Posted on 07/13/2008 7:57:59 AM PDT by Ottofire
It’s the least I can do. Sometimes I post pictures of my pets :-).
>I think you have been involved in enough of these threads to realize that there are some Catholic priests, theologians, and perhaps some Bishops who are dissenters from Catholic magesterial teaching as fully laid out in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
So what is the Catholic Church’s rule on driving these wolves out of the church? Is it not the divine duty of any church to do so, so that they do not lead the sheep astray? Seemingly by the reaction of the other Catholics on this post, they believe the good monsignor is teaching a different gospel which indeed will lead to hell, but where is the call for his removal? No, the call is “defend the church from those outside!”, rather than the wolf inside destroying the church.
But he is a monsignor, a bishop, a part of the body magisterial. Is this man continuing in his leadership role in the Catholic church? Where is the church discipline?
Again this is the sticking point with the child abuse scandals. It is not the fact that they happened, for all are sinful, and all fail. It is the fact that the Catholic church turned a blind eye to it, and just moved the individual priests to the next parish, where they did the same thing over again with the tacit approval of the church leadership. Personally I would be at my bishops office with a sign that he must be removed for his complicity in the abuse. But then again, we hear “Defend the Church!” rather than “Remove the antichrist!”
Well Ottofire, the sexual abuse scandal thing is not something any Catholic is happy with. On the other hand, lets realize that one can post threads about this occuring in non-Catholic Christian communities as well. In fact, I have seen lots of these threads pop up in the last month and have refrained from playing the “gotcha game”, as in any case, albeit in a Catholic or Protestant parish/congregation, a young person was abused by someone in religous authority. And IMO, that is not something that one should play the “gotcha game” with.
Again, if this priest taught something that was unorthodox, and continues to do so, ultimately it will be dealt with. Hopefully, his local Bishop has the courage to give “fraternal correction” to this priest, assuming he did make unorthodox statements and the context of the statement was not being misunderstood, misrepresented, etc.
As for driving out of the Church. If the Catholic Church does not act as a place of God’s mercy, where else in society or you going to find it. Even a murderer in a prison still is someone that is not beyond redemption, even though he belongs in jail. If he truly repents from his sins, he is still part of the Church and while justic demands that he spends his life in prison at a minimum, again assuming a sincere sacrament of confession with contrition, that person is able to truly receive the Catholic Eucharist, which I am sure you know by now, Catholic doctrine believes is a communion that is a partaking of the Body of Christ.
As for a priest that teaches heresy, one can correct, or even silence a dissenting priest (and this has been done by Rome). For example, the European Thelogian Hans Kung had his credentials as a Catholic theologian removed. Fr. Charles Curran, an American theologian had this happen to him as well. But the Catholic Church does have Canon Law which allows for due process even for a “dissenting priest”. The idea is for the dissenting priest, once confronted with the Roman Magesterium pointing out that his views are unorthodox, to sign a declaration that he will not teach what he has been teaching again in public, etc. So in this whole process, hopefully the priest will correct the error of his ways.
I think Pope Benedict’s touch is appropriate. He continues to stress and teach orthodox Catholic Doctrine in conformity with Apostolic Tradition, but does it whith Christian charity. If individuals choose not to hear, then that is fine, some in fact may leave the Catholic faith all together and move on to groups that promote more heterodox doctrines. In fact, IMO, gradually sort of “block by Block” Pope Benedict is restoring Catholic orthdoxoy as the 60’s and 70’s crowd slowy “retire and pass from the scene”.
Hopefully, all who are Catholic priests and theologians dissenting from Church teaching and promoting heterodox doctrines will repent and come back fully to the Faith. On the other hand, if they challenge Church teaching continously, I am confident Rome will deal with the issue accordingly.
Still, I would rather see this priest guided back to True Faith than “run out of town”. If this priest continues to preach dissent, even after being corrected by his Bishop, and then if Rome comes in, at that point perhaps he should have his priestly faculties removed and thus not be allowed to publicly celebrate Mass, preach, and administer the other Sacraments.
Regards
No, Quix believes in the rapture of the church. Sorry to disappoint you.
Catholics who have accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour will go to heaven. Those who don’t, won’t. There, that was easy...
It’s not prideful or presumptious to say I am saved. It’s confidence that God has done what He promised to those who believe.
” There, that was easy...”
No. That was facile.
I hadn’t realized that bearing false witness
had become a new ?Mary? dogma?
Pontifical dogma?
Magisterical dogma?
!!!!TRADITION!!!!
which?
I understand - I live in the NYC metro area. :)
In answer to your previous question:
Who, then, can be saved?
Catholics can be saved if they believe the Word of God as taught by the Church and if they obey the commandments. Other Christians can be saved if they submit their lives to Christ and join the community where they think he wills to be found. Jews can be saved if they look forward in hope to the Messiah and try to ascertain whether God’s promise has been fulfilled. Adherents of other religions can be saved if, with the help of grace, they sincerely seek God and strive to do his will. Even atheists can be saved if they worship God under some other name and place their lives at the service of truth and justice. God’s saving grace, channeled through Christ the one Mediator, leaves no one unassisted. But that same grace brings obligations to all who receive it. They must not receive the grace of God in vain. MUCH WLL BE DEMANDED OF THOSE TO WHOM MUCH IS GIVEN.
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0254.htm
IMO, this is what Msr Albacete was talking about...he was GIVEN MUCH...so MUCH will be expected of him therefore the atheist who didn’t HEAR may indeed have more of a chance at the time of judgement. Only God knows and He is all Love, Justice and Mercy. Meanwhile Msr. continues to write his articles for the left and does his interviews with them - all the time telling them they’re wrong. He was also a close friend of Pope John Paul II and on friendly terms with Pope Benedict.
Here’s some of his writings – the first one takes on the Secularists - again in his reasoned way but gets his point across:
Christ is a Fact, Not a Concept
Only the encounter with Christ can resolve the problem between time and eternity, and therefore between religion and politics.
http://oldarchive.godspy.com/reviews/Faith-Politics-and-the-Scandal-of-Christ-by-Msgr-Lorenzo-Albacete-Communion-and-Liberation.cfm.html
http://oldarchive.godspy.com/reviews/Christianity-and-Gnosticism-A-Conflict-About-Method.cfm.html
http://www.ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/YOUNGSIN.htm
http://www.traces-cl.com/march03/peacehowto.htm
***So what is the Catholic Church’s rule on driving these wolves out of the church?”
Again this is the sticking point with the child abuse scandals. It is not the fact that they happened, for all are sinful, and all fail. It is the fact that the Catholic church turned a blind eye to it, and just moved the individual priests to the next parish, where they did the same thing over again with the tacit approval of the church leadership. Personally I would be at my bishops office with a sign that he must be removed for his complicity in the abuse. But then again, we hear “Defend the Church!” rather than “Remove the antichrist!”***
Why do you persist in slandering this good priest? Did you read my post where I asked you to watch the tape in FULL CONTEXT? Methinks it’s not the priest - he’s just the stone - to be thrown at the Catholic Church - lose your weapon and you lose an opportunity. I wonder are you as ‘concerned’ about the Protestant Pastors child abuses popping up in abundance? If I go to one of those threads will I see posts from you reflecting this same ‘concern’ about discipline, antichrists and wolves in the Protestant Church?
Father Albacete holds degree’s in Space Science and Applied Physics as well as a Master’s degree in Sacred Theology from the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C. He holds a doctorate in Sacred Theology from the Pontifical University of St. Thomas in Rome. He has taught at the John Paul II Institute in Washington, D.C., and the St. Joseph Seminary in Yonkers, N.Y., and from 1996 to 1997 served as President of Catholic University of Puerto Rico in Ponce. He has been advisor on Hispanic Affairs to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
He is a columnist for the Italian weekly Tempi, has written for The New Yorker, New York Times, and has appeared or has been interviewed on CNN, The Charlie Rose Show, PBS, EWTN, Slate, The New Republic, and Godspy, where he is the theological advisor.
Monsignor Albacete lives in Yonkers, N.Y.
He’s an intellect - I doubt you’d understand him anyway. My advice to you - weed your own garden first!
Well, I just got back from checking out 5-6 of the child abusing Protestant Pastor’s threads and not only are you not in any of the few I viewed, displaying great ‘concern’, and sprouting words like Church discipline - antichrist’s and wolves but neither were any of the other Protestant posters. Guess what Church they were throwing stones at...?
Mt 7:5 - You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you will see clearly enough to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
PS: Just because your Protestant child abusing Pastors aren’t in the NYT HEADLINES consecutively for THREE MONTHS - doesn’t mean you dont’t have a problem!
Chill out.
” hadn’t realized that bearing false witness
had become a new ?Mary? dogma?”
Are you calling me a liar? And that is quite a strange personal assault since nothing in my conversation concerned you.
Then again, what you post time after time is of such little consequence I don’t bother to read them.
This post of yours just happened to be a personal assault addressed to me.
I’m sure you made it in good witness to save my soul. /s.
And please, drop the pedegogic psychological attempt to stir the pot over something else. It’s so obvious.
Don’t address me.
Making the thread "about" another Freeper is a form of "making it personal."
Noted.
I think being called liar is quite personal. Especially since it is uncalled for and why it was interjected into the thread is unknown.
Discuss the issues not the posters.
Guess you are among the many who believe God is coming in a Flying Saucer to pick up the remnant.
(And that is from one of your more prolific Protestant posters.)
I don’t know ANYONE on FR who’s
EVER
asserted that
at all.
Essentially, this is it: Mary was one of a select few individuals who was given explicit promise by God that their seed was to be a blessing to the world. Obviously, as the virgin to give birth, she was the last such individual to be given that promise.
The first such individual was the Woman, soon to be called Eve, and then there were a few notable guys in between Eve and Mary.
The issue is this: with immaculate conception, Mary could have the same sort of relationship with her Son as Eve could, since there are unique biological legacies we get from our mothers that we do not get from our fathers. Thus the Seed of the woman in Genesis and Mary's seed need not be distinct.
But the presence of guys in the list really screws things up for immaculate conception. As the mother, Mary was these boy's only link to her Son and the only vehicle by which the promises made to them could be fulfilled.
You could not opine that raw humanity alone were sufficient (as could be argued in the case of Eve) since it is expressly stated that men beget children in their own likeness. If Mary is immaculately conceived then she was not born in the likeness of her own father and the only link the Son has to folks like David is imperiled.
Thus a protest against immaculate conception.
In solution, I've pondered if it is significant that, while we are told that men beget children in their own image as well as just as in Adam all have sin, we ARE NOT likewise told that women bear children in their own image in the same sense that they are passing on something like a sin nature.
What I've suggested based on trying to parse Genesis (which is an astoundingly astute text, so much so that it makes me wonder at folks who act like it's a mere story ... which implies that its specifics are thus of human invention rather than a record of divine origin) is that God MAY HAVE arranged things from the beginning to circumvent any issue and that women (or more properly the one who bears) may not pass on anything other than pure humanity to their children -- that the 'sins of the mothers' are not passed down as are the sins of the fathers (I would suppose as generic weakness or foibles concerning sin and sinning, so a father who trades in lust or lies may find that all of his kids struggle with similar weaknesses).
If what is true of Mary is simply true of all daughters of Eve, and Eve herself, then there is no need for immaculate conception (certainly not medically, nor legally and maybe not even spiritually — I smacked my head against my own limits when I tried to take it that far, essentially repeating the legal argument ... one reason I can assert that the true Person behind Genesis is a LOT smarter than me and I'm pretty smart as humans go). Likewise, Mary could be truly and fully her father's daughter and yet her Son would inherit all His spiritual nature from His Father, undiluted from what He had always had as the Son ... just now with full humanity too.
I should point out how this idea also negates any perceived need for all of the genuine heresies (like those listed, those against His incarnation) against which immaculate conception could be viewed as a DEFENSE (even though it puts the problem off one generation, from Mary to her father).
That doesn't mean it's true (how could I assert that when I couldn't complete a passably distinct argument for the spiritual level?), but it does mean it is at least a valid hypothesis so far as that goes.
Reformatted for easy reference later
Hmmmmmmmmmmm
. . . no other name under heaven . . .
Faith in Jesus Christ alone.
Lots of luck getting there if you don’t believe in it.
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.