The likes of Sister Nat are the same New Church, liberal, Modernists we know so well aka.. The "Catholica" brand of "thinking Catholics" too clever and cool for the boring, fuddy-duddy, restrictive, "out of touch" Magisterial Church and teaching.
I'm not of the view, as are some, that Vatican 2 was the end of the legitimate Church but more of a further step (albeit a fairly significant one) towards the time when there really will be a False Church - the "abomination in the Holy Place". I think we've been creeping towards the False Church for a very long time - ideologically stretching as far back as at least the "Enlightenment".
The ideological mainstream today of feminism, LGBQTism, tolerance, diversity, equality etc was a fringe movement in the 60s and now dominates. Similarly the liberal, Modernist New Churchers have been growing in influence and power such that we see the likes of Sister Nat in high positions but much more significantly the Pope himself often sounds very much the Modernist or to be more blunt - another mouthpiece for Woke Globalism.
They are definitely from the same Planet - unfortunately though it seems their hearts, minds and souls are more confirmed to it - the Planet/World - than they are the True God!
And they seem intent on conforming the Church to the World rather than seeking to conform the world to the Church and Jesus Christ.
The other day I was reading a book recently published, a collection of perspectives on the life and thought of John Henry Newman.
In a chapter titled "JHN on the Development of Doctrine" in a section 'The Sensus Fidelium', Prof T Rowland quotes Yves Congar:
"We live in a world that is desacralized, individualistic, analytic and academic, a world in which ideas are investigated for their own sake and easily separated from their signs or their sensible embodiments. For us, one of the faithful is a 'believer', one who holds intellectually certain transcendental maxims, who has "religious convictions."
But in the Christian tradition in which thought impregnated at least until the thirteenth century, a fidelis was someone sacramentally incorporated in the ecclesial reality. Not only was the faith he professed essentially the Trinitarian faith of the Symbol, it was the reality in him of baptism and his being part of the Church which, after having brought him to birth, formed him, nourished his life, governed all his actions, consecrated and united every moment of his existence to Christ."
'This is a good definition of a fully functional fidelis ', the good Prof. notes.
That same day, I happened to read a newspaper article about Synodal Sr. Nat.
'....The Second Vatican Council has empowered Catholics “but we are in a kind of transitional phase, and in the mindset of many people, they haven’t realised (they) are called to be active”.
“We need to continue to empower lay people to help them understand the church is not only the priests and the bishops, the church is also the people,”.....
... Gender equality and mutual respect was a problem for society as well as the church: “Even if we see women prime ministers in many countries, we also know with the #MeToo movement that we have a long way to go to get rid of a pattern of abuses of power above women.”
I was left wondering if these people were indeed from the same planet, let alone church.
Responses « Back to index | View thread »