Mullarkey does not like Neumayr's vent-of-spleen on Pp. Francis. Well, OK, Mullarkey doesn't have to like it. It's a question of style, not of substance, after all. The facts are not in question.
But Mullarkey wanders into the swamp and apparently got bitten by a snake here:
...Neumayr does not advance his case against Francis with jabs at modern
scriptural scholarship, a literalist attachment to Adam and Eve as
actual persons.... ...
Huh? Does Ms. Mullarkey deny the 'first parents/Fall' doctrine? How does Ms. Mullarkey 'splain the appellation "new Eve" found in documents of the Fathers? Or the corresponding, slightly earlier "new Adam" references?
Maybe Ms. Mullarkey has a better idea. We'd like to hear it.
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
She's going to fall into the trap Pell did when he debated Dawkins concerning the doctrine of Original Sin...it's sad when atheists understand the Faith better than the believer.
Ms. Mullarkey is showing her true colors of late. Her diatribe on the approved private revelations of St. Sister Faustina reveals her unreasoning bias in matters of our Faith. It seems as if she is undergoing some type of inner rebellion against Catholic doctrine. Her criticism of the Mercy of God as delineated in Faustina's writings is truly shocking. It comes as no surprise that she would be contemptuous of the reality of Adam and Eve. Ms. Mullarkey prefers her own ideas to to those given to us by God through His Church.
I, too, have some problems with Saint Faustina's writings. Does that mean I have "unreasoning bias" in matters of our Faith?
Frankly, I don't know much at all about Faustina's writings; I DO know about Divine Mercy Sunday--and I prefer the "Low Sunday" appellation.
But that's not doctrinal as is Adam/Eve (or 'first parents,' whatever the names.)
Post a Comment