Just have to laugh at these people. It’s pathetic.
People who want the Catholic Church to change its positions...
They want confirmation of their beliefs because deep down they know they’re wrong.
Of course. The proponents of SSM, married clergy, women priests, etc. don’t want to reform the RCC - they want to destroy it.
And to my Protestant brothers and sisters in Christ, I say -No matter what you think about transubstantiation, the primacy of the papacy, Marian aspects of the RCC etc., if the Pope and the RCC were gone, who can rally the world on behalf of the Culture of Life?
And these are the people who belittle birthers? Well, obviously Pope Francis must be a fraud because he has failed to issue an encyclica proclaiming the Divinity of the Most Holy Barack Obama and canceling Easter since the Christ has been reincarnated.
The ‘free press’ is amusing.
But, dang-it-all, that Holy Spirit keeps interfering and messing things up!
He is a strong Christian.
That will bug a great many posers.
As Fox and many other Catholic and ex-Catholic dissidents see it, Vatican II marked the moment when the church had the chance to reinvent itself as a flexible moral and spiritual force in a rapidly changing world. Indeed, it briefly seemed to do just that and its important to understand that Bergoglio, like Joseph Ratzinger and Karol Wojtyla before him, was part of the right-wing counterrevolution within the church that aggressively rolled back those changes, crushed dissident thought and reasserted the absolute power of the pope and his hierarchy.
Compare this with some observations made by Benedict XVI in his "farewell" meeting with Roman parish priests on 2/14/2013:
I would now like to add yet a third point: there was the Council of the Fathers the real Council but there was also the Council of the media. It was almost a Council apart, and the world perceived the Council through the latter, through the media. Thus, the Council that reached the people with immediate effect was that of the media, not that of the Fathers. And while the Council of the Fathers was conducted within the faith it was a Council of faith seeking intellectus, seeking to understand itself and seeking to understand the signs of God at that time, seeking to respond to the challenge of God at that time and to find in the word of God a word for today and tomorrow while all the Council, as I said, moved within the faith, as fides quaerens intellectum, the Council of the journalists, naturally, was not conducted within the faith, but within the categories of today's media, namely apart from faith, with a different hermeneutic. It was a political hermeneutic: for the media, the Council was a political struggle, a power struggle between different trends in the Church. It was obvious that the media would take the side of those who seemed to them more closely allied with their world. There were those who sought the decentralization of the Church, power for the bishops and then, through the expression "People of God", power for the people, the laity. There was this threefold question: the power of the Pope, which was then transferred to the power of the bishops and the power of all popular sovereignty. Naturally, for them, this was the part to be approved, to be promulgated, to be favoured. So too with the liturgy: there was no interest in liturgy as an act of faith, but as something where comprehensible things are done, a matter of community activity, something profane. And we know that there was a tendency, not without a certain historical basis, to say: sacrality is a pagan thing, perhaps also a thing of the Old Testament. In the New Testament it matters only that Christ died outside: that is, outside the gates, in the profane world. Sacrality must therefore be abolished, and profanity now spreads to worship: worship is no longer worship, but a community act, with communal participation: participation understood as activity. These translations, trivializations of the idea of the Council, were virulent in the process of putting the liturgical reform into practice; they were born from a vision of the Council detached from its proper key, that of faith. And the same applies to the question of Scripture: Scripture is a book, it is historical, to be treated historically and only historically, and so on.
We know that this Council of the media was accessible to everyone. Therefore, this was the dominant one, the more effective one, and it created so many disasters, so many problems, so much suffering: seminaries closed, convents closed, banal liturgy and the real Council had difficulty establishing itself and taking shape; the virtual Council was stronger than the real Council. But the real force of the Council was present and, slowly but surely, established itself more and more and became the true force which is also the true reform, the true renewal of the Church. It seems to me that, 50 years after the Council, we see that this virtual Council is broken, is lost, and there now appears the true Council with all its spiritual force.
Seems like Mr. Fox is a proponent of the "council of the media".
I’m not a Catholic so will tread lightly, but I fail to see why people like (ex Catholic, now Episcopalian) Rev. Fox think that becoming more like the Episcopalians is the way to make the Roman Catholic Church more relevant.
Not legitimate? Gee, where have I heard that before?
Scoreboard: “Progressive” governments 100,000,000 dead
Catholic church ?
Vatican II was meant to keep the wheat and throw the chaff to the wind—not in terms of people but in terms of practice. Then the unchanging moral precepts of the Church would stand out nice and clear. Eventually. And that is what is going to happen now. Nice quotes from Benedict farther up the thread that say this in a different way.
The primacy of conscience should be understood on an individual level only, IMHO, and conscience has to be more scrupulous, not less, than that which conforms with Church teaching to the letter. With no one to tell you it’s all OK, you’d better be darn sure you’re right.
It always amazes me that these learned people fail to comprehend that there are foundational principles in any religion that can not be challenged. These principles are call doctrine.
For the Christian faith these principles are for the most part specifically stated in the Bible. They can not be questioned because the Bible says that these things are so.
The Bible says that homosexuality is a great sin and an abomination before God. That can not be questioned regardless of the principle of freedom of conscience, the principle that theologians have a right to think.
Certainly theologians have a right to think. Theologians have the right to question things that are open to question. But some things are not open to question. Some things can not be changed because if those things were to be changed the Church would no longer be the Church.
You can not rip out your houses foundation and have your house remain standing.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Nothing for their itching progressive ears to hear from the new Pope?
Exactly as I predicted. The left couldn’t wait even a week to show their fangs.
Makes me happy to see raging fang-tooth feminazis having a conniption over Francis.
And it's even easier to dismiss people with "progressive political views" as freedom despising, God-hating, baby killing, homo-loving wallowers in sin, who offer destruction to the contemporary world.
“...Bergoglio emerges from a Jesuit order that has been largely purged of its independent-minded or left-leaning intellectuals...”
Now we know they are out of touch with reality. The Jesuit order, with the exception of maybe a dozen priests, is NOTHING BUT independent-minded AND left-leaning (pseudo)-intellectuals, not to mention active homosexuals.