You make Luther smile!
Posted on 11/17/2017 3:03:09 PM PST by ebb tide
As an outsider, I can’t help but wonder whether the pope and the USCCB were particularly provoked by Weinandy’s suggestion that Jesus had allowed this controversy in order “to manifest just how weak is the faith of many within the Church, even among too many of her bishops.” Catholics will have to make up their own minds—but I’ll admit I have questions about the faith of Pope Francis, which seems, if not weak, at least different from that of the Catholic tradition.
Even before the release of Amoris Laetitia in March 2016, Francis had caused many to question his fidelity to that tradition. In 2014, the midterm report of the Extraordinary Synod on the Family recommended that pastors emphasize the “positive aspects” of cohabitation and civil remarriage after divorce. He said that Jesus’s multiplication of bread and fish was really a miracle of sharing, not of multiplying (2013); told a woman in an invalid marriage that she could take Holy Communion (2014); claimed that lost souls do not go to hell (2015); and said that Jesus had begged his parents for forgiveness (2015). In 2016, he said that God had been “unjust with his son,” announced his prayer intention to build a society “that places the human person at the center,” and declared that inequality is “the greatest evil that exists.” In 2017, he joked that “inside the Holy Trinity they’re all arguing behind closed doors, but on the outside they give the picture of unity.” Jesus Christ, he said, “made himself the devil.” “No war is just,” he pronounced. At the end of history, “everything will be saved. Everything.”
Weinandy and other Catholic critics have pointed to alarming statements and suggestions in Amoris Laetitia itself. The exhortation declares, “No one can be condemned for ever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel!” In December 2016, the Catholic philosophers John Finnis and Germain Grisez argued in their “Misuse of Amoris Laetitia” that though this statement reflects a trend among Catholic thinkers stemming from Karl Rahner and Hans Urs von Balthasar, it contradicts the gospels’ clear statements and the Catholic tradition’s teaching that there is “unending punishment” in hell. Finnis and Grisez charge that, according to the logic of Amoris Laetitia, some of the faithful are too weak to keep God’s commandments, and can live in grace while committing ongoing and habitual sins “in grave matter.” Like (Episcopalian) Joseph Fletcher, who taught Situation Ethics in the 1960s, the exhortation suggests that there are exceptions to every moral rule and that there is no such thing as an intrinsically evil act.
I take no pleasure in Rome’s travails. For decades, orthodox Anglicans and other Protestants seeking to resist the apostasies of liberal Christianity have looked to Rome for moral and theological support. Most of us recognized that we were really fighting the sexual revolution, which had coopted and corrupted the Episcopal Church and its parent across the pond. First it was the sanctity of life and euthanasia. Then it was homosexual practice. Now it is gay marriage and transgender ideology. During the pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, we non-Catholics arguing moral theology could point to learned and compelling arguments coming out of Rome and say, in effect, “The oldest and largest part of the Body of Christ agrees with us, and it does so with remarkable sophistication.”
Those of us who continue to fight for orthodoxy, in dogmatic as well as moral theology, miss those days when there was a clear beacon shining from across the Tiber. For now, it seems, Rome itself has been infiltrated by the sexual revolution. The center is not holding.
Though we are dismayed, we must not despair. For the brave and principled stand made by Tom Weinandy reminds us that God raises up prophetic lights when dark days come to his Church.
Gerald McDermott holds the Anglican Chair of Divinity at Beeson Divinity School.
You don’t.
Ouch. That’s going to leave a scar.
When I was a Roman Catholic, several decades ago, I was always told I could not read the Bible unless I had a priest to interpret for me. Since I am a totally rebellious person, that was like putting a red cape in a bull’s face. I was so rebellious, that when they told me I couldn’t read the Bible on my own, the first thing I did, was go get a Bible, and start reading it and interpreting it for myself. I am glad I was so rebellious. It got me reading the Bible. It was completely different from what I had been taught, but you already know that. 😀😆😄😁👍
There’s no dust left!
Well, it seems like there is a shortage of so many things in the world, we might as well have a shortage of dust too. 🤗😂🤪😆
Right ET?
Faithful 'CATHOLICS' going bat spit crazy over their dear leader!!
Well; at least LUTHER is getting a rest!!!
Or the pope.
Can you still be pissed at Him?
For ALLOWING your precious church to be LED by such a man?
Then just WHY are so many of you Catholics wearing wadded panties these days?
Do you think that your collective whining and moaning is actually going to CHANGE anything in the Leadership of the church??
Then just what IS he guilty of?
His arrogance is in full view and his spite of his pope is as well.
Neither of which have any relation to the comment you made.
It’s not about bashing anyone nor is it about *proving* Catholicism isn’t Biblical.
It’s about the claim that Catholics keep making about how much Scripture they hear in mass over the years, which isn’t as much as most Catholics seem to think it is.
My definition of a valid pope isn’t important as I am not a Catholic.
Your sis because you claim to be.
So that’s not an out to not answer the question.
So much for your mindreading; for THIS 'non' sees that he IS Catholic - through and through!
You folks have NOT thrown THESE guys under the bus; but merely excuse their many foibles as indicative of being just human; after all.
Pope Stephen VI (896–897), who had his predecessor Pope Formosus exhumed, tried, de-fingered, briefly reburied, and thrown in the Tiber.[1]
Pope John XII (955–964), who gave land to a mistress, murdered several people, and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife.
Pope Benedict IX (1032–1044, 1045, 1047–1048), who "sold" the Papacy
Pope Boniface VIII (1294–1303), who is lampooned in Dante's Divine Comedy
Pope Urban VI (1378–1389), who complained that he did not hear enough screaming when Cardinals who had conspired against him were tortured.[2]
Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503), a Borgia, who was guilty of nepotism and whose unattended corpse swelled until it could barely fit in a coffin.[3]
Pope Leo X (1513–1521), a spendthrift member of the Medici family who once spent 1/7 of his predecessors' reserves on a single ceremony[4]
Pope Clement VII (1523–1534), also a Medici, whose power-politicking with France, Spain, and Germany got Rome sacked.
You make Luther smile!
But the issue wasn’t about whether the mass was Biblical or not.
The comment which started you chiming in was ealgeone’s post 147 which said, “Considering how little of the Bible Roman Catholics hear at Mass...”, which you copied and pasted and said was completely false.
The issue is how much of the Bible Catholics hear in a mass. So instead of just saying that ealgeone’s comment was false and then demanding him to prove that it’s not, the onus is on you to prove how much of the Bible Catholics DO hear in the mass.
So please try to stay on topic.
Similar to the bruin in the woodland; the OTHER eternal question --->
Is the pope Catholic?
et:You sound like a muslim now.
So by default then, not caring about someone's faith is the purview of Catholics, right?
Adapted from The Crises of the Christ, Book V, Chapter XXIV, by G. Campbell Morgan.
I see...
And once a priest, always a priest.
And he can perform a valid mass and valid sacraments no matter what heinous sin he’s involved in as long as his *intent* is pure.
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.