-called Ordinary Universal Magisterium is pretty much a product of Vatican II and its claim to infallibility wasn’t proclaimed infallibly then and certainly, in view of its late appearance, hardly carries the weight of such erstwhile traditions as the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption (which, of course, were later proclaimed ex cathedra).
On the false-religion comment, I tend to agree with you if the statement is in true context. Years of trying to see God’s will or just plain good in any part of VatII have forced me to try to justify what came of it in pre VatII outlooks and arguments. It’s a survival thing, I guess.
What are you talking about?? The OUM has always been considered infallible. This has always been Catholic teaching.
Absolutely understand. Did you live through the changes?
My religious instruction and readings are 100% pre VatII, and there’s absolutely nothing about the Ordinary Universal Magisterium. Then again, VatII had a penchant for renaming and resplainin’ traditional teaching. My guess is that your education continued after the council, when rather different interpretations came into being along with the puerile & inaccurate American translations of the Latin Mass. I taught from a book called “Lamp of the World” (published, I think, in the early 50s—how’s that for orthodox?) in which it was indeed recognized that bishops ACTING WITH or on behalf of THE POPE in matters of faith and morals shared the inerrancy and infallibility of the pontiff. Big deal. Without the pope, the bishops have nothing but pastoral duties. If it were otherwise, what’s the point of Christ’s appointment of Peter as the Rock?
My Catholicism did survive. With great resentment (to this day). And great trust in all I learned BEFORE John XXIII threw open the doors and windows.
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.