Well, of course, given the limited participation, I’m quite sure that all the participants going to the synod will not be thinking along the same lines as this group.I’m afraid that new Spring time of the Church is becoming a cold dark Winter.
That’s definitely the money line.I’m afraid that new Spring time of the Church is becoming a cold dark Winter.
You may be correct. My own parish had its heretical elements overplay their hand recently - it did not go over as they planned. It turns out people are way less willing to tolerate heresy when it finally emerges from the shadows.I suppose in a way it is good that they have come out so blatantly like this. The majority of Catholic cardinals and bishops at the synod will surely have no truck with this.
MOST certainly. This isn’t the local rotary club, this is the Church handed down from Jesus, how dare they. Not a few canonized martyrs died for these beliefs.After reading the article and what those people are suggesting, my heart is broken. Every fiber of my being screams that it is wrong.
That’s interesting. Heresy does not often thrive when it is out in the open, but it survives hidden in the shadows in our Church. It survives through dishonesty, hinting, suggestions, innuendos, never quite coming out with what is really meant, using the cover of good virtues such as charity to shield it, even twisting things to try to make people who oppose it feel unkind.You may be correct. My own parish had its heretical elements overplay their hand recently - it did not go over as they planned. It turns out people are way less willing to tolerate heresy when it finally emerges from the shadows.
That is a very good question!Big question is, how can this be permitted ?
This guy’s argument that Christ was just speaking to the Jews of that time and not passing on eternal truths only makes sense if one denies the divinity of Christ.And on Matthew 19, regarding Christ’s words on divorce
"Pellettier stressed that Christ’s words on divorce in Matthew 19 (“from the beginning it was not so”) must be contextualized in the Jewish world to which he was speaking, and must be read through the lens of anthropology rather than as a juridical statement.
“Catholic tradition on indissolubility is actually based on a disciplinary interpretation of this text, despite its kerygmatic content,”"
Dear oh dear. So this argues that the indissolubility of marriage is a disciplinary interpretation and therefore not dogma, and that Christ’s words were meant only within the cultural context at the time.
I suppose in a way it is good that they have come out so blatantly like this. The majority of Catholic cardinals and bishops at the synod will surely have no truck with this.
Argue that want Christ said on marriage is only applicable within the cultural context in which he spoke and you can justify rejecting anything Christ said by arguing that it was said within a certain cultural context. You can then create your own rules.This guy’s argument that Christ was just speaking to the Jews of that time and not passing on eternal truths only makes sense if one denies the divinity of Christ
And that, I think, is the nub of it all. I think that the whole thrust of this ‘reform’ agenda within our Church is an attack on the Eucharist and on the Church’s teaching on sin. Open up reception of the Eucharist to all, regardless of sin, and you undermine either the teaching on sin or the nature of the Eucharist.I’d be curious to his opinion on the real presence in the Eucharist.
Which, really, makes it an attack on Christ’s divinity and Christianity itself.And that, I think, is the nib of it all. I think that the whole thrust of this ‘reform’ agenda within our Church is an attack on the Eucharist and on the Church’s teaching on sin. Open up reception of the Eucharist to all, regardless of sin, and you undermine either the teaching on sin or the nature of the Eucharist.
You may be correct, possibly you are, however there was a closed meeting hosted by Cardinal Marx to which certain carefully chosen bishops from Germany, Switzerland and France, along with certain theologians and media representatives were invited. The topics for discussion were same-sex marriage and Communion for re-married divorced Catholics. To ditch John Paul II’s ‘Theology of the body’ in favour of a ‘Theology of love’.This is not even a council, much less a “shadow council”.