tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post7378079616201295303..comments2024-03-28T20:30:10.681-04:00Comments on southern orders: THE VATICAN IS FEELING THE THE HEAT, BUT THIS CARDINAL AIN'T THE ONE TO POUR COLD WATER ON IT!Fr. Allan J. McDonaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16986575955114152639noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-53881220461235377742018-03-05T11:04:44.382-05:002018-03-05T11:04:44.382-05:00"Today we are living a violent time which has..."Today we are living a violent time which has never before been experienced."<br /><br />The Cardinal must be living in a cozy ivory tower if he thinks that. The entire history of human civilisation contradicts him, that is to say, not much has changed. Just check out the Old Testament, indeed, why humanity needed salvation in the first place. He is typical of a neo-Modernist, who thinks the world has changed so much that it is now the one which has the Truth. The typical Modernist tactic is to open the door just slightly, which sets the principle that eventually allows for the door to open wide later. Just look at the liturgical reforms. <br /><br />The Cardinal is also invoking the sensus fidelium here, precisely in the way that Benedict XVI warned against, that is, not as sensus fidei, but as sensus laicorum, a heresy. <br /><br />Nevertheless, there is a problem, the problem that in some cases an annulment cannot be granted for technical reasons, that is to say, there was never a real marriage in the first place, but that this cannot be "proved". That is what needs to be fixed, not trying to allow divorce and remarriage in the True Church as the Cardinal and his Germanic buddies are trying to do. Victornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-87586845595205177662018-03-05T09:35:12.448-05:002018-03-05T09:35:12.448-05:00Bee here:
The good Cardinal said, "Before sa...Bee here:<br /><br />The good Cardinal said, "Before saying that something is heresy, the question should be what the other person means by what has been said. "<br /><br />Wasn't this done by several cardinals asking for "clarification" in a letter to His Holiness, which was responded to with the sound of crickets?<br /><br />The Cardinal also said, "Sin is a complex term." <br /><br />This very much reminds me of one of our past Presidents of the United States, one William Jefferson Clinton, saying his answer to a very probing question about a sexual scandal he was involved in depended on what the meaning of "is" is. Parsing of words usually means someone is evading the truth.<br /><br />The Cardinal also said, "And this needs to be examined in the internal forum—in the Sacrament of Reconciliation—if there is truly a grave sin, or perhaps a venial sin, or perhaps nothing. If it is only a venial sin, the person can be absolved and admitted to the Sacrament of the Eucharist."<br /><br />Yet, isn't the Sacrament of Reconciliation the a teaching moment for the poorly catechized (or the reprobate) that to have married once, divorced and remarried without an annulment is possibly a very grave sin, and they must cease and desist immediately from participation in the Eucharist until the matter can be formally resolved, lest they commit sacrilege and face damnation? It seems once someone in this situation has conferred with a priest, it should be very clear to their conscience that what they are doing is possibly a very grave sin. So perhaps before confession they have not committed a grave sin due to ignorance, but after confession, if the priest has done his job informing their conscience, how could the sin of receiving Holy Communion in their state not be a grave sin? <br /><br />I hope in future interviews the good Cardinal can answer some of these questions I, as a lay person, do not understand about Amoris laetitia.<br /><br />God bless.<br />BeeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com