Wednesday, October 8, 2014

AFRICAN AND OTHER 3RD WORLD COUNTRIES MAY SAVE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH YET!

African Bishops in the Anglican Communion have been some of the most orthodox Anglican bishops there are. In fact some of the break-away Anglican groups in this country have placed themselves under the care of African bishops of the Anglican Communion.

Wilfried Cardinal Napier of Africa makes so much sense in this video and he is so Catholic in his logic and teaching.

If the Church buckles under the Middle Class secular western mentality which has cooked us into submission and unfortunately bishops from exotically rich Church's like Germany's Cardinal Kasper, we will see a true schism I am afraid in the Church.

Eventually we will have to allow bigamists, polygamist and others in completely irregular situations to receive Holy Communion and without compunction. No Cross Catholicism. Is that what the bishops and pope want?

23 comments:

JusadBellum said...

Here's a radical idea....why don't we listen to those bishops and laity whose pastoral reality involves packed Churches full of faithfully married couples who are capable of heroic witness to the Gospel in spite of every hostile secular power?

Obviously they have the right idea. Why care one whit what German prelates whose Churches are empty and who get money solely from government tax rations and not free will offerings have to say? They are total failures when it comes to the rubber that meets the road of actual evangelization and the creation of authentically 'faithful' laity.

MR said...

Cardinal Ouellet: expect pastoral, not doctrinal changes

http://www.ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/Vatican.php?id=10908

Anonymous said...

Yeah, pastoral. That's all we've heard since the closing session of that last "pastoral" Council. See how successful that's been? Yeah, more pastoral, just what we need. NOT!

Henry said...

Frequently, pastoral changes lead to doctrinal changes, insofar as practice and belief are concerned. Think of the changes in belief and practice of most Catholics, as a result of the purely pastoral changes of Vatican II. No matter that doctrines on the books were not changed. The perniciousness of current efforts by some lies precisely in the attempt to move us past doctrine in pastoral practice. In effect, an end run around doctrine. Indeed, someone has remarked that we are entering (or are already in) a "post-doctrinal" era, in which official doctrine matters little to the belief and practice of most Catholics.

JBS said...

The Germans haven't exactly been outstanding examples of morality over the past hundred years or so.

JBS said...

I agree with JusadBellum and Henry. Perhaps Southern Orders should host the next synod, provided common sense is still desirable.

Cynicism aside, I do think there is value in open dialogue on faith and morals. But when dialogue among Catholics seems as wild as dialogue between the Church and other religions, something is wrong. The "gradual" approach makes sense in the African context, where large numbers are not Christian. But why would we adopt a gradual approach to explaining matrimony to a fifty year old cradle Catholic, for example?

Anonymous said...

Would everybody who's ready for a black Pope say "Obama"?

Joe Potillor said...

Yes, that is what they want...they will not get it though. Doctrine can't change, but like Henry, can totally see an around doctrine via pastoral practice. God help us.

MR said...

Go Cardinal Pell!
Cardinal Pell: On divorce, I'm sticking with Jesus
http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2014/10/08/cardinal-pell-on-divorce-im-sticking-with-jesus/

MR said...

Go Cardinal Pell!
Cardinal Pell: On divorce, I'm sticking with Jesus
http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2014/10/08/cardinal-pell-on-divorce-im-sticking-with-jesus/

Gene said...

JBS, Re: Germans Churchill said, "A Hun alive is a war in prospect." LOL!

Anonymous said...

Gene...all Germans were not "Huns". All Muslims are not terrorists. All southerners are not rednecks. All members of Southern Orders are not right-wing wackos. Think about it. I'll bet you can figure it out.

Anonymous said...

Gene...thought of a couple more....all Catholics are not religious zealots...all investment bankers are not thieving scoundrels.

Anonymous said...

LOL

Gene said...

Do any of you guys know what a sense of humor is? LOL! Hey, it was Churchill…who also said, "Anyone who is not a liberal at 20 has no heart; anyone who is not a conservative at 40 has no brain."

JBS said...

I consider the comment by Anonymous to be racist.

Anonymous said...

JBS, I assume that your "racist" remark referred to my comment about President Obama. I'm afraid you missed the mark on this one. I. in fact, voted for Mr. Obama in 2008 and 2012 and still support him.

Gene "LOL" doth not a sense of humor make. I think I'm funnier than you are.

Gene said...

JBS, well, I consider your comment about Anonymous to be racist, sexist, homophobic, age-ist, bigoted, misanthropic, misogynist, anti-Catholic, anti-protestant, anti-semitic, anti-capitalist, anti-American, handicapist, anti-environmental, ant-mammalian, anti-invertebratist, phylo-genetically bigoted, anti-cosmologistic, Pelagian, docetic, Donatistic, Nestorian (see docetic), Enthusiast, Manichean, monophysisistic, insensitive, politically incorrect, overweening, and anti-intellectual. There…have I left anybody out? LOL!

rcg said...

Sort of back to topic, I had the practice of polygamy in Western Africa explained as the ability of a wealthy man to care for poorer people. Richer man, more wives. This submits to the concept of women as possessions and of manhood as a reproductive competition, but I do think that it has a very strong case within the Catholic charity concept if a person of wealth, relatively, can lend targeted support to a family or families. The barriers to this approach are erected by vanity, such as exercising control and feeling entitled. But I do like the idea.

Gene said...

So, RCG, for just how many women do you plan to provide "targeted" support? And, just what aspects of their person are you targeting?

Gene said...

Anonymous, you may be funnier than me…but, looks are not everything.

JusadBellum said...

Anyone who voted for Obama twice because he is half-black (and not because you approved his policies) is ipso facto a racist.

Racism is defined as treating people differently solely on account of their race. Sexism is the same but for their sex.

Thus to treat a black man to a LOWER set of standards for qualifications to become President in order to 'elect a black president' at all cost is to actually practice racism.

To vote for Hillary solely on account of her being a woman is to be sexist. Would you vote for a man who only had the same level of experience and achievement? If not, then why not?

I've found that those who cry the loudest about the supposed sins of others (racists, sexists, homophobic) are actually the ones who practice these forms of discrimination the most.

Who wages class warfare if not the people who declare that we must treat the rich celebrities with a greater leniency than any average citizen?

Who actually lives white supremacy ideologies if not the folk who declare that minorities simply can't be expected to handle life's challenges on par with white people and so need a permanently lower threshold of success?

On the actual merits, it's the Left and Democrats in general who actually practice and live racism, sexism, classism, etc.

Anonymous said...

Jusad...11:27 AM...You have posted lots of weird stuff, but this BS piece takes the cake.