They can only bless individuals. No different than the final blessing at the end of mass.
Pope Francis expected to ask Bishop Strickland to retire
54,486 Views |
391 Replies |
Last: 14 days ago by Severian the Torturer
PabloSerna said:
" Do you think homosexual marriage should be permitted in the Church?"
No problem butting in. This is an old argument we have had on and off for years.
You have to separate the two terms you have placed together because of the understanding the RCC has of each word. For the RCC there is only marriage, and it is defined clearly as being between a man and a woman. It is is also a sacrament which like all others was establish by Jesus in the Bible.
Others on here, some of whom are RCC, want to put the two together to make a point, not sure what it is, but you will not find me or someone such as Fr. Martin "promoting" homosexual marriage as an expanded definition of holy matrimony. Because so-called homosexual marriage is between two persons of the same sex, hence the "homo" as the prefix in the word homosexual. You probably know that, but you never know.
What some Catholics, such as Bishop Btzing from Germany, has supported blessing of same sex unions or life long partnerships. We are not there in our understanding because of the very hangup many on here still have regarding persons that are same-sex attracted.
Hope that helps.
Pablo, your mask slipped for a second. You are a big proponent of quoting modern encyclicals as the basis for your progressive theology, yet here you are completely contra Fiducia Supplicans.
What hang-ups do Cardinal tucho and the late Pope Francis (RIP) when they expressly forbid the relationships themselves to be blessed, rather than the individuals?
How do you bless something that is of "grave depravity" according to the Catechism?
Severian the Torturer said:PabloSerna said:
" Do you think homosexual marriage should be permitted in the Church?"
No problem butting in. This is an old argument we have had on and off for years.
You have to separate the two terms you have placed together because of the understanding the RCC has of each word. For the RCC there is only marriage, and it is defined clearly as being between a man and a woman. It is is also a sacrament which like all others was establish by Jesus in the Bible.
Others on here, some of whom are RCC, want to put the two together to make a point, not sure what it is, but you will not find me or someone such as Fr. Martin "promoting" homosexual marriage as an expanded definition of holy matrimony. Because so-called homosexual marriage is between two persons of the same sex, hence the "homo" as the prefix in the word homosexual. You probably know that, but you never know.
What some Catholics, such as Bishop Btzing from Germany, has supported blessing of same sex unions or life long partnerships. We are not there in our understanding because of the very hangup many on here still have regarding persons that are same-sex attracted.
Hope that helps.
Pablo, your mask slipped for a second. You are a big proponent of quoting modern encyclicals as the basis for your progressive theology, yet here you are completely contra Fiducia Supplicans.
What hang-ups do Cardinal tucho and the late Pope Francis (RIP) when they expressly forbid the relationships themselves to be blessed, rather than the individuals?
How do you bless something that is of "grave depravity" according to the Catechism?
The current modus operandi is to speak to the truth (at least partially) and then undermine it with practice.
No mask. Unlike many here I actually use my name. I come here to discuss and share the truth. I have learned a lot from this approach over the years.
Regarding my last paragraph, I am saying that there are some who recognize that what two people in a freely committed, loving relationship have is NOT marriage but is something - what it is and is not are still coming into focus.
The current understanding is that it is sinful and settled doctrine. An understanding that is not open to reinterpretation, period.
This was brought up in a Dubia, questions sent to the Holy Father regarding the declaration, Fiducia Supplicans, as well as other declarations by other Prelates- namely:
1. Dubium about the claim that we should reinterpret divine revelation according to the cultural and anthropological changes in vogue.
Here is part of Pope Francis' response:
a) The answer depends on the meaning you give to the word "reinterpret." If it is understood as "to interpret better," the expression is valid. In this sense the Second Vatican Council affirmed that it is necessary that with the work of the exegetes I would add of the theologians "the judgment of the Church may mature" (Cone. Ecum. Vat. II, Const. Dogm. Dei Verbum, 12).
b) Therefore, while it is true that divine revelation is immutable and always binding, the Church must be humble and recognize that she never exhausts its unfathomable richness and needs to grow in her understanding.
Regarding cultural changes:
d) Cultural changes and the new challenges of history do not modify the revelation, but they can stimulate us to make more explicit some aspects of its overflowing richness, which always offers more.
e) It is inevitable that this may lead to a better expression of some past statements of the magisterium, and indeed it has happened throughout history.
He goes on to remind them that the church has reinterpreted doctrine before as it did with slavery (cf. Nicholas V, Bull Oum Diversas, 1452).
Finally, he reminds them that, "the Church must constantly discern between what is essential for salvation and what is secondary or less directly connected with this goal."
Regarding my last paragraph, I am saying that there are some who recognize that what two people in a freely committed, loving relationship have is NOT marriage but is something - what it is and is not are still coming into focus.
The current understanding is that it is sinful and settled doctrine. An understanding that is not open to reinterpretation, period.
This was brought up in a Dubia, questions sent to the Holy Father regarding the declaration, Fiducia Supplicans, as well as other declarations by other Prelates- namely:
1. Dubium about the claim that we should reinterpret divine revelation according to the cultural and anthropological changes in vogue.
Here is part of Pope Francis' response:
a) The answer depends on the meaning you give to the word "reinterpret." If it is understood as "to interpret better," the expression is valid. In this sense the Second Vatican Council affirmed that it is necessary that with the work of the exegetes I would add of the theologians "the judgment of the Church may mature" (Cone. Ecum. Vat. II, Const. Dogm. Dei Verbum, 12).
b) Therefore, while it is true that divine revelation is immutable and always binding, the Church must be humble and recognize that she never exhausts its unfathomable richness and needs to grow in her understanding.
Regarding cultural changes:
d) Cultural changes and the new challenges of history do not modify the revelation, but they can stimulate us to make more explicit some aspects of its overflowing richness, which always offers more.
e) It is inevitable that this may lead to a better expression of some past statements of the magisterium, and indeed it has happened throughout history.
He goes on to remind them that the church has reinterpreted doctrine before as it did with slavery (cf. Nicholas V, Bull Oum Diversas, 1452).
Finally, he reminds them that, "the Church must constantly discern between what is essential for salvation and what is secondary or less directly connected with this goal."
Quote:
Regarding my last paragraph, I am saying that there are some who recognize that what two people in a freely committed, loving relationship have is NOT marriage but is something - what it is and is not are still coming into focus.
Yes it is something, gravely disordered and sinful behavior. The hallmark of love is sacrifice, leading others into grave sin because you cannot carry your cross is not love.
That is the current teaching. Just remember there were teachings that supported slavery until it was clear that it wasn't just. Again- we are refining our understanding of revealed doctrine.
PabloSerna said:
That is the current teaching. Just remember there were teachings that supported slavery until it was clear that it wasn't just. Again- we are refining our understanding of revealed doctrine.
Are we bound by current teachings or are we bound by possible future teachings?
I'm confused because you love to quote encyclicals when they support whatever theological innovation du jour that you happen to support, but then when they don't mesh with your own feelings, they're "being refined"
Featured Stories
See All
54:17
4h ago
4.3k
18:37
1h ago
3.2k
53:12
1d ago
13k
The Loochador Podcast: CFP is officially coming to Kyle Field
by Billy Liucci
5:27
5h ago
1.3k
Texas A&M accomplishes 'step one' by being included in 12-team field
by Olin Buchanan
ObstreperousFarmer
SEC Shorts - SEC teams board the Playoff Train
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
117