Last night I had the pleasure of meeting the former Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Conner, who this year will have served as a priest for sixty years. He came to give a talk on his memories of every Pope since St John XXIII, and what struck the packed house was the extent to which he admired all of them, and spoke with equal warmth and affection of Benedict XVI and Pope Francis, and of St John XXIII and St John Paul II. It felt like a welcome outbreak of Catholic ecumenism after some of the comments I have seen on the Internet and in the newspapers and elsewhere in the media. Utterly unfazed by the furore (in some quarters) over Amoris Laetitia, the Cardinal responded to a question by reminding us all that it had changed no doctrine, and that a;; the Pope was doing was emphasising the collegiality, synodality and decentralisation which the Second Vatican Council had approved. He reminded us, too, that Bishops were not simply postboxes for communications to and from Rome, they were the successors of the Apostles and exercised their ministry in accord with Rome, but that whilst all were bound by the same doctrine, all Bishops possessed the power of binding and loosing, and that just as the ancient church had not referred every pastoral issue to Rome, so too the modern church was free to do the same. He clearly wondered why some people wanted everything referred to Rome, especially when those same people seemed to be deeply suspicious of the present Pope. He reminded us that collegiality mattered, as it had for the Apostles, and it was interesting listening to someone who knew the Vatican well, talking about the way in which a man he described as one of the greatest intellects ever to occupy the Papal throne, Benedict XVI had been worn down by problems with the Curia and the bureaucracy. It was moving to hear him pay tribute to the great personal sacrifice Benedict had made by assuming the role of Pope when, Cormac thought, he’d rather have been in his study writing books. Knowing, as he does, both men, he dismissed any idea that the present Pope and his predecessor were in any way at odd. The Holy Spirit guides the Church, he reminded us, and we should have faith in His power to write straight with crooked lines.
The testimony of someone who has given so much service to the Church is not, I think, to be set aside lightly, and he reminded us that there are many ways of being a good Catholic – but that we are all sinners in need of redemption and forgiveness, and that if we start there first in our dealings with each other, we do well. To those who asked him about the present Pope and orthodoxy, the Cardinal simply replied that of course the Pope was orthodox, and those who thought otherwise might ask themselves why they thought they were more qualified to pronounce on this than the successors of the Apostles; as he mused, either we had faith in the Church and in those who led it, or we did not, and if we did not, then in what way did we differ from our Protestant brothers and sisters? To say we were the keepers of the real flame of real Catholicism was, he thought, a profoundly unCatholic way of seeing these things. He got fairly close to wondering how far some of this was a consequence of many converts bringing their essentially protestant way of thinking about these things into a church in whose culture they had not been born, but which they felt an obligation to shape into the image of the culture into which they had been born? There was an implication here, I thought, that some of the bitterness which has marked the American culture war had seeped into the Church via America – which left some wondering whether we really wanted to end up in a situation where whatever the Catholic equivalent to Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were our best options?
It was an interesting talk, marked throughout by good humour and wit, and shot through with the experience of a man who was talking from wide experience, not from theoretical constructs.
NEO said:
Excellent, judging by the live Tweeting, it was all you say, and perhaps more. We, in America, have made have made a mess of public discourse. The reasons that we have bear study, but a wise organization, and the Catholic Church usually is one, will find another path.
Yes, I too, detect much Protestantism, in some of the arguments in the Catholic church, but as a Protestant myself, I think it may not be of the best sort of Protestantism either. At our best, we are more like what Cardinal O’Conner sees as ‘a good Catholic’.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Many thanks Neo.
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
As always, I was both entertained, and educated by it. Good job to all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
The video should be up at the end of the week.
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
Good! Did I miss last week’s or did I misunderstand you?
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
No, Cormac’s is up on Friday.
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
Understand, Thanks
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Those who do not recognise V2 as an ecumenical council are fortunate those who do are not of their mindset.
I am surprised in that case to see you taking up the view that ‘we are church’ and you think the laity qualified to declare heresy where the CDF and the successors of the Apostles see none. Perhaps you have brought your Protestant sense of these things into the Catholic Church and have not acquired the level of docility required?
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Lay people are not qualified to say the Pope is a heretic when the CDF and the successors of the Apostles say no such thing. Perhaps, in view of some recent comments here, you might like to meditate on that.
Nothing to stop you from telling those with actual qualifications and authority they are wrong, but remember, Protestantism started at the point at which Catholic individuals insisted on the rightness of their view when the competent authorities failed to agree with them. It seems, quite often, that it is those who insist on the importance of authority are least willing to accept it unless it happens to agree with their position. This is a very Protestant mindset.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
They are entitled to an opinion – no less – but no more. The Church is not a democracy, you don’t have a vote.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
As I say, show me anyone in authority who actually agrees with your statement in another thread that the Pope is a heretic? My opinion/ your opinion don’t actually matter a hill of beans.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Last time I looked a minor bishop and a Cardinal do not amount to the authority to pronounce for the Magisterium. You clutch at straws.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
The Pope and a majority of bishops. These are not on your side, so you are reduced to hoping that random comments reported on the sort of sites you frequent mean what you want them to mean. If you think that amounts to a consensus fidelium, best of luck.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Yes, I follow the verdict of the consensus of the Magisterium – what do you do?
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Not at all. There are clear authorities. You know they do not agree with you, so rather than consider that the Church is right and you are in error, you flail around in good Protestant fashion – anything to find a way of supporting your view that the Pope is a heretic. You’d do better seeking the sacrament of reconciliation on this subject.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I do, as not a single on has said it. Of course, if you insist on reading sites which insist that x really disapproves but offer no evidence, that’s up to you.
You don’t get to pontificate on what is rot – we have people who are qualified to do that. You may not agree with them, but you might want to look up the meaning of the word docility – it appears you have real problems understanding it.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Since it is only those who think like you who think that, so what?
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
No one with any authority agrees with you – so why waste my times. No one in authority actually cares what you think.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
You fail to understand fascism, which is about demagogues using people’s fears of comminism/left-wing movements to mobilise them in favour of supporting a traditional elite which would otherwise be reformed; seems closer to your position to me.
The Church has a defined way of pronouncing on heresy, and I believe in following what the Church says. You find yourself not being able to support your position from that authority, hence the bluster.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
If you had done any work on fascism you’d agree with me.
Fact – you have not brought a charge, you are not going to make one, nor is anyone else, so why waste my time?
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I see you are a Protestant – anathema sit.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
No, I am saying you are not behaving like a Catholic should in respect of the Pope. If you think you are, take a look at what you write.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
On the fact that we are to pay respect to the Holy Father – and I am sure you are familiar with this extract from a document from an ecumenical council:
‘Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.’
If you think calling the Pope a heretic is how a faithful Catholic interprets this, you have several screws loose.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
But who are you to decide that the ‘rights of faith’ have been ‘impinged’ upon and to use your personal opinion to call the Pope a heretic? That is putting what is your personal opinion ahead of the Pope and the vast majority of bishops and cardinals – it is proclaiming your right to exercise your conscience regardless of the authority you are sworn to obey.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
No, they have no proof of cause and effect or that the effect is evil. They have a set of opinions upon which they insist. Assertion is not evidence. What are these evil effects, show me?
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
There are reasons many traddies liked Franco, Salazar and Pinochet – or are you unaware they did – or of that idiot Williamson’s views on the holocaust?
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Really, they are following what the Pope and the Cardinals and bishops say?
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Really, if you can show me where the Sedes agree with the Pope, that line might be less laughable.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Last time I looked, the death penalty was not doctrine or dogma, so the church is entirely free to move to the view that except in societies so barbarous that you cannot otherwise protect the innocent, the DP should be abolished.
I was talking, as was clear, about dogma and doctrine. The DP is not a subject on which anyone can be a heretic.
Nice attempt to muddy the stagnant waters you are sitting in. Better to leave them.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Those who take your view – that the Pope is a heretic and dangerous will clutch at any straw – because it is all they have. They talked much about obedience under the last two Popes, but reveal what they really meant by their attitude to this one. The Church now says that it is against the DP except in certain circumstances. It does not say you must believe it – but it does say it. Those who wish to remain n the sixteenth century will, naturally, oppose it – but then that is their fetish – to oppose everything since whenever they think the wheels fell off.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Times change, and what PXII thought reasonable we now, as a society think not so on this. You are welcome to keep insisting that people should be executed, but unless you go and live in Iran, ISISland, Saudi Arabia or North Korea – or certain US states, you are, as usual, in a minority. That does not make you wrong, but it does make you irrelevant.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I do not think recent opinion polls suggest that is the case. But even if it were, when did Catholics form their views by what a majority want? A majority want abortion and birth control.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Last time I looked, 1% was enough for a majority.
But when it comes to Catholic teaching, if every Catholic bar the Magisterium thought as you do, it would change nothing. As it happens, they don’t.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
If you read any books on any if those Fascists you’d see the extent to which they got support from conservative elements in the RCC.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
If you think Franco was not a fascist, you will struggle to find a scholar who agrees with you.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
It always seeks, by demagoguery to rouse people against reforms the elite do not want.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I lost sight of the last time the Left argued against reform in defence of the elites – perhaps you could point me to one?
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I don’t recall those passionate elections and the rallies. Neither do I recall the Labour party here doing it.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I doubt one could equate the AV vote with Hitler and Mussolini – or rather, I doubt anyone with a sense of proportion could.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Last time I looked quality and quantity were on my side of this,
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
“. . . as he mused, either we had faith in the Church and in those who led it, or we did not . . .”
The Church, yes, since its head is Christ and the Church is led by the Holy Spirit to all truth. That means to me that I have faith in the Dogmatic Teachings of the Church which were drawn straight with crooked lines. It means that I accept the definitive teachings and ancient traditions; the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
As to those men who lead her, I have less faith that they are all good men or that they all are being led by the Holy Spirit. I have faith in the office, not the man. They earn their trust and faith from us by how they conform themselves to the teachings of the Church . . . not the other way around. How could anyone have blind faith in the occupancy of the office? We have bishops that say the exact opposite of one another; the latest synod is proof enough of that. We are just now beginning to recover from the biggest scandal the Church has witnessed in modern times with the pedophilia debacle. We have history to show us that we have had a few very disastrous popes and anti-popes. Are such things impossible to imagine; might such things recur from time to time? I, for one, expect it.
The good Cardinal himself was not exactly a cheerleader for Summorum Pontificum. If anything he was an obstacle to its promulgation even going so far as to use Canon Law to stop Cardinal Burke from saying the Traditional Latin Mass in Westminster in 2009. That he picks and chooses like everyone else what he will support and what he will resist shows that he is as human as anyone else and that humans are unreliable as vehicles to back (with blind faith) no matter what they say or do.
Is there a culture war in the Church? Yes. Did the hierarchy cause it? Yes. Will they fix it? I don’t know but I doubt it. Is it possible that the laity will play a part in fixing it? Probably. The Sensus Catholicus of the faithful has long been taught and if we are true to our faith in the Catechism and find discrepancies with out hierarchy then we might make our voices heard. My goodness the unfaithful groups have sure done a great job of this and won over an number of bishops to their side; contraception, abortion, gay marriage et al. So why not the faithful. So you ask who are the faithful and are they equipped to do this. If they have lived a life of obedience to the teachings of the Church they should have a sense of what is right and what is wrong. It is not only the hierarchy that has access to the guidance of the Holy Spirit but they are the ones who are protected infallibly when they declare something to be held universally in faith or morals; the practices, not so much.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
I do not think anything I have said talked about blind trust in one office holder. What I did say was that where those duly authorised to pronounce on what is and is not heresy do not agree with you, me or QV or whoever it is calling the Pope a heretic, then it is not the act of a good Catholic to insist on that view. We are duty bound to obey the Magisterium, and I worry about the idea it has to ‘earn’ our trust – where does that leave ‘I believe all the Church professes’ if what we really mean is ‘my view of what it is I believe the church confesses”? The two things are not identical.
I think there are those who want there to be a culture war in the Church, but that is not the same as saying there is. Most Catholics I know in the pews do not know about this and find it horrifying when they come across it. It is the passion of a noisy minority who make enough noise to convince themselves that given the amount of noise, there must be a war going on. As so often, it is small minorities on both sides who fight with gusto – certainly in the UK, the vast majority of Catholics don’t care about what form of Mass they go to as long as they can receive the body and blood of the Lord, neither do they know, or care, who Cardinal Burke of Bishop Schneider or Cardinal Kasper are. It may be that in what seems to me the unhelpfully polarised politics of the USA, there are masses of Catholics who are deeply exercised by these things – here I know very few.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
No, I am simply pointing out the duty to be respectful to the Pope and you are insulting him. I understand that that might make you uncomfortable, but perhaps you might be wrong.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Insist comes with the insistence with which you keep pushing a bag of wind as though it were an argument that anyone but yourself should take seriously. The Church is not a democracy, your vote counts for as much as mine – which is not at all.
LikeLike
Philip Augustine said:
Q, would you kiss the ring on Pope Francis’ hand?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Servus Fidelis said:
I have no problem with what the Church Professes as it is enumerated for all the Faithful to know in the Catechism. I need not agree, even with the Pope, on things outside of Faith and Morals especially since such views are never made ex cathedra. He has no infallible authority to pronounce on matters of science or economies but he should be listened to. As to the respect we should give the man due to the office and to the dignity of men, that is certainly something that should be done. It is reiterated in Canon 212 where we are told that the laity has both a right and at times a duty to speak out on things pertaining to the good of the Church.
As to a culture war in the Church, I only need not be deaf nor blind to know it exists. That I have been taught by pastors on both sides of the divide is simply stating facts. I notice nuns who worship Sophia Wisdom and walk labyrinths before they write and lecture on women priestesses and gay marriage. I am informed that most of the Catholics voted for the most pro-abortion president this country ever had . . . twice. It is not some academic argument that is being waged nor is it a figment of our imagination. These things are going on and we notice them or we are so indifferent to them that we don’t. If such things do not happen in the U.K. it is not what I gather from reading others in the U.K. I don’t think that America is making this up . . . but then you can point out a bogey man if it makes you feel better. That most of the pew sitters know nothing of this is hardly an excuse. There isn’t much that they know of the faith in the first place so having a sense of a crisis in faith is something far beyond their ordinary lives.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
I do think this is an American phenomenon – and I really don’t have the insight into people’s faith to pronounce on their ignorance of its culture wars. Most Catholics I know go to church, do their best to raise their families and to live a good Christian life – that seems enough.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Servus Fidelis said:
And to abandon the Gospel of Life is part of their culture now? After all it is the majority opinion of the folks in this country if you believe the Pew polls. In the past you agreed that we have not taught the faith. Now you seem to think that the average Joe is in communion with the Church. Seems that you have tried to accept both sides of the argument. I can’t make the math work.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
No, I take the view that the Church decides who is in communion with it – and I think you’ll agree that that is the case. Last time I looked neither of us was qualified to pronounce otherwise.
As I just said to QV, we don’t go with a majority on these questions – any more than we go with the minority on whether the Pope is a heretic as QV says. I can’t make the faithful Catholic and calling the Pope a heretic thing work either.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Servus Fidelis said:
And the Church just migrates gradually from pro-life to anti-life and all is right in the world and in the Church. Seems that what has happened in society is taking place in our backyard and we don’t want to admit it or we are anxious to defend it.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I must have missed the point where the Church changed its mind. This is part of the problem I think, you are not distinguishing between the Pope – who on all these issues has maintained church teaching, and the flock, which may well not have done. That is, in part, what AL is about – but I wonder if you have read it yet?
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
So, since mitigating circumstances exonerates all from any objective disorder, including ignorance of the teachings of the Church, we should just be happy and go with the flow; even if 2000 years of teaching are ignored. Teaching is no longer a requirement and neither is acceptance or obedience to the Faith. Fair enough. Hell really doesn’t exist. Alleluia.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
There is nothing in AL which says that – but then, as the Pope advised, I read it slowly and with care. Outside those determined to read it into AL I can’t see anyone who thinks it does. Discretion for bishops is not giving a carte blanche – as my own bishop confirmed last night, as did the Cardinal.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
The people on the video I put up read AL slowly and with care as well and I would not be so quick to discount what they have to say.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I don’t, but I think they are reading it through their preexisting bias. Were not some of these telling us that Kasper would win?
I must say I deplore this politicisation. I think Catholicism won, and we are all Catholics. I stand amazed that a post supporting the Pope should be the subject of so much criticism – but perhaps not 😊
LikeLiked by 1 person
Servus Fidelis said:
I haven’t criticized you yet? I am merely stating that those who think differently have a different view of the document. As to the people on the video. No, I do not recall them ever saying that. They are both respected in their fields and never throw stones that I am aware. They didn’t in the video if you ever want to watch it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
It was not personal, it was the comments directed at the Pope. I did look at the video, which seemed to take the view that the US was the world – a view you inherited from us. The Pope is taking into account those countries where the majority of the world’s Catholics live, and, as his predecessors did before Rome got too defensive and centralised, leaving things to his fellow successors of the Apostles. Seems a long and ancient tradition – but perhaps too old for those who like their traditions to be more recent?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Servus Fidelis said:
When you can drive from one diocese to another and have two different views of the same teaching and two different outcomes then it is no longer something that bears the stamp of universal teaching; at least not to me.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I can’t say that I am familiar with the phenomenon.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Servus Fidelis said:
I think the video made a good hypothetical about going from Poland to Germany. That has a large degree of believability I think.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
The two cultures are very different.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Servus Fidelis said:
And next door to each other.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
We’re next door to France – wouldn’t read too much into proximity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Servus Fidelis said:
But you Brits are never in-step with anyone. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Not even each other 😄
LikeLiked by 1 person
Servus Fidelis said:
Sounds likely. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Oddly enough, I have no idea – and nor do you. The difference is I am not implying I do.
LikeLike
Grandpa Zeke said:
Excellent.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Servus Fidelis said:
C, did you get a chance to watch the Aroyo video on the AT? As you probably know he and the EWTN crowd are not wild-eyed crazies and they bring up many good points concerning the problems with this document. If you didn’t watch it, you should.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
TYPO: That was supposed to read “. . . on the AL document?”
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
ON THE DEATH PENALTY IN THE US
Sadly, we as a nation are 9 trillion dollars in debt. In other words we are flat broke. We can no longer afford our prison costs and are thereby spending the money of our great, great grandchildren to keep them in prison and our general population safe. Murderers, in many states, face the death penalty and the ones that no longer do will probably have to borrow heavily to keep them behind bars.
Solutions: 1) All Catholics who are against the death penalty for murderers can adopt an inmate that is presently on death row; in fact any type of criminal they would like. They will, of course, not mind viewing this as an apostolate and pay for their meals and their medical expenses, clothes, etc. as an act of social justice and to keep people from having to borrow money from their great, great grandchildren to support this practice. 2) Let all prisoners go after sentencing. They will be good from then on because they will recognize the mercy of the people. Another problem solved. 🙂
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
The church advises that murderer should be kept safely – I don’t think that would be very safe. But perhaps those in favour of the death penalty could volunteer to carry out a certain number of executions a week? I am sure they wouldn’t want it all to fall on a couple of hard-pressed individual – and you would be saving the State their salaries. ISIS might offer courses in easy execution techniques 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Servus Fidelis said:
Here in the South we might find some that would participate in a new twist on the old Turkey shoot. I think putting these folks in the same arena with any ISIS folk we find on the battlefield might have some merit. Let the better man win. 🙂
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Well, I am sure you can get up a movement for it – I suspect in practice few would actually do it, and I would beware of those who volunteered. 🙂 Fortunately I don’t live in a country where we are in line with Saudi Arabia, North Korea and Iran.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Servus Fidelis said:
As for the last 3 you can put them in the same cage with the ISIS fighters and the folks on death row. It works for me. 🙂
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
As I say, I’m very happy to live in a country whose penal system has nothing in common with those systems.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
How long do your murderers stay in jail on average? Here we’ve been letting some go after spending as little as 3 or 4 years. The typical life imprisonment sentence is now being commuted to around 25 years. The system is broken obviously and the only thing we can afford is to start letting them out early. Of course they are still entitled to health care and wellfare once they are out and living amongst us. When the math starts failing the institutions start failing.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
It depends on the length of sentence, but about 8 years.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
And you don’t find recidivism a problem with such short sentencing?
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
On the whole not.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Servus Fidelis said:
Then something is wrong here because ours is through the roof.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Perhaps your penal system doesn’t do enough rehabilitation? Ours should and could do more.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Servus Fidelis said:
Can’t afford it anymore as the liberals in most states have stopped things like making license plates, doing labor for the state in various capacities etc. So they now get A/C, TV and all the books they can read. Most of them read law books in an effort to get a new trial and cut their sentence. Its a mess.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Lawyers, eh? Yes, it is a mess, and I don’t see it improving – alas.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Servus Fidelis said:
it got so bad that my father said that if I became a lawyer he would disown me. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
My father was annoyed I didn’t want to be a lawyer – I said I’d rather commit suicide quickly 😊
LikeLiked by 1 person
Servus Fidelis said:
You’d lose your soul either way, my friend. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Precisely what I meant – he wasn’t amused 😊
LikeLiked by 1 person
Servus Fidelis said:
Well it wasn’t lost on some of us. I was. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Here’s a system which takes sodomy seriously – over to you and QV on this one:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3547539/ISIS-prisoner-thrown-death-roof-engaging-sodomy-Iraq.html
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
Please! Do you actually think I want to murder people? What do you not understand about humor and what don’t you understand about our systems of governance being overstressed, overburdened and out of money?
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
And there was me being humorous too 😊
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
Glad of that. I wasn’t quite sure. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Out of money? Remind me how much is being spent on electing a blow hard or a crook?
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
The very wealthy drive our politics. I quit giving many years ago. It all came back to me in a flash. What you see is not what is going on in the back rooms. My grandfather told me what it was like when he was a delgate to the Democratic Convention in his day. They decided how many votes each person would get on the floor and then they went out and, son of a gun, if it didn’t turn out to be just like they said. Amazing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Perhaps if all these rich people paid their taxes rather than accountants to dodge them it would be better? We’ve the same problem hete.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Servus Fidelis said:
That’s crony capitalism at work. It wouldn’t matter if they upped the rate to 90% taxes. They would still owe nothing or next to nothing by the time the loopholes were jumped through. The job creators (small business) is the group that gets squashed. So our economy suffers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Ours too.
LikeLike
Steve Brown said:
No you live in a country where Islam can run wild, for, what was it –14 years before anyone would do anything to those scum in Rotherham.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Islam? There was me and the legal system and police thinking it was criminals? At which point did they defend their crimes by reference to Islam? It was race, not religion which made the police pussy foot – not unknown outside Rotherham or even the UK I believe.
LikeLike
Steve Brown said:
No, you live in a country where the Islamic horde screamed for so long and so hard that the wise MP’s caved and set up Sharia courts.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I must have missed that legislation. Where Sharia courts exist they have no legal sanction.
LikeLike
Steve Brown said:
You are correct! My bad.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Steve Brown said:
Tell me before #2 passes, so we (did you get that–we–your money and brains & my hard labor) can buy a gun store. See you tonight.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Steve Brown said:
C, remember the 13 Cardinals letter to Pope Francis? http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1351154?eng=y&refresh_ce
These are people of authority. It is reported that the pope threw a hissy fit, as Luther was prone to, saying among other things that HE was the only one of authority. But, since you don’t read the rags that would ever dare to write or report such trash, I’m sure you have not heard and would not believe such.
You drag on about the authority of the Magisterium, in your arguing for arguing sake with QVO, without realizing that Pope Francis, by many of his words and actions, does not give a rat’s ass about the Church’s 2000 year old Magisterium.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Whenever the press has reported on anything I have ever had anything to do with, I have discovered that it is most unreliable, always looking for the sensational angle – so by all means believed the Pope had a hissy fit, but forgive me for not following the gossip – about which the Pope had some good things to say which we might all heed.
Again, competent authorities, such as Cardinal Cormac disagree with your hermeneutic of rupture, and I know of no Cardinal who has come out and said what you say here – but perhaps they are all wrong and you and a few sites which have hated him from the start are right?
LikeLike
Steve Brown said:
Did the 13 Cardinals write that letter, or not? Did they have reason to write the letter? Has the pope responded to the letter?
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Yes, and we have seen the result in AL – it was the gossipy hissy fit thing I queried. Do you have actual evidence or is that gossip? I take it you have read AL?
LikeLike
Philip Augustine said:
I’m waiting for a good print addition before I read AL, as I prefer to read longer documents in print format. I am withholding my opinion until that time; however, from what I hear, it appears there is a variety of interpretations on the document, I haven’t really understood if there is a consensus on it yet.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
I took about six hours across a week. I really don’t get the fear. It is as though some think that virtue can be had by ticking boxes rather than living it.
LikeLike
Agellius said:
It is as though some think that virtue can be had in spite of not living it.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I can’t quite recall our Lord not welcoming sinners and walking with them before they repented – perhaps your Bible contains such stories? Perhaps the Jesus in your Bible insisted people repent before he loved them? The one in mine does not such thing.
LikeLike
Agellius said:
Obviously God loves us before we repent. But we must repent before we may be saved. That, I can confidently say, is in the Bible.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
I do not disagree – but that was not, I think, where your original comment looked as though it was starting.
LikeLike
Agellius said:
I was responding to your statement that people who have a problem with AL must believe in “ticking boxes” as a substitute for virtue. On the contrary, we believe that virtue must be lived or it’s no virtue at all. This isn’t to say that we must be virtuous before God loves us — God loving us is not at issue. We agree that he loves us. But not everyone that he loves will be saved, rather only those who repent of their sins will be saved. Repenting of your sins is the bare minimum, first step towards acquiring virtue.
The “ticking of boxes” (by which I assume you mean, “believing the right things”) is a virtue in a sense, since believing the right things requires faith, which is itself a virtue. It also requires humility, that is, the willingness to submit one’s intellect and will to authority. So box-ticking is not to be disparaged, in my view.
If all you meant was that believing the right things gets you nowhere if you’re not also living what you believe, then we’re in complete agreement. But that’s really one of the main points of AL critics: That the faith must be lived, and it seems that Francis is trying to relieve people of the burden of having to actually live what they profess to believe.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
I am never sure what ‘how believing the right things’ differs in the eye of the observer from ‘saying you believe the right things’? There is one Just Judge who alone reads our hearts, and from Him nothing is hidden.
I cannot see how anyone who did not bring that last conclusion with them can read it into what is written in AL.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
The one main thing you devotees don’t realize is….that these men in costumes don’t care about you or god. …Its just a job. A job with a good retirement plan. They act like they care, but they don’t. Anyway, what can they do about your salvation? Your salvation is between you and Christ. But they fold their hands in mock prayer, walk slowly down the ile and make you think they are holier than thou…and you drop your nickel in the basket. That’s all that matters.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
The think that you judgmental types who generalise from no knowledge don’t realise is how very stupid and unChristian such comments are.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
My parents had 2 lifelong friends that were ordained ministers and had their own congregations. I grew up knowing them as people, visiting them and growing up with their kids as if they were my bros and sis. One of them used to come over our hose and sit at the bar and get loud with the best of them. He used to say how seminary taught how to say the word God in a way that resonated with the people. A low guttural sound and a kind of shaking the head make the word somehow more powerful. They would get a good laugh.
Seminaries teach men how to act…to put on a performance. You seem to think that a diploma makes them serious men of god. One can go learn to be godly. Well, the unsaved think all kinds of things. I should know. Everyone is born unsaved. Its not a crime.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Well, I’m just guessing here, but they weren’t Catholics were they?
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Uh, no. They were, in your vernacular, protest preachers. One was Congregational church and the other….I don’t know what sign he hung over the door.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
So, that example does not support your generalisation then? Not surprised.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Doesn’t matter what sign the costume holyman hangs over the door. People are people. There are a small select few, I mean really small few, who enroll in seminaries because they want to be a priest and pastor to do what is right in the eyes of god. Im talking a very small few. Protestant seminaries the men have normal lifes and are married or whatever. Come on now…its common knowledge that catholic seminaries are homosexual fraternities. It offers a good time while one is at the seminary and a job when they graduate, with good protection and great retirement plan. It gets worster than that. Im very sure you read about the catholic seminarian that got busted for getting with 1 and 2 yr old babies . He was arrested something like a few weeks ago. He was going down to south America to try to purchase babies to satisfy his urges. I guess if he didn’t get caught, hes be sticking wafers on your tongues by now.
LikeLike
Agellius said:
451:
Well, we see it differently. I think part of the reason neither of us can prove ourselves right and the other wrong, beyond a doubt, is because of the vague manner in which the pertinent parts of AL are expressed. The fact is that I just can’t see any specific scenario in which it would make sense to tell someone that he can receive Communion without resolving to leave an objectively sinful situation, and the Pope doesn’t give any specific examples of what such a scenario might consist of either. I suspect this is because any scenario he could think of would have specific moral problems with it, and therefore could not be endorsed by a pope. So he leaves it vague. And the problem with vagueness is that people will interpret it however they want, which is what they are doing.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
As I read it, he is leaving the successors of the Apostles to bind and loose as their judgment allows – seems pretty Biblical to me.
LikeLike
Agellius said:
If that was all it was, it didn’t take 264 pages to say it.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
That was not all it said, but in reiterating the ancient practice in this area, it was useful.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
The Holy Father is paid to do and say something. So, hes got to say something, even if it means nothing. The faithful lap it up.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
You haven’t been reading the comments here if you think that.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
I haven’t read all of them, but the consensus is, that he upholds what the CC has always taught. He added nothing. The catholic gays are upset because the Poniff didn’t address their plight.
LikeLiked by 1 person