Monday, November 2, 2015
GIVEN THE LIBERALIZATION GOING ON IN THE CHURCH, I AM ONCE AGAIN LIBERALIZING THOSE WHO POST COMMENTS ON MY BLOG
I have return the blog to its libertine form of posting comments. Just be nice please. Don't denigrate people, don't use rude, crude and undignified language and don't be heretical or you won't be posted!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
I see the Pope is to publish the first book of his Papacy...but don't you think Marx's version of Das Kapital covered all the Leftist bases?
I see also that the USCCB and the ELCA Lutherans have published a paper on unity and a move for complete communion. This with the ELCA, an apostate, homo-loving, women ordaining, non-believing gang of the worst libs you can imagine who are already in full communion with the Episcopalians. Love that ecumenicism!
Bloggers Come Home.
Thank you Father, we appreciate it, even though I don't agree with this pontificate I will be "respectful" but also voice my concerns about Francis, once again Father many thanks!!
On a side note, besides the mess the Holy Roman Church is in, the German government just abolished St. Martin's Day in ALL German schools why you ask??? Well guess who they don't want to offend? you guessed it, the over one million MUSLIM'S that have just invaded Germany. Also a Protestant church in Oberhausen just removed the cross, altar and pulpit so the 50 Muslim invaders invited to stay there will not be offended, Father are Christian Europeans and their are not many left on some sort of self-destruct mode?? Please opine Father, because Our Lord and Our Lady have to be crying watching all of this unfold in Germany and Europe!!
The first "Lesbian" bishop in the world Eva Brunne of Stockholm Sweden had a church in Sweden remove all crosses from the Seamens mission church as not to offend Muslims arriving by ship and had directions to Mecca be installed as well. As you may or may not know there are areas in and around Stockholm that are NO GO areas for the simple fact Muslim immigrants will either attack or kill you, once such suburb is Malmo Sweden, they have also driven the Jews from Malmo as well. The blog site "Gateway Pundit" has many of these very very frighting and dare I say true happenings going on in Europe that the MSM will not tell you!!
Gene, American Lutherans don't have apostolic succession, so how could there ever be communion with them (even if they agreed with Catholics on everything else)? One reason the Lutherans and Episcopalians never merged was the issue of apostolic succession---though Rome does not acknowledge it (not sure why?), Anglicans believe they have upheld that doctrine, that their bishops are literal successors of the apostles. Americans Lutherans have bishops, but I believe like Methodist ones, an office-holder but not a bishop as either Rome, Canterbury or Constantinople would define one (powers to ordain and confirm).
Lutheran and Episcopal Eucharists are similar though, so you can't tell much different between the two. Ironically, the oft-maligned (seemingly on this blog) Vatican 2 contributed to wider use of the Eucharist in both denominations, and Rite 1 Eucharist of the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer is very similar to the Roman Ordinary form Mass. Years ago, one of Virginia's Episcopal bishops credited Vatican 2 with renewed interest in their Church in the Eucharist, many of whose parishes returned to use of traditional communion vestments---alb, stole and chasuble---which today are the normal vestments at a parish here in the (Episcopal) Diocese of Atlanta.
Is your "Join the NRA" the National Rifle Association, or National Restaurant Association?
Declaration on the Way: Church, Ministry and Eucharist
"The heart of the Declaration is the Statement of Agreements. On church, ministry and Eucharist, the Declaration draws together a litany of 32 consensus statements, where Catholics and Lutherans already have said there are not church-dividing differences between them. An elaboration of these agreements grounds them in the dialogues' work. Finally, a more tentative section identifies some "remaining differences" – not intending to be comprehensive but suggesting some ways forward."
"In October 2015 the Statement of Agreements was unanimously affirmed by the ELCA
Conference of Bishops, which requested the Church Council also accept them and forward the Declaration to the 2016 ELCA Churchwide Assembly for reception. The text has been shared with The Lutheran World Federation."
"Also in October, the 32 Agreements were unanimously affirmed by the Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which commended the Declaration on the Way to Cardinal Kurt Koch, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, for further reflection and action."
An executive summary and/or the full text can be read via the USCCB website.
Anonymous, I report, you decide. Read the article if you can find it. Well, you could join the National Restaurant Association, but you should always carry concealed when you eat at any of their restaurants. You know, the dangers of diversity, globalism, immigration and the increasing lawlessness of our society. But, you simpering libs don't really see anything wrong with that, do you?
Many denominations do not see "merger" as necessary. Whereas the Catholic Church seeks full, organic unity, other Christian denominations are more willing to accept "unity in diversity." That doesn't work for the Catholic Church in many regards. However, we should note the Anglican Ordinariate which accepts a liturgical diversity in practice.
Many denominations do have full intercommunion: Lutherans, Episcopalians, Presbyterian Church USA, united Church of Christ, Moravians, and United Methodists all share "full communion" with each other.
Lutherans and Episcopalians also can share clergy since, I think, 2001.
Speaking of old commenters on this forum: Has anyone "seen" rcg in the past few weeks? I've missed his wisdom and have been led to praying for his health for reasons I don't understand...
Why should the Catholic Church seek "unity" with protestants, anyway, who mostly accept abortion, birth control, LGBT ministers, women ministers, deny the Real Presence, and reject the Pope and Magisterium? I think it is just plain stupid....but, then, it is the USCCB.
Everyone needs to go back and read St. Augustine. Read "City of God," "De Trinitate," and "Contra Pelagius" for starters. Then, you might want to delve into his writings on free will and predestination. It has a purifying effect.
Now, being a life-long theology student and a former Calvinist, I am probably less restricted than many to contemplate the freedom of the Holy Spirit. A theological doctrine that is common to all denominations, protestant or Catholic and which, stated in fancy theological jargon, explains that the Holy Spirit is both "contemporaneously contingent and contingently contemporaneous."
In other words, we in no way control it, our worship or good intentions do not compel it, it is in no way predicated upon any human determination, and its presence was a promise, not a guarantee. This means that it is not trapped in the Church or pressed between the pages of any Church document, the CCC, or any infallible teaching of any Pope. This should be sobering to aware Catholics. A very brief study of the history of the Children of Israel will show you that God has withdrawn from His chosen people, removed His presence from them, allowed them to flounder in their own sin and disobedience and, ultimately, sent them (the Church, as it were) to be carried away into captivity. Luther believed that the Church was in a Second Babylonian Captivity during the debacle of his day (he was probably correct), and Calvin certainly believed it, although in less hysterical terms. The Church recovered and rocked along ok for a while, then came Vatican Two and, of course, the hatchling from that bad egg, Pope Francis and the "synod." We should be concerned that God may well remove His presence from the Roman Catholic Church and choose, in His good and perfect will, to lodge it elsewhere, either in some faction like SSPX or in the East or, perhaps after some schism, in a renewed and purer Roman Catholic Church. God judges His people and His Church through history and historical events. Too many Catholics sit fat and happy thinking the Real Presence is like some doctrinal Hav-A-Hart trap in which we catch and hold the Holy Spirit like some sacred 'coon or possum. Personally, I think if you do not believe that Vatican Two, Pope Francis, and this synod are not God's judgement upon our apostasy and disobedience, then you have not been paying attention.
Gene, how do you think that the promise of Christ that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church factors into your thoughts here?
I think it is imminently likely that God has seen fit to chastise the Church by giving to modern man the leaders that modern man desires -- these are men without faith, who convene synods and councils to cement their lack of faith. Some priests in the Traditional orders refer to this situation as The Passion of the Church, claiming that the Church is undergoing a prophesied chastisement in the Mystical Body just as Christ underwent the chastisement in his Passion.
Perhaps part of this is due to what you've pointed out as the hubris of modern churchmen in believing that they control the will of God and that God will somehow change his teaching if we get enough people on board for the change. To the extent they believe in God at all, they see him as the supernatural chairman waiting for us to tell him what to do after our democratic processes have determined our preference.
Pope Francis is surely a part of this chastisement. It is difficult to imagine a figure who could do more damage to the Church and the faith of the people than this man has done. And he has done it in less than three years. We cannot lay the blame completely on him, though. He is the logical conclusion of the previous pontificates, including John Paul II and Benedict. That he saw fit to canonize John Paul II really tells you everything you need to know about Francis.
Marc, without trying to play word games, it does depend upon one's understanding of "Church." What is it that the gates of Hell will not prevail against? Those faithful everywhere who worship in spirit and in truth? Faithful Catholics who seek another Catholic venue that manifests a truer embodiment of doctrine in worship and pastoral practice? Or, is it Rome, the Vatican, and whatever Pope? What about the Magisterium...thousands of years of true belief surely are not tied to a Pope, a Vatican, or a cultural madness that has infected the Church? These are serious questions. Protestantism has been an utter failure. It has nothing to offer any faithful. The very fact that some in the Church want closer ties with protestantism is a symptom of the problem. Now, the Church is traveling exactly the same path. So, whither the gates of Hell?
Gene, what is a "simpering liberal?" Do I qualify even if I have never voted Democratic for president, never? Is a simpering liberal someone once inch to the left of red Cruz and Rick Santorum? Someone who might back Rubio for president in the primary next year?
As for immigration, I suspect if millions of Southern Baptists were crossing the Mexican border, they'd be welcome with open arms by conservatives. (Illegal immigration actually has declined anyway.) We doubtless have some illegals at our mission here in Atlanta area (Sandy Springs to be exact)---I assume you don't want the clergy there asking whether someone is illegal or not when dispensing the sacraments? Our bishop here in Atlanta (well, we have 3, but the diocesan one) has actually decried the vile tone of the immigration debate. You don't believe Donald Trump's pledge to deport the 12 million illegals?
Anonymous, I don't know what you qualify for other than naive. I hope Trump does carry through on his promise to deport 12 million illegals if he is elected. The Priests should be asking the illegals if they are illegal because, if they are, they are breaking the laws of the country, which is expressly forbidden in CCC. Your example of Southern Baptists is ridiculous, because SB"s would not be breaking the laws of their country. I don't care if the people crossing illegally all have blonde hair, blue eyes, and are waving the Confederate flag...if they are illegal they need to be prevented from coming here.
Gene - Why should we seek the unity of the Church? Because Jesus prayed that we would be one, just as He and the Father are one.
And it is not the USCCB seeking unity. You might have heard of that little Roman dicastery known as the Pontifical Council for Prompting Christian Unity...?
Kavanaught, it doesn't matter whose dumb idea it is. Jesus was not praying for unity with heresy, moral abomination, and apostasy. You must take lessons in missing the point.
Gene - No, you are wrong, again. The work that the Church does for unity among Christians is not a "dumb" idea. It is the will of Christ. I prefer to stand with Him and with the Church than with someone who thinks Jesus Christ and the Church is "dumb."
Unity among CHRISTIANS, Kavanaught, not unity with the world. John's Gospel, a Gospel of stark contrasts (like darkness and light, belief/unbelief, the world and the Kingdom) is very clear that this oneness Jesus speaks of is about those who believe, beginning with His disciples and extending only to those who believe His word and the teaching of His disciples. The "world," so often spoken of by Christ in this Gospel, includes unbelievers and non-believers. Incidentally, John most closely parallels the Letters of Paul in its Christology and theology. You may want to check Paul out...you remember him, don't you? His writings start right after Acts. So, some stupid blanket statement about oneness from Biblically illiterate Bishops and theologians doesn't mean much. You know, you really need to pick up a book or two on NT theology, but let me recommend them before you go buy some modernist crap.
If you think that the Church is not already united, then you are wrong. It's right there in the Creed -- the Church is ONE, holy, catholic, and apostolic.
Unfortunately, for any number of reasons, there are people who are not part of that one, united Church.
How is it possible for the Church to have an agreed upon statement with Lutherans on the Eucharist? The Lutherans do not have the Eucharist -- they have bread.
Marc, the Lutherans are probably communing using pizza and beer by now...
Gene, you are wrong, again. Here's why:
CCC 818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."
NOTE: The Baptized have a right to be called Christians. SO when we engage in ecumenical dialogue with the Baptized, we are working toward unity with CHRISTIANS.
Gene and Marc: CCC 1271 Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: "For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church." "Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn."
Yes, the Church is one, but there are divisions among Christians. They are our brothers and sisters through Baptism, adopted sons and daughters of God.
The Church seeks unity because, "...divisions among Christians prevent the Church from realizing in practice the fullness of catholicity proper to her in those of her sons who, though joined to her by Baptism, are yet separated from full communion with her. Furthermore, the Church herself finds it more difficult to express in actual life her full catholicity in all its aspects." (CCC 855)
I'm happy, again, to be right in step with the Church, and I invite you to join the parade!
Gene---like the old Gene Talmadge, the wild man from Sugar Creek?
Trump will not get elected. 12 million will not be deported. I think your views on deportation clash with Georgia's two diocesan bishops, who have called on immigration legislation for years...and Congress has done nothing (of course I don't know if ol Gene is from Georgia). As for Southern Baptists not breaking the law of the land, well, I'm sure there were some who did in the days of desegregation---remember ol Ross Barnett, Southern Baptist governor of Mississippi, who defied orders to desegregate Ole Miss back in 1962? Like requiring federal troops to admit James Meredith? A lot more recently, there was a Southern Baptist named Bill Clinton who defied federal law and lied about an affair he had while president---like lying under oath? I suspect a federal offense. Al Gore, yes another Southern Baptist, engaged in illegal drugs in his youth (I suspect that was against the law too 45 or so years ago).
Illegal immigration has declined substantially in this country anyway since 2000.
Priests are not expected to ask those they are serving if they are legal or not. The Church does not condone lawbreaking, but neither is it a police ward of the state. When our clergy here in Atlanta serve communion, are they expected to ask "first, show me your papers?"
Kavanaught, read my first sentence in the post again. It is about believers. Prots who condone abortion, support gay marriage, and ordain queer Bishops and priests are not believers. The Church should not court them.
Anon, I am from Georgia, and I am generalizing about Southern Baptists in the sense that they are not mass law breakers. I do not give a hoot for Bishops' views on immigration. The lawless masses should be deported and a wall should be built with the 101st manning it. Hell, I am in favor of putting up warning signs in Spanish and Arabic and mining the border. This is not hyperbole.
Gene Talmadge was a Democrat populist who was elected governor four times. He was quite a well-loved character by his constituency...when it was revealed that he diverted agricultural funds in order to raise the price of hogs in favor of the small farmer he said, on the courthouse steps to a huge crowd, "Yeah, I stole, but I stole for ya'll." He was re-elected by a landslide.
He said during a campaign, "You got three friends in this world, Jesus Christ, the Sears and Roebuck Catalog, and Gene Talmadge." Populism at its best.
Gene, I think the questions you ask are serious and valid. They've also not been addressed yet.
Obviously, I've given my answers by my actions; however, I think they're worth discussing. But, I don't know that Fr. M would post what I would write.
Well, Flavius, give it a try. It would be a good discussion. Maybe Marc, Jan, and Jusad and will jump in, too. Kavanaught, of course, will bark from the sidelines like some demented Chihuahua, but he can be ignored.
Post a Comment