The Next Pope

[IndigoChild5559]

You have just touched upon the big incoherence of this pontificate.

I don't find it incoherent in the slightest. Those who do simply don't understand where he stands. I don't blame you. I blame Francis. He is horribly unclear, and when people ask him to clarify, he gets all upset and defensive.

 

[JACC2312]

You have habit of missing the point. No conservative or traditionalist is denying anyone the opportunity to avail themselves of either baptism or confession. The issue is that the progressives the Francis pontificate has empowered deny the existence of sin. They deny the fashionable vices are in any need of healing whatsoever.

On the Contrary Pope Francis does not deny the Existance of Sin, in fact Pope Francis has Clearly stated "Yes homosexuality is not a Crime it is a Sin but also Lack of Charity is a Sin and how are you doing on that".

And he is clearly Quoting The Lord, who clearly stated that the Final Judgement is on Charity not on sexual orientation:

Matthew 25: 31-46


{25:31} But when the Son of man will have arrived in his
majesty, and all the Angels with him, then he will sit upon
the seat of his majesty. {25:32} And all the nations shall be
gathered together before him. And he shall separate them
from one another, just as a shepherd separates the sheep from
the goats. {25:33} And he shall station the sheep, indeed, on
his right, but the goats on his left. {25:34} Then the King
shall say to those who will be on his right: ‘Come, you
blessed of my Father. Possess the kingdom prepared for you
from the foundation of the world. {25:35} For I was hungry,
and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to
drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in; {25:36} naked,
and you covered me; sick, and you visited me; I was in prison,
and you came to me.’ {25:37} Then the just will answer him,
saying: ‘Lord, when have we see you hungry, and fed you;
thirsty, and given you drink? {25:38} And when have we
seen you a stranger, and taken you in? Or naked, and covered
you? {25:39} Or when did we see you sick, or in prison, and
visit to you?’ {25:40} And in response, the King shall say to
them, ‘Amen I say to you, whenever you did this for one of
these, the least of my brothers, you did it for me.’
{25:41} Then he shall also say, to those who will be on his
left: ‘Depart from me, you accursed ones, into the eternal fire,
which was prepared for the devil and his angels. {25:42} For
I was hungry, and you did not give me to eat; I was thirsty,
and you did not give me to drink; {25:43} I was a stranger
and you did not take me in; naked, and you did not cover me;
sick and in prison, and you did not visit me.’ {25:44} Then
they will also answer him, saying: ‘Lord, when did we see
you hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in
prison, and did not minister to you?’ {25:45} Then he shall
respond to them by saying: ‘Amen I say to you, whenever
you did not do it to one of these least, neither did you do it to
me.’ {25:46} And these shall go into eternal punishment, but
the just shall go into eternal life.”


So it is not that Pope denies the Existence of Sin or that homosexuality is a Sin, what he is focusing is that many Pharisees are relentles on pointing out towards sinners whose struggles are not known to all, if "conservatives" want more "Anathemas" from the Pope and from the College of Cardinals that is not going to happen neither with this Pope nor with the next one.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

A business that intentionally alienates its most loyal customers is an irrationally run business.

Didn’t realize that salvation should take a back seat to great yelp reviews.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

On the Contrary Pope Francis does not deny the Existance of Sin, in fact Pope Francis has Clearly stated "Yes homosexuality is not a Crime it is a Sin but also Lack of Charity is a Sin and how are you doing on that".

Excellent, excellent quote. For those who want an actual link to this, in case they doubt it, here:

In the interview the pope said, "We are all children of God, and God loves us as we are and for the strength that each of us fights for our dignity. Being homosexual is not a crime. It is not a crime." Then, he voiced an objection to that statement, followed by how he would respond to that objection, saying, "'Yes, but it is a sin.' Fine, but first let us distinguish between a sin and a crime. It's also a sin to lack charity with one another," he added.

Pope clarifies remarks about homosexuality and sin

Pope Francis, in a letter to Jesuit Father James Martin, clarified remarks he had made during an interview with the Associated Press published Jan. 25....

www.usccb.org

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Alternatively, I could be wrong and the cardinal electors double down on progressivism and elect a Francis II. A Francis II with the courage to actually implement the progressive/liberal wish list. Married priests, deaconesses/priestesses, gay marriage, open communion with Protestants and a complete 180 on Catholic sexual teaching.

If this were to happen, then my disillusionment with Rome and its claims would be validated. My nominal allegiance to Catholicism would shatter utterly. If this were to happen, then the Catholic Church - having falsified its claims to indefectibility - will absolutely cease to exist by the 22nd century if not earlier.

Well, you seem to make it quite clear here that you are opposed to married priests, females in important positions in the church, same-sex couples having the same rights as hetero ones (when neither gets to choose who they are), or any sort of ecumenicism with Portestants. Along with masturbation, adults making their own choices about their sex lives, and more.

Am I missing any pet peeves?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Regardless, my view is that the Catholic Church is committed to male exclusive Holy Orders as a matter of dogma. (Whatever you may think of that).

Dogma is one of those things...surely intelligent people don't need it. It means "that which must be believed" -- even in the face of evidence to the contrary. If I recall rightly, poor old Galileo Galilei got in big trouble for presenting evidence that contradicted an earth-centred solar system. Dogma required him to shove the evidence where the sun doesn't shine, and put the earth back in the centre, where it belonged, per Ptolemy.

Dogma is not something I think anyone should be particularly keen on. Truth is much, much more valuable, even if it is scary.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

But rather than armchair philosophize about it, let's look at some data. What percentage of kids raised by non-religious parents are non-religious themselves, as adults?

While you're at it, do the same thing with kids raised by religious parents. Doing both might teach you something about the actual nature of belief.

But if you were to do both those studies carefully, and at the same time, I think you might also find that religious parents are much more likely to teach kids what they must believe, while secular parents are more likely to impart to kids that they themselves don't believe in deities, but not that their kids mustn't.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

What is keeping sinners from the Church is their rejection of the moral law as taught by Christianity

Catholicism is not all of Christianity.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

The culture wants to fornicate and have the Church soothe its conscience with a rubber stamp of approval.

I don’t see it that way. I see a culture learning that some things considered harmful are just really not, like how tomatoes used to be considered poisonous and not anymore.

 

[JACC2312]

Catholicism is not all of Christianity.

All The apostles, All the church fathers All the Relics, and evidence of the Life of the Lord Jesus Christ are in the Catholic Church, there is no other comunity that can prove its Apostolic Origin as the Church, the Catholic, can.

 

[Glaurung]

Well, you seem to make it quite clear here that you are opposed to married priests, females in important positions in the church, same-sex couples having the same rights as hetero ones (when neither gets to choose who they are), or any sort of ecumenicism with Portestants. Along with masturbation, adults making their own choices about their sex lives, and more.

What I am against is a Church that presented itself as the indefectible custodian of divine revelation attempting to smooth over its own religion because its own doctrine has suddenly become inconvenient. The Catholic Church doesn't get to claim an infallible religion: it doesn't get to claim to hold the one key to a non-horrific afterlife: only for it to then downplay its own claims while throwing a hissy fit over those evil trads who dare to notice the doctrinal slight of hand. Screw them. I spent my childhood and adolescence with the threat of Hell dangled over my head so they can at least have the decency to actually teach the religion the higher clergy pretend to believe regardless of anyone's feelings about it.

On the Contrary Pope Francis does not deny the Existance of Sin,

No, he just protects rapists like Rupnik.

Catholicism is not all of Christianity.

The hard truth is that Catholicism and Evangelical Protestantism are the only forms of Christianity that actually matter in the world. Mainline Protestantism is a corpse and Eastern Orthodoxy while ancient is a minor religion in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

What I am against is a Church that presented itself as the indefectible custodian of divine revelation attempting to smooth over its own religion because its own doctrine has suddenly become inconvenient. The Catholic Church doesn't get to claim an infallible religion: it doesn't get to claim to hold the one key to a non-horrific afterlife: only for it to then downplay its own claims while throwing a hissy fit over those evil trads who dare to notice the doctrinal slight of hand.

If the Church cannot claim to be indefectible or infallible, then new learning must imply that its doctrines change, must it not? New insights into the fact that homosexuality, for example, is natural, not a choice and immutable should surely cause the Church to re-think its doctrine. Heck, even Ratzinger, in his despicable "Letter on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons" was at least trying to do that, though failing badly.

Heck, the Church even managed to apologize to Galileo, after a mere 450 years. (The fact that it took so long, however, is direct evidence of just how fiercely religion tries to resist new learning and evidence that contradicts its dogma.)

 

[Glaurung]

If the Church cannot claim to be indefectible or infallible, then new learning must imply that its doctrines change, must it not? New insights into the fact that homosexuality, for example, is natural, not a choice and immutable should surely cause the Church to re-think its doctrine. Heck, even Ratzinger, in his despicable "Letter on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons" was at least trying to do that, though failing badly.

I don't understand how so many are blind to a simple doctrinal reality. A Catholic Church that substantially changes its moral doctrines admits its claims to divine guidance were false. A Catholic Church that dispenses its claims to indefectibility disproves Christianity.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I don't understand how so many are blind to a simple doctrinal reality. A Catholic Church that substantially changes its moral doctrines admits its claims to divine guidance were false. A Catholic Church that dispenses its claims to indefectibility disproves Christianity.

No. It simply means that humans -- even popes -- are incapable of perfect understanding of even divine guidance.

 

[JACC2312]

No, he just protects rapists like Rupnik.

To Reopen his case for Finally to get judged is not protection, on the other Hand, We almost act as if the Holy See could kidnap someone in any country or continent to injail them in the Castel saint Angelo. We seem to forget that the Vatican has very limited powers on maters of Civil Justice, and thus the victims should not look for Judicial Justice in the Vatican but in the Civil Laws. Seems that this Rupnik abuse his Priestly orders to have sex with women, not with Girls, but Women through psychological abuse. From the Civil Law it is hard to condemn a man for having sex with a woman if this sex was consented if there was no use of physical Violence or if there was no any ilegal mean of Sedduction.

Said that, the Pope cannot injail anybody in the present world, out of the Vatican. And the Cannonical Law on Priest can only end on Excommunication or suspension of the Priestly orders. But not in Jail.