FRANCIS’ GUIDELINES FOR THE SYNOD
This September we saw Pope Francis carry out two major actions regarding marriage that were clearly meant to set precedents to influence the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops, which will be gathering at …More
This September we saw Pope Francis carry out two major actions regarding marriage that were clearly meant to set precedents to influence the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops, which will be gathering at the Vatican soon in October. This coming Synod is planned to be the first of two.
The 2014 Synod is meant to generate the information necessary for Bishops to be aware of the modern moral problems of family life; the 2015 Synod is intended to have the Bishops decide a new approach of the Catholic Church on family morals.
A 20-couple-marriage
20 couples living in sin and giving public scandal surround
the Altar of the Confession at St. Peter's Basilica
The first bombastic initiative of Francis was to invite 20 couples from the Diocese of Rome to celebrate a solemn multiple wedding presided over by himself at St. Peter’s Basilica on Sunday, September 14, 2014.
Let me stress that this ceremony was not requested by the couples, who had little relationship among themselves, but directly by the …More
The 2014 Synod is meant to generate the information necessary for Bishops to be aware of the modern moral problems of family life; the 2015 Synod is intended to have the Bishops decide a new approach of the Catholic Church on family morals.
A 20-couple-marriage
20 couples living in sin and giving public scandal surround
the Altar of the Confession at St. Peter's Basilica
The first bombastic initiative of Francis was to invite 20 couples from the Diocese of Rome to celebrate a solemn multiple wedding presided over by himself at St. Peter’s Basilica on Sunday, September 14, 2014.
Let me stress that this ceremony was not requested by the couples, who had little relationship among themselves, but directly by the …More
Prof. Leonard Wessell
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
@Galahad, you have presented an excellent horrifying report. No irony here. The report was very informative, the content was horrifying. My compliments for noting the parallel between Luther and Francis. Howeever, the comparison is not fully fair. Luther actually strays less from the truth that Francis. I explain myself so:
Luther held that humans are sinful, cannot stop being sinful. Because he …More
@Galahad, you have presented an excellent horrifying report. No irony here. The report was very informative, the content was horrifying. My compliments for noting the parallel between Luther and Francis. Howeever, the comparison is not fully fair. Luther actually strays less from the truth that Francis. I explain myself so:
Luther held that humans are sinful, cannot stop being sinful. Because he could find no forgiveness for his sinning, he became despondent until he concluded that God forgives humans as they are. God's forgiving, indepentent of any repentence, sanctifies and, thereby "saves" the believer sola fide. Luther did not mean that people should go about seeking knew sins to commit. He met that sinning per se will not condemen IF and ONLY if the sinner has faith that God has already forgiven the sin. So, onr should noz get up tight if onr feeld sinnful -- it is already discounted. The result is that Luther does at least leave "sin" as sin. (Note: Because God has forgiven the hapless sinnning sinner, the sinner feels relieved, happy and THANKFUl >>>> automatic "good works" flow. As Protestant theology developed doing "good works" became a criterion for having been forgiven. "Good works" were smuggled in through the backdoor.)
Francis is an irrationalist in the Kantian sense that one can "know" nothing about the SUPER-empirical-natural realm. Existencialists believed that same and tried to live in a godless world. Francis has latched on to "feeling", gushy, lovy-dovy emotionality, as the empirical mechanism for attaining God (or, perhaps better, the Holy Ghost swoops down and seizes the believer and this is felt via emotions >>> penachant for Penecostal liturgical exuberance). Francis seems, re sin, to allow the act of immersion of the actual sinner into "love-grace", into those gushy feelings, to be sanctifying 1. even if the sin (fornification or adultery) continues (which is close to Luther) or 2. (as I think your article is indicating) the sin itself is purified of sinfulness by love, thereby becoming no longer sin. (By "sin" here I mean acts dealing with sexuality, not murder.) This would be different from Luther who did not lose sight of sin nor try to cleanse the nature of "sin" of its sinfulness, only freeing sola fide the sinner from the consequential burden. Francis, if this second interpretation is correct, would, on the other hand, be actually changing morals, i.e., asserting (at least materially) that previous "sin X" is qua the content of X now no longer a sinful act, rather a moral act.
Assuming my thesis is correct and that I have caught your idea, I am faced with a problem. A Pope, in and by the act of changing "sin" into "morality", would be contradicting one essential feature traditionally ascribed to Papal powers as the Keeper of the Keys. Am I right? On the surface, this looks like that at least traditional claim for the Magisterium has be falsified. In science a "falsified" theory is, well, not a true theory. In theology?
Luther held that humans are sinful, cannot stop being sinful. Because he could find no forgiveness for his sinning, he became despondent until he concluded that God forgives humans as they are. God's forgiving, indepentent of any repentence, sanctifies and, thereby "saves" the believer sola fide. Luther did not mean that people should go about seeking knew sins to commit. He met that sinning per se will not condemen IF and ONLY if the sinner has faith that God has already forgiven the sin. So, onr should noz get up tight if onr feeld sinnful -- it is already discounted. The result is that Luther does at least leave "sin" as sin. (Note: Because God has forgiven the hapless sinnning sinner, the sinner feels relieved, happy and THANKFUl >>>> automatic "good works" flow. As Protestant theology developed doing "good works" became a criterion for having been forgiven. "Good works" were smuggled in through the backdoor.)
Francis is an irrationalist in the Kantian sense that one can "know" nothing about the SUPER-empirical-natural realm. Existencialists believed that same and tried to live in a godless world. Francis has latched on to "feeling", gushy, lovy-dovy emotionality, as the empirical mechanism for attaining God (or, perhaps better, the Holy Ghost swoops down and seizes the believer and this is felt via emotions >>> penachant for Penecostal liturgical exuberance). Francis seems, re sin, to allow the act of immersion of the actual sinner into "love-grace", into those gushy feelings, to be sanctifying 1. even if the sin (fornification or adultery) continues (which is close to Luther) or 2. (as I think your article is indicating) the sin itself is purified of sinfulness by love, thereby becoming no longer sin. (By "sin" here I mean acts dealing with sexuality, not murder.) This would be different from Luther who did not lose sight of sin nor try to cleanse the nature of "sin" of its sinfulness, only freeing sola fide the sinner from the consequential burden. Francis, if this second interpretation is correct, would, on the other hand, be actually changing morals, i.e., asserting (at least materially) that previous "sin X" is qua the content of X now no longer a sinful act, rather a moral act.
Assuming my thesis is correct and that I have caught your idea, I am faced with a problem. A Pope, in and by the act of changing "sin" into "morality", would be contradicting one essential feature traditionally ascribed to Papal powers as the Keeper of the Keys. Am I right? On the surface, this looks like that at least traditional claim for the Magisterium has be falsified. In science a "falsified" theory is, well, not a true theory. In theology?