L
LongingSoul
Guest
I’ll just let you read what I wrote again, since I explained clearly what I meant.
US cardinal voices doubts on Vatican reform, Communion for divorced
- Status
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Limbo was not doctrine. Changing Limbo was not development of doctrine either because it wasn’t doctrine to begin with so it doesn’t really fit into the argument that some make that changing who Communion is given too would be a development of doctrine and there’s a comparison with what happened to Limbo of the Infants.
K
KSU
Guest
From the OP’s link: “While [Cardinal DiNardo] hopes the pope will talk about some of the good America does in the world, he said lawmakers should be prepared to take some heat about America’s role in the global economy…Neither political party in America should feel the pope is on its side, he said.”
It would be wonderful if Pope Francis made American lawmakers feel some heat about, for starters:
It would be wonderful if Pope Francis made American lawmakers feel some heat about, for starters:
- The immorality of continuing to borrow from China and the rich in order to protect their own political careers and party, despite the harm it does to our children, grandchildren and future ability to help the poor,
- The rejection by one party of the common sense Catholic principal of subsidiarity,
- One party’s promotion of abortion, contraception, same sex “marriage”, and exercise of religion as mandated by the State, and
- Grants by one party to poor countries only on the condition of acceptance of 3).
S
Sirach2
Guest
J
JimG
Guest
I understand, and am glad that you received some comfort. My point was simply that the idea of Limbo is not incompatible with mother and child being reunited in heaven, which is after all a place of perfect natural happiness along with the Beatific Vision. And the Church has not really replaced Limbo with anything other than speculation, nor has it changed the doctrine of original sin.
K
kozlosap
Guest
No donkey vs elephant on Fat Tuesday!
One of the main reasons that both Catholics and non-Catholics so appreciate Papa Francis is that he not only “talks the talk”, but seeks out and listens to those who are so-called irregular in the eyes of the legal Church. When a trans-gender person from Europe wrote the Holy Father concerning the treatment of LGBTQ individuals, Papa invited that person to the Vatican and they had a very cordial encounter. Those who have been marginalized for years, even though not part of the Church, feel that there is a major world leader who is willing to listen and not call them names or deny their very existence. I pray that His Holiness continues to live out the Gospels and not just look down on those not officially part of his flock. I pray for Pope Francis everyday.
K
KSU
Guest
That’s nice, but implications that Francis’ predecessors did or would do or thought the opposite is insulting.No donkey vs elephant on Fat Tuesday!
One of the main reasons that both Catholics and non-Catholics so appreciate Papa Francis is that he not only “talks the talk”, but seeks out and listens to those who are so-called irregular in the eyes of the legal Church. When a trans-gender person from Europe wrote the Holy Father concerning the treatment of LGBTQ individuals, Papa invited that person to the Vatican and they had a very cordial encounter. Those who have been marginalized for years, even though not part of the Church, feel that there is a major world leader who is willing to listen and not call them names or deny their very existence. I pray that His Holiness continues to live out the Gospels and not just look down on those not officially part of his flock. I pray for Pope Francis everyday.
P
ProVobis
Guest
If limbo had been doctrine, I’m sure it would have had a more definitive/precise name, and not been so easy-picking attacks of George Carlin et al.
P
ProVobis
Guest
That would depend on which one he mentioned first.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
What I’m trying to impart by the example, is that it is not glaringly obvious to people what part of our practice is dispensable and what is indispensable until something arises that warrants deeper examination of the whole issue. It has often been the case in Church history that the Church will move to dispense with something and people start to panic and wonder if it has been taken over by the devil.
We are blessed with the promise of Jesus that the Church will not lead us wrongly in matters of faith and morals and so if the panic is not allayed by the Popes assurance of that, there is cause to look to what problem we ourselves are having with our faith.
J
JimG
Guest
I think it is quite true that it is not always obvious to people which things are dispensable and which are indispensable. I recall having a discussion with a former Catholic who thought that the Church’s decision regarding limbo meant that the Church no longer believed in purgatory. He had those two things mixed up in his mind, and he went to Catholic schools.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Reading some more about the Limbo of Infants, the 2007 document said: ‘It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis.’
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbo#Limbo_of_Infants
How is that much different, if any at all, from how it was understood in years prior?
L
LongingSoul
Guest
In years prior, it was not thought of as a ‘theological hypothesis’… It was thought to be an integral aspect of the doctrine of original sin. We didn’t learn it as a Church invention, we learned it as doctrine. That’s how these things have always been. The Church teaches us divine truths to the limit of our human capacities and as time progresses, our understanding and ability to digest those truths more fully, warrants letting go of that which no longer helps but hinders.
When you were young your mother may have required that you always hold her hand to cross a road. That rule is imperative to your safety as you don’t have the capacity to discern a course of action for yourself based on all the dangers. As you develop, that rule is no longer necessary and a new rule of thumb is more in keeping with road safety based on your own greater awaremess of the factors involved.
You don’t say to the child, you can take or leave this rule because its not that necessary to road safety. It is in fact imperative to road safety at that time.
Do you see how it is only in retrospect that its nature is clear?
Pope Francis clearly believes there is more to understand and address with this divorce/remarriage situation also. This is not a contradiction of past rules… it is a natural process for renewal of the faith.
K
KSU
Guest
My friend, it’s what you implied about Francis versus the predecessor popes such as St. JPII and BXVI that is insulting. What you said about Francis is just as misleading about the compassion and understanding of the predecessor popes concerning the treatment of LGBTQ individuals as Elton John’s statement posted in #30 above, viz.:??? I’m I correct that by writing about an event that happened in 2015 insults other popes?
QUOTE Elton John called Pope Francis “my hero” for his compassion and push to accept gays in the Catholic church…He said Francis is pushing boundaries in the church and told the crowd: “Make this man a saint now, OK?”
“Ten years ago one of the biggest obstacles in the fight against AIDS was the Catholic Church.
Today we have a pope that speaks out about it,” said John… END QUOTE
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Regardless of it how you and/or or others may have learned about the Limbo of the Infants or understood in relation to Original Sin, it was not declared doctrine in the Church and then changed. It was not even a discipline which was then changed. If you and/or others learned about it in a way that made you believe that it was ‘as doctrine,’ then there may have been a misfortunate communication and/or wrong understanding of the Limbo of the Infants.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
You are not getting what I’m saying. There are nuances and distinctions that can’t be fully articulated prior to levels of maturity in faith. Revealed truths are constantly being illuminated as theological understanding evolves from age to age.
The annulment process is also an ‘invention’ of the Church to address the phenomenon of marriages that breakdown and are rejected. Does that mean that the annulments tribunal system will be the only way that the Church will ever address this issue of marriages ‘asunder’? How can you be so sure that there will never be another way of addressing the issue that you can confidently believe it should never be addressed by the College of Cardinals in synod?
P
ProVobis
Guest
This would mean something if divorce, remarriage, cohabitation, etc. were some new concepts. True, we may understand more of the psychology behind them, but essentially these states have existed since the beginning of the human race practically. But if we are to allow deeper psychological analysis of these states, perhaps we should also come up with new Catholic remedies for the people in those states. Because if they try to find it for themselves or convince you that it’s the only way (read, communion), they may find themselves in a lot of quicksand with or without the synod or the Pope.
P
pnewton
Guest
“Every knowledgeable Catholic knows…”Yes indeed, you posted this unfortunate piece of chutzpah. LaStampa accurately reposted the same information as written by the Cardinal himself in his own blog.
Chutzpa Casserole - Argumentum ad populum and ad hominem mixed well together with a dash of insult for anyone who disagrees (that is, one is either not knowledgeable or not Catholic.)
- Status