tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1900800634479346046.post1979118850713940772..comments2023-12-18T09:55:42.480-08:00Comments on What Sister Never Knew and Father Never Told You: Father James Martin and Thoughts on Amoris LaetitiaUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1900800634479346046.post-10702888908718628832016-05-02T07:00:30.897-07:002016-05-02T07:00:30.897-07:00Well, perhaps it was a bit too quick of me to use ...Well, perhaps it was a bit too quick of me to use the word "heresy" here but the Church has a long tradition--going back to the theological disputes in the medieval universities--to allow for dissenting opinions to be freely expressed and argued by competent scholars. It is part of the process by which doctrines are continuously refined to come to every more precise definition. Defined heresies--such as Arianism or Jansenism--are not tolerated, of course, but theologians continue to argue over the precise relationships of the two Natures in the one Man Jesus Christ. Modalities of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist are still argued and discussed to get to more precise articulations of the faith of the faithful in encountering Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar. What it means that Christ died for all as opposed to only those who are to be saved is still a lively question that divides Catholics from many evangelicals and even from neo-Jansenists in our own midst. What does it mean that Christ is sole and Universal Savior is yet another question that sparks a lot of lively debate when interfaced with the issue of salvation for those who have not had the Gospel preached to them. Some people see any new discussion, much less theological formulation, as "heresy" when it is in fact the process by which the Church continually polishes its teaching to let the Truth shine with more precision. Consolaminihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09278560268489520757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1900800634479346046.post-54832173564987141322016-05-01T21:33:15.764-07:002016-05-01T21:33:15.764-07:00Not sure if you are updating comments on past arti...Not sure if you are updating comments on past articles, but if you see this, why would the Catholic Church be more tolerant of heresy than schism ? Doesn't heresy eventually LEAD to schism ? Thanks. - Anonymous in NYAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1900800634479346046.post-54544422146384450572016-04-27T11:03:50.751-07:002016-04-27T11:03:50.751-07:00Ollldude: Yes, I can reconcile it. Read the last...Ollldude: Yes, I can reconcile it. Read the last sentence from the parable. "Go and sin no more."<br /><br />Jesus forgave the woman, but didn't say "It's OK if the IDEAL is too hard for you, just give it your best shot. Sin is OK. In fact, let's not call it sin, let's call it an 'irregular failing.'"<br /><br />Are there any rules you libs believe the Church should hold onto ? Tell us exactly how you are different from liberal Lutherans or Episcopalians - 'cause I can't see it. <br /><br />Or maybe that's it -- that's what you want the Catholic Church to become. If so, have the integrity and honesty to admit it. <br /><br />- Anonymous in NYAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1900800634479346046.post-23313532422395392712016-04-23T06:32:29.900-07:002016-04-23T06:32:29.900-07:00thank you, Julian, for your comments. I had publi...thank you, Julian, for your comments. I had published Anonymous of April 18, 11:20 AM as an example of the Krazies who get all out of shape over Francis and where he is taking the Church. Consolaminihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09278560268489520757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1900800634479346046.post-89283866310120475102016-04-22T11:05:19.650-07:002016-04-22T11:05:19.650-07:00The fact you used as your source material an anti-...The fact you used as your source material an anti-Pope, Novus Ordo and Church hating website that commits grievous sins of slander and calumny, and as Pope Francis declared as infallible in matters of morals and faith, gossip as the devils work, of which the Devil is part of the Faith and gossip falls into both realms (sin in the faith,) your argument is poisoned and pretty much rendered moot. <br /><br />If you are going to prove your points, don't bother to use radical extremists to prove it. Servimus Unum Deumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12521042317656015840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1900800634479346046.post-41034000440576902042016-04-18T20:16:55.068-07:002016-04-18T20:16:55.068-07:00you are spot on about the Catholic Church tolerati...you are spot on about the Catholic Church tolerating heresy but not schism. I remember hearing Martin Marty make that same point almost fifty years ago. I think he was a bit overstated but he claimed that the Catholic Church will bear any and all doctrinal variations but will not bear a challenge to its authority. I Building on your comments, I think the problem is that many of those reacting to Francis are more influenced by the Protestant culture pervasive in our society and lack the Catholic sense of laissez faire. Catholics steeped in our Catholic Tradition know that the barque of Peter often gets tossed about on the seas of the world in which we live but all we have to do is to hold on and persevere. Consolaminihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09278560268489520757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1900800634479346046.post-39510239529497450152016-04-18T19:47:27.759-07:002016-04-18T19:47:27.759-07:00"Lines of demarcation"?
But then there i..."Lines of demarcation"?<br />But then there is this from just a few Sundays ago:<br /><i>“Teacher, this woman was caught <br />in the very act of committing adultery.<br />Now in the law, Moses commanded us to stone such women.<br />So what do you say?”<br />They said this to test him,<br />so that they could have some charge to bring against him.<br />Jesus bent down and began to write on the ground with his finger.<br />But when they continued asking him,<br />he straightened up and said to them,<br />“Let the one among you who is without sin <br />be the first to throw a stone at her.”<br />Again he bent down and wrote on the ground.<br />And in response, they went away one by one,<br />beginning with the elders.<br />So he was left alone with the woman before him.<br />Then Jesus straightened up and said to her,<br />“Woman, where are they?<br />Has no one condemned you?”<br />She replied, “No one, sir.”<br />Then Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you.<br />Go, and from now on do not sin any more.”</i><br /><br />Can you reconcile that?Ollllddudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00893625383056639105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1900800634479346046.post-4680845491089647652016-04-18T17:30:09.768-07:002016-04-18T17:30:09.768-07:00Some thoughts for "Anonymous" of 18 Apr ...Some thoughts for "Anonymous" of 18 Apr 2016 at 11:20AM, <br /><br />I disagree with your observation about history showing that an absence of clear lines of demarcation between right and wrong. If anything, I think history demonstrates the opposite. In the history of religion, I think an (oversimplified) difference between the Catholics and Protestants is revealed in how they handle the dual threats of heresy and schism. Simply put, the Catholics will tolerate heresy more readily than schism; heresy is a problem but schism is the point of no return, in which you become dead. On the other hand, the Protestants insist on ideological purity, and any tolerations are met with a finger pointed towards the exit. Hence there is one bulky and ultimately unified Catholic Church in which there are different factions, while the Protestants boast thousands in independent entities, and there is probably a group out there for the personal moral and spiritual inclinations of any individuals. So the Church's relative flexibility in comparison to any one Protestant denomination's insistence on ideological purity has been to the Church's credit. <br /><br />In history, the most totalitarian regimes that allowed for the least amount of difference of thought and action were also so ossified that they were brittle. In the black-and-white world of the USSR, even a hairline crack was an existential threat to the entire edifice, and down it came. Glasnost and perestroika were not opportunities for growth, because built into the governing structure was the need for one monolithic voice, period. The same threats beset the Ancien Regime in France or the North Korea of today. <br /><br />Liberalization has frequently helped institutions across time and space. It's simply updating the interactive apparatus of the organization to the world as it is. The adage "change or die" is true, ultimately. Not in the sense of creating an aberration of one's DNA, as that usually plays out as a harmful mutation. However, there needs to be adaptations and evolutions over time in the *human organization of the Church* over time (not the eternal truths at which she grasps the hem of). You could indeed read Jesus as a massive liberalization of the gradual program of rehabilitation that God the Father embarked on after the Fall of Man. The transformation and tremendous liberalization (and perhaps even radicalization) of the Sinai Covenant in the person of Jesus is what allowed the God of Abraham become a global phenomenon with billions of followers. For convenient comparison, the Pre-Christian Judaism has still survived, but is only some millions worldwide, and has remained a small, ethnically-driven, and ultimately fringe way for some people in Israel, New York, and a few other cities in the world. <br /><br />Furthermore, it doesn't work to measure the Church's "success" or "failure" by mass attendance. That falls into the fallacy of scientism, by which all things must be reducible to some empirical measurement. The very idea that falling church attendance can be used to make a value judgment on the efficacy of the Church is essentially the same type of argument that "numbers/ratings/sales/investments=success/worth," which is patently false. Using demographic, monetary, or political statistics to comment on the direction of the Church in its mission is a form of epistemological imperialism. An economist could make that argument or a statistician, but not a person operating by faith.<br /><br />Third secret of Fatima? The contents thereof depend on what you'd like to smoke. If you get the stuff, I'll supply the ouija board, and we'll have a swinging time. Consolamini can interpret for us, perhaps. Ha ha. LetsGoBackTo 1950https://www.blogger.com/profile/11143652173723323853noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1900800634479346046.post-22145659162497416832016-04-18T14:00:20.132-07:002016-04-18T14:00:20.132-07:00I gather that the barque of Peter is a rough ride ...I gather that the barque of Peter is a rough ride for you these days, but the best antidote for seasickness in the turmoil of the modern world is to immerse ourselves in the Gospel. Do that and you might get a clue of the course on which Pope Francis is steering us through the shoals of the third millenium. Consolaminihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09278560268489520757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1900800634479346046.post-62658825759027485292016-04-18T11:20:30.347-07:002016-04-18T11:20:30.347-07:00Unfortunately, history has shown that if you do NO...Unfortunately, history has shown that if you do NOT have clear YES or NOs or lines of demarcation, then ambiguity and dissent take off. This has been the experience of all religions and social structures which do not enforce their reasons for existence.<br /><br />Everything is black and white ? Maybe not, but is ANYTHING black-and-white ? Because that's what AL and Pope Francis are saying. And if you doubt me, check out the headlines here:<br /><br />http://www.onepeterfive.com/the-headlines-say-it-all/<br /><br />That's right.....60,000 words...250 pages....and 1 footnote is what the secular press focuses on. And this is a surprise ?<br /><br />The Pope says he understands those of us who want a more clearly spelled-out approach as JP2 gave us in FC. But he thinks his way is best. Based on what ? The epxerience of what religion..what institution...what social structure ? When did 'liberalization' ever strengthen an institution by keeping the Faithful and bringing back the wayward ? <br /><br />The experience in this Church -- check out Mass attendance in the U.S., Europe, etc. -- has been the Faithful lose faith and the borderline or fallen-aways don't come back, or if they do temporarily, leave eventually. Who wants to belong to a religion that changes its values to accommodate the secular and modern ? Would you watch a baseball or football game if, after the game was concluded, both sides were declared the winner by fiat ?<br /><br />Nope, I'm afraid this is not going to bring back the wayward, at least not in any great numbers. But it will damage the Catholic Church and undermine her teachings. It already has. But I guess we can always get Cardinal Dolan to say we need to better teach the CCC. Sure, that will help, while we are being undermined from within by our own leaders, clergy, and professional Catholic social class.<br /><br />Isn't that Fatima secret supposed to be revealed soon ? :-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com