M.A. Phil., S.T.L., Ph.D. Husband and Father. Dean of Students and Assistant Professor of Theology, Ave Maria University. Opinions my own.
Joined January 2019
- Tweets5.6K
- Following432
- Followers1.3K
- Likes20.8K
His Eminence confirms that I was just in my criticism.
Terrific response by Cardinal Jean-Paul Vesco to @BishopBarron disgraceful attack on his integrity. Vesco speaks from the Church, Barron for himself.
But this is not the reason the Cardinal gave for why proselytism is poison. He said it is because it views other religions as false.
So does evangelism.
So many are held captive by false religions and false prophets. We are tasked to free them as instruments of the Holy Spirit.
I also make excuses for myself as to why I fail to love out the radical commitment to the Gospel that Christ asks of us.
But I do not try to justify it, and I am not a cardinal who wears red, signifying his willingness to shed his blood for the gospel.
To be clear, we are not a besieged fortress as Christians, but we are besieging the fortress of the “ruler of this world” who does much to maintain his power, including the promotion of false religion.
All are called to enter into the Catholic Church.
This is antithetical to the gospel.
LATEST: Cardinal Vesco says the Catholic Church is “not there to convert”
The Archbishop of Algiers said: “We are the Church of this people. Not a proselytising Church, not a Church that is there to convert, but a Church that aspires to be one of the components of this people.”
He called proselytism “poison” because it treats another person’s religion as false, and argued Christians should choose fraternity over seeing themselves as a “besieged fortress.”
Read the full report at @RealAdVaticanum
advaticanum.com/article/card…
One more mark in favor of Catholicism.
“I thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes” (Mt. 11:25)
One of the few places where I am not convinced by Ed’s argument. But if you think he’s manifestly wrong, you simply are not thinking through the matter carefully.
The current admins poor prosecution of the war and failure to explain itself has exacerbated the problem.
It is not true, no matter how many times the lie is repeated. And the arguments for it are pure sophistry, as I showed in this article: edwardfeser.blogspot.com/202…
This is bad pastoral practice
Our local bishop is banning the St Michael prayer from the end of Mass.
His article, in the local Catholic paper, explains that in order to celebrate the liturgy “in accordance with the mind of the Church” priests need to “catechize the people of God as we move away from additional prayers recited together immediately before, during, and immediately after Mass.”
It was a joy to join Drew Mariani on his show to discuss this important matter:
omny.fm/shows/the-drew-maria….
It would be an error to deny that, in principle, heretics ought not be put to death in a Catholic state.
Unless we are interested in condemning a litany of doctors of the Church.
I am happy to stand with Thomas Aquinas and the teaching of the Church on this matter.
It seems I was correct the nub of the issue between Waldstein and his superiors was his defense of the principled liceity of burning heretics, even if no longer practical, which (the article implies) he held to be an infallible teaching of Exsurge Domine.
die-tagespost.de/kultur/feui…
Breaking:
Catholic Theologian is required to stop teaching Catholic teaching.
This quoted post is unavailable.
It’s just not clear how this can be true. This position requires argument, and I just haven’t seen it.
The death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person. The common good can be safeguarded and the requirements of justice can be met without recourse to capital punishment: effective systems of detention have been developed that protect citizens while at the same time do not completely deprive those who are guilty of the possibility of redemption. #NoDeathPenalty
There are two ways to read chapter 8.
1. It is faithfully coherent with prior teaching, and thus adds nothing new.
2. The way the Argentinian bishops took it.
