 |
| Don't worry, your holiness, no one will notice the spoonful of poison in the document. I was careful. |
A number of people are claiming that Fiducia Supplicans (FS) is completely orthodox and there's no problem with it -- at all. And I agree that the document was written to carefully disguise the spoonful of poison it contains. Let's face it, that's how the devil often works. He doesn't mind orthodoxy one bit as long as he can insert the tiny deadly morsel. And Francis is absolutely excellent at doing it with the help of his cronies in the curia. The document reminds me of the death scene in I Claudius when a single poisoned mushroom is in the dish. A little poison can be very effective as FS is illustrating already.
So what's my beef with the document? I'm all for blessings! But not blessings that directly or implicitly bless sin or create the confusion that they are blessing sin.
What is the poison in FS and its supposedly pastoral approach to blessings?
The word "couple."
What is the etymology of the word couple?
couple (n.)
late 13c., "two of the same kind or class connected or considered together," especially "a man and a woman associated together by marriage or love," from Old French cople "married couple, lovers" (12c., Modern French couple), from Latin copula "tie, connection," from PIE *ko-ap-, from *ko(m)- "together" + *ap- "to take, reach."
couple (v.)
c. 1200, "to link or connect, as one thing with another," from Old French copler "to couple, join together," from cople (see couple (n.)). Meaning "unite in marriage" is from mid-14c.; that of "embrace sexually, copulate" is from c. 1400. Related: Coupled; coupling.
It's obvious that the word "couple" has a clear and long-standing link to marital love and the physical act of conjugal love. As soon as the document began talking about blessing "couples" it directly linked to marriage and sexual activity.
No one would object to any individual, no matter how sinful, being blessed. Paragraph 43 near the end reads in part:Therefore, even when a person’s relationship with God is clouded by sin, he can always ask for a blessing,
Note that the document shifted from discussing "couples" (two people) earlier in the document to discussing "a person" (one individual). This simply emphasized to me the dishonesty inherent in this misleading contribution to confusion.
Now, let's look at the repeated mention of "couples" which occurs numerous times.
2. ...this Dicastery has considered several questions of both a formal and an informal nature about the possibility of blessing same-sex couples
4. ...rites and prayers that could create confusion between what constitutes marriage—which is the “exclusive, stable, and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to the generation of children”[6]—and what contradicts it are inadmissible. This conviction is grounded in the perennial Catholic doctrine of marriage; it is only in this context that sexual relations find their natural, proper, and fully human meaning. The Church’s doctrine on this point remains firm. [All of this is the orthodoxy used to mask the poison in the document.]
5. ...the Church has the right and the duty to avoid any rite that might contradict this conviction or lead to confusion. Such is also the meaning of the Responsum of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which states that the Church does not have the power to impart blessings on unions of persons of the same sex. [Again...clear statement of the orthodox position.]
6. It should be emphasized that in the Rite of the Sacrament of Marriage, this concerns not just any blessing but a gesture reserved to the ordained minister. In this case, the blessing given by the ordained minister is tied directly to the specific union of a man and a woman, who establish an exclusive and indissoluble covenant by their consent. This fact allows us to highlight the risk of confusing a blessing given to any other union with the Rite that is proper to the Sacrament of Marriage. [Exactly! This document deliberately confuses the blessing by calling "other" relationships (i.e., homosexual and fornicating couples) "unions" and describing the individuals involved as "a couple." The etymology of the word "union" includes "state of matrimony." The confusion created by FS is already rampant!]
9. From a strictly liturgical point of view, a blessing requires that what is blessed be conformed to God’s will, as expressed in the teachings of the Church. [Is a "couple" made up of two men or two women or a fornicating man and woman "conformed to God's will? The implication of blessing those in sodomite or fornicating relationships as "couples" in a "union" very clearly links them to marriage. There's no getting away from it!]
III. Blessings of Couples in Irregular Situations and of Couples of the Same Sex [Again, the use of a word that has a longstanding connotation of marriage and conjugal relations.]
31. Within the horizon outlined here appears the possibility of blessings for couples in irregular situations and for couples of the same sex...a blessing may be imparted that not only has an ascending value but also involves the invocation of a blessing that descends from God upon those who—recognizing themselves to be destitute and in need of his help—do not claim a legitimation of their own status... [This is a lie from the pit of hell. Homosexuals absolutely want blessings in order to "legitimize their own status." Gay groups like New Ways Ministry are already celebrating. The ecstatic publicity over blessings given so far, like that of Fr. James Martin reported in the New York Times, show they are indeed blessing the sodomite unions and giving tacit "legitimization" to their status. Martin called FS a "major step forward." Indeed it is, but not for orthodoxy!]
39. In any case, precisely to avoid any form of confusion or scandal, when the prayer of blessing is requested by a couple in an irregular situation, even though it is expressed outside the rites prescribed by the liturgical books, this blessing should never be imparted in concurrence with the ceremonies of a civil union, and not even in connection with them. Nor can it be performed with any clothing, gestures, or words that are proper to a wedding.The same applies when the blessing is requested by a same-sex couple. [This is nothing but hypocritical lip service. As long as the blessings are given to "couples" rather than individuals they create "confusion" and "scandal." To pretend otherwise is nothing but hypocrisy.]
41. What has been said in this Declaration regarding the blessings of same-sex couples is sufficient to guide the prudent and fatherly discernment of ordained ministers in this regard. [Like the cheerleader for homosexuality who wants gays to kiss at the sign of peace, Fr. James Martin?]
43. The Church is thus the sacrament of God’s infinite love. Therefore, even when a person’s relationship with God is clouded by sin, he can always ask for a blessing, stretching out his hand to God, as Peter did in the storm when he cried out to Jesus, “Lord, save me!” (Mt. 14:30). [Absolutely true for individuals. But the document is all about legitimizing same-sex relations as unions and couple-ness while pretending not to.]
Pray the rosary in atonement for this miserable "major step" forward (as Fr. James Martin, S.J. called it) toward further legitimizing sodomy and fornication. These sins will take the poor deluded folks to hell with the "blessing" of the spiritual assassins who promote it.
Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.
Re: Obediance
ReplyDeleteThe Pope is the Pope whether I like him or not. He has the right and duty to issue the FS document. The right because he is Christ's Vicar on earth. The duty because western civilization has elevated sodomy and divorce to the status of its high sacraments. Homo and hetero couples need Christ's grace to save their immortal souls. The FS document provides another source of grace.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
The pope is the pope IF he is correctly canonically elected.
DeleteThis starts with a death of a pope (regardless of circumstances) or a resignation of a pope (circumstances matter, see Canon code, BOOK I. GENERAL NORMS, TITLE IX. ECCLESIASTICAL OFFICES (Cann. 145 - 196), CHAPTER II. LOSS OF ECCLESIASTICAL OFFICE, Art. 1. RESIGNATION, 187, 188, & 189)…
I do not need a Cardinal to see what is plain to everyone who wants to look.
1) Benedict attemped to resigned PART of papal duties. This is clearly evident in his letter as well as his actions after..
2) legally you cannot resign into the future. So his February 10th, 2013 “ DECLARATIO” that states he will ” renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome” on 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours is NOT a resignation, instead it’s a notification to of an intent of a future action.
To resign he would need to bring forth a signed document ON such date. He did not do this.
Ignore it you might do, but then you are violating canon code 748
Can. 748 §1. All persons are bound to seek the truth in those things which regard God and his Church and by virtue of divine law are bound by the obligation and possess the right of embracing and observing the truth which they have come to know.
Re: Reading comprehension
DeleteHave you read the article above? Are you willing to respond to the statement the Author makes about James Martin's admission to the real goal behind blessing sodomy? James Martin, a sodomy promoter, is much favoured by Bergoglio. Have you noticed the Author's thorough explanation about blessing individuals versus blessing couples? Do you ever consider a need for obedience to God? Bergoglio's obedience to God, and yours? What will it take for you to look at what God did to Sodom? Do you want to suggest - with the likes of James Martin - that you have "evolved" the perfect God who - it turns out - knows NOT the end from the beginning, and is NOT eternal, and inspired Bergoglio and you to bless Sodom now? He has seen YOUR light, your compassion, your science, your tolerance and moral superiority. Really?
Ms Anonymous
DeleteRe: FS Document
Have you read the FS document?
It teaches that marriage is between a man and a woman and that a blessing does not constitute approval and that the blessing cannot be used in conjunction with an unnatural wedding.
FS is IAW Tradition. James MartinS.J. is not.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Why do You refer to Pope Bergolio as the Vicar of Christ? He has specifically rejected this title.
Delete@ Richard W C
DeleteMy name is Dorota Mosiewicz-Patalas. I was mistaken to think that my name would appear.
Mr. Richard W Comerford
There is no good reason to assume that you have never been introduced to the idea of gradualism, incremental change.
Knowing what you know, why will you not seriously consider the inevitable fruit of the deceit which JM Bergoglio and his cronies are subjecting the faithful to? What happened the next day after "gay marriage" became law of the land? - Practitioners of sodomy lined up in front of Christian-owned (not Muslim- or atheist-owned) bakeries to order cakes for sodomy celebrations. Those bakers who claimed a right to freedom of conscience and freedom of artistic expression, and who refused to support sodomy celebrations, were targeted for persecution and prosecution. What happens to teachers who refuse to use strange pronouns as demanded by their pupils who suffer of mental illness? What happens to their parents?
As you know, the punishment for refusal to celebrate sin and mental illness is not how activists begin their formatting of children or society at large. They start with "tolerance", "live and let live", "blessing".
You know that blessing two sodomy practitioners holding hands is what Bergoglio's favourite, sodomy promoter James Martin advertised as victory the day after FS was published. Gradually, step by step, he is proving very successful. The blessing was equal to Satan's rebellion. It was not a private and spontaneous blessing of two separate individual sinners who remorsefully asked for forgiveness. It was a blessing of a "couple" holding hands, seeking approval and blessing of sodomy.
You know this as well as I do. You also know that before being put in Saint Peter's chair by St Gallen Mafia, JM Bergoglio was already a supporter of normalization of sodomy. He was very public about it. But God is NOT. We know it with certainty. God's "no" is a no. The rest it from the devil, like your acrobatics to approve and promote that which is evil.
@ Richard W. C.
DeleteIt is Dorota Mosiewicz-Patalas again, with one more remark.
Two sodomy practitioners holding hands in a "spontaneous" (it was not, it was a political move, a loud announcement of partial victory) blessing by a Catholic priest is a scandal, a farce, an act of rebellion against God. When I was young, I did not understand why the Catechism teaches us to avoid scandal. But I understand now, and I have no reason to think that you do not.
This scandal should be considered as an open challenge to the Church's perennial teaching and to eternal and infinitely wise God himself. When I say that JM Bergoglio meant it to be this way, I risk God's judgement, should my reading of these things be incorrect, motivated by evil or ignorance.
And yet, as much as I fear a loving God's justice, I repeat: JM Bergoglio means to change the Church's teaching on the sin of sodomy, he is approving it already. He likes to talk about the irrelevance or small relevance of "the little sins below the belt" while the poor are poor, and earth is suffering abuse (and Pachamama is angry?).
I am sure that God did not tell us anything about "little sins below the belt". Those sins, we have been instructed (also by the Holy Mother) are deadly. An infinite God's - who knew the end from the beginning - stance on our priorities could not have evolved with JM Bergoglio and the sodomites he is "listening to". Could it?
Yet you would rather "evolve" God, make Him mistaken (unaware that they are "born this way", as science allegedly proves) than doubt the alleged infallibility of JM Bergoglio. During the first synod, the one on the family, his preferred cardinals were already commenting that "love the sinner, hate the sin" will not cut it any more. Remember? They said that being a sodomite is the core of a person's identity. Remember?
Ms Anonymous
DeleteRe: "doubt the alleged infallibility of JM Bergoglio."
Papal infallibility begins and ends with the Deposit of Faith. And then only under certain circumstances.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
@ Richard W Comeford
DeleteI expanded my comments beyond your statements. Hopefully you can see the reasons for it. You did not speak on papal infallibility, I did.
Please say: Where does obedience to someone like JM Berogoglio (not exactly an orthodox priest, not exactly a validly installed pope, according to Saint Gallen Mafia's published information - proving deliberate actions against the Cannon Law) begin and where does it end?
If his own admissions about the goal to destroy Tradition and replace it with what people want (people who have not been receiving Catechesis, but followed popular "culture" instead as found out via "listening sessions") is not sufficient for you to refuse to obey (you are obeying the Church, but the lowest common denominator calculated taking everyone and anyone nominally Catholic or not, as long as they are not faithful Catholics), obedience seems an idol. What does this obedience to the ways of the ever more degenerating West serve?
You CAN see that the Bergoglian Church is removing all faithful bishops (even approves and supports their persecution in China) and is siding with Sodom and Freemasonry and/or gnosticism?
You know I respect you, Richard, but we disagree on this. Not every document that comes out of Rome (past or present) is correct and prudent. The FS document does not provide "another source of grace." Rather it provides another source of confusion which is a hallmark of this papacy and carries the stench of sulphur. I'm not sure how "obedience" comes into it. Are you saying that all the clerics and laity opposing the document are being disobedient?
ReplyDeleteMs K
DeleteRe: Obedience 2
Paul opposed (rightly) Peter. Rightly motivated opposition of the Pope's actions by faithful Catholics is not only permissible but a duty. However so far the opposition to the FS Document is confusing. Not one scholar who signed the recent letter opposing the FS document yet far been able to find heresy within said document.
Also I cannot find any scholar in opposition to FS who has proposed another method of conveying grace for couples living in irregular situations. (Some couples may be living chastely). This is important because couples living in sin should not present themselves for Communion. But the FS blessing done properly conveys grace. Grace leads to conversion. Conversion leads to salvation.
I am a dumb dumb. Smart people may argue that although orthodox it is imprudent to release the FS document at this time of widespread sodomy and adultery/fornication because said document can be misused to seem give approval to the aforementioned sins.
But that is why we have parish priests and the bishops of dioceses to make, before God, the decision to implement the provisions of the FS document.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
It also further legitimizes adultery--divorce and remarriage. However, in 2007/8, I attended baptism of my grand-niece and after my niece went to communion, I exclaimed to her, Oh, ____ you got your annulment! And she said, 'no,' the priest had told her if she felt okay going to communion even though she'd been previously married in the church and now was married to another man outside the church it was fine for her to go (and she's been going ever since whenever she goes to mass). Her husband had an annulment of his first marriage from which he'd had a child, but he no longer believed in Catholicism/ communion even though he was attending mass and having his second child baptized.
ReplyDeleteMs Anonymous:
DeleteRe: "It also further legitimizes adultery--divorce and remarriage."
Where in the FS document is the teaching that "legitimizes adultery--divorce and remarriage"?
Have you actually read the FS document?
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Francis is blessing irregulars including couples living in adultery, i.e. anne boleyn and henry viii. He has already said those couples could receive holy communion. Not sure where you were when there was the great brouhaha about the footnote to Laudato Si. But like most people who have forgotten about repealing Obama Care, you say these irregulars have no access the sacraments. Those living in sin as well as those who fall into sin always have recourse to the sacrament of penance where they can beg God for forgiveness and resolve to amend their lives and do penance. However, Francis has opened up holy communion to them and told them to avail themselves of it. Now he is blessing them as a "couple," a union. You might think you are "catholic" because you defend the pope. But if you defend sin, it just makes you a worshipper of the devil.
Delete"The pope’s letter approved of the guidelines formulated by Argentine bishops in Buenos Aires on how Communion for divorced and remarried Catholics should be handled. The guidelines assert that, in certain circumstances, a person who is divorced and remarried and is living in an active sexual partnership might not be responsible or culpable for the mortal sin of adultery, “particularly when a person judges that he would fall into a subsequent fault by damaging the children of the new union.” The guidelines add that “Amoris Laetitia opens up the possibility of access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.”
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/12/pope-francis-divorce-remarriage-communion-guidelines-letter/
Like I said above, those living in sin always have access to the sacrament of penance -- what Francis is guaranteeing them is ABSOLUTION in the living state of adultery, sodomy and fornication.
Francis' sister is a catechist in his diocese in Argentina and she is living with a man after being married twice previously with a son by each husband. One of her sons was cohabiting but given a charity to run since he's the pope's nephew. Now he seems to have married the woman, but no word on any children. His niece tells how she needed an annulment so uncle cardinal submitted the papers while she got married civilly and lived in sin for four years and then got married in the church--the annulment being just a piece of paper/rubber stamp - of course, the 1st marriage would be annulled--because it's catholic divorce.
https://aleteia.org/2015/09/09/francis-annulment-reform-born-of-personal-knowledge/
https://www.thelist.com/367257/a-look-inside-the-life-of-pope-francis-nephew-jose-ignacio-bergoglio/
https://ephesians511blog.com/2016/04/17/quo-vadis-papa-francisco-shame-and-scandal-in-the-family/
Here are pictures of a sodomite couple baptizing their bought children in 2012 when Bergoglio was Cardinal and bishop there.
https://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A487-BsAs-Homo.htm
Here are lesbians baptizing their children in 2014 Argentina.
https://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A568-Lesbians.htm
God will not be mocked--not even by the pope, Mr. Comersford. The law of God is written in your heart and if you go along with abomination, you will be destroyed same as them.
Ms Anonymous
DeleteRe: "if you go along with abomination, you will be destroyed same as them."
Where exactly in the FS document is there heresy?
God bless
Richard W Comerford
In the blessing of couples living in sin. Put on the new man. Repent. This has always been the teaching of the Church. Your very refusal to admit it or to be scandalized or to worry about your brothers and sisters burning in eternal hell fire or you yourself doing so for defying God (the wages of sin is death), but going along with Francis' invention of a "non-liturgical blessing" (vs a liturgical blessing) -- a distinction that need be made only when blessing 'irregular (sinful hell bound) couples' (all of whose sins violate the ten commandments and some of whose sins cry out to heaven for vengeance) is what happens to those who congregate with sin--they are infected, corrupted and blinded without even realizing it so that seeing they do not see and hearing they do not hear (i.e. it has to do with your heart which seems to have been hardened against hearing the word of God in favor of hearing the word of the VCII popes).
DeleteJesus quotes Moses to the scribes and pharisees in Mark 7 about making void the commandments of God, worshiping God with one's lips, while teaching precepts and doctrines of men. He illustrates with them relieving men of their obligation to care of their parents--just tell them that the your gifts (bribes) to the temple (i.e. the priests, scribes and pharisees) benefit the parents also. Who objected to that policy of the pharisees, scribes and priests? Was it heretical? But what did Christ say about the hearts of the people who went along with that sophistry that made void the commandment of God? Jesus tells the parable of the bad steward--he is wise in the way of men. You too can be worldly wise--but only at the price of a hard heart to God. No-one can serve two masters.
DeleteOne only has to read Malachi Martin's "The Jesuits: The Society of Jesus and the Betrayal of the Roman Catholic Church" to fully understand the parallel that what Pedro Arrupe (Bergoglio's friend) did to the Jesuits is the exact pattern that Bergoglio currently is implementing to destroy the TLM and the Church. Arrupe was dismissed by JPII. Someone need to dismiss Bergoglio. Therefore no obedience to Bergoglio from me.
ReplyDeleteMs M:
Deletere: "Therefore no obedience to Bergoglio from me."
Do we each pick which pope we will obey and which pope we will not?
There are some very nice people on the internet who hold that Pius X (died 1914 AD) was the last valid pope.
The protestants of course hold that there never has been a valid pope.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Will you follow like an obedient sheep when Pope Bergolio announces that his “God of Surprises “ has revealed to him as dogma “Hensforth It Is the Holy Duo”. How far down the road are you willing to follow this man in his heresy.
DeleteMs Anonymous
DeleteRe: "How far down the road are you willing to follow this man in his heresy."
Heresy? Exactly what Hersey? When and where?
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Richard, you don't have to be accusing someone of heresy to say a document is in error. The clear implication of FS is to bless "couples" in their "union." When you see "couples" holding hands or with their arms around each other being blessed, the implication is too clear to deny. I've read the document multiple times and I can't agree with you. The orthodoxy in the document is a smokescreen to introduce the marital image of "couples" in a mock "union" who are actually playing "let's pretend we're married and our relationship is exactly the same as any other married 'couple.'" In my universe words mean something and "couple" and "union" have very specific meanings related to marriage.
ReplyDeleteMs K:
DeleteRe: "The clear implication of FS is to bless "couples" in their "union.""
The plain text reading of the FS Document shows that it teaches that marriage is between a man and a woman. Also that a blessing is not a sign of approval, Further that the blessing cannot be given in conjunction with an unnatural wedding ceremony.
Christ also died for the sodomites. Sodomites dominate Western culture. Thus making more sodomites by corrupting the young and innocent. If the sodomites are to break the chains of their sin and to win heaven they need God's grace. This FS document provides another avenue of grace for sodomites.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
I am really tired of people especially Catholics telling me that even if something walks like duck and quacks like a duck it's not a duck.
ReplyDeleteAren't we tired of having to reinterpret everything out of the Vatican? I am.
Ms Margaret:
DeleteBoth Cardinal Kasper and Archbishop Levfebvre said that the Documents of Vatican II were written in such a way that both liberals and conservatives could accept them but with different interpretations
OTH the FS Document is clear and concise and IAW Tradition.
God bless
Richard W Comerford.
OTH
Ms K:
ReplyDeleteRe: Obedience 4
If there is no heresy to be found in FS, If it is IAW Tradition then FS cannot be "in error".
Now people of good will may argue that the issuing of FS is imprudent. I have argued that it should have been accompanied by a clear condemnation of sodomy and the reality of hell fire. But I am a nobody.
However the Pope has issued FS. It is orthodox. And we have to accept theplain text reading of it.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
I'm no canon lawyer, but it would be interesting to ask one about whether a pope can be in error without being a heretic. I don't think the pope has a guarantee of inerrancy, so I expect the answer is yes. As for obedience. We don't owe the pope blind and universal obedience over his every thought and opinion as Peter Kwasniewski makes clear in his book, True Obedience in the Church. But I think I have said all I have to say about this so I will bow out of the discussion.
ReplyDeleteMs K:
Deletere: Obedience 5
Sister told us that the first duty of the pope was to hand onto the next generation the Deposit of Faith whole, intact and complete and in this duty he is protected from error by the Holy Ghost.
Otherwise the pope can be in error, be wrong and be just plain stupid.
But there is no heresy in the FS document. It is IAW Tradition. And the pope has the authority to issue it to the faithful.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Richard, after you read The Jesuits we'll talk. Meanwhile, just wondering - if Bergoglio makes priestesses, and one becomes popess, will you be obedient to her?
ReplyDeleteMs M:
DeleteI will not read that book.
So we will not talk.
And the answer to your question is found in Genesis.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Ms TuNeCedeMalisPJS
ReplyDeleteRe: "The pope is the pope IF he is correctly canonically elected."
Neither you nor I possess the authority to decide if the Pope is canonically elected.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
We were taught, no, more than that, we were warned about false Shepherds.
DeleteBergoglio’s cutting off the ones in the Church who know the faith deeply and richly and asking for all for dialogue and accompaniment.
These are hollow words without direction.
Bergoglio promotes and surrounds himself with those whose embrace error and heresey.
Fernandez is just one example.
Authority to decide?
God gave us common sense and gave us authority over ourselves to not follow false gospels and false shepherd.
If you don’t see that in Bergoglio, Fernandez, J. Martin, Gregory, and many many more…. Welll good luck with that. You are warned.
"God gave us common sense and gave us authority over ourselves to not follow false gospels and false shepherd."
DeleteYou read exactly like Luther. The son of Lucifer. The first rebel.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Unless you're intimating about Adam and Eve, please be more specific. Genesis has 50 Chapters.
ReplyDeleteMs M
DeleteRe: "after you read The Jesuits we'll talk."
I am not going to re-read Martin's book.
We do not talk.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Ms K:
ReplyDeletere: Pilgrimage
Today I hope to take the family on pilgrimage in veneration of Our Lady of LaSalette during which we will remember you and your family's intentions.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
How is it that poor, little, insignificant me, could see right away what the whole thing meant???????? I cannot see how this whole thing cannot be understood as it is when for me it's transparent as clear water? What's wrong with all these 'important and learned people'??????????????????????????????
ReplyDeleteI think I've made it clear that I disagree with Richard on this, but the personal comments are over the top. None of us has the right to judge the state of another man's soul. Yes, those in "irregular" situations are in serious peril. They need the grace of confession, not spurious blessings that imply approval of their "coupleness" and "union" which may tickle their ears and harden them in their sin. But I think enough has been said here and I'm closing off the comments.
ReplyDelete