Pope Francis removes from Vatican doctrine office archbishop who is believed to have banned same-sex

[Brickjectivity]

The aftermath of the Council has brought increased division over the 'Spirit' of Vatican II as the theologians on each side continue to define it. For some the Council closed before addressing such issues as divorced and remarriage etc. Of course, now all of these forward-looking theologians are considered by some as heretics.

Its starting to click for me. So this move by Francis will be very popular with some and very unpopular with others, but the fault is not his.

To me this reflects the conflict between truth and love which people always face. It sounds very much like the schism which rocked protestants around the turn of the 19th century. Even though no pope was involved the churches almost all split into along the lines of strict biblical focus versus those focusing upon other things such as getting rid of child labor. The focus and the strong belief in tradition and doctrine came into conflict with the focus upon mercy and independence.

The image is to be from the image of Aaron and Moses, and this an ancient conundrum. The two must kiss, love and truth. Love is more important, so it is the progressives who are in the right though they are wrong. Why are they right? Because they are not doing the leaving. Its always the hard liners who finally decide enough is enough, they can't take anymore and must go. They divide the churches.

 

[Jainarayan]

Obviously your not a Christian my answer is on Christianity and the question is on Christianity not Indian religion. Are we including all religions if we are then I agree you right but Christianity has always been anti homosexual until just recently.Society itself was anti homo sexual on this side of the world.

I was Christian, I was born and baptized Roman Catholic, Italian-American, made sacraments up to Confirmation. I see Christianity far more clearly from the outside than I did as a Christian, or than many Christians do.

 

[pearl]

One of the reasons I've following his work as pope is that friends of mine are involved with https://www.followingfrancis.org/

Pope Francis often quotes from a saying attributed to St Francis,
'Preach the Gospel, when necessary, use words' But what shaped Pope Francis was his own 'dark night of the soul'.

 

[pearl]

Brave pope, seems to fear gay community, but not God. does that mean gay community is his true god?

'Judgment is mine', says God.
'Who am I to judge?' says Francis

 

[metis]

I was Christian, I was born and baptized Roman Catholic, Italian-American, made sacraments up to Confirmation. I see Christianity far more clearly from the outside than I did as a Christian, or than many Christians do.

I hear ya, but the Church is very diverse, especially as compared to the Evangelicals and most of the other fundamentalist Protestant churches.

 

[pearl]

Its starting to click for me. So this move by Francis will be very popular with some and very unpopular with others, but the fault is not his.

Its the same story repeating ever since, some Catholics will never get beyond it, little has changed since I converted from Methodist. When my oldest daughter reached the age of First Communion, the parish held the usual preparation for parents. One man stood up and shouted 'you're turning us into a bunch of Protestants.' And that's what many Catholics believe that Vatican II was overly influenced by Protestants, and they actually took part, which they did not, in the sessions advising. although they were invited on-lookers. Few popes following Vat II have actually, sincerely tried to follow all the teachings, and since it was a Pastoral and not a dogmatic Council, they really didn't have to, I guess. What I find so ironic is the suggestion that the Council was simply innovative, when in actuality, the Council, if anything reached back into history as the changes in the Liturgy drew on the Church of the late 2nd century.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Its the same story repeating ever since, some Catholics will never get beyond it, little has changed since I converted from Methodist. When my oldest daughter reached the age of First Communion, the parish held the usual preparation for parents. One man stood up and shouted 'you're turning us into a bunch of Protestants.' And that's what many Catholics believe that Vatican II was overly influenced by Protestants, and they actually took part, which they did not, in the sessions advising. although they were invited on-lookers. Few popes following Vat II have actually, sincerely tried to follow all the teachings, and since it was a Pastoral and not a dogmatic Council, they really didn't have to, I guess. What I find so ironic is the suggestion that the Council was simply innovative, when in actuality, the Council, if anything reached back into history as the changes in the Liturgy drew on the Church of the late 2nd century.

What you're saying is that many catholics think that blessing same sex unions comes indirectly from associating with the leprous protestants? I admit protestantism is evil in many ways. Its reputation is earned, but past generations are dead. Ravening wolves arise from within, so if you get the chance please assure folk that the protestants have nothing to do with whatever their concerns are. Also in my opinion if any catholic can't touch a leper then they aren't catholics. If they can't have eucharist with a sinner then their eucharist is euchra-themselves.

My understanding of all of this is fuzzy but comes from experience. Hard liners do not care who they hurt, no matter what appears on their faces. They might care but as if they were trimming a fingernail or momentarily pulling a splinter. They'll express concern, but their concern is for themselves. You can't please them enough. They'll never admit that God is right and all people are wrong. The closest they can come to that is to say that they know what God thinks.

 

[Glaurung]

At this point it's hard to care about anything Pope Francis does as it's always just more of the same. He'll wink and nod to the modernists and liberals until the cows come home, but I'm sure even he knows that any actual move to change Church teaching on this issue would be impossible to defend as a mere 'development of doctrine'. At least with the death penalty issue the pope had a basis in claiming continuity with his immediate predecessors, but that would be impossible to claim here (should he ever attempt to renounce Church teaching on the intrinsic disorder of same-sex acts).

The world's position: Complete acceptance of homosexuality as a positive good.
The Church's position: Same-sex acts violate the natural end of the sexual faculty. Therefore such acts are intrinsically evil.

There is no coherent compromise the Church can make as the Church claims to hold an unchangeable moral teaching derived from a divinely revealed faith. Sure, teaching can be developed and articulated in different ways depending on the needs of the times, but it's nonsensical to claim that a divinely revealed teaching can 'develop' to mean its opposite. That what was a mortal sin yesterday is now a positive good which can be blessed. You cannot coherently claim to hold a divinely revealed faith if its moral teachings are subject to change depending on the whims of the current day. It would be defection to attempt such a change. It would be the falsification of Matthew 16:18.

I think the real heresy gripping the Church these days (gripping both clerics and laity) is the idea that one can compromise between the world and God. Not so I say. Christ was clear. The world is his enemy. Either Catholicism is false and it will compromise and therefore defect or Catholicism is true and secular modernity will become a historical footnote. (Or Christ will come and end the world).

 

[Clara Tea]

What you're saying is that many catholics think that blessing same sex unions comes indirectly from associating with the leprous protestants? I admit protestantism is evil in many ways. Its reputation is earned, but past generations are dead. Ravening wolves arise from within, so if you get the chance please assure folk that the protestants have nothing to do with whatever their concerns are. Also in my opinion if any catholic can't touch a leper then they aren't catholics. If they can't have eucharist with a sinner then their eucharist is euchra-themselves.

My understanding of all of this is fuzzy but comes from experience. Hard liners do not care who they hurt, no matter what appears on their faces. They might care but as if they were trimming a fingernail or momentarily pulling a splinter. They'll express concern, but their concern is for themselves. You can't please them enough. They'll never admit that God is right and all people are wrong. The closest they can come to that is to say that they know what God thinks.

Strange "spot" to be in....waiting for the leper to change his spots?

Maybe God thinks that God doesn't exist?

 

[Father Heathen]

Love can never be a sin.

Never.

If you truly believe this then I suggest reconsidering your religious and political allegiances.

 

[Father Heathen]

Brave pope, seems to fear gay community, but not God. does that mean gay community is his true god?

Or perhaps he's just and compassionate and believes god to be as well. Are ancient, primitive goat herders your god?

 

[Father Heathen]

At this point it's hard to care about anything Pope Francis does as it's always just more of the same. He'll wink and nod to the modernists and liberals until the cows come home, but I'm sure even he knows that any actual move to change Church teaching on this issue would be impossible to defend as a mere 'development of doctrine'. At least with the death penalty issue the pope had a basis in claiming continuity with his immediate predecessors, but that would be impossible to claim here (should he ever attempt to renounce Church teaching on the intrinsic disorder of same-sex acts).

The world's position: Complete acceptance of homosexuality as a positive good.
The Church's position: Same-sex acts violate the natural end of the sexual faculty. Therefore such acts are intrinsically evil.

There is no coherent compromise the Church can make as the Church claims to hold an unchangeable moral teaching derived from a divinely revealed faith. Sure, teaching can be developed and articulated in different ways depending on the needs of the times, but it's nonsensical to claim that a divinely revealed teaching can 'develop' to mean its opposite. That what was a mortal sin yesterday is now a positive good which can be blessed. You cannot coherently claim to hold a divinely revealed faith if its moral teachings are subject to change depending on the whims of the current day. It would be defection to attempt such a change. It would be the falsification of Matthew 16:18.

I think the real heresy gripping the Church these days (gripping both clerics and laity) is the idea that one can compromise between the world and God. Not so I say. Christ was clear. The world is his enemy. Either Catholicism is false and it will compromise and therefore defect or Catholicism is true and secular modernity will become a historical footnote. (Or Christ will come and end the world).

You should thank the pope for slowing your church's descent to the bottom of history's latrine.

 

[Estro Felino]

At this point it's hard to care about anything Pope Francis does as it's always just more of the same. He'll wink and nod to the modernists and liberals until the cows come home, but I'm sure even he knows that any actual move to change Church teaching on this issue would be impossible to defend as a mere 'development of doctrine'. At least with the death penalty issue the pope had a basis in claiming continuity with his immediate predecessors, but that would be impossible to claim here (should he ever attempt to renounce Church teaching on the intrinsic disorder of same-sex acts).

The world's position: Complete acceptance of homosexuality as a positive good.
The Church's position: Same-sex acts violate the natural end of the sexual faculty. Therefore such acts are intrinsically evil.

There is no coherent compromise the Church can make as the Church claims to hold an unchangeable moral teaching derived from a divinely revealed faith. Sure, teaching can be developed and articulated in different ways depending on the needs of the times, but it's nonsensical to claim that a divinely revealed teaching can 'develop' to mean its opposite. That what was a mortal sin yesterday is now a positive good which can be blessed. You cannot coherently claim to hold a divinely revealed faith if its moral teachings are subject to change depending on the whims of the current day. It would be defection to attempt such a change. It would be the falsification of Matthew 16:18.

I think the real heresy gripping the Church these days (gripping both clerics and laity) is the idea that one can compromise between the world and God. Not so I say. Christ was clear. The world is his enemy. Either Catholicism is false and it will compromise and therefore defect or Catholicism is true and secular modernity will become a historical footnote. (Or Christ will come and end the world).

The problem is absolutely what you have just mentioned.
That this is a political pope.

Was Benedict a political pope? No. He still is one of the greatest theologians of our times.

As a Christian I would always ask the Church not to talk about sexuality.
Never.
Neither about homosexuality, nor about heterosexuality.

The Gospel is the only truth and Jesus never spoke about sex, sexuality, sexual relations.

Jesus Christ always spoke of Love.
The Church has the duty to accept everyone.

 

[Glaurung]

You should thank the pope for slowing your church's descent to the bottom of history's latrine.

Either the Church has a divine guarantee of indefectibility (which means it will last until the return of Christ) or it doesn't and it will eventually collapse. Either way the current state of affairs isn't surprising. But I'm not too worried. Scripture predicts a great falling away from the faith. And various private revelations have also prophesied a future where it will appear as if Christianity has been almost completely stamped out. But it will be a short lived future preceding a divine intervention which will correct the world's errors.

As a Christian I would always ask the Church not to talk about sexuality.

It is reported that Sister Lucia stated that the final battle between God and Satan will be over marriage and the family. And indeed it is hard not to see this as being validated in our times. Therefore the Church must talk about sexuality because sexuality is the defining issue of our day. It has been the defining issue since the 1930's when the Anglican Church caved in on the issue of contraception. If Sister Lucia is an authentic seer then our current state of affairs is very much driven by an invisible puppet master who (at least for now) must be laughing with glee.

The Gospel is the only truth and Jesus never spoke about sex, sexuality, sexual relations.

This is incorrect. If you claim to be Catholic then you must believe in the inspiration of the entire corpus of Scripture. This attempt to separate what Jesus is reported to have said in the Gospel accounts and set that in opposition to what is said in the other inspired books (such as the Pauline epistles) has no basis in Christian belief. The New Testament is clear in regards to sexual ethics. And it is explicit in its teaching that those who die in unrepentant sexual sin will not be saved.

Jesus Christ always spoke of Love.

To love is to will the good of the other for the other's sake. Love in this sense is an obligation. We must desire the good for everyone we meet.

But it is clear in your posts that by love you mean little more than a sentimental indulgence of feelings. Our Lord never commanded this.

 

[Estro Felino]

Either the Church has a divine guarantee of indefectibility (which means it will last until the return of Christ) or it doesn't and it will eventually collapse. Either way the current state of affairs isn't surprising. But I'm not too worried. Scripture predicts a great falling away from the faith. And various private revelations have also prophesied a future where it will appear as if Christianity has been almost completely stamped out. But it will be a short lived future preceding a divine intervention which will correct the world's errors.


It is reported that Sister Lucia stated that the final battle between God and Satan will be over marriage and the family. And indeed it is hard not to see this as being validated in our times. Therefore the Church must talk about sexuality because sexuality is the defining issue of our day. It has been the defining issue since the 1930's when the Anglican Church caved in on the issue of contraception. If Sister Lucia is an authentic seer then our current state of affairs is very much driven by an invisible puppet master who (at least for now) must be laughing with glee.


This is incorrect. If you claim to be Catholic then you must believe in the inspiration of the entire corpus of Scripture. This attempt to separate what Jesus is reported to have said in the Gospel accounts and set that in opposition to what is said in the other inspired books (such as the Pauline epistles) has no basis in Christian belief. The New Testament is clear in regards to sexual ethics. And it is explicit in its teaching that those who die in unrepentant sexual sin will not be saved.


To love is to will the good of the other for the other's sake. Love in this sense is an obligation. We must desire the good for everyone we meet.

But it is clear in your posts that by love you mean little more than a sentimental indulgence of feelings. Our Lord never commanded this.

Ok, let's start.
I do consider Sister Lucia a real seer.
But I do know in detail the third secret of Fatima ( all of it, not just the first part).
This secret clealy speaks that the Vatican will be occupied by evil forces.

As a Christian I believe in the perfection of the heterosexual love, which is the only suitable to create a new life.


Nevertheless I think that neither homosexual love nor heterosexual love are a sin.

 

[pearl]

What you're saying is that many catholics think that blessing same sex unions comes indirectly from associating with the leprous protestants?

No, not at all. Traditional Catholics continue to blame Protestants for the changes in the Liturgy and the physical changes in the church building.
The moving of the Altar so the priest faces the congregation, removal of altar rails, referring to the Altar as 'the Table of the Lord' etc., singing of hymns. these are the type of changes blamed on Protestant influence and of course the language.

As far as human sexuality is concerned, there were areas that theologians wanted to pursue, artificial contraception and others, this is where the question arises as to what was to be 'Spirit of the Council'. As Pope John XXIII died before the close, it was Paul VI who closed the Council. I believe not until Francis was there a genuine return to Vat II.

Jonh XXIII, In an audience before a group of Greek seminarians, Pope John XXIII said:
“I am not infallible.”
When that statement had had the desired effect, he explained:
“The pope is only infallible when he speaks ex cathedra.
I will never speak ex cathedra: therefore, I am not infallible.”

 

[1213]

'...
'Who am I to judge?' says Francis

Then why “Pope Francis removes from Vatican doctrine office archbishop…”?

 

[pearl]

Then why “Pope Francis removes from Vatican doctrine office archbishop…”?

Because the archbishop gave a misleading statement that did not represent the pope's position.

 

[Father Heathen]

Either the Church has a divine guarantee of indefectibility (which means it will last until the return of Christ) or it doesn't and it will eventually collapse. Either way the current state of affairs isn't surprising. But I'm not too worried. Scripture predicts a great falling away from the faith. And various private revelations have also prophesied a future where it will appear as if Christianity has been almost completely stamped out. But it will be a short lived future preceding a divine intervention which will correct the world's errors.

Christianity has been stamping its own self out, and if Jesus were to return most Christians wouldn't even recognize him, dismissing him as some brown socialist hippy.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Christianity has been stamping its own self out, and if Jesus were to return most Christians wouldn't even recognize him, dismissing him as some brown socialist hippy.

I wouldn't be surprised in the least if that happening, to be honest. I think it's a possibility based upon the apathetic and prejudicial attitude I've witnessed in most evangelical right-wing Christians towards undocumented migrants from Mexico. I can envision Jesus being called an 'illegal immigrant,' and told to go back to where he came from.