|
Post by homeschooldad on Oct 8, 2023 0:43:22 GMT
This just in from the National Catholic Register: www.ncregister.com/commentaries/pope-gives-yes-and-no-answer-to-same-sex-blessingsIf the couple asked for a blessing to strengthen them to live together in chastity, and they assented to Church teaching on the immorality of homosexual acts, that would be a different matter. Perhaps it might be possible, but care would have to be taken to clarify what was being sought. Offering encouragement is an essential part of pastoral care, and the line between encouragement and enabling needs to be maintained. The CDF said exactly that, as did Pope Francis now.If this is all that is at question here, I won't say there's "nothing to see here", but I could concede that there's " not much to see here". But on the other hand, in all brutal honesty, how many same-sex couples would there be, who would be seeking a blessing to live in absolute chastity, IOW, a sexless marriage? I guess it could happen --- as in the "Boston marriage" scenario I described above (and let's be real, there had to be sexually active lesbian couples among such women) --- but it would really be kind of a unicorn. As in all things, apply traditional Catholic moral principles and theology, and proceed from there.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Oct 8, 2023 17:42:56 GMT
But this writer thinks there most certainly is "something to see here": onepeterfive.com/popesplaining-paving-the-way-for-the-antichrist/Just as a kind of side thought, has the Church considered how more conservative Protestant denominations and groups will see this? I would say that most Baptist, Pentecostal, and Holiness groups will have some issues, as well as more traditional branches of "continuing" Anglicanism, Lutherans (Missouri Synod, WELS), the new "Global Methodist" entity, and Christian-derived sects such as the Jehovah's Witnesses and Latter-day Saints. Does their opinion matter?
|
|
|
Post by Dominic on Oct 8, 2023 18:32:24 GMT
But this writer thinks there most certainly is "something to see here": onepeterfive.com/popesplaining-paving-the-way-for-the-antichrist/Just as a kind of side thought, has the Church considered how more conservative Protestant denominations and groups will see this? I would say that most Baptist, Pentecostal, and Holiness groups will have some issues, as well as more traditional branches of "continuing" Anglicanism, Lutherans (Missouri Synod, WELS), the new "Global Methodist" entity, and Christian-derived sects such as the Jehovah's Witnesses and Latter-day Saints. Does their opinion matter? Why do you think it should? That's a real odd question coming from a Traditionalist. Most of those groups are rabidly anti-Catholic, often foaming at the mouth, or at best don't give a hoot about what the Catholic Church does. Why would you think they should have a say?
|
|
|
Post by iagosan on Oct 8, 2023 19:26:48 GMT
But this writer thinks there most certainly is "something to see here": onepeterfive.com/popesplaining-paving-the-way-for-the-antichrist/Just as a kind of side thought, has the Church considered how more conservative Protestant denominations and groups will see this? I would say that most Baptist, Pentecostal, and Holiness groups will have some issues, as well as more traditional branches of "continuing" Anglicanism, Lutherans (Missouri Synod, WELS), the new "Global Methodist" entity, and Christian-derived sects such as the Jehovah's Witnesses and Latter-day Saints. Does their opinion matter? Why do you think it should? That's a real odd question coming from a Traditionalist. Most of those groups are rabidly anti-Catholic, often foaming at the mouth, or at best don't give a hoot about what the Catholic Church does. Why would you think they should have a say? Well, if Atheists, Protestants, and members of other religions have been allowed a say at a Catholic synod, maybe they should have a say?
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Oct 8, 2023 19:28:22 GMT
But this writer thinks there most certainly is "something to see here": onepeterfive.com/popesplaining-paving-the-way-for-the-antichrist/Just as a kind of side thought, has the Church considered how more conservative Protestant denominations and groups will see this? I would say that most Baptist, Pentecostal, and Holiness groups will have some issues, as well as more traditional branches of "continuing" Anglicanism, Lutherans (Missouri Synod, WELS), the new "Global Methodist" entity, and Christian-derived sects such as the Jehovah's Witnesses and Latter-day Saints. Does their opinion matter? Why do you think it should? That's a real odd question coming from a Traditionalist. Most of those groups are rabidly anti-Catholic, often foaming at the mouth, or at best don't give a hoot about what the Catholic Church does. Why would you think they should have a say? It's not odd at all. Basic Christian morality differs very little between traditional Catholics and more fundamentalist, Bible-believing Christians (and Christian-adjacent sects such as the JWs and LDS). There will be the occasional curve ball, as with JWs and blood transfusions, and some fundamentalists with their absolutist approach to drinking alcohol, but aside from that, it's pretty uniform. The major differences include contraception (which all Christians opposed prior to Lambeth, and you will still find the occasional, albeit, rare non-Catholic Christians who oppose it) and divorce- cum-remarriage (and even then, they generally admit that the prior marriage has to have ceased to exist or bind in some way, they just differ from us in if, how, and when that happens). Their approach to morality is very simple --- "what does the Bible say?". Hard to argue with that. They already paint us as mindless foot-soldiers of the Pope, just believing what we are told with no critical thinking whatsoever, and something like this gives them just that much more grist for their mills. There is nothing quite as pathetic as a well-versed fundamentalist challenging a Catholic on this point or that, and being told "I don't know, I'll have to go ask my priest", or "I don't know, but that is what I was always taught, and I believe in the Church". You have to have a better reason for believing and accepting things than that.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Oct 8, 2023 19:33:35 GMT
Why do you think it should? That's a real odd question coming from a Traditionalist. Most of those groups are rabidly anti-Catholic, often foaming at the mouth, or at best don't give a hoot about what the Catholic Church does. Why would you think they should have a say? Well, if Atheists, Protestants, and members of other religions have been allowed a say at a Catholic synod, maybe they should have a say?Mega-dittos there. Do these synods really want to hear all points of view, or only those that suit an agenda? As I said in another thread some time back, if you're going to let everyone have their say, let everyone have their say. I'd be all in favor of letting someone such as Bishop Richard Williamson, or even that guy out in New Mexico who claims that the Church has been in apostasy for a thousand years, have the mike, in John Galt-like fashion, tell the world what they have to say, and seek to persuade us all. Ditto for atheists such as Penn Jillette. Make your case. We're all ears. Or are we?
|
|
|
Post by Dominic on Oct 8, 2023 20:03:13 GMT
Well, if Atheists, Protestants, and members of other religions have been allowed a say at a Catholic synod, maybe they should have a say? Mega-dittos there. Do these synods really want to hear all points of view, or only those that suit an agenda? As I said in another thread some time back, if you're going to let everyone have their say, let everyone have their say. I'd be all in favor of letting someone such as Bishop Richard Williamson, or even that guy out in New Mexico who claims that the Church has been in apostasy for a thousand years, have the mike, in John Galt-like fashion, tell the world what they have to say, and seek to persuade us all. Ditto for atheists such as Penn Jillette. Make your case. We're all ears. Or are we? You seriously want a schismatic holocaust denier who went on television the day after his excommunication was lifted and convinced the whole world that Pope Benedict was an unspeakably incompetent idiot and that Traditionalists were a bunch of closet Nazis to have the mike again? Cardinal Mueller (who is participating in the synod) would have a fit and storm out. Turds like that are free to state their loathsome opinions, but we have no obligation to provide them with a platform, or our ears.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Oct 9, 2023 0:16:57 GMT
Mega-dittos there. Do these synods really want to hear all points of view, or only those that suit an agenda? As I said in another thread some time back, if you're going to let everyone have their say, let everyone have their say. I'd be all in favor of letting someone such as Bishop Richard Williamson, or even that guy out in New Mexico who claims that the Church has been in apostasy for a thousand years, have the mike, in John Galt-like fashion, tell the world what they have to say, and seek to persuade us all. Ditto for atheists such as Penn Jillette. Make your case. We're all ears. Or are we? You seriously want a schismatic holocaust denier who went on television the day after his excommunication was lifted and convinced the whole world that Pope Benedict was an unspeakably incompetent idiot and that Traditionalists were a bunch of closet Nazis to have the mike again? Cardinal Mueller (who is participating in the synod) would have a fit and storm out. Turds like that are free to state their loathsome opinions, but we have no obligation to provide them with a platform, or our ears. I didn't know he said anything to convince people of the things you describe, and if he did, he didn't do a very good job, because I don't think many people think those things. I do realize that he questions the Holocaust. He flies in the face of massive evidence to the contrary, and he could be easily rebutted. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Okay, question then, what exactly makes someone's opinions not "synod-worthy"? And who decides that?
|
|
|
Post by Dominic on Oct 9, 2023 1:16:03 GMT
I didn't know he said anything to convince people of the things you describe, and if he did, he didn't do a very good job, because I don't think many people think those things. Okay, question then, what exactly makes someone's opinions not "synod-worthy"? And who decides that? He did. It was a major international scandal and it severely damaged Pope Benedict's reputation, especially in Europe. It was Pope Benedict's worst moment by far. Even Cardinal Mueller publicly chastised Pope Benedict because he had strongly warned him not to lift the excommunications because the SSPX was a hotbed of anti-semitic nazi worship. As a German, he knew that cuddling up to the SSPX would backfire badly, and when it blew up in fellow German Pope Benedict's face, he said "Told you so!". And yes, even the SSPX was so ticked off they kicked Williamson out on his tail because he destroyed any chance of reconciliation. He was to toxic even for them. As for who decides who's invited and who gets a say, that's easy. The Pope. His house, his party, his rules. He can invite whoever he wants, and can exclude anyone he wants. Pope Benedict did exactly the same, as did Pope John Paul II, and every single pope before them down for more than 1600 years. The only exceptions were the First Council of Nicea, where the Emperor Constantine was the one who did the inviting, and the Council of Constance, where it was Sigismund of Luxembourg, King of Hungary and King of Germany, who did the honors, because the point of the council was to decide who of the three claimants was the real pope. And even that's not technically true because he actually hoodwinked one of the claimants, John XXIII to sign off on it. (Yes, that's right. There were two Pope John XXIIIs. The first one was eventually declared an antipope, so the number was recycled). I can't think of any other councils or non-local synods that were not summoned by a pope. Even the Council of Basel was called by a Pope, though it took on a life of its own afterward. Whoever did you think would do the inviting? I'm baffled that you're even asking. The organizational chart of the RCC may be labyrinthine and confusing, but one thing is patently obvious: the guy at the top is the Pope, and he answers to no one but God.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Oct 9, 2023 1:20:25 GMT
I didn't know he said anything to convince people of the things you describe, and if he did, he didn't do a very good job, because I don't think many people think those things. Okay, question then, what exactly makes someone's opinions not "synod-worthy"? And who decides that? He did. It was a major international scandal and it severely damaged Pope Benedict's reputation, especially in Europe. It was Pope Benedict's worst moment by far. Even Cardinal Mueller publicly chastised Pope Benedict because he had strongly warned him not to lift the excommunications because the SSPX was a hotbed of anti-semitic nazi worship. As a German, he knew that cuddling up to the SSPX would backfire badly, and when it blew up in fellow German Pope Benedict's face, he said "Told you so!". And yes, even the SSPX was so ticked off they kicked Williamson out on his tail because he destroyed any chance of reconciliation. He was to toxic even for them. As for who decides who's invited and who gets a say, that's easy. The Pope. His house, his party, his rules. He can invite whoever he wants, and can exclude anyone he wants. Pope Benedict did exactly the same, as did Pope John Paul II, and every single pope before them down for more than 1600 years. The only exceptions were the First Council of Nicea, where the Emperor Constantine was the one who did the inviting, and the Council of Constance, where it was Sigismund of Luxembourg, King of Hungary and King of Germany, who did the honors, because the point of the council was to decide who of the three claimants was the real pope. And even that's not technically true because he actually hoodwinked one of the claimants, John XXIII to sign off on it. (Yes, that's right. There were two Pope John XXIIIs. The first one was eventually declared an antipope, so the number was recycled). I can't think of any other councils or non-local synods that were not summoned by a pope. Even the Council of Basel was called by a Pope, though it took on a life of its own afterward. Whoever did you think would do the inviting? I'm baffled that you're even asking. The organizational chart of the RCC may be labyrinthine and confusing, but one thing is patently obvious: the guy at the top is the Pope, and he answers to no one but God. So is the Pope open to inviting anyone whose agenda doesn't coincide with his?
|
|
|
Post by farronwolf on Oct 9, 2023 1:26:30 GMT
But this writer thinks there most certainly is "something to see here": onepeterfive.com/popesplaining-paving-the-way-for-the-antichrist/Just as a kind of side thought, has the Church considered how more conservative Protestant denominations and groups will see this? I would say that most Baptist, Pentecostal, and Holiness groups will have some issues, as well as more traditional branches of "continuing" Anglicanism, Lutherans (Missouri Synod, WELS), the new "Global Methodist" entity, and Christian-derived sects such as the Jehovah's Witnesses and Latter-day Saints. Does their opinion matter? No their opinion doesn't matter. Since most of the groups you mention above have no real issue with divorce and remarriage, and don't treat marriage as a sacrament binding two for life in the first place, they really don't have a leg to stand on. It is convenient for them to allow this for marriage between men and women, and remarriage. Now I am not suggesting that they believe gay marriage is acceptable right now, but only time will tell. So until they get some bones about themselves on the heterosexual side of marriage, I and we should really care less about what they think about much else regarding marriage. Just my thought.
|
|
|
Post by Dominic on Oct 9, 2023 1:33:18 GMT
So is the Pope open to inviting anyone whose agenda doesn't coincide with his? He did. He invited Cardinal Mueller and some of the American bishops who disagree with him, and I'm sure plenty of others, on all sides. You can't say that Mueller and the Pope have "the same agenda". Pope Francis is a lot more open to conflicting opinions than Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict ever were. Jesuits tend to be disappointed when you agree with them.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Oct 9, 2023 1:37:06 GMT
But this writer thinks there most certainly is "something to see here": onepeterfive.com/popesplaining-paving-the-way-for-the-antichrist/Just as a kind of side thought, has the Church considered how more conservative Protestant denominations and groups will see this? I would say that most Baptist, Pentecostal, and Holiness groups will have some issues, as well as more traditional branches of "continuing" Anglicanism, Lutherans (Missouri Synod, WELS), the new "Global Methodist" entity, and Christian-derived sects such as the Jehovah's Witnesses and Latter-day Saints. Does their opinion matter? No their opinion doesn't matter. Since most of the groups you mention above have no real issue with divorce and remarriage, and don't treat marriage as a sacrament binding two for life in the first place, they really don't have a leg to stand on. It is convenient for them to allow this for marriage between men and women, and remarriage. Now I am not suggesting that they believe gay marriage is acceptable right now, but only time will tell. So until they get some bones about themselves on the heterosexual side of marriage, I and we should really care less about what they think about much else regarding marriage. Just my thought. Not all bodies who profess Christ see sacraments in the same way. Not saying they're right, just stating the fact. And as to divorce and remarriage, some of them proceed from the idea that marriages can cease to be. We ourselves touch on this with the concepts of the Petrine and Pauline Privileges, as well as marriages that are ratum sed non consummatum. And as to annulments, nobody likes those except Catholics. They think it's one big joke. (This said, I think some continuing Anglicans, at least, have some kind of annulment procedure similar to ours. I don't have any more details than that.) Even the Orthodox have a somewhat different idea of sacraments and their validity, e.g., that sacraments may not be validly conferred by a priest who is not under the omophor of his bishop. Again, not saying they're right, just stating the fact. I don't think this makes their opinions on same-sex marriage (i.e., being against it) worthless.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Oct 9, 2023 1:38:17 GMT
So is the Pope open to inviting anyone whose agenda doesn't coincide with his? He did. He invited Cardinal Mueller and some of the American bishops who disagree with him, and I'm sure plenty of others, on all sides. You can't say that Mueller and the Pope have "the same agenda". That's good. But is he willing to take their opinions to heart, and discern that maybe, just maybe, they might be right and he might be wrong on this point or that?
|
|
|
Post by Dominic on Oct 9, 2023 1:42:28 GMT
But is he willing to take their opinions to heart, and discern that maybe, just maybe, they might be right and he might be wrong on this point or that? He's a Jesuit. That's exactly what they do. All. The. Time. Actually, I find this question odd coming from a Traditionalist. The Traditionalists are furious precisely because this Pope is willing to take to heart the opinions of LGBT people, women and divorced people, among others, and discern that maybe, just maybe, they might be right and he might be wrong on this point or that. And it seems that he is coming to the conclusion that homophobia and misogyny might have worked in the past, but it ain't gonna never no more. Like anti-semitism, slavery, and covering up for sex abusers. It might be time to flush twice, shut the lid, and put a cinder block on top so it never crawls out again. I also think he realizes that whatever he does, it will be too little, too late. A lot of lives have been ruined, and the Church has been damaged perhaps beyond repair, at least in a good part of the world. We might have dodged the bullet on the anti-semitism, but not this one. So I ask you: are Traditionalsts or the Dubia cardinals willing to take the opinions of LGBT people, women and the divorced to heart, and discern that maybe, just maybe, they might be right and the Traditionalists and Dubia cardinals might be wrong on this point or that? Or that Pope Francis might be right, and they might be wrong? I'm not seeing that. It's a two-way street, or a no-way street. The latter leads to schism.
|
|