Posted on 03/14/2018 5:02:35 PM PDT by ebb tide
Cardinal Walter Kasper, whose theology appears to be the chief inspiration for Pope Francis’ doctrine on giving Holy Communion to people living in states of adultery in second marriages, now appears to be claiming that homosexual unions contain “elements” of Christian marriage and are even “analogous” to it in a way that is similar to the relationship between the Catholic Church and non-Catholic Christian communities.
Moreover, the cardinal is attributing his claims to Pope Francis’ apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia, despite the fact that the document explicitly contradicts him.
“The pope does not leave room for doubt over the fact that civil marriages, de facto unions, new marriages following a divorce (Amoris Laetitia 291) and unions between homosexual persons (Amoris Laetitia 250s.) do not correspond to the Christian conception of marriage,” writes Kasper in a recently-released book on Amoris Laetitia.
“He says, however, that some of these partners can realize in a partial and analogous way some elements in Christian marriage (Amoris Laetitia 292),” continues Kasper.
Kasper compares such relationships with the relationship between the Catholic Church and non-Catholic Christian groups, whom Vatican II says contain “elements of sanctification and truth” of the Church.
“Just as outside the Catholic Church there are elements of the true Church, in the above-mentioned unions there can be elements present of Christian marriage, although they do not completely fulfill, or do not yet completely fulfill, the ideal,” adds Kasper.
The statements appear in Kasper’s new booklet, "The Message of Amoris Laetitia: A Fraternal Discussion," which was recently published simultaneously in German and Italian.
In the same work, Kasper also insinuates that Amoris Laetitia opens the way to permit the use of contraception, a practice that is universally condemned in the Scriptures, Church Fathers, and the Papal Magisterium, most recently by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II.
Kasper notes that in Amoris Laetitia, the Pope only “encourages the use of the method of observing the cycles of natural fertility,” and “does not say anything about other methods of family planning and avoids all casuistic definitions.” In the context with the book’s passages on communion for those who commit adultery in second “marriages,” which use similar language, Kasper appears to be claiming that the pope is allowing for exceptions to the Church’s condemnation of artificial birth control.
Kasper’s words regarding homosexual unions appear to directly contradict not only the doctrines of John Paul II but even Amoris Laetitia, the document he purports to explain.
Under the papacy of John Paul II and the administration of Cardinal Josef Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI), the Holy See’s Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith expressly repudiated the idea that homosexual unions can be “analogous” to marriage. The document was issued in 2003 and received the approval of John Paul II.
“There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family,” the Congregation declared. “Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts close the sexual act to the gift of life.’ They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.”
The paragraphs in Amoris Laetitia cited by Kasper to justify treating homosexual unions as “analogous” to marriage contain no clear reference to homosexual unions but simply refer to the “constructive elements in those situations which do not yet or no longer correspond to her teaching on marriage.”
However, Amoris Laetitia states in paragraph 251, “In discussing the dignity and mission of the family, the Synod Fathers observed that, ‘as for proposals to place unions between homosexual persons on the same level as marriage, there are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family.’” Francis and the Synod Fathers are quoting the same 2003 document of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith mentioned above.
Cardinal Kasper’s apparent desire to legitimize homosexual unions reflects the thinking of several influential bishops in the German hierarchy.
The Vice President of the German Episcopal Conference, Bishop Franz-Josef Bode, recently has said homosexual unions include “positive and good” aspects and has proposed blessings for them. He made similar comments in 2015.
Cardinal Reinhard Marx, a member of the Pope’s Council of Cardinal Advisers, apparently endorsed the possibility of blessing homosexual unions earlier this year, and then appeared to backtrack after heavy criticism, claiming that he only wanted to give such couples “spiritual encouragement.”
In June 2015, Bishop Heiner Koch of Dresden-Meissen (now Archbishop of Berlin), was quoted by the German Catholic newspaper Die Tagespost as saying, “Any bond that strengthens and holds people is in my eyes good; that applies also to same-sex relationships.”
The German bishops’ website, Katholisch.de, published an article in 2015 defending the notion of blessing homosexual unions, and blasting German Bishop Stefan Oster, who oversees the diocese of Passau, for defending the traditional moral teaching of the Church on sexuality.
Cardinal Kasper himself publicly endorsed Ireland’s creation of the institution of homosexual “marriage” in 2015, saying: “A democratic state has the duty to respect the will of the people; and it seems clear that, if the majority of the people wants such homosexual unions, the state has a duty to recognize such rights.”
However, Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller, a German and former prefect of the Holy See’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, condemned such blessings in February, as have some other German and Austrian bishops.
“If a priest blesses a homosexual couple, then this is an atrocity at a holy site, namely, to approve of something that God does not approve of,” said Müller.
In announcing the publication of the book, Kasper complained that people are using the word “heresy” to describe the teaching that Holy Communion can be given to people in habitual states of adultery, which seems to be taught by Pope Francis in his apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia.
“There is a very bitter debate (about the Pope’s teaching), way too strong, with accusations of heresy,” Kasper said in a recent interview with Vatican News, the Holy See’s official news service, regarding "The Message of Amoris Laetitia."
In his book, Kasper protests against those theologians who have accused Francis of heresy, writing in a footnote, “Who, other than the Magisterium has the right to make an accusation of that type? Doesn’t the principle still hold that until one is legitimately condemned he must be considered to be within the orthodox church?”
He also claimed in interviews that Amoris Laetitia is easy to understand.
“This document’s language is so clear that any Christian can understand it. It is not high theology incomprehensible to people,” Kasper said. “The People of God are very content and happy with this document because it gives space to freedom, but it also interprets the substance of the Christian message in an understandable language. So, the People of God understand! The Pope has an optimal connection with the People of God.”
Not only forgiven but removed as far as the east is from the west. What a beautiful promise.
Yes! If they were forgiven to this extent in the OT, why would anyone think they would be forgiven any less in the NT in light of the cross?
5But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,
6just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:
7“BLESSED ARE THOSE WHOSE LAWLESS DEEDS HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN, AND WHOSE SINS HAVE BEEN COVERED.
8“BLESSED IS THE MAN WHOSE SIN THE LORD WILL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT.”
Romans 4:5-8 NASB
And Romans 8:1 (if my memory serves) there is then NO condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
“Christ committed adultery first of all with the women at the well about whom St. John tell’s us. Was not everybody about Him saying: ‘Whatever has He been doing with her?’ Secondly, with Mary Magdalen, and thirdly with the women taken in adultery whom He dismissed so lightly. Thus even, Christ who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died.”
***
Have a bonus. No more treats until you actually can prove that you’ve read what I’ve written instead of whining ‘I reject it.’
Cherry-picked bullshit coming from the same bullshit artist as the first one.
Here’s the Bible verse that Luther is referring to. “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”
So of course that makes sense, by taking the adultery of the women onto himself and to the cross, he was punished for that sin of adultery.
Oh, and lest we forget, this quote was from the volumes of Table Talk, which are little more than scribbled notes of Luther’s students and have no context whatsoever.
Considering all the other places where Luther praises the holy sinless Son of God, your source is full of crap.
Heck, you’re not even using Luther’s theological works to justify your hatred. You’re using hearsay.
And just because the next one is so, so easy...
“It does not matter how Christ behaved – what He taught is all that matters”
Not only is this quote never found in Luther’s works but only in Erlangen and Wiener (neither of whom can possibly be considered unbiased sources, especially considering their rampant cherry-picking, misquotes, and outright stated goals of bashing Dr. Luther).
In context, they’re probably referring to Dr. Luther’s reply to Dr. Karlstadt, in which Karlstadt was arguing that the Sacrament of Holy Communion should not be honored because Christ never honored it in the way that the Catholics do.
And Luther says, paraphrased, ‘Did Christ forbid the elevation of the Sacrament? No? Then pay attention to what Jesus teaches.’
The irony for this part is that you’re hating Dr. Luther for defending a Roman Catholic position.
And Romans 8:1 (if my memory serves) there is then NO condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
***
It’s true!
Praise God!
The quote does appears outrageous, but there are some thing to note. First, the quote has no context. One does not know what exactly Luther had in mind. Was he kidding? Was he summarizing someone else's argument? Was he using hyperbole? It's really hard to say. If taken literally, it certainly is at odds with his other statements about Christ. Therefore, even though one can't know exactly why he said this, we can have a strong assurance he didn't mean it literally. The editors of Luther's Works include a footnote for this comment of Luther's, and they offer the following speculation:
This entry has been cited against Luther, among others by Arnold Lunn in The Revolt Against Reason (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1951), pp. 45, 257, 258. What Luther meant might have been made clearer if John Schlaginhaufen had indicated the context of the Reformer’s remarks. The probable context is suggested in a sermon of 1536 (WA 41, 647) in which Luther asserted that Christ was reproached by the world as a glutton, a winebibber, and even an adulterer. (LW 54:154, fn. 100)
If you run across a Roman Catholic citing these words against Luther (or any obscure comments from Luther's Table Talk) I commend to you also these words by Roman Catholic Scholar Thomas O’Meara:
“…Catholics are using inaccurately rhetorical arguments when they make the value of Luther’s theology and reform depend upon his table-talk language. Rhetoric appeals to the mind- but it appeals through emotions. It reaches the mind not through a purely intellectual act, examining the case thoroughly and logically, but by leaps and bounds, driven by emotions and will, faculties incapable of a calm judgment of what is true” [Thomas O’Meara, Mary in Protestant and Catholic Theology, (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1966), 5].
I always caution Roman Catholics to be careful with Luther’s Table Talk. The Table Talk is a collection of comments from Luther written down by Luther’s students and friends. Thus, it is not in actuality an official writing of Luther's and should not serve as the basis for interpreting his theology. Even anti-Luther Catholic historian Hartmann Grisar has pointed out, “Of course, it must not be overlooked that the Table Talks are ephemeral—‘children of the moment.’ While they correctly and vividly reproduce the ideas of the speaker, minus the cool reflection which prevails in the writing of letters and still more of books, they contain frequent exaggerations and betray a lack of moderation. The lightning-like flashes which they emit are not always true. The momentary exaggerations of the speaker at times beget contradictions which conflict with other talks or literary utterances. Frequently humorous statements were received as serious declarations. Humor and satire of a very pungent kind play a great part in these talks” [Hartmann Grisar, Martin Luther: His Life and Work (Maryland: Newman Press, 1950), 481].http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2005/12/luther-said-christ-committed-adultery.html
Your vain attempt to slander Luther by relying upon the website you have is equivalent to liberals relying upon the Onion or PMSNBC as authoritative resources in debates with conservatives.
If I were Luircin, I wouldn't waste my time in addressing any quotes you pull from that website.
And here I thought Tim Staples was a poor Roman Catholic apologist....you've replaced him.
Now, go get that help.
So now you're claiming that Luther said Christ had sexual relations with the woman at the well, yet He had no sin?
Read up ahead to Luther's heresies about the Ten Commandments in the link I posted above.
Ya'll would never get out of the water....that is, if ya'll even practice immersion.
It's been 48 years since I left the catholic church, so I am not sure about immersion. They didn't do it then, but I always say, if Catholic doctrine be true, then drown me in the baptistry, so I can be forgiven, and go to Heaven. Those who think they are going to make it, by their good works, baptism and church membership, are going to be in for a shock, with a capital S.
I really hope in the real world you don’t have any serious responsibilities if this is a sample of your cognitive capabilities.
So now you’re claiming that Luther said Christ had sexual relations with the woman at the well, yet He had no sin?
***
If you’d actually read what I wrote, you’d know that’s not what I meant at all.
So you’ve obviously told a falsehood about reading what I wrote, considering that you cherry-picked my statement. You’re lying about me the same way you lie about Dr. Luther.
That’s a violation of the 8th commandment again, not to mention a violation of the 5th commandment in your hatred.
I ping my friends as witnesses as our Lord Jesus commanded us to do in Matthew 18.
No. The irony is that many non-Catholics cherry-pick Luther's beliefs, even if some of them were still Catholic beliefs:
6 Beautiful Quotes on Mary You Won’t Believe Are From Martin Luther
I’m reading what Luther said, not what you said.
First off, you err because there is no such thing as graduations of sin such as *venial* and *mortal*.
ALL sin is an affront to God and ALL sin results in condemnation.
Another area you err is that people need absolution of their sin to have it not counted against them.
God FORGIVES sin, freely and fully simply for the asking.
He promised us this in His word that the Holy Spirit inspired.
1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
Go right to God. No need for Catholicism, priests, penance, purgatory, or any other religious nonsense.
It's free for the asking and freely given by God Himself.
Why don't you skip ahead in the link I provided and review Luther's opinion of the Ten Commandments?
I don’t worship Luther; I worship God.
I answered your three objections. You haven’t responded to any of my points other than to a: lie about and insult me, and b: cherry-pick my responses.
Time for me to use the office of the keys, ebb.
I ping the rest of you as my witnesses.
Your sin of hatred and all the sins that come from it, not the least of which is the sin of unrepentance of your hatred, has separated you from Christ AND Christ’s Church. If you should die before you repent of this sin, you will be condemned into eternal damnation.
You can forget about me addressing any more of your sin-filled hateful rants; I have no time for an unrepentant apostate.
Why don’t you skip ahead in the link I provided and review Luther’s opinion of the Ten Commandments?
***
I have no time for ebb tide, the unrepentant apostate.
That's about the extent of his debate skills.
ebb is what I would call a drive by Roman Catholic akin to the drive by media as coined by el Rushbo.
People are taken in by propaganda because they want to believe it or believe that it's true.
And the Internet abounds with such, keeping James Swan busy researching and correcting, though Luther's propensity to sometimes extreme hyperbole, and too often caustic language can be a problem.
Also, we have been given a new nature, a sinless perfect one.
2 Corinthians 5:17-21 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.
Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
And have been transferred into the kingdom of the Son God loves.
Colossians 1:13-14 He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
Our salvation is a done deal and God does not disown us when we sin.
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.