PurpleUrkel
Catholic
The pope is a faggot and therefore is defending faggotry. Nothing to see here.
-
ChristIsKing.eu has moved to ChristIsKing.cc - see the announcement for more details. If you don't know your password PM a mod on Element or via a temporary account here to confirm your username and email.
Did Pope Francis Allow Priests to Bless Same-Sex Relationships?
- Thread starter JR5
- Start date
Good post Samseau.
I also desire the reunification of the churches.
I think the schism is largely a power event. Not a faith event. E.g. the German aristocracy pushed Lutherism to gain power from Rome. And the same went for the English king and the Anglican church. Or the Calvinists.
It's local elites, abusing Christ for their power agendas. Sowing discord under the faithful.
On this whole gay topic, or the Latin Mass in the Catholic church, I feel the same energy, it's largely political not divine.
I see personally that those Catholics that get sucked into the gay or the latin mass frame are disconnecting from the community and Christ.
I have seen this quite literally around me, I have visited some SSPX masses and I like the mass but I dislike the constant descending tone on the "Vatican 2" Catholics. I have a friend who moved there and in his talks he all the time talks about the bad pope and the new mass.
This is not out faith. This is away from following Christ.
His frame on our faith is largely reduced to these 2 topics. It's like an obsession.
While I don't disagree with him, yes I'd prefer the pope to be clearer on sin, and I enjoy the Latin Mass, but it's not the essence.
A frame pushed by worldly powers, abusing those with some real (and valid) concerns.
When I see some people post here "pope is a faggot" or as if all masses in the local language are "rainbow masses" I feel ashamed and get beavis and butthead vibes.
Genealogist
Catholic
"The Russian Church’s document, “On the Orthodox Attitude to the New Practice of Blessing ‘Couples in Irregular Situations and Same-sex Couples’ in the Roman Catholic Church”, was developed by the Synodal Biblical and Theological Commission, headed by His Eminence Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev) of Budapest.
According to the new document, “the ideas expressed in Fiducia Supplicans declaration represent a significant deviation from Christian moral teaching and require theological analysis”.
While “proclaiming fidelity to the Christian understanding of the Sacrament of Marriage and the practice of blessings", the Catholic document “actually postulates a sharp departure from this fidelity”.
“In the context of the processes taking place in the Christian community, this document can be perceived as a step towards the full recognition by the Roman Catholic Church of ‘same-sex unions’ as a norm, which has already happened in a number of Protestant communities”, the Synodal Commission notes.
“All believers, including those with homosexual aspirations, need pastoral care. However, this pastoral care must not be aimed at legitimizing a sinful lifestyle, but at healing the soul of the suffering,” the Russian Church document states".
Russian Church responds to Catholic document on blessing gay couples, Fiducia Supplicans
Despite the fact that the Fiducia Supplicans declaration is an internal document of the Catholic Church, the Russian Orthodox Church considers it its duty to respond to such radical innovations that reject the divinely revealed norms of Christian morality.orthochristian.com
But they were OK with Amoris Laetitia, since it's basically in line with their own practice of allowing divorce and "remarriage"?
I understand Your desire to defend Your Church, and I'm not trying to start a Catholic vs Orthodox argument, however there is a concern that under Pope's Francis leadership, the Catholic Church may be moving in a direction to embrace homosexuality and, since it's the largest Christian denomination in the world, effects of it will ripple through all other Churches.
If people think the liberalism will stop with Francis, then they aren't paying attention. He is stacking the College of Cardinals with liberals. By liberal, I mean "we don't even know if Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew" level of liberal. Like every liberal power broker, this Pope is playing the long-game, gradual, and step by step.
30 years from now, who knows what will happen. But I am encouraged by young catholic men whom I've talked to. All of this shiftiness points to the need for an unchanging standard, such as the one God already provided the Church with by inspiring the Prophets and Apostles to write the Holy Scriptures.
30 years from now, who knows what will happen. But I am encouraged by young catholic men whom I've talked to. All of this shiftiness points to the need for an unchanging standard, such as the one God already provided the Church with by inspiring the Prophets and Apostles to write the Holy Scriptures.
You sound like a total tool. Obviously the pope ain’t gay, but maybe hey you are! Stupid criticism from a basement dweller.
Cornelius V.E.
Orthodox
This is a common attack that Roman Catholics level at the Orthodox. It's misinformed and ignorant of Church history, however.
The universal church of the First Millennium (both East and West) "allowed" divorce and remarriage, which is why the Orthodox Church also allows divorce and remarriage today. If Roman Catholics "trads" are going to try to claim to be the same Church as the Church of the First Millennium, then this is a self-own on their part.
Where do we see this? Look at the Canons of St. Basil the Great (from the 300s). They explicitly allow for divorce and remarriage in the cases of adultery, abandonment, and grave violence. These canons of St. Basil (one of the greatest saints in the history of the Church) still form the basis of Orthodox canon law on this question. Why? Because these canons were accepted as canonical at the Council of Trullo (691 AD) and the 7th Ecumenical Council (which accepts Trullo as canonical) in 787. Roman Catholics, and their unfortunately ignorant historical scholarly work, seem to have no knowledge of this at all.
Not only this, but "Eastern Catholics" (those who pretend to be Orthodox but who are in communion with Rome) were "allowed" divorce and remarriage by the Roman popes until their canon law was revised in the early 1900s. This is well documented by Melkite Catholic bishops like Elias Zoghby.
Moreover, the post-1054 invention of annulments is a pure innovation (ie, anti-traditional), and it's a highly legalistic and pharisaical way of allowing divorce and remarriage in spirit, but not in letter. It also comes with its own problems and inconsistencies, for example the Roman Catholic canon law for annulments allows them in extremely vague cases like "psychological immaturity of the person at the time of marriage." Almost anyone can claim they were "immature" in their early 20s or at any time in their life (which is why this specific canon is the most often cited canon in the vast majority of annulment cases worldwide). You can have a married couple of 20 years with 10 kids who just "oops! I was actually immature when we were married so we were never actually married this whole time!" happen. This is not just a hypothetical scenario--it's the real lived experience unfortunately of thousands of Roman Catholics in the post Vatican II era. When we have such vague canons surrounding the validity of marriage, can we really ever say that we "know" we are married if we're Roman Catholic? If an annulment tribunal can rule (and has ruled in millions of cases worldwide) that my marriage never happened, can I really ever know that I'm objectively married if I'm Roman Catholic?
Not only this, but Christ Our Lord "allows" divorce and remarriage in the Book of Matthew for the case of adultery--and virtually all Church fathers accept this interpretation. I guess Roman Catholics know better than Christ? We know that popes have often thought they knew better than the consensus of the Church Fathers (eg, Mary's Immaculate Conception), but better than Christ Himself as well, huh?
These "trads" not only don't have a traditional position, they also have to reject their own modern pope (in Amoris Laetitia) in order to retain this illusion that their Church's perfect immaculate doctrine doesn't allow divorce and remarriage. This is obviously not a superior position to that of the Orthodox Church and its great saints and doctors (eg, Saint Basil the Great and all of those council fathers who accepted his canons). Not a single saint of the early Church criticized St. Basil for his allowance of divorce and remarriage, but modern Roman Catholic "trads" think they know better than not only their own pope, but also these great early saints.
Only when the Roman Church separated itself from the universal church after the First Millennium, separated itself from its own roots, and forgot its early saints and councils (eg, every RC can tell you about Vatican II but most/all have no idea what any of the early ecumenical councils were about), only in this context could these bizarre "trad" doctrines of "divorce cannot exist, but we have annulments bro" come to exist and be presumed superior.
Last edited:
PurpleUrkel
Catholic
Dear "Chad," the correct grammar and senetence structure for your awesome takedown would be, "but hey, maybe you are?" and not, "but maybe hey you are!" Nonetheless, a pretty decent try for a gay-pope-loving illiterate newbie.
Last edited:
Lightning strikes Apostle Peter statute in Pope Francis' former diocese
The statue of St. Peter on the facade of the Sanctuary of Our Lady of the Rosary of San Nicolas, north of Buenos Aires, had its arm with a key and the halo obliterated by a lightning strike.
spzh.media
Sorry if it's already been posted, I only found out about it a couple of days ago. Symbolic that the right hand has been removed by a lightning strike?
I don't think this is true. According to what has been revealed by God through the bible, Christ allows divorce under the pretense of adulatory, but doesn't say anything about remarriage for those that choose to divorce and not reconcile. If we are to follow the bible, you are to remain in the state of divorce until the end. You are permitted to remarry only if your spouse has passed away, and only to another person who hasn't been divorced (or whose spouse also died).
A lot of what @Cornelius V.E. wrote is nonsense.
Lightning strikes Apostle Peter statute in Pope Francis' former diocese
The statue of St. Peter on the facade of the Sanctuary of Our Lady of the Rosary of San Nicolas, north of Buenos Aires, had its arm with a key and the halo obliterated by a lightning strike.
Sorry if it's already been posted, I only found out about it a couple of days ago. Symbolic that the right hand has been removed by a lightning strike?
Symbolic? This the odds of this are virtually impossible, this was an act of God!!!
The Catholic Church is going to face incredible judgement for the actions of this heretical Pope. God is warning Catholics!!
Genealogist
Catholic
Your canons allow divorce and remarriage for many reasons other than adultery, such as the absence of "love"...
Those aren't councils, they are synods, and those cannons are specific to each Church.
Synods often have terms that are relevant to their culture. That said, they allow for divorce outside of adultery yet completely in the Spirit of Christ wanting to preserve marriage.
Synods often have terms that are relevant to their culture. That said, they allow for divorce outside of adultery yet completely in the Spirit of Christ wanting to preserve marriage.
Genealogist
Catholic
Similarly, Bergoglio's oh-so-culturally-relevant Magisterium allows"blessings" for sodomitical couples (yet totally in the Spirit of Christ wanting to preserve marriage).
Similarly, Bergoglio's oh-so-culturally-relevant Magisterium allows"blessings" for sodomitical couples (yet totally in the Spirit of Christ wanting to preserve marriage).
Yes clearly you guys know better than St. Basil the Great. Have fun with your collapsing Catholic Church.
Why in the world would you wish that upon another Christian? Seriously, what's wrong with you? To me, this behaviour is no different than the stance a Muslim or Jew would take against us. Sad.
I completely agree that it's absurd that people these days divorce because "there's no love anymore", especially since people do not even know what the word "love" means. When they say that, they just mean carnal desire and general feefees. They just don't want to sound like shallow and irresponsible oathbreakers, even if they know they are.Your canons allow divorce and remarriage for many reasons other than adultery, such as the absence of "love"...
That being said, nowhere in any of the images you posted is "the absence of love" listed among the valid reasons for divorce. All the things being said there seem very reasonable to me. The fact of the matter is, it's simply an unavoidable reality that sometimes a marriage breaks and it's absolutely unfixable.
If your wife tries to kill you, or aborts your child without your consent (Lord have mercy, this is a thing that happens today), then there is no coming back from that, obviously you cannot stay with that woman. So what then? You physically separate, but since murdering your unborn child was not adultery, techically she's still your wife and you have to stay celibate for the rest of your life or until you know that she's sleeping with another man? That's a very legalistic, almost talmudic way of doing things, no?
If you cannot remarry after a separation due to such extreme circumstances, then your soul is in danger. Most men, perhaps the overwhelming majority, are not called to celibacy and not capable of lifelong celibacy, and could fall into grave sexual sins if they do not marry. In the images you posted, it is briefly explained that these are exceptions to the law made only in these extreme circumstances in order to avoid that.
Last edited:
He didn't wish anything upon anyone. He made an observation (kind of rude tbh, but it's the internet, it happens). I mean no disrespect, I myself was RC up until a rather short amount of time ago and all my family is still RC, but that's the current situation. It is indeed collapsing. Has been for decades. Arguably centuries, and by that I don't mean [insert unnecessary inflammatory comment about the schism], what I mean is that the RC church was having a lot of problems back in the 1800's dealing with infiltrators. It eventually succumbed to them pretty much completely. The RC church right now is a complete puppet.
Last edited:
There are many good and decent prelates within the church. This is blackpilled. At the very least consider the 'recognize and resist' frame the SSPX operates within. Very coherent and common sense. The novus ordo church is a sea of grey, wheras the latin mass is teeming with life and young families.
I'd rather stay in the barque of Peter personally.
Genealogist
Catholic