So says the Boston Herald in this article!
The whole article is way out there.
But here's the funny part -- one is hard pressed to produce evidence it isn't true!
As Cardinal Arinze explains here, the pope doesn't have the authority to grant such powers to episcopal conferences - basically debunking the Pope's claim that he does.
Some at the synod have talked about allowing decisions on the divorced and remarried or on homosexuality to be decentralized, made at the level of regional or national bishops’ conferences or by individual bishops. How do you feel about that?
Are you going to tell me that we can have a national bishops’ conference in one country that would approve something which, in another conference, would be seen as sin? Is sin going to change according to national borders? We’d become national churches. Have there not been other religious affiliations in the world that came dangerously near to that?
National bishops’ conferences are important and should have a clear role, [a very limited role, perhaps] but I don’t think it should include these areas. It looks dangerously like nationalizing right and wrong.
Another link to Cardinal Arinze's rejection of Pope Francis' idea is HERE.
This is going to get ugly!
8 comments:
Pope Francis is merely trying to bring broad recognition to the fact that the Catholic Church largely became effectively Protestant following Vatican II. Vatican II was the death knell of this long term trend of devolution of Catholic doctrine beginning in the late 19th century with Modernism. In terms of a long range plan, I think, he would like to consolidate all Christian religions into a single entity similar to our Federal Government and the States. The sexual moral doctrine in this new arrangement would be based on an individual's conscience which will be most pleasing to practically everyone. Peace and social justice will be the main goals of this new Christian configuration. God and Jesus will have a minimal a supporting role. The Bible and the Catechism will be rewritten to reflect consensus moral understanding. Everyone will be destined for heaven. Most everyone will love it. Well, maybe not everyone, i.e, God and Jesus. But, so what, who cares about Them anymore?
FYI - the Cardinal Arinze link is broken.
thanks for alert on link--fixed now!
Michael Dowd, I agree with what you wrote, but have you seriously thought of what is implied in what you have written?
That would mean that the Church is not indefectible - that it can lead its children astray - that it isn't trustworthy and safely followed. Above, it would mean that in faith and morals, it can feed you poison.
Where are we to go and what are we to do now? During the Arian heresy, Catholics would rather die than have anything to do with a heretic. We seem to have lost the horror that the old Church Catholics had for heresy. Remember St. John? He ran out of the bath-house. Most Catholics today wouldn't think of doing that.
Just asking some questions. I'm not trying to stir up a hornets' nest.
I think Michael Dowd's comment is tongue in cheek to a degree, but let's face it, much of what he says has already occurred. I believe in the ultimate victory of the Church, but I believe strongly also in the invasion of the Evil One inside her walls and the winning for evil of many who are not vigilant. I don't think we are done with it, either. In fact, the sodomites have just got their siege engines running tho they have been milling around outside the walls for while. But the gates of hell won't prevail, and that means Hell will not keep the message of salvation out. Gates don't attack. They defend, and we must be on the offensive. Right now the Church is stuck on sodomy, likely because so many in leadership are sodomites. But Michael's post is right to mention other issues, for they are great. The Church has been infested with modernism for many decades. That sort of infestation doesn't limit itself to just one topic. Have faith and don't give up.
OPEN LETTER TO CARDINAL O"MALLEY AND CARDINAL WUERL:
Please do not betray the Holy Roman Catholic Church and Jesus Christ.
You two could be the only sane voices that the Pope will listen to - your Pope needs YOU !
Do not fear being sent to Malta !
Do not fear following Jesus Christ and Our Queen Mary !
Those Judas Cardinals who betray Jesus also betray all of humanity - in the name of being "pastoral" - that is a Judas goat not a shepherd !
I follow Jesus Christ - not Kaspar Iscariot !
Now you choose....
Arinze was my choice for pope. What a pity. So much smarter than Bergoglio.
By most reports, the liturgical traditionalists in the Sacred College had little or no traction in the last conclave, and given the subsequent shifts in the electorate, they will have even less in the next. The main issue in the 2013 conclave was how the Curial cardinals were fighting to defend themselves from each other and against election of a pope who would wrought serious changes to them. They feared Cdl Scola of Milan in this regard, and that divided them, and Cdl Bergoglio became the favored second-choice who won. In either eventuality, the divided Curial group was likely to be left exposed. And that's not a shocking result given how the Curia performed in the past decade and a half.
Post a Comment