Thursday, December 28, 2023

AiG commented on Fiducia Supplicans

New blog on the kid: Why I am not using the tip of Babylon Bee · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Two Videos on Fiducia Supplicans. Neither is, Thank God, Pro-Sodomy · AiG commented on Fiducia Supplicans

FASCINATING Information on the Christmas Star
Answers in Genesis | 27.XII.2023

2:53 I find three wise men pretty probable, in parallel with the three comforters of Job.

6:03 I must thank you for giving me an occasion to thank Babylon Bee for nothing.

Most of the tips for me boil down to my not disposing of transport across time or space to US or 50 years ago.

8:05 Check out how Mark Goring intends to implement the document. Or Charles Chaput.

On the less bright side, there are probably some clergy who intend a very different implementation.

It's a bit like Humani Generis. It left Cardinal Ottaviani free to believe that God created Adam directly and left Teilhard de Chardin free to believe God created Adam via aeons of Evolution. (It obliged even Teilhard de Chardin to believe there was literally one Adam, though).

8:25 Traditional doctrine = biblical.

8:33 The Catholic standard is the unchanging word of God.

An unchanging text, the Bible. A tradition that adapts the text to approach different misunderstandings, via the magisterium, but remains true to the unchanging meaning.

8:44 A Church man who decides, very obviously, he is not going to do tradition any more, by that fact ceases to be a Church man.

That's why the Church is able to not change.

And that's why I adher to Pope Michael II rather than "Francis" ... Popes Michael I and Michael II for instance uphold Young Earth Creationism and Geocentrism, since it is Biblical, and therefore also traditional.

9:13 Christ gave His Apostles, and through them their successors, the power to be infallible, when the occasion calls for it.

You like to call the Bible Theopneust, which it is. Check the Bible for ten men who were Theopneust the same evening as Jesus was risen:

John 20:
21 He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. 22 When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. 23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

If Jesus is God, and if He breathed on them, they were literally Theopneust.

9:40 If two men are gay and live together, I think God should bless them if:
  • they tell the priest (and aren't lying), they are trying to cease the physical sin
  • they tell the priest (and aren't lying), they are trying to find a lesbian couple for a permanent partner exchange, so they can go from sinful relations to marital ones
  • they tell the priest (and aren't lying), they are trying to find another apartment so one of them can move away from the other and cease to sin
and a few more like these.

In such cases, the priest would definitely be blessing the persons who can convert, not the union that is sinful.

If they lie to the priest, he only represents God insofar as what he does is based on truthful information.

He represents God when blessing a true marriage, but not if the couple "forgot" to tell him one of them is an incredibly well remade trans, or they are related in forbidden degrees, or one or both is already married to someone else and so on.

He represents God in Confession, when giving absolution, but not if the penitent totally made all of it up so as to fool him.

nathan white
@hglundahl Homophobe.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Sorry, @nathanwhite704, didn't see your comment.

If "homophobe" means no more than being against sodomy, every Christian needs to be a "homophobe" ...

However, if homophone means hating every person who approaches or habitually commits sodomy, irrespective of other circumstances, just because, a Christian needs to be not a homophobe.

I don't think my attitude to homosexual people is phobic. It's more like calling me "cleptophobe" because I am against stealing.

9:59 While I don't consider "Francis" the Pope, I can not base the rejection of Fiducia Supplicans.

Here are two paragraphs that, unlike the news paper article, actually do talk about the Gospel and about sin:

5. This is also the understanding of marriage that is offered by the Gospel. For this reason, when it comes to blessings, the Church has the right and the duty to avoid any rite that might contradict this conviction or lead to confusion. Such is also the meaning of the Responsum of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which states that the Church does not have the power to impart blessings on unions of persons of the same sex.

22. As St. Thérèse of the Child Jesus teaches us, this confidence “is the sole path that leads us to the Love that grants everything. With confidence, the wellspring of grace overflows into our lives [...]. It is most fitting, then, that we should place heartfelt trust not in ourselves but in the infinite mercy of a God who loves us unconditionally [...]. The sin of the world is great but not infinite, whereas the merciful love of the Redeemer is indeed infinite.”[13]

And here is one that indirectly but pretty clearly talks about not blessing sin:

38. For this reason, one should neither provide for nor promote a ritual for the blessings of couples in an irregular situation. At the same time, one should not prevent or prohibit the Church’s closeness to people in every situation in which they might seek God’s help through a simple blessing. In a brief prayer preceding this spontaneous blessing, the ordained minister could ask that the individuals have peace, health, a spirit of patience, dialogue, and mutual assistance—but also God’s light and strength to be able to fulfill his will completely.

The document is available on the site of the Vatican.

Source Declaration
Fiducia Supplicans
On the Pastoral Meaning of Blessings

10:07 "at least what the reporters chose to quote"

If Nature gives a fake report supporting Evolution, your team will obviously look at the research it's based on and give relevant comment.

The Vatican has the web site where the document is available to be read for free, and you didn't look?

Come on! Don't tell me you were looking for an occasion to criticise Catholicism for not teaching Bible alone, or ... were you?

I think I'll pause the video here, for now.

No comments: