A
AlbMagno
Guest
If Pope Francis covered up the sex abuse, then Benedict XVI and John Paul II also did.
- Status
A
AlbMagno
Guest
I didn’t say it lessened the damage. I wanted to see your reaction to acknowledging that other recent popes did questionable things.
Pope Francis has also not sanctioned, but defrocked cardinals and bishops prosecuted for sex abuse. He even called the first meeting of bishops for the topic.
Pope Francis has also not sanctioned, but defrocked cardinals and bishops prosecuted for sex abuse. He even called the first meeting of bishops for the topic.
P
Paul_Edwards
Guest
Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider are a bit like St Paul and Saint Athanasius during historic problems.
I think it’s also important to make a distinction between the Holy Catholic Church Herself and the internet structures of the Church. The former can never be destroyed, but the latter on the contrary can at least be messed with and dramatically reduced to almost nothing in size. What the media categorizes as the internal structures could become corrupt, but the Catholic Church herself never could.
The Catholic Church for the sake of argument in the future going underground alike to the first centuries, such a concept is not against the indefectability of the Catholic Church. This does not mean it’s about to happen, only that it’s possible.
Aswell as praying for Pope Francis, we should also be praying for Pope Benedict that he will reveal everything he knows and stand for the whole truth and be protected in the meantime while doing it
I think it’s also important to make a distinction between the Holy Catholic Church Herself and the internet structures of the Church. The former can never be destroyed, but the latter on the contrary can at least be messed with and dramatically reduced to almost nothing in size. What the media categorizes as the internal structures could become corrupt, but the Catholic Church herself never could.
The Catholic Church for the sake of argument in the future going underground alike to the first centuries, such a concept is not against the indefectability of the Catholic Church. This does not mean it’s about to happen, only that it’s possible.
Aswell as praying for Pope Francis, we should also be praying for Pope Benedict that he will reveal everything he knows and stand for the whole truth and be protected in the meantime while doing it
Last edited:
P
Paul_Edwards
Guest
Pope Benedict, might know things which once he reveals it will alter our views about everything, who knows.
In the mean time, let’s stand together with Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider regardless of the outcome, knowing that either way we certainly have the position of the Holy Catholic Church and her 2000 years of constant teaching, things which nobody at all has the power to change
In the mean time, let’s stand together with Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider regardless of the outcome, knowing that either way we certainly have the position of the Holy Catholic Church and her 2000 years of constant teaching, things which nobody at all has the power to change
Last edited:
R
Rubee
Guest
First of all, your attack against Pope Benedict is gross. What evidence do you have? The scandal involving Pope Francis was in his protection and promotion of these problematic prelates after they were sanctioned. How dare you try to smear Pope Benedict just because Pope Francis was found doing something wrong? And how is this permissible on this site where everything gets flagged if it mentions the pope?
It’s a silly argument to say that if one pope did sthing bad, so did the others. Are they siamese twins? With Pope JP II, I can agree because he believed the psychopathic Legions of Christ founder was a holy man due to all the stuff he was visibly doing for the church; so he ignored the complaints, assuming them untrue. But I’d really like to know what your charges against Pope Benedict are: who did he protect and promote after knowing his problematic past like Pope Francis did with that disgraced American Cardinal? It was Pope Benedict who sanctioned those problematic prelates and who went after that Legions of Christ founder and who implemented many measures to try to uproot the filth.
It’s a silly argument to say that if one pope did sthing bad, so did the others. Are they siamese twins? With Pope JP II, I can agree because he believed the psychopathic Legions of Christ founder was a holy man due to all the stuff he was visibly doing for the church; so he ignored the complaints, assuming them untrue. But I’d really like to know what your charges against Pope Benedict are: who did he protect and promote after knowing his problematic past like Pope Francis did with that disgraced American Cardinal? It was Pope Benedict who sanctioned those problematic prelates and who went after that Legions of Christ founder and who implemented many measures to try to uproot the filth.
Last edited:
J
jack63
Guest
If you guys have concerns about what is flagged, I would strongly advise you address it to the moderators privately. Anybody can flag. If the moderators disagree with a flag, they can ignore the flag. In some cases I’ve seen that the moderators have taken a post that was greyed out and made it readable to everybody again. We all agree to terms of conduct here.
P
pnewton
Guest
I just wasted ten minutes to see if I was right. The good thing about these threads is that it is all still there. The document is linked from the synod, as is the OP’s original letter from the two bishops. The opinion of two bishops is not the opinion of the Church. One also had dissenting opinion at the synod on the family, though he was one in the minority. There has always been disagreement in the Church, just like there have been those who choose which bishops to follow (I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, e.g.)
The conservative voices that keep the Church from straying into error are as important to the Church as the progressive voices that keep the Church from stagnation and becoming like the Pharisees. However, important though they are, they are not “The Church” and regardless of their powerful personalities, should not be followed as though they are the Pope.
The conservative voices that keep the Church from straying into error are as important to the Church as the progressive voices that keep the Church from stagnation and becoming like the Pharisees. However, important though they are, they are not “The Church” and regardless of their powerful personalities, should not be followed as though they are the Pope.
P
pnewton
Guest
For example:
The document from the two bishops list this as one of the heresies:
The document from the two bishops list this as one of the heresies:
Sayin, "The Magisterium of the Church rejects such an implicit pantheism as incompatible with the Catholic Faith: “ They then quote an example of how this is used as a heresy in New Age thinking. However, they conveniently omit St. Francis, the guy who started this imagery.
This is known as imagery, not heresy. That is why the bishops have to use the word “implicit” because imagery is just imagery. Heresy, by its nature, cannot be implicit. That word should always ring alarms.
P
pnewton
Guest
Look at the definition of the word in the Catechism.
" Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;"
With denial of some doctrine that has been defined, there is no heresy. There might be imprudence, or inaccuracy, but not heresy. Therefore, using the image of Mother Earth cannot be heresy. Nothing in the working document even hints that somehow Mother Earth is equal to God the Father.
" Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;"
With denial of some doctrine that has been defined, there is no heresy. There might be imprudence, or inaccuracy, but not heresy. Therefore, using the image of Mother Earth cannot be heresy. Nothing in the working document even hints that somehow Mother Earth is equal to God the Father.
J
jack63
Guest
While I agree, sometimes these “discussions” are for the sake of many people who read the thread who don’t respond. Let them read and think about each side.
P
pnewton
Guest
Quite frankly, I think the whole debate is outside everyone’s pay grade here. Yet I am not the one who linked this rather divisive article. I have always resented the request to pray, when it is accompanied by sectarian interest.
If one’s theological arguments are sound, then why is there such a need to try and rally a following, a sect, around that opinion? The comparison with Athanasius and Paul has one major short coming. Neither of them made populist appeals to follow their theology. They addressed changed through the Church. That is because splintering in the Church does not come from the Roman pontiff. It comes from those who distance themselves from him.
I will be convinced by what the Church teaches, and only that. I am in no hurry to decide what I think before the synod is concluded and the Pope issues some sort of encyclical or directive from it. That is real traditional Catholicism.
If one’s theological arguments are sound, then why is there such a need to try and rally a following, a sect, around that opinion? The comparison with Athanasius and Paul has one major short coming. Neither of them made populist appeals to follow their theology. They addressed changed through the Church. That is because splintering in the Church does not come from the Roman pontiff. It comes from those who distance themselves from him.
I will be convinced by what the Church teaches, and only that. I am in no hurry to decide what I think before the synod is concluded and the Pope issues some sort of encyclical or directive from it. That is real traditional Catholicism.
Last edited:
P
pnewton
Guest
That was poorly written on my part. I should have said “theological opinions.” So, maybe semantics do matter sometimes?
Again, that word “implicit.” I DID NOT SAY THIS.
To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:
Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a8.htm
I said certain facts. The appeal was not sent private to the Pope, but published. There was a small percentage of the document that asked for prayer for they synod, and the rest critical of the working document, that is, telling people what they should pray for, as opposed to simply praying that God’s will be done in His Church.
From James 3
With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse human beings, who have been made in God’s likeness. 10 Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers and sisters, this should not be. 11 Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring?
Perhaps I simply lack your theological expertise to determine what exactly error is. For example, I do not have near the training in theology that the Holy Father has.
Again, that word “implicit.” I DID NOT SAY THIS.
To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:
Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a8.htm
I said certain facts. The appeal was not sent private to the Pope, but published. There was a small percentage of the document that asked for prayer for they synod, and the rest critical of the working document, that is, telling people what they should pray for, as opposed to simply praying that God’s will be done in His Church.
From James 3
With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse human beings, who have been made in God’s likeness. 10 Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers and sisters, this should not be. 11 Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring?
Perhaps I simply lack your theological expertise to determine what exactly error is. For example, I do not have near the training in theology that the Holy Father has.
Last edited:
R
Rubee
Guest
Indeed: it’s a ridiculous request: Are the statements these bishops are questioning private communications? If posters are ok with these ‘progressive’ prelates saying whatever they want in public, before the whole world, I wonder why they suddenly require the Orthodox who have a different message to shoosh up and whisper. They should be silent while what they see to be error is loudly and proudly proclaimed from the rooftops. Cardinal Burke isn’t critiquing the character of these bishops, afterall, like St. Paul did to St. Peter: He is just focussing on the issues in discussion. Since when were Bishops of all people supposed to shoosh up about truth? What a weird idea.
Funnily, I bet the same people demanding that those charged by Christ to NOT shoosh-up shoosh up will complain about ‘coverup’ of abuse and other ills.
Funnily, I bet the same people demanding that those charged by Christ to NOT shoosh-up shoosh up will complain about ‘coverup’ of abuse and other ills.
Last edited:
P
pnewton
Guest
Apparently I did not. And clarification seems unwanted as being “semantics” as if we has some other way of communicating other than words.
Then I will put this question out, not to you, but to all. Based on this thread, has this document, which requests prayer for six paragraphs, and on the first page, the seventh paragraph switches from a request for prayer to a presentation of a theological position, been a positive, or a negative. I would believe the latter, based on the tone of this thread. There seems so much anger and division, yet the synod hasn’t even started.
Whatever they want? I think progressive bishops have often shown a lack of wisdom. However, at least they, and at least these two men, know how to present their case without personal attacks. Cardinal Burke in particular has always set a positive example of how to dissent with charity.
If you are speaking of me, assuming fault of others is not right.
R
Rubee
Guest
I’m talking generally. I don’t see how bishops pointing out what they see as error is a bad thing. I think that’s their job.
Last edited:
P
pnewton
Guest
The big challenge of this generation will be the internet. The age of information is a mixed blessing. What is happening in this synod is nothing new, but the curtain is not only pulled back, but a spotlight now shines upon how the Church works. Of course there are people who think most of the proposals are bad ideas, just like there are those who think they are necessary. We had the same thing not long ago when the Pope wanted to explore women deacons, which ended without the need for change.
Bishops and theologians are educated and most understand the value of listening, as well as speaking. Most of the laity prefer to read only those they already agree with, leaving them without the perspective of both sides. Synods are held so a problem can be looked at in its totality. Those that do not look and understand both sides, like most of us that get our information via internet, are too ignorant for an educated opinion. We simply are lacking too much data.
It is good to understand and accept that the topics we are ignorant of will always be far more numerous than those in which we have expertise. Opinions are fine, but they should be tempered with humility.
Bishops and theologians are educated and most understand the value of listening, as well as speaking. Most of the laity prefer to read only those they already agree with, leaving them without the perspective of both sides. Synods are held so a problem can be looked at in its totality. Those that do not look and understand both sides, like most of us that get our information via internet, are too ignorant for an educated opinion. We simply are lacking too much data.
It is good to understand and accept that the topics we are ignorant of will always be far more numerous than those in which we have expertise. Opinions are fine, but they should be tempered with humility.
J
jack63
Guest
Ok…Wow…the part about the poor in the Amazon being used to support projects typical of bourgeois and worldly Christianity is extremely difficult for me to understand.
I’m not sure what Cardinal Sarah is referring to here, but I hope it is not expanding the ordination of married men. To say that expanding the ordination of married men is a project of the bourgeois would be nonsense from my world view. Perhaps he is referring “giving jurisdiction to lay people”. That part sound off.
Last edited:
R
Rubee
Guest
Perhaps you did not get it because you removed it from the rest (the context):
These points concern the structure of the universal Church. They cannot be discussed in a particular and local synod. The importance of its subjects requires the serious and conscious participation of all the bishops of the world. Yet very few are invited to this synod. To take advantage of a particular synod to introduce these ideological projects would be an unworthy manipulation, a dishonest deception, an insult to God, who leads his Church and entrusts him with his plan of salvation.
He’s clearly referring to a Western progressive ideological faction that has these things on their agenda and is expressing concern that they will use a local synod to bypass/push past the universal consensus needed to introduce such things in the first place.
Last edited:
R
Rubee
Guest
What do you mean ‘without the need for the change’? Women deacons are impossible and that is Catholic dogma because the diaconate is part of Holy Orders. The way you put it, one might think it perfectly kosher to occasionally consider whether there’s a need to change dogma. What’s next? Should we explore whether the Trinity needs to change? I don’t get it.
Last edited:
A
AlbMagno
Guest
That’s why he said no need 
The discussion about women deacons was introduced in the vatican because the Early Church had non-ordained “deaconesses” that baptized women converts and helped in community service.
Obviously, now we don’t baptize naked people, and the same service that deaconesses carried out can be made by religious sisters and lay women.
The discussion about women deacons was introduced in the vatican because the Early Church had non-ordained “deaconesses” that baptized women converts and helped in community service.
Obviously, now we don’t baptize naked people, and the same service that deaconesses carried out can be made by religious sisters and lay women.
Last edited:
- Status