Sunday, April 10, 2016

Pope's encyclical in the age of sound bites

Steve Skojec, from the website 1Peter5, squared off with Monsignor Kieran Harrington, Vicar for Communications for the Diocese of Brooklyn with Sandra Smith of Fox & Friends. Now think: this is what the Church's Magisterium comes down to for most of the Catholic and secular public. Not even time for one to finish a thought.


In fact, on the second run through this video, Msgr. Harrington's comment elevating a relationship with Jesus Christ as primary and the law as "what comes afterwards" sounds positively Lutheran. Gospel vs. Law; love vs. justice; Simul iustus et peccator. Luther couldn't have put it more clearly himself. Thing is, in the Catholic view, law and justice are themselves expressions of God's love and mercy. Very un-Lutheran. But how's anyone to fathom that these days? It might take more than a sound bite.


6 comments:








bill bannon

said...

The venue and the time limit of a fox quikie... just increased non clarity. Ed Peters at his website " In Light of the Law ".... is a good source of balance. He brings out some good and some bad from the document. "The Catholic Thing" had a balanced piece by Robert Royal doing the same. Flattery pieces and total bashing pieces sometimes follow source of income...Church dependent or independent income. The two above mentioned men are Church dependent incomewise to different degrees and thus that doesn't always augur mindless flattery...but it often does. If you see a Catholic title starting with "Seven things to know about the Pope's missive..." or "Ten things to know about..." or "22 Things to Know about....", get ready for income/job protection saccharine.





Catholic Mission

said...

I want to read the Catechism of Trent.To many factual mistakes in other catechisms and Vatican Council II and Amoris Laetitia

I need a personal copy of the Cathechism of the Council of Trent.Since in the catechisms which followed Trent there is a factual error. They have mixed up what is hypothetical as being explicit.The same mistake is there in Vatican Council II.There are entire passages based on this mistake.There are so many superflous references which should not have been there.They are meaningless.The Catechism(1992) says God is not limited to the Sacraments.Then there are the three hypothetical conditions of mortal sin.The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are mentioned, as if they are known in the flesh cases in the present times.This is all deadwood.They have nothing to do with the passages they are associated with.The same confusion, mixing up what is invisible as being visible is there in the text of Vatican Council II.

The good Monsignor mentions the Catechism and Cardinal Schonborn as a reference!

Why did cardinals Ratzinger and Schonborn have to refer to God not being limited to the Sacraments (CCC 1257) ? Why was the case of the catechumen saved with the baptism of desire placed in Ad Gentes 7 which says all need faith and baptism' for salvation? Who is this catechumen? Do we know the name and surname of any one saved without the baptism of water since 1992-2016?

Similarly why did the Baltimore Catechism have to place, in the Baptism Section, the desire for the baptism of water by an unknown catechumen who dies before receiving it ? Who in Baltimore knew of someone saved without the baptism of water but with this new baptism ? Is the baptism of desire really like the baptism of water? Can we repeat the baptism of desire and give it to someone?

Vatican Council II is full of this mistake. I repeat ,there are entire passages based on this mistake.'Seeds of the Word'(AG 11) , 'imperfect communion with the Church', 'elements of sanctification and truth' found outside the Church, ' a ray of that Truth' which saves, saved in invincible ignorance and with a good conscience(LG 16) etc.

I would like to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I don't have a copy of my own.

I do not reject the other catechisms and Vatican Council II. What is traditional and in agreement with the Catechism of Trent I accept.I need to buy my copy in English at a bookstore near the Vatican which will probably have a copy.

In this way I will get past the Ratzinger-Rahner innovation.So much of nonsense. The invisible-dead theory! The dead man walking and visible theology!
-Lionel





Anonymous

said...

Here's the thing: where are these "relationships with Christ"? Or, is simply consuming the host enough to create an ontological relationship? Apparently so, since we do not see lines of forlorn lovers of Jesus lamenting their non-partaking status in the Church alongside the larger throng, meaning they aren't hanging around once their rail privileges are revoked, love or no love. In which case it suddenly makes sense -- the only important thing is to be the punchcard carrying, host-consuming member of the Church. It's all about the act, after all. And we are back to the externals determining the relationship. Etc etc. All the happy talk in the world cannot change the fact a fundamental change in teaching is taking place. Remember 'Catholic Guilt'? I sort of do. Sort of.





Amateur Brain Surgeon

said...

Here it is AGAIN.

The Catholic Church has absorbed the protestant ideology about a personal relationship with Christ which renders as unnecessary such mediating men as Priests, Bishops, and Popes.

Who'n'hell requires any sort of mediating presence imposed by a church obsessed with legalism when (Cue Burt Bacharach) what world needs now is love sweet love...

The atavistic autodidact may want to do a search to discover which Pope first used a personal relationship with Jesus.

ABS could find no Pope prior to Pope Saint John Paul II using it





Amateur Brain Surgeon

said...

A prominent part of papal praxis is the way of Heresy condemned in the fifth century

The way of heresy in the Shadow * Church and it's long ago condemnation...

(Pope) St. Gelasius 1 492-496 A.D.

Denzinger's 161 (1) [For] it has been reported to us, that in the regions of the Dalmatians certain men had disseminated the recurring tares of the Pelagian pest, and that their blasphemy prevails there to such a degree that they are deceiving all the simple by the insinuation of their deadly madness. . . . [But] since the Lord is superior, the pure truth of Catholic faith drawn front the concordant opinions of all the Fathers remains present. . . . (2) . . . What pray permits us to abrogate what has been condemned by the venerable Fathers, and to reconsider the impious dogmas that have been demolished by them? Why is it, therefore, that we take such great precautions lest any dangerous heresy, once driven out, strive anew to come [up] for examination, if we argue that what has been known, discussed, and refuted of old by our elders ought to be restored? Are we not ourselves offering, which God forbid, to all the enemies of the truth an example of rising again against ourselves, which the Church will never permit? Where is it that it is written: Do not go beyond the limits of your fathers [Prov. 22:28], and: Ask your fathers and they will tell you, and your elders will declare unto you [Deut. 32:7]? Why, accordingly, do we aim beyond the definitions of our elders, or why do they not suffice for us? If in our ignorance we desire to learn something, how every single thing to be avoided has been prescribed by the orthodox fathers and elders, or everything to be adapted to Catholic truth has been decreed, why are they not approved by these? Or are we wiser than they, or shall we be able to stand constant with firm stability, if we should undermine those [dogmas] which have been established by them? . . .



Liberals, revolutionaries, modernists, and heretics sedulously labor as sappers of settled Doctrine and Dogma and such devils and doctrinal derelicts have been doing so since the fourth century because they think that they are right and the One True Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church is wrong.

Why Synodality?

The revolution must constantly advance or die.





Chuck Martelowski

said...

Skojec got it wrong, plain and simple. There are no limits on God's dispensation of mercy. Absolutely none. Don't take my word for it; ask Flannery O'Connor. Sincere repentance in the sacramental context of confession is one road only.

But having given due recognition to the logical point of God's omnipotence, let us also contemplate the question of why God even bothered to establish a Church. Surely the reason must have been to uphold the lawful basis of His teachings as clearly and consistently as possible. The Church, in other words, is bound to God's law. Slipping that bond, the Church is nothing, not even an anomaly. You want to call it a meeting place for avuncular bloviation, a MASH field hospital, a beer tent, a human zoo, go right ahead. Call it anything but a Church.