Posted on 10/20/2014 11:55:45 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Like antifreeze that drips from a car and poisons cats, the statements exuded by the Vatican Synod on the Family are sweet. It is tempting to lap them up, to welcome the Church’s new proposed stance of apologizing to sinners and obscuring the nature of sin.
There is no other way to describe the moral revolution proposed in the Synod’s preliminary report, which was produced by the bishops whom Pope Francis handpicked to manage the meeting. Rather than speaking prophetically in defense of the uniqueness and holiness of marriage, the task of Christians today includes “recognizing positive elements” in “imperfect” unions such as cohabitating couples, divorced couples living in what Jesus called “adultery,” and even homosexual relationships.
As for those, the Church must find a way of “accepting and valuing their sexual orientation,” a condition which the Catholic Catechism still (for the moment) calls “an objective disorder” for very important reasons: It “orders” people to activities which the Church has always reasoned are unnatural and sinful. By the laws of logic, the Church cannot welcome and value such an “orientation” without accepting what it orients people to crave: erotic relationships that are incompatible with marriage.
How we wish that the universe worked Synod-style, that its Creator answered our whims like an obsequious restaurant waiter angling for tips. Wouldn’t it be pleasant if God looked on our sins and saw only the gifts which He gave us, instead of the miserable ways that we use them? Like a child who stuffs his brand new Lego blocks down the throat of the family dog, we’re surprised by praise for our endeavor’s “positive elements.” Were God like the leading Synod fathers — that is, a senile grandfather in heaven....
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Another faithless catholic writing a hit piece of the demise of Christ’s Church that worse popes and communist dictators couldn’t but dent....and he will only foment fear but not much dent her either. Waste of electrons.
The rot set in a long time ago, but the appearance of sanctity persisted. Now the illusion is disappearing, and a relatively good man (Ratzinger) is forced to watch while a duplicitous one (Francis) leads the operation of final destruction of the institution. Elements of holiness can continue, of course, wherever good people are gathered together, but as a general proposition, this Pontiff will be the death of the Roman church. Those good elements may have to reconstitute under a new charter. And yes, it’s the globalist rainbow agenda that is the source of this final act of desolation. The fact that it is being done subtly and indirectly just makes it harder to spot and harder to overcome.
Or you could refute what he wrote.
if all behaviors are acceptable and must be tolerated...
then why do we have to repent for our sins?
couldn’t we just be more ‘enlightened’ and accept the sins as the ‘new normal’?
Most interesting, since this Pope is prophesied to be the last Pope.
A lot of folks assert that the rot was there from the start.
Good to see you still around logos!
Since everything I have heard is mostly hear say the only thing I can get from it is that many Catholic leaders believe the Church is infallible and many believe it is not.
The ones who believe it is fallible are trying to change it and the ones who believe it is infallible do not want it changed.
Since the Church is made up of people the only thing that could be infallible is the building because it has nothing to say about anything.
If the Church ( the members ) can not agree, it is fallible just like any other Church
What a horrible misreading the synod on the family and the Pope.
Being “faithful” does not mean believing that we have nothing to worry about because the Holy Spirit will take care of everything, tra-la-la-la-la.
BTW: Those dictators who “didn’t make a dent” in the Church killed around 100 million Christians in the 20th Century alone.
Bergoglio is the worst Pope in centuries, and possibly the stupidest Pope in many more centuries. He is theologically illiterate and incompetent. His own archdiocese of Buenos Aires was and is a shambles.
This is a lot of virtual ink spilled over a preliminary report from a preliminary synod, which report was angrily rejected by the bishops whose opinions it purported to represent.
1) Those passages are out of context; there was also a plain denunciation of the evil of homosexual behavior.
2) The synod firmly rejected those passages, with speakers opposing them 40-1, precisely because they were confusing.
3) Even the updated replacements for those passages were defeated.
4) Synods can be heretical; only ecumenical synods are infallible (and even then, the pope must assert that nature.)
The Church has a deposit of doctrine - the Pope is not not infallible when his statements agree with this. I hate to say it, but Francis is a leftist flake, possibly even aiming at destroying the Church, and there probably will be a schism. However, his group will be the schismatic one - even if it gets to keep and sell off a lot of he infrastructure.
The gun, here, is jumped by the author, but it is an interesting hypothetical to address. What if Franky goes off the reservation next year?
What then?
sitetest
“If The Pope Endorses Polygamy, That Spells The End of Catholic Claims”
Actually, no. The pope, at least Pope Alexander III (if I recall correctly), allowed polygamy for one generation - the first generation among pagan converts in the mid-12th century Baltic. That was the only way to keep society from ripping itself apart there.
“A lot of folks assert that the rot was there from the start.”
There was no rot in Christ. He was the start.
What do you fall back on when Tradition has been tainted by bad popes?
http://thatthebonesyouhavecrushedmaythrill.blogspot.com/
A Daily Telegraph article - and there will be many like this - attempts to pit Pope Francis against the Catholic Church. In these analyses, Francis is the great ‘enlightened one’, the great ‘moderniser’ (think Tony Blair, the Labour Party and Clause 4 or David Cameron, the Tories and ‘gay marriage’) and the Church is out-dated, unfair, unenlightened, even evil. Even Catholics - perhaps even Cardinals and Popes - continue to believe the Church is a political entity or Party.
It is not. Let’s be clear about this. If Pope Francis desires to tamper with, dilute, modify, edit or remove the doctrine of the Church for the sake of ‘pastoral necessity’, or even wishes to ignore the Church’s teachings then the situation is not merely one of Francis Vs Church. The Church and Christ are one. If Francis is attempting to do any of the above then he isn’t ‘taking on’ merely the Church as an institution, but is seeking confrontation with - rather than the imitation of - Christ Himself. The Pope is called to stand ‘in the place of’ Christ on Earth, not to ‘stand in his way’.
If Francis wishes to take an axe to the Catechism of the Church - if Francis wants a battle with the Deposit of Faith he is charged with the duty to defend, he isn’t seeking a confrontation with his brother Cardinals and Bishops, priests or the laity. He is seeking a confrontation with He Whose Vicar we are led to believe he is.
If Pope Francis really believes he is more ‘merciful’ than Jesus Christ, more ‘pastoral’ than Jesus Christ, more ‘humble and compassionate’ than Jesus Christ to the point that the teachings of Christ, even those teachings recorded in Holy Scripture concerning adultery, are no longer ‘relevant’ or can be dismissed as ‘obsolete’, then he is seeking emnity with Our Lord Jesus Christ - God Himself.
Of course, we’re not certain that this is the case because as Cardinal Burke noted, a statement defending the timeless - yes, timeless (read: true in any age, including this one and all to come) - teachings of the Church is “long overdue”. The suspicion has been aroused however, that Pope Francis is permitting everything to be discussed in the manner that it has because nothing (heresy, blasphemy, error) can offend him, even if Our Lord is offended. Suspicion has been aroused that the Synod didn’t go according to plan because the resulting votes were not liberal enough!
The suspicion has been aroused that it was not Peter’s faith which was firm and rock-like, but that of the Bishops and Cardinals who said no to the (renaissance?) Prince of Princes orchestrating things behind the scenes to go the way of Cardinal Kasper - the way of those who think that Christ’s teachings are no longer important for the Church.
So let’s just be clear on this: He who is against the teachings of the Church has, for 2,000 years, been against Christ and His Church - against the Church and its Lord and God - that is anti-Christ. That has been true for lay persons, priests, nuns, monks, friars, canons, bishops, cardinals and popes. Why this perception should change that you can be anti-Church and pro-Christ in 2014 is mysterious indeed.
You cannot be anti-Church teachings and pro-Christ. You can only be anti-Church teachings and anti-Christ. You can say that the Church is full of wicked sinners. You can say bishops and Cardinals are corrupt and depraved. You can say priests are often terrible priests. You can say that the laity are lukewarm and adulterous. You can say the whole of the Church is seemingly black, but you cannot say She is not beautiful. She is beautiful because she is the Bride of Christ and in Her teachings she can never err, not yesterday, not nearly 2,000 years ago, not nearly 1,000 years ago, not today, not now, not ever. She was always intended to stand in contradiction to, not in agreement with, the World.
The Church is sanctified by Christ, nourished by Christ. It is Christ’s Church. It is not the possession of the Pope. If in the Church at the present time there were only a thousand Saints and the rest of the Church were dreadful sinners the Church would still be Holy. If in the Church there one Saint and the rest of the Church were dreadful sinners the Church would still be Holy. If there were no Saints in the Church today on Earth the Church would still be Holy and inerrant in Her teaching because the Holy Spirit has been given to the Church to vouchsafe Her and stamp the words ‘100% TRUE’ on all Her Teachings, even those which did not come from the mouth of the Son of God while He walked the Earth.
“If a layman cannot sign, ‘I agree’ at the end of the Catechism of the Catholic Church he places himself at emnity, not in friendship, with Jesus Christ. If a bishop or even the Bishop of Rome cannot do the same, according to the Faith of the Church, he too, like the layman, ceases to be a Catholic. Yes, in this sense, in the Catholic Church, we have always had equality. If a Pope contradicts the Teachings of the Church, or places himself at emnity with the words of Jesus Christ, he can be as heretical as a lay man who does the same and the fact that he is a Pope and is placed in great authority over the Church makes no difference to this truth. Not. One. Bit.
So if ever a Pope arrives who teaches in such manner that he thinks he knows better than Jesus Christ what to teach the children of God, then remember that if in conscience you wouldn’t accept these same words from me, or Austen Ivereigh, because we are lay men, that you don’t have to accept them from the Pope either because nobody - not even the Pope - knows better than Almighty God Who has vouchsafed to grant to the Catholic Church the fullness of Truth. Each Pope is servant of the Truth, not master of it. That was true of Blessed Paul VI, Saint John Paul II and Benedict XVI. We hope and pray that Francis will adopt their humble attitude towards Jesus Christ and the Church from which He can never be separated, since the Bride and the Bridegroom can never be divorced, for what God has joined together, let no man put asunder!”
In the end, the Beast ends up rending and devouring this “woman” riding its back.
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.