Bishop: ‘I would hate if people voted No for bigoted, nasty, bullying reasons’

[ProdglArchitect]

The Book of Destiny by Fr. Herman Kramer was written in the late 1960s. It’s hard to find because it’s been out of print for over 20 years, but it might still be available on-line through used book sellers.

In this book about Revelation, Fr. Kramer predicted the priesthood would go through scandals due to its shortcomings. But the most interesting is his take on the Vision of the Woman in Chapter 12, which is widely interpreted as that of being Mary. “And a great sign was seen in heaven; a woman clothed in the sun, with the moon under her feet …” However, he says this is not Mary, but a symbol of the Church [it can’t be the BVM anyway because at least one event, the birth of her child [Jesus] has already happened. The stars in the sky are the bishops, and “third of the stars in the sky” swept down by the dragon’s tail is that third of the bishops of the Church who were unfaithful. Something for them to think about.

This interpretation ignores the fact that revelation recounts the whole of salvation history in its symbolism and vision, starting with the fall. As such, it’s perfectly reasonable to conclude that the Woman is Mary giving birth the Christ. I’m not discounting the rest of the interpretation, but you cannot claim that it couldn’t be Mary. Remember, time is inconsequential to God, what we see as the past, present and future is one constant “Now” for God, meaning that he can make any moment in history present to us whenever he wishes, in whatever way he wishes. This is especially true when you consider that this was a mystical vision with both spiritual and physical dimensions to it.

 

[zz912]

This interpretation ignores the fact that revelation recounts the whole of salvation history in its symbolism and vision, starting with the fall. As such, it’s perfectly reasonable to conclude that the Woman is Mary giving birth the Christ. I’m not discounting the rest of the interpretation, but you cannot claim that it couldn’t be Mary. Remember, time is inconsequential to God, what we see as the past, present and future is one constant “Now” for God, meaning that he can make any moment in history present to us whenever he wishes, in whatever way he wishes. This is especially true when you consider that this was a mystical vision with both spiritual and physical dimensions to it.

Yep. The woman of Revelation has four possible interpretations (Mary, the Church, the nation Israel, and Eve), each valid in certain ways. Mary is the most obvious and strongest one. All four fit in ways that can enlighten our understanding of the faith, but saying it can’t be Mary is flat wrong.

Using his line of thinking, it can’t be the Church, because the Church didn’t give birth to Jesus, but instead Jesus built the Church. But the truth is that all four understandings are correct to a degree. Mary is the strongest correlation.

 

[zz912]

Careful, you are attacking a Prince of the Church.

At least there’s no denial and putting blinders on in this thread, probably due to the extreme clarity of the Bishops’ words (although somewhat contradictory, but means nothing if he clearly gave the OK). No squirming out of this one.

I’m not attacking him at all. I’m responding to his public comments that are giving cover and excuse for Christians to vote in favor of an evil law. Using your standard, we couldn’t even express horror or disgust about some of the scandals over the past few decades.

 

[unstoppable_II]

This interpretation ignores the fact that revelation recounts the whole of salvation history in its symbolism and vision, starting with the fall. As such, it’s perfectly reasonable to conclude that the Woman is Mary giving birth the Christ. I’m not discounting the rest of the interpretation, but you cannot claim that it couldn’t be Mary. Remember, time is inconsequential to God, what we see as the past, present and future is one constant “Now” for God, meaning that he can make any moment in history present to us whenever he wishes, in whatever way he wishes. This is especially true when you consider that this was a mystical vision with both spiritual and physical dimensions to it.

What would be the purpose of “revelation” of something that happened in the past? It would already be known.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Its writings on the wall like this, that affirm my belief that the Church will change (of course not on “doctrine” ) later this year after the Synod. The mood of the Church has already changed and it wont stop there IMO.

What do you think will change?

 

[SonOfMan]

What do you think will change?

A lot of the things the German and Swiss Catholics are calling for. The Church wants to stay relevant, because relevance = influence. Theyre not about to give that up over these matters. As we see all the time, many Bishops are already in agreement on these kinds of issues, crowding out the ones who disagree. Stories of statements like these are all red flags that foreshadow what’s to come, sort of like conditioning or preparing us for a change.

 

[Tigg]

Im not gloating, I am actually more impressed in a sense. The quicker people start to admit to the problems, the quicker they can be solved. Part of the reason the Church is in such a mess is because people have always ran or looked the other way or pretended something was not happening.

Are you speaking of the “Church of Nice?” Yes, many attend that church and deny the crisis before their eyes. And the laity do have the right to confront errant churchmen, in charity. The catechism states in some circumstances we even have the obligation to do so.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

A lot of the things the German and Swiss Catholics are calling for. The Church wants to stay relevant, because relevance = influence. Theyre not about to give that up over these matters. As we see all the time, many Bishops are already in agreement on these kinds of issues, crowding out the ones who disagree. Stories of statements like these are all red flags that foreshadow what’s to come, sort of like conditioning or preparing us for a change.

The church does try to stay relevant, but not at the expense of its core beliefs. These are certainly red flags, but not for us. It’s their souls that are at risk, not ours. We certainly must work to support those Bishops who are adhering to Christ’s teaching, and admonish those who work against God, but the core teachings of the Church will not change. They haven’t changed any of the other hundreds of times this stuff has happened in the past, and they won’t now. We may see a group or two fall into schism, but all that means is that they’ve willing chosen to cut themselves from the branch of Peter; the core of which, while smaller, will remain vibrant and vigorous. We have a two-thousand year track record, assaulted yet unbroken. That’s a pretty solid foundation to be building on, and a much better indicator of the future than the immoral declarations of a handful of misguided bishops.

 

[pepipop]

It is true that we should do all things, including voting, out of love and not hate. However, I am disappointed that the Bishop would use that line without a strong argument in favor of voting No on the basis of love.

 

[SonOfMan]

The church does try to stay relevant, but not at the expense of its core beliefs. These are certainly red flags, but not for us. It’s their souls that are at risk, not ours.

I would see your point and agree with it if the Church was under Benedict XVI, for example. But the Church is under new leadership and things are done a little differently now. A leader who hears the obstacles of the people and wishes to remove them, so that they may enter the Church. Im not agreeing or disagreeing, just stating my observations.

 

[zz912]

What would be the purpose of “revelation” of something that happened in the past? It would already be known.

Well revealing to Christians that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant would be one thing we wouldn’t have known. Also there is multiple layers to it, as it can also foreshadow/prophesy the coming persecutions at the end of the world as well.

Plus, you’re assuming the book of Revelation was written after the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD, when it could have been written before.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I would see your point and agree with it if the Church was under Benedict XVI, for example. But the Church is under new leadership and things are done a little differently now. A leader who hears the obstacles of the people and wishes to remove them, so that they may enter the Church. Im not agreeing or disagreeing, just stating my observations.

How much of Pope Francis’s words have you actually read or listened to, not just heard repeated on the news or in a magazine article?

Pope Francis is a deeply orthodox Catholic, and has frequently promoted and upheld the teachings of the Church in regards to homosexuality, the indissolubility of marriage, and the nature of salvation. Heck, I don’t think there’s been a Pope in recent history, Emeritus Benedict XVI Included, who’s talked about the reality of Hell more than our current Holy Father. Have all of his decisions or wordings been perfect, no, but then he’s still only human.

The Church is under new manage, sure, sort of; but we’ve had the same head and council since we started, and that’s never going to change.

 

[SonOfMan]

How much of Pope Francis’s words have you actually read or listened to, not just heard repeated on the news or in a magazine article?

Pope Francis is a deeply orthodox Catholic, and has frequently promoted and upheld the teachings of the Church in regards to homosexuality, the indissolubility of marriage, and the nature of salvation.

Pope Francis did/does support civil unions for homosexuals. I am not sure how that affects the other topics that you just alluded to.

Heck, I don’t think there’s been a Pope in recent history, Emeritus Benedict XVI Included, who’s talked about the reality of Hell more than our current Holy Father. Have all of his decisions or wordings been perfect, no, but then he’s still only human.

I have a feeling the words on Hell and the devil are directed more toward the traditonalists and those who fear change and not so much the people on the outside. People have noticed a general pattern with Pope Francis; he reserves the harsher language and personality for the faithful while speaking to the outsiders or Catholics who have left in a softer, more compassionate tone.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Pope Francis did/does support civil unions for homosexuals. I am not sure how that affects the other topics that you just alluded to.

Cite your sources.

I have a feeling the words on Hell and the devil are directed more toward the traditonalists and those who fear change and not so much the people on the outside.

I’ll be honest, I don’t have the slightest idea how you arrived at this conclusion… could you cite some examples that support this?

People have noticed a general pattern with Pope Francis; he reserves the harsher language and personality for the faithful while speaking to the outsiders or Catholics who have left in a softer, more compassionate tone.

That’s because the people who are already Catholic have a higher degree of culpability for how they act and how they present themselves to the world. We are held to a higher standard. People who are not should be approached with a firm compassion, which Pope Francis does, as did Benedict, John Paul II, and many previous popes.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Pope Francis did/does support civil unions for homosexuals. I am not sure how that affects the other topics that you just alluded to.

I truncated your post. If you are regarding the claim he supported civil unions in Argentina, that has been disputed.

Claims that Pope supported gay civil unions disputed

CNA STAFF, Mar 22, 2013 / 09:21 am (CNA).- The director of the Catholic News Agency of Argentina (AICA) has told CNA that claims of Pope Francis supporting gay civil unions when he was Archbishop of Buenos Aires are not true.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/claims-that-pope-supported-gay-civil-unions-disputed/

 

[Catholic1954]

thejournal.ie/bishop-vote-no-bigoted-reasons-2112302-May2015/

While the headline is not the source of this scandal, I must find his comments are confusing.

First off, I would imagine those above him would disagree that one can vote in favor of same sex marriage in good conscience. Secondly, for him to say that same sex couples can raise a child in a loving environment and then say its a dangerous experiment seems to contradict itself.

This reminds me of the same kind of mixed message we got from some bishops in 2008 about voting for the VERY pro-abortion candidate, Barack Obama. We were told it was ok to vote for him and overlook his pro-choice views, because of his wonderful economic plan that would take care of the poor. When the bishops ignore preaching Gospel, in favor of preaching social justice, there will be trouble and more trouble.

 

[SonOfMan]

That’s because the people who are already Catholic have a higher degree of culpability for how they act and how they present themselves to the world. We are held to a higher standard. People who are not should be approached with a firm compassion, which Pope Francis does, as did Benedict, John Paul II, and many previous popes.

Pope Francis has referred to traditionalists and those committed to upholding the teachings without considering any change as “fanatics” and “Pharasaical.” This and the “God Of Surprises” article illustrate the point that it is more than just a “Those who have been given more, more will be expected” situation.

 

[Havard]

Both conservative Catholic and progressive commentators have debunked the Pope Francis supports gay civil unions line:

slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/03/05/does_pope_francis_support_gay_civil_unions_no_no_no.html

catholicvote.org/pope-francis-supports-civil-unions/

Also, from the English language assistant to Holy See Press Office: "By responding in this way, Pope Francis spoke in very general terms, and did not specifically refer to same-sex marriage as a civil union. Pope Francis simply stated the issues and did not interfere with positions held by Episcopal Conferences in various countries dealing with the question of civil unions and same sex marriage.

We should not try to read more into the Pope’s words that what has been stated in very general terms."

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Pope Francis has referred to traditionalists and those committed to upholding the teachings without considering any change as “fanatics” and “Pharasaical.” This and the “God Of Surprises” article illustrate the point that it is more than just a “Those who have been given more, more will be expected” situation.

There are a number of traditionalists in the Church who actively denounce any sort of change, like the Nuvo Ordo (sp?) liturgy style as opposed to the traditional Latin mass; or those who believe that it’s only possible for Catholics to be saved (which has never been taught, not even in the encyclical which everyone always cherry-picks from to support that claim) Pope Francis has rightly spoken out against such traditionalism.

That has nothing to do with changing Church Dogma. As for the “god of Surprises” article, I assume you’re referring to the one written by Catholic News Agency.

That article, in no way supports what you’re claiming. Yeah, he says God is a God of Surprises, but none of God’s “surprises” ever revoke his prior declarations on morality or truth. That would be self-contradictory, which would make God irrational.

Also, if I’m not mistaken, CNA is a heterodox publication with a severely-liberal bend that frequently promotes things in direct opposition the Christ’s words and Church.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

The Bishop said that “two gay men or two gay women are capable and very able to raise a child in a loving environment”, but said legalising same-sex marriage could be a “dangerous experiment”, citing concerns for the impacts on children in future.

If this is true, what is the danger exactly?

It’s tempting to think that a Protestant is very capable of serving as a Catholic Bishop but that it would be a “dangerous experiment”?