Radical Synod Planned for October

Catholic Family News ^ | Went to press for August 25, 2014 | John Vennari

[ebb tide]

The three most radical proposals are:

1) A new “pastoral solution” to allow divorce and remarried Catholics to receive Holy Communion;

2) A new “pastoral approach” that permits the baptism of children from same-sex couples, thus indirectly legitimizing these unions;

3) A recasting of natural law in “new language”, which threatens to undermine our entire ethical foundation of true morality.

Indeed the Synod’s Working Document further displays the triumph of the New Theology over today’s Vatican; the same new theology that wrought havoc at Vatican II and continues its destructive path to this day.

[ebb tide]

Ping

Unholy agenda comes to mind. Your thoughts?

[CWW]

Hype. Not going to happen ... Especially with the majority of bishops being appointees of JPII and Benedict XVI.

[ebb tide]

Are you kidding?

Look at Francis’ Gang o’ Eight. The majority are leftist, socialist wingnuts.

[faithhopecharity]

I may be in a small minority but I would like to see baptism available to all. Given RCC faith holds this is a sacrament and thus of considerable value or importance, and given that RCC considers it valid for babies -— given these elements of faith — denying access to a baby because of the sins of its “ parents” cannot, IMHO, be in the best imitation of Christ. Jesus expressed a particular fondness for little children, asking that they be brought to Him.... And without screening them away based on their parents’ morals. ( Just my view. Please don’t bash me about it. I’m too tired to argue today anyway. Thanks !). As far as the overall concern or fears of major doctrinal changes — I understand ( but doubt they will do very much very fast even if they’d like to. But it bears watching, yes...)

[Biggirl]

Second it.

[Biggirl]

Plus it will get the parents to REPENTENCE.

[Biggirl]

Most are from that period in which the bishops are thankfully much, much more conservative.

[faithhopecharity]

Repentence for the ‘parents’ - I see. Maybe.
One thing I feel very strongly about is that the babies will probably need the Church’s help in growing up right (spiritually, morally, whatever)... at least as much — most likely a lot more — than most other kids ever will ....

[utahagen]

Baptism is already open to all. What is going on is that homosexuals who want to change the rules about marriage are using their children to force changes in the overall rules. Don't believe for a second that any motivated single parent in the last three decades — straight or gay — ever really has a problem getting his child baptized. I am such a parent. The ones you read about are the gay couples who arrive at the church arm-in-arm and ask, “Is it a problem that we are lesbians?” They ask this hoping the answer is, “Yes!”

[ebb tide]

Plus it will get the parents to REPENTENCE.

Absolutely wrong! It will give parents indirect permission to continue their sinful lifestyle.

Why not first demand the parents to stop their filthy sodomy, before they are allowed to have a child baptized and raised in a true Catholic home?

[Biggirl]

That was what I was trying to say! That the parents NEED to set a GOOD and HOLY EXAMPLE by getting their LIVES RIGHT, through REPENTENCE.

[ebb tide]

The Roman Catholic Faith also holds that the Sacrament of Holy Communion is reserved for only those who are in a state of grace.

Why should those who are in a state of mortal sin be allowed to supposedly raise a child in the “Catholic” faith?

[ebb tide]

Good. Let’s demand the repentance before any baptism.

How’s that sound?

Here’s a small sample of the traditional Catholic baptism:

>>Priest: N., do you renounce Satan?

Sponsor/Catechumen: I do renounce him.

Priest: And all of his works?

Sponsor/Catechumen: I do renounce him.

Priest: And all his pomps?

Sponsor/Catechumen: I do renounce him.<<

[Biggirl]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3185212/posts

[Biggirl]

Post number 15 could be of good interest.

[faithhopecharity]

Oh I see. thanks for the info...

[faithhopecharity]

Thanks for that perspective.
I was concerned about the baby/child...
not any “rights” one way or the other of the so-called “parents”

I was not thinking about the “parents”

But I do know that this is a knot of a problem, without a clear simple answer. So, mea culpa on that part.

Still and all, the children will (IMHO) need the Church’s guidance and help a lot more (or at least as much, anyway) as kids who have normal parents.... and I just can’t wrap my one remaining tired little gray cell around the idea that the babies should be denied baptism or a Church home.......based solely on what their “parents” are doing with their lives

just my thoughts. I do not claim I have any unique channel to God, just feel this way about the babies is all....thanks for understanding,

[jacknhoo]

Catechism of the Catholic Church

IV. WHO CAN RECEIVE BAPTISM?

1246 “Every person not yet baptized and only such a person is able to be baptized.”46

V. WHO CAN BAPTIZE?

1256 The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon.57 In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize58 , by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.59

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm

[ebb tide]

You forgot to post this, from the same source:

>>1251 Christian parents will recognize that this practice also accords with their role as nurturers of the life that God has entrusted to them.<<

I find that quite disengious on your part.