AmericanPapist Comments
I reiterate:
We need to hold an annual "worst of" award ceremony when it comes to media bias in all categories and send the trophies to the media warehouses in question.
We could name them after the nun who was martyred in the riots Reuters manufactured last year in response to the Pope's remark on Islam.
I think mischaracterization of what the Pope and the Vatican have said about the issue is why the Vatican needs to be more media savvy in this age of postmodern domination of all the media outlets (except the internet). Now the average person around the world thinks limbo was a dogma and the Church has changed an absolute belief to modernize. With these skewed soundbites by the MSM, they now ask why even get their infant baptized and not wait until they are three or four years ago.
"Really - where to begin?"
I'll give it a go.
The Washington Post article is a great summing up of what liberal (heretical) "Catholics" believe: 1) individuals can believe whatever they want based on a faulty conscience; 2) Jesus was all about "luv" and mercy; 3) the Church should modernize to update its beliefs to conform to socialism (book recommendation: Brave New World); 4) The Church is a democracy when the members embrace relativism; 5) Jesus was not divine but a great socialist activist; 6) Like in socialist countries, "panels" and "committees" of the people should determine what members ought to believe; 7) "heresy" (e.g. believing premarital sex and homosexual acts are okay) is "compassionate" and "pastoral"; holding on to absolutes is "rigid."
Where to begin: Write the Washington Post and ask why they never use any orthodox theologians--such as Father Roger Hunter-Hall, Father Paul Scalia, or any others in the numerous pool of prominent orthodox theologians in the Washington area--and why they always turn to liberals (heretics) for analysis.
Gabe
Fr McPartland is no heretic; you probably would find out, if you asked him (I have not but this is a good educated guess), much of his comments were left out of the report. I know him well enough; he has the respect of the Vatican and given many important roles(ITC, member of the Anglican-Catholic dialogues).
Look to what he has written sometime.
Typo -- McPartlan
A Non- I don't know the guy, but I do know that Catholic U is not a fortress of orthodoxy (though it has gotten much better in the past few years.)
He has implied to a major newspaper that Catholic doctrine follows popular sentiment:
"But the senior bishops who prepared the council's agenda rejected those proposals, noting that the idea that unbaptized babies cannot go to heaven simply did not match the sensus fidelium, Latin for "the sense of the faithful," McPartlan said."
That is a completely heretical idea that would be slammed by the numerous orthodox theologians in the Washington area. That is why I guess they invited McPartlan to comment and not the faithful theologians.
You know what I think this is about?
Humanae Vitae.
They're all convinced it's the way the Church does business because it still smarts, and they haven't checked in since then.
I want to add one more thing. The infallibility of the Sensus Fidelium only works among the true faithful, those who are completely obedient and faithful to the Magisterium and Sacred Tradition and Scripture. If you reject teachings of the Magisterium, you are not part of the faithful. Liberals don't understand this accurate meaning of Sensus Fidelium.
And this true Sensus Fidelium is against the values and beliefs that the MSM promotes, such as manmade global warming turning into a religion, contraception, abortion, premarital sex, secularism, etc.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
