More personal attacks, huh? Personally, I find your own ideas on brainstorming sessions and doctrinal back flips and retroactive determination of sin according to how “happy” it makes people to be the epitome of the mindset “I know better than God.” Who has taught the catholic truths we have been defending, after all? God or some other entity? Perhaps God changes his mind.A Not the random haters who think they know everything better than God Himself.
It seems to me the ones who espouse these synods which put everything on the table and discuss civilly should be a little more charitable to those who don’t quite hold the same views as they. Just my opinion.
Do you have a better explanation of why people didn’t accept Humanae Vitae? Didn’t the expert moral theologians whom Pope Paul assembled vote twice in favor of it, only to be struck down completely by the Pope? Didn’t this assembly also follow Populorum Progressio which allowed consciences to be used in matters of deciding the size of families? As for stupid and pathetic, wasn’t the liturgy being made easier to understand for those not too intelligent in such matters? So how were people supposed to be that smart to overlook the logic derived by those moral theologians who gave the okay to use ABC?
Right on!!“Reconciliation is impossible while a lifestyle in contradiction of the indissolubility of marriage persists.”
Did the Holy Spirit lead John Paul II to write this or not?
Some people are claiming a special fidelity to God and to the Holy Spirit in support of their positions. Where is fidelity to the Holy Spirit when they read the words of John Paul II, the Catechism or 2,000 years of teaching? Trusting the Holy Spirit is what those who adhere to that teaching of 2,000 years are doing. They don’t need to wait for a synod to sit down and debate and vote on answers the church has given consistently for 2,000 years. They trust that the Holy Spirit has been right all along.
What about the “evidence” of “faithfilled” and loving, fruitful polygamous unions? Homosexual unions? Should they be taken to mean that these unions are good things too? Is this what they mean in the first synod report when they referred to “positive aspects” of imperfect situations? Your ideas are dangerous. And they too earily resemble the arguments Episcopalians have made to justify all manner of evil situations. It is telling that one of the german cardinals spoke of how he could not disregard a gay couple who have faithfully cared for each other for 50 years. Fruits, huh?What a conveniently subjective test for objective truth.
2nd marriages may be better simply because the persons involved are more mature this time around or are better suited to each other in their personalities and idiosyncrasies. Marriages are friendships and a whole lot of things factor into how the friendship gets along besides its objective sinfulness or validity Your ideas follow along the lines of the modernist doctrine “If it makes me happy, it must be good!”
You go girl!!! How dare you come on here and speak the truth like that…and for that matter your 4 other posts here as well. All kidding aside, you’re oh so spot on!..whew!..a real breath of fresh air!!!..“Reconciliation is impossible while a lifestyle in contradiction of the indissolubility of marriage persists.”
Did the Holy Spirit lead John Paul II to write this or not?
Some people are claiming a special fidelity to God and to the Holy Spirit in support of their positions. Where is fidelity to the Holy Spirit when they read the words of John Paul II, the Catechism or 2,000 years of teaching? Trusting the Holy Spirit is what those who adhere to that teaching of 2,000 years are doing. They don’t need to wait for a synod to sit down and debate and vote on answers the church has given consistently for 2,000 years. They trust that the Holy Spirit has been right all along.
“Jibberish”. I see you’re still using personal attacks to compensate for not having an argument to make. Good.
Let’s remember the bolded part, please.
He added that there needs to be further studies made. Isn’t that exactly what the synod is doing? Why does it bother you that a formal decision has not come forth yet to utterly put your opinion to rest? Obviously, more work needs to be done, and it will be.
The main difference is NOT that Benedict didn’t care about the problems of his flock. The main difference is that Benedict has made ambiguous- or taken as such by people who want to push the Church in a certain direction -statements about controversial in the West culture war issues.
Got a reference for who “some people” are?
Where is your proof that there is no fidelity? Let me share a picture with you.
Hello,
As Pope, he said he dare not say whether a lack of faith can lead to an invalid marriage (note the present tense). He then said that he, when at the CDF, “personally thought” a total lack of faith had an impact on the validity of a sacramental marriage (note the past tense). But, after considering it further and listening to others, he realized how complex the problem is. The complexity makes further study necessary as well as the duty of the Church to understand the nature of Sacraments and care for the people.
Hello,
It tells me that maybe Cardinal Burke’s group has great concern for what Cardinal Kasper and others are proposing. Look at the title of this thread. It shows me that a good portion of the flock is more than a little concerned with Kasper’s views as well. And as far as your comment; May God forgive them!…Well, you’re insinuating that they’ve done something wrong. I suppose there are just as many thinking likewise of Cardinal Kasper’s group…it works both ways.
Or to use the other current buzzword, “mercy”. Yes, it is often strangely, so ironically, in short supply with this group, isn’t it? To be more precise, I suspect what we are really after here is mercy toward these folks and everything they say, want, or do. You’re stumbling a little bit on the presumption that* it’s a two way street* or, in fact, functioning in the traditional sense of “mercy” at all…in reality, we’re just in another one of those “dialogues” where we sit and dutifully nod our head, mouth shut. The Holy Spirit does the rest.
I think the thing that people forget is that the Church is self correcting. You can try to change it but it will always go back to the way it was. Look at what the French tried to do when they invaded Italy to stamp out the Vatican; they thought that the Church was gone with the death of Pope who was residing there but lo and behold another Pope popped up and the Church persevered. Point is, you can never get rid of the Church. It will never go away.
You would not make a good lawyer if you cannot discern the essence of words in context. "Whether, in fact, a moment of invalidity could be discovered here because the Sacrament was found to be lacking a fundamental dimension [that of “faith in the sacrament.”] .Note the addition of his words, “I personally thought so.” Affirmative]
That is untrue and vicious, Dan, and you know it. I imputed sin to NO ONE. Read my words again with a clean heart.
Greetings… I feel too that the Holy Father is not going to do anything to effect any change in doctrine. He wants the Church to be more pastoral and caring, which I think we all think that bringing the good news of Jesus… to fallen way, divorced or homosexual Catholics is what we need to do if we want to become an evangelized Church. Read the Sermon on the Mount…it gives me strength when my faith falters. I will pray for you Mc Call 1981. Sending love and light
Yes, I believe it was wrong to instill anxiety publicly in the media without awaiting the process to be worked out. They appeared to be strumming up public opinion in their favor, rather than allow the synod to determine the Spirit’s action. What about Jesus’ words that when we have a problem, we go to the person? They spawned their personal difficulty with acceptance, into a magnitude that became an unstoppable flood.
Thank you for your prayers, I’ll pray for you as well
