In an interview with a Swiss journalist, Father Arturo Sosa Abascal said that the words of Jesus, too, must be weighed in their “historical context,” taking into account the culture in which Jesus lived and the human limitations of the men who wrote the Gospels.
When the interviewer remarked that an individual’s discernment might lead him to a conclusion at odds with Catholic doctrine, the Jesuit superior replied: “That is so, because doctrine does not replace discernment, nor does it [replace the] Holy Spirit.” [My bold].
Needs to be remembered..
Posted by Pete on February 23, 2017, 4:18 pm, in reply to "Jesuit infamy"
"For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God." CCC 119
It's to be hoped the Superior General is mindful of this.
--Previous Message-- : : http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=30831 : Catholic World News : Jesuit general: all doctrine is subject to : discernment : February 22, 2017 : The superior general of the Society of : Jesus has said that all Church doctrine : must be subject to discernment. : : In an interview with a Swiss journalist, : Father Arturo Sosa Abascal said that the : words of Jesus, too, must be weighed in : their “historical context,” taking into : account the culture in which Jesus lived and : the human limitations of the men who wrote : the Gospels. : : When the interviewer remarked that an : individual’s discernment might lead him to a : conclusion at odds with Catholic doctrine, : the Jesuit superior replied: “That is so, : because doctrine does not replace : discernment, nor does it [replace the] Holy : Spirit.” : [My bold]. : :
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/new-jesuit-chief-claims-jesus-own-words-against-divorce-are-relative-subjec New Jesuit chief claims Jesus’ own words against divorce are ‘relative,’ subject to ‘interpretation’ Pete Baklinski February 22, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) Q: So if conscience, after discernment, tells me that I can receive communion even if the norm does not provide for it… Abascal: The Church has developed over the centuries, it is not a piece of reinforced concrete. It was born, it has learned, it has changed. This is why the ecumenical councils are held, to try to bring developments of doctrine into focus. Doctrine is a word that I don't like very much, it brings with it the image of the hardness of stone. Instead the human reality is much more nuanced, it is never black or white, it is in continual development.
--Previous Message-- : : "For, of course, all that has been said : about the manner of interpreting Scripture : is ultimately subject to the judgement of : the Church which exercises the divinely : conferred commission and ministry of : watching over and interpreting the Word of : God." CCC 119 : : : http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm : : It's to be hoped the Superior General is : mindful of this. : : : --Previous Message-- : : : http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=30831 : Catholic World News : Jesuit general: all doctrine is subject to : discernment : February 22, 2017 : The superior general of the Society of : Jesus has said that all Church doctrine : must be subject to discernment. : : In an interview with a Swiss journalist, : Father Arturo Sosa Abascal said that the : words of Jesus, too, must be weighed in : their “historical context,” taking into : account the culture in which Jesus lived and : the human limitations of the men who wrote : the Gospels. : : When the interviewer remarked that an : individual’s discernment might lead him to a : conclusion at odds with Catholic doctrine, : the Jesuit superior replied: “That is so, : because doctrine does not replace : discernment, nor does it [replace the] Holy : Spirit.” : [My bold]. : : : :
Paul, Apollos, and Cephas, All Over Again By George Weigel
Final paragraph 'Writing during Synod-2015, I was but one of many who made what seemed to us an obvious point: It cannot be the case that a grave sin in Poland is a source of grace two kilometers across the border in Germany. None of us then had thought of Portsmouth and Malta, but the same principle applies: Christ is not divisible and neither is his truth. We do not “belong to Egan” nor do we “belong to Scicluna.” We belong to Christ. And authentic pastoral accompaniment must always be along “the way” of the One who is also “the truth and the life” [John 14.6].'
Posted by John on February 25, 2017, 12:36 pm, in reply to "Jesuit infamy"
He wouldn’t have said that during the lifetime of Saint Ignatius, for that saint would not have tolerated such slovenly thinking, if such it may be called. The “historical context” line is simply another example of the “spirit of Vatican II” type of duplicity, as if what was morally right in Christ’s day could possibly become inconsequential in another period of time.
And, in connection with Christ’s condemnation of adultery, the comment, “there would have to be a lot of reflection on what Jesus really said”, is just laughable, as if Christ just tossed it off from the top of His head.
Finally, (the fourth paragraph is as much as I can stand of this rubbish), did he actually explain, “that he did not meant to question the words of Jesus” with a straight face? It seems to me that questioning the words of Jesus was exactly what he was doing. How else do you explain his words?
How did such a lightweight get into that position?