Posted on 10/20/2014 11:55:45 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Like antifreeze that drips from a car and poisons cats, the statements exuded by the Vatican Synod on the Family are sweet. It is tempting to lap them up, to welcome the Church’s new proposed stance of apologizing to sinners and obscuring the nature of sin.
There is no other way to describe the moral revolution proposed in the Synod’s preliminary report, which was produced by the bishops whom Pope Francis handpicked to manage the meeting. Rather than speaking prophetically in defense of the uniqueness and holiness of marriage, the task of Christians today includes “recognizing positive elements” in “imperfect” unions such as cohabitating couples, divorced couples living in what Jesus called “adultery,” and even homosexual relationships.
As for those, the Church must find a way of “accepting and valuing their sexual orientation,” a condition which the Catholic Catechism still (for the moment) calls “an objective disorder” for very important reasons: It “orders” people to activities which the Church has always reasoned are unnatural and sinful. By the laws of logic, the Church cannot welcome and value such an “orientation” without accepting what it orients people to crave: erotic relationships that are incompatible with marriage.
How we wish that the universe worked Synod-style, that its Creator answered our whims like an obsequious restaurant waiter angling for tips. Wouldn’t it be pleasant if God looked on our sins and saw only the gifts which He gave us, instead of the miserable ways that we use them? Like a child who stuffs his brand new Lego blocks down the throat of the family dog, we’re surprised by praise for our endeavor’s “positive elements.” Were God like the leading Synod fathers — that is, a senile grandfather in heaven....
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Thank you for that. It is beautiful! Pope Francis also needs to remember “to whom much has been given, much will be required.”
” Synods can be heretical; only ecumenical synods are infallible (and even then, the pope must assert that nature.)”
I can’t seem to find this in the Scriptures... Or any writings before 100 bc... Or in Jesus’ words... Or in any example in Acts... Or in any Command... Or in any contemporaneous secular writings... Or Contemporaneous Sacred art...
I can only conclude it’s totally made up.
There was no need at all to call the Synod of the family. The only reason it was called was for Pope Francis to float his liberal ideas.
The Church has a deposit of doctrine - the Pope is not not infallible when his statements agree with this.
What the Church does is really none of my business as I am not a member of any Church, but I do get into the bible a lot.
“What do you fall back on when Tradition has been tainted by bad popes?”
Tradition has never been tainted by bad popes.
NK,
You may be right. I have no insider info to know what was happening.
I filled out the questionare last year that was sent to all the parishes worldwide. It mentioned nothing about homosexuality. Nothing at all. It did talk about family and asked us a few questions on how the church could better support the family, the “family” of course being a man and woman and children if they had any. It asked no trick questions about homosexual unions, didn’t even mention the word. And the questionare was sent out by Bishop Cupich, who is known as being a moderate. Along comes this Synod of the family and although there was very little of homosexuals, it still dominated the entire Synod because of the backhanded way it was included in the report, with words that came from one man, his own personal thoughts. Just a liberal crackpot that wanted the rest of the world to think that all the bishops were concerned with was how the church needs to be more open to homosexuals. Total hogwash. The church has always been “open” to homosexuals. Cardinal Burke said it was an insult to the last 2,000 years of Catholic ministry, implying that before the Synod Catholic priests were not merciful. I think every bit of this was orchestrated by Pope Francis.
How would you know?
“How would you know?”
I’m a Church Historian. It’s my business to know.
“How would you know?”
Now I’ll ask you the same thing: How would you know?
I wouldn’t, that’s the point.
Who wrote the history you study?
I agree with your assessment in the main, but hope this is not as terminal as you’re saying.
“I wouldn’t, that’s the point.”
Exactly.
“Who wrote the history you study?”
Often the people who lived it.
What this author fails to consider is that we may have an anti-pope.
Just like there was no need for Vatican II.
If Rachel Maddow had male plumbing, John, she’d be Matthew Broderick.
Exactly. And Vatican II changed no doctrine, but it was a 3-ring circus from the get-go, mainly due to the protestant infiltration.
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.