PopeWatch: The Shock of Recognition

Share on facebook
Facebook 0
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn 0
Share on reddit
Reddit 0
Share on delicious
Delicious
Share on digg
Digg
Share on stumbleupon
StumbleUpon 0
Share on whatsapp
WhatsApp
Share on email
Email
Share on print
Print

PopeWatch2-199x300

Those brilliantly twisted folks at The Lutheran Satire are always on target.  PopeWatch wishes that the arguments raised by the theological liberal in the video do not bear more than a passing resemblance to the style of argument engaged in by high level figures in the Vatican, one of many instances:

This current initiative of Cardinal Kasper comes, however, also right after a somewhat concealed May 25 “Day of Study” at the Gregorian University in Rome, which was organized by the three presidents of the Swiss, French, and German Bishops’ Conferences – Bishop Markus Büchel, Archbishop Georges Pontier, and Cardinal Reinhard Marx – who met with 50 participants: “partakers of the Synod, professors of theology, members of the Roman Curia, as well as journalists,” according to the press release of the German Bishops’ Conference of May 26. The general theme of this confidential gathering was the upcoming Synod of Bishops on the family, and the substance of the presentations was also to be kept confidential. The participants were even asked to preserve a silence after the Day of Study was over. As Catholic News Agency reports:

One of the speakers, who asked to be kept anonymous, refused to comment on the purpose of the conference and the tone of the discussion, as “it is unfortunately forbidden to us by the organizers to give any interview or explanation about yesterday’s conference.”

The well-respected Vatican reporter Edward Pentin spoke with Cardinal Marx after he exited the confidential meeting. Pentin reports:

Speaking to the Register as he left the meeting, Cardinal Marx insisted the study day wasn’t secret. But he became irritated when pressed about why it wasn’t advertised, saying he had simply come to Rome in a “private capacity” and that he had every right to do so. Close to Pope Francis and part of his nine-member council of cardinals, the cardinal is known to be especially eager to reform the Church’s approach to homosexuals. During his Pentecost homily last Sunday, Cardinal Marx called for a “welcoming culture” in the Church for homosexuals, saying it’s “not the differences that count, but what unites us.”

As different media outlets have subsequently been able to report, the following themes were discussed favorably at this Rome meeting, all of which items indicate a liberalizing tendency:

  • a new “theology of love”: sexuality as a precious gift of God, as itself an expression of love
  • the Church’s acceptance of homosexual unions
  • the Church’s listening to the voice of the Baptized in moral questions
  • a Catholic Hermeneutic of the Bible on the basis of the words of Jesus about divorce
  • the change of moral patterns in a pluralistic society
  • admittance of “remarried” couples to the sacraments
  • a second marriage as an “authentic union”
  • the indissolubility of marriage as “an ideal or ‘utopia’”
  • the importance of the human sex drive
  • sexuality as basis for a long-lasting relationship
  • with the lengthening of lifespans, the borders of fidelity are also changed
  • the development of Church doctrine and discipline over time

The spokesman for this one-day meeting, Matthias Kopp, told Catholic News Service on May 27, after some criticisms had arisen: “I reject the thesis that the bishops have an agenda to change church teaching.” In spite of this denial, many Catholics are indignant and suspicious about the procedure and tendency of this meeting, since many of the bishops, who are meant to be represented by the presidents of their own national bishops’ conferences, were not even informed about the confidential meeting, let alone invited.

Go here to read the rest.  We live in a time of deep mendacity, and those who wish to betray the Truth that Christ gave to us will deploy endless worthless lying arguments to do so.

More to explorer

Keeping a Promise

As faithful readers of this blog know, I was a very reluctant, and late, supporter of Donald Trump in 2016.  I grudgingly

17 Comments

  1. “the indissolubility of marriage as ‘an ideal or ‘utopia’”

    I think efforts to reduce poverty are ideal or utopian. Thus I am free from supporting any efforts at such. I have support from the very words of Christ. For, while he taught that one could not divorce, he did state “The poor you will always have with you.”

    So in a sense I really am living the Gospel by not pursuing the ideal of reducing poverty.

  2. “I reject the thesis that the bishops have an agenda to change church teaching.”
    \
    More and more, it appears that the goal is to keep Church teaching untouched (like an unloaded gun) up on the wall for all to see, while one’s home is pillaged, ransacked and destroyed–except for the nice looking unloaded gun..

  3. ‘the change of moral patterns in a pluralistic society

    the indissolubility of marriage as “an ideal or ‘utopia’”

    the importance of the human sex drive’

    Day of Study, exclusive not inclusive, to prepare words for the amoral to trump (clobber) the moral is probably the way it went. The Synod on the Family should save face by addressing morality, faith tenets, and the innumerable atrocities of Christian families being eliminated horrifically and the traffic in millions of aborted baby organs.

  4. Betting on this being the end times cpola is a good way to go broke since people have been predicting the end times since the Crucifixion. I doubt if we are living in the end times and when Christ comes again it will be as a thief in the night, completely unexpected, as He stated.

  5. As for Francis and Cdl. Kaspar, if you thought they’d hit bottom and couldn’t sink any lower, it appears they’re bound and determined to prove you wrong.

  6. Apparently, Elton John’s favorite Catholic, Francis,
    intends to take a hammer and sickle to the misogynistic,
    homophobic, rigid bourgeois structures of the Catholic
    Church.

    I hope Pope Benedict is enjoying his retirement.

  7. It is only reasonable to treat the opinions of theologians with deference, when they are speaking as experts in their own field. On questions such as the priority of Mark, the authorship of the Pastorals, or textual variants in the MSS, whether we should read ποδονιπτηρα instead of νιπτηρα in Jn 13:5, we necessarily accept their findings where there is a consensus and suspend judgment where there is not, for on such questions, the opinion of those of us who are not experts is, frankly, worthless. We rely on them in reading the bible, in the same way that, in reading Shakespeare, we rely on scholars to give us his original text, to explain the hard words and to identify his allusions.
    However, their scholarship gives them no particular authority on moral questions, for as Aristotle reminds us, what is required here is not learning but φρόνησις or practical wisdom (sometimes translated as “prudence”); it is concerns itself with particulars, because it directs us how to act in particular situations. One can learn the principles of action, of course, but applying them to situations one could not have foreseen, requires experience of the world. It is not a quality in which academics are preeminent.

  8. I wonder if the primary driver for Cardinal Kasper’s homosexual “welcoming” agenda is to justify the rampant homosexuality in the clergy itself.

  9. When is our Lord God going to defend and secure us from drowning due to machinations of bankrupt priests, bishops, cardinals, and ?Popes? Real and Pseudo-scholarship and lengthy tracts are not the saviors of our souls; authentic faith and unpolluted moral truths are. Stretch out your arm, Lord, and rescue us from these thieving hierarchs!

  10. Dear Michael Paterson-Seymour,
    Questions for help with the following from one who has a St. Joseph’s New American Bible, no Greek language, and interest in your comment.
    .
    whether we should read ποδονιπτηρα instead of νιπτηρα in Jn 13:5,:
    Translation of both?
    (Have note that this is an allusion to His humiliating death by crucifixion, that Ch. 13 is the Book of Glory, and a model of cleansing servant from sin by sacrificial death)
    .
    textual variants in the MSS:
    MSS?
    .
    On questions such as the priority of Mark:
    Mark’s writings to Matthew, Luke, and John?
    .
    I remember Aristotle.
    I fear the re-definition of the word ‘love’ as it was originally and abundantly expounded by Sacred Scripture. What will be done with ‘eternal life’?

  11. Bankrupt priests, bishops, cardinals and popes, like the poor, will be with us always.
    .
    Patricia,
    .
    I can’t help you with the greek, but MSS is the scholarly abbreviation for manuscripts; and priority of Mark refers to the textual-critical thesis that the Gospel of Mark is the oldest of the four Gospels.

  12. Patricia asked about “whether we should read ποδονιπτηρα instead of νιπτηρα in Jn 13:5,:
    Translation of both?”
    The only occurrence in Greek of the word νιπτῆρα, (obviously from νίπτειν or νίζειν = to wash) is in this verse, Jn 13:5. It is usually translated bowl or basin. Some have suggested it means a ewer (and basin). However, a very early (c 200 AD) papyrus manuscript found in Egypt in 1952 has the more common word ποδανιπτήρ, meaning “bowl.” This word also occurs, for example, in Pultarch (Phocion 20) where he refers to ποδονιπτῆρες, filled with wine – something like punch-bowls. The manuscript is known as P66 and is in the Bodmer library in Switzerland.
    The meaning is the same either way and I chose the example, because the question is one that is likely to be of interest only to professional theologians and classical scholars.
    “On questions such as the priority of Mark:
    Mark’s writings to Matthew, Luke, and John?”
    There is a long-running dispute between theologians over whether St Matthew’s Gospel is the earliest (as a number of early writers assert) or whether St Mark wrote first (based on internal evidence). It is known as the Synoptic Problem. First raised by Johann Jakob Griesbach (1745-1812), theologians still wrangle over it.
    Mgr Ronald Knox refers to it in a delightful satire on the theologians of his day (1911)
    “Twelve Prophets our unlearn’d forefathers knew,
    We are scarce satisfy’d with twenty-two :
    A single Psalmist was enough for them,
    Our Lift of Authors rivals A. & M. ::
    They were content MARK, MATTHEW, LUKE & JOHN
    Should bless th’old-fashion’d Beds they lay upon :
    But we, for ev’ry one of theirs, have two,
    And trust the Watchfulness of blessed Q.”

  13. “whether we should read ποδονιπτηρα instead of νιπτηρα in Jn 13:5,:
    Guessing the various theologians were wording the item that could hold liquid for the purpose in the verse depending on the location of the activity, whether a dining room or a wash/utility/entrance room or for the social status of those involved. Clay crock or precious metal punch bowl – maybe the origins of the theologians influenced their wording. It’s too bad that these days their wording has concerns such as in this Study Day.
    Monsignor Ronald Knox might have inspiration to write another little reflection on this effort.
    It seems a luxury of time and concentration to just simply read the bible.
    Thanks Ernst Schreiber and Michael Paterson-Seymour.

Comments are closed.