Bishop troubles and heresy?

[Deacon2006]

Never forget the power of CC to Rome at the bottom of every letter you send. The Cardinals in the congregtions need documentation if they are to properly instruct the bishops when they go for their papal visits. Most of the bishops men in gay friendly dioceses are gay friendly and you may find yourself in the run around without the power of the CC. The best way to use it is to not even make mention of it, just politley and repeatedly request redress of the abuse and each reply and subsequent letter is quietly CC’d to Rome.

God Bless

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

ByzCatholic,
Sorry, but you are being (intentionally?) obtuse. There is no need to even look for ways to read into this. The “rainbow” has always been a symbol of the homosexual movement. A Catholic Church ministry should not be adopting symbols that have historically been used by homosexuals to advance and normalize their lifestyle. If you don’t see how obvious this is, I suggest another look at the Cathechism and some of the Bishops Documents. In fact, even using the term “gay” in refernce to a Catholic ministry is not recommended.

I am sorry but the rainbow has not always been such. So we should just let a group co-opt something and allow them to tell us what it means? Maybe it can be used to bring in certain people to teach then the Truth.

As for the Catechism and the Beihsops Documents, I see nothing about the rainbow.

Yes, I can see a problem with using the word “gay” in reference to a Catholic ministry too but how do you describe a group whose ministry is to reach out to people who suffer from SSA? Courage, a group I am sure you do not find objectionable in any way, uses the word “homosexual” is that a better word to use?

And once again, all we have is the word of one individual who is posting here. It seems that many wish to jump to any conclusion that paints the Church/bishop in a bad light with no evidence/proof of any manner. I just happen not to be one of those people.

 

[H_Opey]

I think the original poster has valid reason for concerns.
And you are right, that WE on this FORUM may not have proven our concerns regarding the rainbow fish, but that does not mean we are invalid in our judgement. We are to pray for our Bishops and Priests. We are to correct with charity.

It is very fishy to say the least.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Originally Posted by ByzCath
I am sorry but the rainbow has not always been such. So we should just let a group co-opt something and allow them to tell us what it means? Maybe it can be used to bring in certain people to teach then the Truth.

As for the Catechism and the Beihsops Documents, I see nothing about the rainbow.

Yes, I can see a problem with using the word “gay” in reference to a Catholic ministry too but how do you describe a group whose ministry is to reach out to people who suffer from SSA? Courage, a group I am sure you do not find objectionable in any way, uses the word “homosexual” is that a better word to use?

And once again, all we have is the word of one individual who is posting here. It seems that many wish to jump to any conclusion that paints the Church/bishop in a bad light with no evidence/proof of any manner. I just happen not to be one of those people.

ByzCath,

Please take a look at the web side suggested by Monicathree. For your convenience I’ve loaded the link below:

gaycatholicforum.org/html/resources.html

Please click on the Church Renewal tab. It provides a list of organizations that are working hard to bring about what they describe as “progressive change” within the Church. Amongst the progressive changes these group seek are:

Call to Action (CTA) - They want the Church to change their teachings on female priests, birth control, homosexuality etc. to comport with current secular social views. Oh by the way, the CTA was excommunicated by their Bishop and the excommunication was confirmed by Rome yet they refuse accept the Church’s authority and continue to receive the sacraments.

Catholics Speak Out (CSO) - Another group that wants to force the Church to change its teachings much like CTA above.

Dignity/USA - This group says,

As GLBT Catholics, it is our right, our privilege, and our duty to live the sacramental life of the Church. We believe that we can express our sexuality in a loving, life-affirming manner that is in keeping with Christ’s teaching.

All in all there are 16 different groups listed. All of these groups are activist Catholics promoting change to Church teachings in direct opposition to Rome.

I think it is positively scandalous that any parish priest, bishop or cardinal would allow a group with these affiliations to promote themselves in the way described by Monicathree.

Instead of defending this ministry I suggest that the local parish priest and bishop open this ministry and other liberal liturgical practices [liturgical dance, no purgatory, no tabernacle, etc] to scrutiny to assure they are in communion with the Church.

Also, it is undeniable that the rainbow cross, fish, etc. are symbols of practicing homosexual groups.

The road to Hell is paved with the skulls of bishops and priests.
–St. John Chrysosom

We need to pray for our clergy who are under attack today as never before. But, Monicathree deserves our support and I urge her to continue to press her concerns.

Iowa Mike

 

[blessedtoo]

I am sorry but the rainbow has not always been such. So we should just let a group co-opt something and allow them to tell us what it means? Maybe it can be used to bring in certain people to teach then the Truth.

As for the Catechism and the Beihsops Documents, I see nothing about the rainbow.

I see. It is intentional.
Using symbols associated with homosexual activism is CONFUSING, to say the least, and MISLEADING. Isn’t there enough of both these things in the Church already? Words and symbols are extremely important (look at the havoc wrought by “inclusive” language) and there is no valid reason why a Catholic Church should perpetuate this ambiguity. In the case of this website, there is no denying the purpose of this ministry. It’s written right there on the page.

Courage, a group I am sure you do not find objectionable in any way, uses the word “homosexual” is that a better word to use?

No objection at all. As a member myself, I understand the importance of using this word instead of the more commonly accepted and nuetralized “gay”. The latter, co-opted by the homosexual community and associated with acceptance of the lifestyle, has been discouraged for use by Catholic ministries and Catholics in general.

And once again, all we have is the word of one individual who is posting here. It seems that many wish to jump to any conclusion that paints the Church/bishop in a bad light with no evidence/proof of any manner. I just happen not to be one of those people.

Sorry, again. The poster now has a band of folks who either have first hand experience of the same situation or are familiar with it’s intended meaning. If you did a poll of Catholics who have seen this activity in their Parishes, I am sure you would find it is just the beginning of all types of dissent and abuse (you did see the link about Women’s Ordination?). No coincidences here.

 

[down_under]

As Iowa Mike said, the questions on liturgical dance, no tabernacle, no Purgatory are all vaild questions but I am sorry I do not see any link between using the colors of the rainbow and a connection with the rainbow sash movement.

I believe that you have read into the post.

I’m sorry but one look at the web site and I can say for sure that you are just missing the boat a little on this one. Have a look. Other people have posted some of the more disturbing bits. this group is assosiated with the gay movement in an attempt to change church teaching. The rainbow is intentionally used as a symbol of gay pride in this case. just like many others in the gay pride movement who use it. This is fairly serious, and needs to be looked at by someone in athority. not that it will accomplish anything. much of the time the bishop backs his priest even in error. I know I have tried to correct these kinds of things before. I still remember trying to prove that liturgical abuse was a reality to my bishop. then haveing then evidence being told that I was wrong for taking the pictures in the first place. all I can say is good luck.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

I’m sorry but one look at the web site and I can say for sure that you are just missing the boat a little on this one. Have a look. Other people have posted some of the more disturbing bits. this group is assosiated with the gay movement in an attempt to change church teaching. The rainbow is intentionally used as a symbol of gay pride in this case. just like many others in the gay pride movement who use it. This is fairly serious, and needs to be looked at by someone in athority. not that it will accomplish anything. much of the time the bishop backs his priest even in error. I know I have tried to correct these kinds of things before. I still remember trying to prove that liturgical abuse was a reality to my bishop. then haveing then evidence being told that I was wrong for taking the pictures in the first place. all I can say is good luck.

down under,

Hey…we are called to fight the good fight. When we come across stuff that conflicts with Catholic doctrine and tradition I think we are obligated to take action. I think I can promise that you will get a lot of push back but when God’s on your side…who can be against you?

Iowa Mike

 

[Monicathree]

Thanks you for all your posts, esp. Iowa Mike for your support. First, let me just say this is not something I take lightly. I am a recent convert since 2002. I am a wife and mommy to 3, 3 and under. I would not “waste” time if this situation was not true and serious. I cannot in good conscience let this go. I totally understand Byz Cath wanting to give the benefit of the doubt and erring on the side of caution, yet after seeing that horrendous link, that was on their very own webpage, which also btw on the bottom says that this is a bishop and diocesan approved ministry, there is no denying that this is a scandalous group.

This type of disunity and confusion can really be problematic for people searching for the true church. Also, we have to care for these poor souls who are being mislead.

Also, what exactly is a CC?

BTW, on the forum homepage to the afforementioned link, I think on the about us pull down, they say that their homosexuality is a special gift from God.

Thank you for your advice and support. This thread is helping me as I decide what I am going to do first.

peace

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Thanks you for all your posts, esp. Iowa Mike for your support. First, let me just say this is not something I take lightly. I am a recent convert since 2002. I am a wife and mommy to 3, 3 and under. I would not “waste” time if this situation was not true and serious. I cannot in good conscience let this go. I totally understand Byz Cath wanting to give the benefit of the doubt and erring on the side of caution, yet after seeing that horrendous link, that was on their very own webpage, which also btw on the bottom says that this is a bishop and diocesan approved ministry, there is no denying that this is a scandalous group.

This type of disunity and confusion can really be problematic for people searching for the true church. Also, we have to care for these poor souls who are being mislead.

Also, what exactly is a CC?

BTW, on the forum homepage to the afforementioned link, I think on the about us pull down, they say that their homosexuality is a special gift from God.

Thank you for your advice and support. This thread is helping me as I decide what I am going to do first.

peace

Monicathree,

I’m not sure of the context that CC was used. Deacon2006 suggested that you CC (carbon copy) Rome on your correspondance as a means to getting the attention of your local bishop.

I’ve seen CC used to describe Cafeteria Catholics who want to pick and choose what they believe from amoung all the Church teachings and reject the rest.

I’ve also seen CC used as a short for Catholic Church.

Best,

Iowa Mike

 

[JReducation]

The Church operates out of the authority that Christ gave to Peter. If we look back to scripture we observe that the first person to know of the Incarnation of the eternal Word of God was a woman, Mary his mother. The first person to recognize that the Lord had become incarnate was a woman, Elizabeth. She greets Mary as the Mother of My Lord. Jesus first miracle at the wedding of Cana was mediated by Mary. When Jesus dies on the cross the first person who holds his body is his mother. The first person to see him arisen from the tomb was also a woman. On the feast of Pentecost the Holy Spirit descends upon the Apostles and Mary is with them. In addition, Jesus teaches many truths to women, such as Life Giving Water to the Samaritan woman.

The argument that women were not held in any esteem because of culture doesn’t really stick. If this were the case, the Evangelists, being men of their time, would not have mentioned so many women at such crucial moments in Christ’s life. As was stated by the OP, it was a patriarchal society. Yet, the Evangelists dared to break out of the box and tell the world of what Christ had achieved and how women played key roles.

It is in the inconsistency that we find the truth of the matter. While women played key roles from the moment of creation to Pentecost, at the Last Supper only 12 males were included. A traditional Seder always includes the mother and the children of the family. In fact, the mother leads the prayers. All but one of the Apostles were married. Their wives and their children were not included in the Seder. Jesus’ mother was not included in the Seder.

The inconsistency of this Seder with the traditional Jewish Seder is very telling. Only 12 men were invited; neither their wives, mothers nor children were included. The sacrament of Holy Orders was confirmed at this Seder. Based on this breach in protocol of what should have been a traditional Seder and the fact that the Evangelists DO step out of the box to include women in the most solemn mysteries of the faith, we can see that Christ deliberately excluded women from Holy Orders.

This is why the Church teaches that is does not have the authority to ordain women. Christ did involve women in the mystery of redemption, but did not include them in the mystery of the priesthood.

I hope this helps.

JR