Posted on 06/14/2013 6:42:52 AM PDT by marshmallow
It’s part of the Mass Propers for Lent. One of the prayers for Good Friday.
Of course one may pray for atheists or offer special intentions for them at other times.
My apologies! Forget Benedict, getting old!
<....”Christianity Today is last place youd go to pick up on the pulse of evangelical opinion.”....>
You are sooooo right about that!
Nope...he’s not mine. Though I think he’s doing more to clear out the junk in the Vatican. I respect anyone who goes after the bad guys....he seems to be willing to do that.
You might be taking this boomer thing entirely too seriously. There isn't some universal, global, genetic mutation related to being born from 1946 to 1964.
Francis was born in 1936, in Argentina, where by law the President and vice-president of the nation had to be members of the Catholic denomination, and he was teaching high school (in Argentina) by 1964, I don't think that he has anything to do with being a "boomer".
I also have concerns about some things he has said; sometimes things he doesn’t say/leaves out.
For example, his “Atheists are Redeemed” homily was unclear on whether atheists are *saved* by failing to mention more about the Church’s teaching on their salvation and by calling them children of God of the *first class*. It’s no wonder that so many didn’t get what he was saying.
And I’m Catholic. Of course, other Catholics take issue with my concerns and I wouldn’t be able to make these comments on certain Catholic websites, but it is how I feel. I wish he would stick with stronger homilies that make it very clear that he is Pope of the Catholic Church, not the “Wishy Washy Church of Nice”.
I don’t want a “popular” Pope.
And did you know that the Vatican official (Fr. Rosica) who “clarified” his comments called “original sin” *so-called* original sin.
Um, since when is original sin a question? Since when is it no longer a Church truth?
If you have no enemies, you’re not doing anything. ;-)
EXACTAMUNDO.
“Ive just taken his comments one at a time. Some were so contrary to the message of the bible”
You mean like feeding the poor and not thinking you are better than someone else? Yea, really revolutionary thoughts there. Can’t find them anywhere in the Bible.
The Pope interpretation of Grace and what is said about Athiests being redeemed was exactly what the scriptures teach.
http://www.catholic.org/hf/faith/story.php?id=51106
You really want to know, eh? Methinks you ask to much. Just a backhanded way of pushing Roman Catholicism.
To those of us who do believe the Papacy is an impostor form of Christianity, masquerading as the original church, this Pope means nothing at all. Zilch. I could care less what this Pope or any other Pope does or says.
Thank-you for the compliment. I have yet to get to Perth even though a few nieces live there - hopefully next year. I am continually surprised when I hear how many freepers have lived in Oz for some part of their lives - I wish you’all would have stayed. You boys would be handy in a fight. :)
Blessings
Mel
People who say there are two kinds of people, and people who don't.
This hesitance includes me....Missouri Synod Lutheran.
Leni
There's no way on God's good green Earth that Fr. Thomas Rosica is calling Original Sin into question. Only somebody who hasn't got a clue about his many solid, orthodox Catholic writings could say that.
If he said "so-called Original Sin," he undoubtedly meant "Original Sin, so called because it was the first sin committed by our first parents," or something along those lines. I say "undoubtedly" because to cast doubt upon a foundational doctrine would contradict all the rest of his theological work for the past 30 years.
Here's a recent article by Fr. Rosica (Link), explaining and defending both the doctrine of Original Sin and the doctrine of Mary's Immaculate Conception.
I caution you against Rash Judgment, partly because I am prone to it and must tend to my "rashes" pretty regularly.
'K?
As Christians, we believe that God is always reaching out to humanity in love. This means that every man or woman, whatever their situation, can be saved. Even non-Christians can respond to this saving action of the Spirit. No person is excluded from salvation simply because of so-called original sin; one can only lose their salvation through serious personal sin of their own account.
I still say that this last sentence is questionable. At the very least, you have got to admit that this kind of clarification does not....clarify. It only creates more confusion.
Also, I keep seeing you refer to "Hermeneutic of Suspicion" from LCWR. What are you talking about and what is the LCWR?
In other words, they assume Ecclesia is probably wrong, probably motivated by a desire to manipulate, to assert power of others, to put down women, etc. etc.
One sees this "Hemeneutic of Suspicion" on the feminist Left; also (with different key words) from the other direction(s) as well. The whole thing is an offense against justice.
It's past my bedtime and I'm supposed to be up for an early Mass tomorrow. Let me just close by saying that if an eminent person like the Pope makes a state which does not fully express the Veritatis Splendor, we should assume in charity that it is a matter of confusing expression, and not a matter of latent heresy.
I hope we would treat each other with such basic charity and justice. It's hard, though. Boy, do I know that.
As much as I would rather not feel the way that I do, I can't help but notice the confusion in so many statements made by our leaders, not to mention their actions (such as continuing to allow pro-abort politicians to receive communion). I am sick and tired of seeing (and hearing) these sorts of things from (some of) our leaders. I am sick and tired of seeing nothing done about it (as in our Popes not doing anything about it). And when unclear things are said and supposedly clarified, they are not. More and more I see why traditionalists take issue with Vatican II and its supposed "fruits".
When Cardinal Kasper makes statements that say the VII documents were written in such a way as to "compromise", is it any wonder why there is such a mess? If unclear statements were made in the actual documents intentionally to satisfy both the minority side and the majority side, is it really all that surprising that we would still have unclear statements when trying to explain Church teaching as a result of those documents?
Unfortunately, since I can not show my true feelings on another website I tend to unload here. For that I am sorry to those who dislike it. I am just so tired of having to keep my mouth shut about this. I wasn't always like this. I used to think those that talked/felt like me were wrong. I always defended the Church. Not so much anymore. I am truly beginning to see what they have been saying all along. It is so frustrating because I know there is NOTHING I can do about it. I have to pray that God will straighten the mess out eventually (I just hope I live to see it).
In the mean time, I have finally found a priest in my diocese that actually celebrates a reverent Novus Ordo Mass and also offers the Latin Mass once a month. He is not afraid to say the tough, unpopular, non-wishy washy stuff in the pulpit or in the confessional. For that I thank God immensely.
We are training our pastor in that direction!
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.