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?
Responses « Back to index | View thread »