Stephen Walford, a British Catholic author, has challenged the four cardinals who submitted doubts about 'Amoris Laetitita' to Pope Francis to change course, arguing they're largely wrong on the merits and also fueling a 'satanic' form of abuse directed at the pontiff on traditionalist and conservative websites and blogs.
John Allen is sucking the wallets of the Knights of Columbus whilst always having his fangs ready to inject his poison into the truth. Funding "Crux" is about as wise as funding a project of Joan Chittister's.
The Knight's money would be much better spent putting a private detective on Fr. James Martin to find the source of his compulsive guilt-ridden public confessions of his conscience.
UPDATE: Ironic that in today's readings, Christ does the very thing Walford claims is satanic.
Jesus said to his disciples:
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing,
but underneath are ravenous wolves.
By their fruits you will know them.
Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
Just so, every good tree bears good fruit,
and a rotten tree bears bad fruit.
A good tree cannot bear bad fruit,
nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit.
Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down
and thrown into the fire.
So by their fruits you will know them."
A rotten tree bears bad fruit and a good tree cannot bear bad fruit.
Christ told us to judge the fruit and that is exactly what we are doing.
The fact of the matter is, Walford has implied what Christ said is 'satanic' which is simply another rotten apple falling from the tree.
Walford is foisted on his own petard.
Our friend Janet Baker has a blog post up wading through and correcting Walford's errors.
I admire her stamina!
Another excellent analysis here.
Here, let me have a crack at it: God is no longer immutable, he changes His Divine Law. Adultery now isn’t always Adultery. Now you can receive sanctifying grace even while remaining in an objective state of mortal sin. So how did the mortal sin get removed without full contrition, firm purpose of amendment, and sacramental confession? Don’t you see how this absurd notion, borne out of false mercy, completely shatters the entire fabric of moral doctrine?
It’s all a total lie, straight from the father of lies himself. But it does have the benefit of neatly summing up the new religion in one sentence.
It certainly does!
3 comments:
You have to wonder who Stephen Walford thought was his audience. 90% of Catholics, having never read Amoris Laetitia, already agree with the Pope in general, mainly because the Pope agrees with them about being "flexible" with moral doctrine. 5% of Catholics, knowing something about AL, agree with the thinking as it just extends the theology of Vatican II and consequently need no convincing. The last 5% disagrees with Pope Francis on the grounds that it not in line with historic Catholic morality.
Please note lengthly critique of the Walford article:
https://onepeterfive.com/is-amoris-laetitia-an-expression-of-the-ordinary-and-infallible-magisterium/
I just now took a stab at rebutting some of that mess that Walford spewed forth. If I tried to correct the whole thing, it might take me an entire day.
Janet, I read your post this morning, outstanding job on his piece of trash. I'm going to add a link to this blog post.
Post a Comment