Discussions *must* continue, until we get our way.
After that, you rad traddies who aren't on board with women and trans men priests can all go worship in the ghetto with the SSPX alternative, until we take that away, too, Bishop Barber style.
I guess people who are ignorant of Church teaching might think that, but it isn't true. If you can't see the difference between women priests, gay marriage, and the ancient liturgy, I don't know what to say, but I'll leave you with the words of Pope Benedict XVI
"As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted.
What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place. " -Benedict XVI
In other words, constant discussions until you get your way, but others should be quiet.
//What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful.//
Sorta like St. Phobe, St. Macrina and the other female deacons. Or for that matter, the earlier generations that held it as sacred for the laity to receive the Blood of Christ through a straw.
Sue, I'm not sure pointing out historical facts about people like St. Macrina will do much good. I've tried discussing things with Kurt in the past. As seen above, he has a tendency to misrepresent things other people say, and I've never seen him acknowledge when a third party like yourself points out a fact that he got wrong.
I honestly found his support cruelty toward the TLM community while pushing for things like female ordination to be a bit shocking. It's hard for me to imagine his kids and grandkids attending weekly mass. I hope I'm wrong, but I've seen the pattern countless times.
No means no. Except no one is willing to say no, you know? “No female diakono.” That would make the ‘synodal way’ less slow. Synodality’s got me like: “bro”.
I’ll tell you what *I* think the term means: I think it means our brothers and sisters who feel some degree of same sex orientation, or, in the case a transgender persons, people whose gender identity differs from the gender they’re assigned at birth. But, because they’re persons, like you and me, the term necessarily includes persons who were created by the same creator who created you and me, people whom God loves just like you and me, and people whom Jesus’s Great Commandment to love one another also applies, same as you and me. The term includes people who are sinners, but, although their sins may be of a different kind, are nonetheless sinners just like you and I are, and who are in need of mercy and compassion from God and from their fellow sinners just like you and I are. That’s what I think the terms means.
I don’t know Edgar personally, so I won’t attempt to characterize what he thinks about anything. But, I can tell you, I “sing” from Jesus’s “hymn book,” which raises the question: Don’t you?
Listen, here’s the thing: Transgender people exist. People don’t like that they exist. People want to legislate them out of existence. Donald Trump is president in large part due to the fact that some people live their lives in ear-smoking, purple-faced rage that transgender people exist. And yet, they do.
Since they exist, and since, if they exist, they are also beloved children of our God, then we are bound by God’s law to love them. The language of hate and condemnation isn’t going to help anybody.
The Church has to find a constructive way to talk to these people. If we don’t, then (a) we’re not imitating Christ, and (b) we’re going to lose a whole generation of Catholics who think we’re just the hate-and-condemnation people.
The problem isn't so much with transgender men but with men who claim to be transgendered so they can have access to women's spaces and rape them or decide they are really female athletes even though their build is so much greater than a born woman's that no real woman can actually defeat them ever. Say goodbye to women's sports and safe places.
Not only are transgendered people children of God but he made them the physical sex they are. Too many times society says that a person of a given sex acts in a specific set of ways and if a person is different from that standard that person must be in the wrong sexed body. The reality is that every person is unique and society's ideas about what qualities a man or woman must have if they are really male or female have nothing to do with reality. That is where the problem is, not in the body God gave you
Erin, I can tell you have a big heart. Thank you for doing your best to speak sensitively about a group of people who are — as you correctly said — beloved children of God.
However, I think the consequences of this discussion are a little deeper.
The straight and narrow path is always difficult. We can obviously go wrong by disparaging and demonizing the lost sheep, or trivializing their pain and their need for healing. But we can also err by accepting language and ideas that are contrary to divine revelation, contrary to reason, and harmful to the very people you are trying to help.
Your first premise "Transgender people exist" could benefit from some further clarification.
Yes, in the very obvious surface-level sense, people who identify themselves as transgender do exist! Nobody would deny that. But here's where some simple logic might help clear things up.
Male and female are opposite categories that each add to our understanding of the other. In fact, one definition of "woman" could simply be "the opposite of a man." Similar to how we only understand the word "child" in the context of a parent, and the word "parent" would be meaningless without the context of a child. The categories are real, and often mutually exclusive.
I could simply assert that "fat skinny people exist" or "some children give birth to their own parents" but without supporting evidence, most reasonable people would dismiss these statements out of hand.
The cost of all this nice, politically correct language is the regret women will have after doctors have sterilized them and removed their breasts. We have only seen the tip of the iceberg. So many more people are going to be harmed (body, mind, and soul) by this ideology.
The only truly Christian way to address this is by standing rooted in the Truth, and leading with compassion—not hate, shame, or condemnation. But encouraging delusion by insisting on the approved "nice" words is going to lead to a whole lot of this: https://sexchangeregret.com/
One is required to love the sinner while rejecting the sin. One notes Jesus's refusal to condemn the woman caught in the act of adultery and His eating with tax collectors and sinners. If we can't love people with these types of sins and even those with the sins of calumny and detraction (saying bad things about others false or true) then we have ceased to be followers of Jesus who came to call sinners not the righteous.
That doesn't mean we condone the sin but we do and say everything in a deep spirit of love. If I can't speak in love I need to keep my mouth shut.
Ok, I have to ask... what are we doing? By "we" I mean European bishops conferences (and a number of bishops stateside). Are there really an entire cadre of miters that think attempting to change sacred Tradition under the guise of collegial discussion is what Christ wants us to do? Are they lying to themselves or do they believe it?
My thought for the readers-of-the-pillar-in-a-good-way is this: look out for the ones who say that these discussions represent the Holy Spirit moving through the people of God, write their name down, and pray for them.
Discussions *must* continue, until we get our way.
After that, you rad traddies who aren't on board with women and trans men priests can all go worship in the ghetto with the SSPX alternative, until we take that away, too, Bishop Barber style.
//Discussions *must* continue, until we get our way.//
Isn't that the Rad Trad position on allowing the former Mass rite?
I guess people who are ignorant of Church teaching might think that, but it isn't true. If you can't see the difference between women priests, gay marriage, and the ancient liturgy, I don't know what to say, but I'll leave you with the words of Pope Benedict XVI
"As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted.
What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place. " -Benedict XVI
https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi.html
In other words, constant discussions until you get your way, but others should be quiet.
//What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful.//
Sorta like St. Phobe, St. Macrina and the other female deacons. Or for that matter, the earlier generations that held it as sacred for the laity to receive the Blood of Christ through a straw.
St. Macrina St. Basil the Great's older sister was not a deacon.
Sue, I'm not sure pointing out historical facts about people like St. Macrina will do much good. I've tried discussing things with Kurt in the past. As seen above, he has a tendency to misrepresent things other people say, and I've never seen him acknowledge when a third party like yourself points out a fact that he got wrong.
I honestly found his support cruelty toward the TLM community while pushing for things like female ordination to be a bit shocking. It's hard for me to imagine his kids and grandkids attending weekly mass. I hope I'm wrong, but I've seen the pattern countless times.
https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/does-traditionis-custodes-have-a/comment/101574214
Thank you.
If there’s anything worldly that Holy Mother Church is good at, it’s waiting patiently.
Her members are much less patient. 😂
No means no. Except no one is willing to say no, you know? “No female diakono.” That would make the ‘synodal way’ less slow. Synodality’s got me like: “bro”.
For all his many, many, many, many, many, many faults, Pope Francis did, at least, say no. If only on one occasion.
In this article you have "LGBT persons", who are they exactly?
Later on you mention "people who identify as LGBT", again, what does it mean?
Neither is in quotes, so i take it it is Edgar talking and he can explain them to me as this kind of expressions keeps cropping up in the Pillar.
(Also, you have "1,00o participants", but that's clearly a typo).
No need to trouble Edgar, Google will give you the answer
Indeed I could, but I want to know what Edgar means by it.
Well...that escalated quickly...
I’ll tell you what *I* think the term means: I think it means our brothers and sisters who feel some degree of same sex orientation, or, in the case a transgender persons, people whose gender identity differs from the gender they’re assigned at birth. But, because they’re persons, like you and me, the term necessarily includes persons who were created by the same creator who created you and me, people whom God loves just like you and me, and people whom Jesus’s Great Commandment to love one another also applies, same as you and me. The term includes people who are sinners, but, although their sins may be of a different kind, are nonetheless sinners just like you and I are, and who are in need of mercy and compassion from God and from their fellow sinners just like you and I are. That’s what I think the terms means.
Hhhmmm... "Gender assigned at birth"? Probably you and Edgar sing from the same hymn book.
I don’t know Edgar personally, so I won’t attempt to characterize what he thinks about anything. But, I can tell you, I “sing” from Jesus’s “hymn book,” which raises the question: Don’t you?
Listen, here’s the thing: Transgender people exist. People don’t like that they exist. People want to legislate them out of existence. Donald Trump is president in large part due to the fact that some people live their lives in ear-smoking, purple-faced rage that transgender people exist. And yet, they do.
Since they exist, and since, if they exist, they are also beloved children of our God, then we are bound by God’s law to love them. The language of hate and condemnation isn’t going to help anybody.
The Church has to find a constructive way to talk to these people. If we don’t, then (a) we’re not imitating Christ, and (b) we’re going to lose a whole generation of Catholics who think we’re just the hate-and-condemnation people.
The problem isn't so much with transgender men but with men who claim to be transgendered so they can have access to women's spaces and rape them or decide they are really female athletes even though their build is so much greater than a born woman's that no real woman can actually defeat them ever. Say goodbye to women's sports and safe places.
Not only are transgendered people children of God but he made them the physical sex they are. Too many times society says that a person of a given sex acts in a specific set of ways and if a person is different from that standard that person must be in the wrong sexed body. The reality is that every person is unique and society's ideas about what qualities a man or woman must have if they are really male or female have nothing to do with reality. That is where the problem is, not in the body God gave you
Erin, I can tell you have a big heart. Thank you for doing your best to speak sensitively about a group of people who are — as you correctly said — beloved children of God.
However, I think the consequences of this discussion are a little deeper.
The straight and narrow path is always difficult. We can obviously go wrong by disparaging and demonizing the lost sheep, or trivializing their pain and their need for healing. But we can also err by accepting language and ideas that are contrary to divine revelation, contrary to reason, and harmful to the very people you are trying to help.
Your first premise "Transgender people exist" could benefit from some further clarification.
Yes, in the very obvious surface-level sense, people who identify themselves as transgender do exist! Nobody would deny that. But here's where some simple logic might help clear things up.
Male and female are opposite categories that each add to our understanding of the other. In fact, one definition of "woman" could simply be "the opposite of a man." Similar to how we only understand the word "child" in the context of a parent, and the word "parent" would be meaningless without the context of a child. The categories are real, and often mutually exclusive.
I could simply assert that "fat skinny people exist" or "some children give birth to their own parents" but without supporting evidence, most reasonable people would dismiss these statements out of hand.
The cost of all this nice, politically correct language is the regret women will have after doctors have sterilized them and removed their breasts. We have only seen the tip of the iceberg. So many more people are going to be harmed (body, mind, and soul) by this ideology.
The only truly Christian way to address this is by standing rooted in the Truth, and leading with compassion—not hate, shame, or condemnation. But encouraging delusion by insisting on the approved "nice" words is going to lead to a whole lot of this: https://sexchangeregret.com/
One is required to love the sinner while rejecting the sin. One notes Jesus's refusal to condemn the woman caught in the act of adultery and His eating with tax collectors and sinners. If we can't love people with these types of sins and even those with the sins of calumny and detraction (saying bad things about others false or true) then we have ceased to be followers of Jesus who came to call sinners not the righteous.
That doesn't mean we condone the sin but we do and say everything in a deep spirit of love. If I can't speak in love I need to keep my mouth shut.
Precisely.
Actually, not the woman at the well, the woman caught in adultery. Yes, don't condone the sin but love the sinner.
The woman caught in adultery you mean.
Ok, I have to ask... what are we doing? By "we" I mean European bishops conferences (and a number of bishops stateside). Are there really an entire cadre of miters that think attempting to change sacred Tradition under the guise of collegial discussion is what Christ wants us to do? Are they lying to themselves or do they believe it?
My thought for the readers-of-the-pillar-in-a-good-way is this: look out for the ones who say that these discussions represent the Holy Spirit moving through the people of God, write their name down, and pray for them.