- Other blogs, same writer
- A thread from Catholic.com (more may be added)
- Answering Steve Rudd
- Have these dialogues taken place? Yes.
- Copyright issues on blogposts with shared copyright
- I think I wrote a mistaken word somewhere on youtube - or perhaps not
- What is Expertise? Some Things It is Not.
- It Seems Apocalypse is Explained in a Very Relevant Part
- Dialoguing Mainly with Adversaries
- Why do my Posts Right Here Not Answer YOUR Questio...
Friday, March 9, 2018
... when even the "Robber Baron" (as I often call him) gets sth Right!
Bishop Barron on Leaving The Church
Bishop Robert Barron / Ajoutée le 8 déc. 2010
0:59 "but rather because the bishops should now reconsider a number of church teachings"
But my dear Robber Baron ... haven't you done the same already?
Trent said we need to read the Bible with the Church Fathers.
They were not all Flat Earth (Lactantius was, whether you count him as a Father or not), but they were all as far as we can tell both Geocentric and what is popularly called Young Earth (ok, 5199 years when Christ was born is not very young and now Earth is even older, but it is not "moyboy").
They all took Adam and Eve as historical persons.
Perhaps your infamiliarity with their florid language makes you think if they expound very emotionally and include many symbolic hints on our condition in a reflection on for instance Cain and Abel (taking De Civitate as an example) then that means that the Church Father is not doing history, but a kind of theology based fantasy novel. No. St Augustine is willing to discuss even very dry details of history, because he takes the split between Sethites and Cainites not just as a symbol of that between the two cities (whether he was right or wrong) and an early instance of it (whether he was right or wrong, I think he was right but know some don't), he is indeed taking this as history.
How could they live so long and did the children of Adam really marry siblings are question he does answer and which would hardly have arisen if he had taken it as purely symbolic.
So, Vatican II has been doing what you decry, and you have not resisted it.
How about submitting to Pope Michael, getting conditionally reordained (if he considers you a good cleric) and thereby getting back to the Church?
1:52 "God's grace is available in other Christian Churches, in other Spiritual Traditions, it's available in Nature"
Supposing you are not where you are by defecting from the Church.
Take heed of that, Vatican II-ers!
4:09 Since missionary work is of tremendous importance, why do you stay with people who have "canonised" Mother Theresa?
She told her sisters not to act as missionaries to Hindoo or Muslim patients.
Pope Michael has not canonised her.
Alexander IX, if he's the Pope (I don't think so, but if, however, he did canonised Feeney not just in person, but also in doctrine - or pretend to do so) has gone one further and posthumously excommunicated her.
Yes, it is theoretically possible this or that patient of Mother Theresa was implicitly of the Catholic faith while in technical detail of a non-Christian erroneous tradition. Alexander IX would not even admit that. Now, does this mean Mother Theresa was right? No, because she could not know whom God would excuse or not excuse.
She could not know whom she was giving material comforts on a broad journey to a fire which lasts forever. And no indications or too few to get them on a better path.
But your version of the Catholic Church has "canonised" Mother Theresa.
Also, is Billy Graham in Hell because he wasn't Catholic? If he is, isn't that Wojtyla's fault, as he also contributed to keeping the Dalai Lama a Buddhist. And you have "canonised" him too.
And if Billy Graham is not in Hell, if Reagan is not in Hell, perhaps they have many years in Purgatory because Wojtyla didn't speak up. He had a chance to.
Bergoglio not only gave Putin no indication on becoming Catholic, but even dissuaded him from speaking about Fatima.
And Bergoglio even promoted Luther who left the Church, at least by implication, when visiting Lutheran "women priests" who had no priesthood even among their men, because Luther redefined Holy Mass. That is, he defined it wrong, a bishop intending to ordain a "priesthood" for that and expressing that in liturgic changes is not ordaining priests and so on.