Did Pope Francis Allow Priests to Bless Same-Sex Relationships?

[paternos]

@Genealogist What's your point on this forum? Bashing Catholics, bashing the structure of the church, bashing the pope?

I find it quite a sad sight. I just read through your post history and almost the only thing I see you do is talking negatively on Catholics.

Acting all "Trad", to me this is a problem like Taylor Marshall.

A year ago when pope Benedict died Taylor posted this:


Reducing the whole funeral to a gossip of rejecting communion on the tongue.

I consider these people as snakes.

I'm all for open discourse, but take some respect to your brothers in Christ and spread the word and love of Christ.

You're spreading division, literally 40 of your 50 posts are "pope bad" and using a condescending tone on Catholics.

All Christian communities have their problems and advantages. I've looked around many in the last few years.
But at the heart is the desire to follow Christ.

I like the protestant intellectuality and struggle, but miss the mystical. I like the Orthodox mystical and tradition, but for me it's inacessible as it is a foreign language community here. I like SSPX, love the latin mass, but dislike the constant mocking of Catholics, in the coffee after mass. I like the evangelicals, as I feel they dared to renew their love for Christ, I dislike the personal cults.

But all in all brothers in Christ.

The snake wants one thing, and that's constant division.

A divided fighting church, gives all the room for worldly rulers. The blasphemic rats we have now.

If you want to put energy somewhere, focus it there.

 

[Cornelius V.E.]

St. Matthew, chapter 19:

Again, the vast majority of the Church Fathers believed that this verse allowed for remarriage in the case of adultery. Your extremely narrow "trad" interpretation doesn't make any sense: so you can divorce for adultery only, but you can't divorce for any other reason? So a woman who is beat up every day by her husband and put in physical danger can't divorce?

How can you "commit adultery" unless you are married? If we have an "except for adultery" clause given to us by Christ, then the person would no longer be married, and therefore wouldn't commit adultery. Either way, you have disproved pre-Francis Roman Catholic doctrine which stated that divorce doesn't exist at all, and the only thing that can separate spouses is death (with the legalistic/pharisaic technicality of having hundreds of thousands of annulments per year for backup when this doesn't work out).

You accuse protestants of making up doctrines over a thousand years after the Apostles handed to us the faith once delivered to the saints. Unfortunately, the RCC has done the same thing multiple times (papal infallibility, divorce doesn't exist at all, all priests must be celibate, papal indulgences to get out of purgatory, the immaculate conception of Mary, etc). Just look at the Dictatus Papae (mainstream papal teaching from just after the 1054 schism). It's very clear that the Roman Church departed significantly from the universal Church of the First Millenium after the Schism of 1054. The Dictatus Papae is disowned/contradicted by all Roman Catholics today (including "trads" like sedevecantists and SSPX) even though it was the mainstream papal teaching from 1070-1170. Again, most Roman Catholics have no knowledge of this at all, and none of the RC apologists even try to deal with my previous claims about divorce and remarriage being accepted by the Canons of St. Basil the Great, the Canons of the Council of Trullo, and the Canons of the 7th Ecumenical Council (approved by Rome).

All of this being said, we should be grateful to the Roman Catholic "trads" on this forum who make their own church look completely divided and incoherent with traditional Christianity. The only people who can take these "trad" doctrines seriously are those who are already heavily indoctrinated into it. For all others on this forum we can just see more and more clearly how false the Roman church now is, and how dangerous heresy can be. I don't want this to be a bashing of Roman Catholics (who already have enough stress with the state of their Church), however, I only wanted to respond by clarifying and defending a point that many Roman Catholics have bashed the Orthodox for on this thread.

Most Roman Catholic "trads" would probably become Orthodox overnight if they had their misunderstandings related to 1) divorce and remarriage, and 2) contraception cleared up. I feel like these 2 issues are basically the last remaining threads that keep people holding on to "trad" Rome over Orthodoxy. And for Roman Catholics both of these threads are only possible due to ignorance of history (in the case of divorce/remarriage) and misunderstandings about how Orthodox come to know what is true (in the case of contraception).

 

[Samseau]

SeaEagle and Genealogist are giving a poor interpretation of scripture. Here's what they are missing:

Adultery is not merely cheating on one's spouse. How do we know this? Because the Christ said so:

But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

(Matt 5:28)

Therefore, since Christ revealed that the Lord will judge us for "adultery of the heart," which is more than merely cheating on one's spouse, it follows there are many ways one can commit adultery of the heart. Such as:

- Beating one's spouse
- Refusing sex
- Abandonment
- Cam-whoring your spouse for cash
- (insert common sense here)

As the Lord states, it's not what goes into the mouth that corrupts, but what comes out - for what comes out reveals the desires of the heart.

11 it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person.” 12 Then the disciples came and said to him, “Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying?” 13 He answered, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up. 14 Let them alone; they are blind guides.[a] And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.” 15 But Peter said to him, “Explain the parable to us.” 16 And he said, “Are you also still without understanding? 17 Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the stomach and is expelled?[b] 18 But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. 20 These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone.”

All of the early Church fathers, like Basil the Great, understood this, which is why it is absurd to say Christ only meant adultery for divorce. Christ obviously meant more than mere cheating, which is why he mentions adultery of the heart, which is consistent with his other teachings on the desires of the heart.

 

[Genealogist]

Again, the vast majority of the Church Fathers believed that this verse allowed for remarriage in the case of adultery. Your extremely narrow "trad" interpretation doesn't make any sense: so you can divorce for adultery only, but you can't divorce for any other reason? So a woman who is beat up every day by her husband and put in physical danger can't divorce?

How can you "commit adultery" unless you are married? If we have an "except for adultery" clause given to us by Christ, then the person would no longer be married, and therefore wouldn't commit adultery. Either way, you have disproved pre-Francis Roman Catholic doctrine which stated that divorce doesn't exist at all, and the only thing that can separate spouses is death (with the legalistic/pharisaic technicality of having hundreds of thousands of annulments per year for backup when this doesn't work out).

You accuse protestants of making up doctrines over a thousand years after the Apostles handed to us the faith once delivered to the saints. Unfortunately, the RCC has done the same thing multiple times (papal infallibility, divorce doesn't exist at all, all priests must be celibate, papal indulgences to get out of purgatory, the immaculate conception of Mary, etc). Just look at the Dictatus Papae (mainstream papal teaching from just after the 1054 schism). It's very clear that the Roman Church departed significantly from the universal Church of the First Millenium after the Schism of 1054. The Dictatus Papae is disowned/contradicted by all Roman Catholics today (including "trads" like sedevecantists and SSPX) even though it was the mainstream papal teaching from 1070-1170. Again, most Roman Catholics have no knowledge of this at all, and none of the RC apologists even try to deal with my previous claims about divorce and remarriage being accepted by the Canons of St. Basil the Great, the Canons of the Council of Trullo, and the Canons of the 7th Ecumenical Council (approved by Rome).

All of this being said, we should be grateful to the Roman Catholic "trads" on this forum who make their own church look completely divided and incoherent with traditional Christianity. The only people who can take these "trad" doctrines seriously are those who are already heavily indoctrinated into it. For all others on this forum we can just see more and more clearly how false the Roman church now is, and how dangerous heresy can be. I don't want this to be a bashing of Roman Catholics (who already have enough stress with the state of their Church), however, I only wanted to respond by clarifying and defending a point that many Roman Catholics have bashed the Orthodox for on this thread.

Most Roman Catholic "trads" would probably become Orthodox overnight if they had their misunderstandings related to 1) divorce and remarriage, and 2) contraception cleared up. I feel like these 2 issues are basically the last remaining threads that keep people holding on to "trad" Rome over Orthodoxy. And for Roman Catholics both of these threads are only possible due to ignorance of history (in the case of divorce/remarriage) and misunderstandings about how Orthodox come to know what is true (in the case of contraception).

 

[Samseau]

^ Not a single mention of Matthew 5:28, which is from the Sermon on the Mount, probably the most important part of all scripture. In other words, your source is garbage.

 

[Northumber]

@Genealogist What's your point on this forum? Bashing Catholics, bashing the structure of the church, bashing the pope?

I find it quite a sad sight. I just read through your post history and almost the only thing I see you do is talking negatively on Catholics.

Acting all "Trad", to me this is a problem like Taylor Marshall.

A year ago when pope Benedict died Taylor posted this:


Reducing the whole funeral to a gossip of rejecting communion on the tongue.

I consider these people as snakes.

I'm all for open discourse, but take some respect to your brothers in Christ and spread the word and love of Christ.

You're spreading division, literally 40 of your 50 posts are "pope bad" and using a condescending tone on Catholics.

All Christian communities have their problems and advantages. I've looked around many in the last few years.
But at the heart is the desire to follow Christ.

I like the protestant intellectuality and struggle, but miss the mystical. I like the Orthodox mystical and tradition, but for me it's inacessible as it is a foreign language community here. I like SSPX, love the latin mass, but dislike the constant mocking of Catholics, in the coffee after mass. I like the evangelicals, as I feel they dared to renew their love for Christ, I dislike the personal cults.

But all in all brothers in Christ.

The snake wants one thing, and that's constant division.

A divided fighting church, gives all the room for worldly rulers. The blasphemic rats we have now.

If you want to put energy somewhere, focus it there.

Overall I like Taylor Marshall, he seems like he's trying to follow Christ. I agree he's not above criticism, but I like him better than the standard wishy washy Catholic men and priests I've met (I'm not talking about anyone on the forum). I'll preface that I have also met great strong Catholic men in person too, though they are the outlier, not the norm. One of my measures of a man is their handshake and I usually get terrible handshakes from Catholic priests. I bet I'd get a good handshake from Marshall.

I know what you mean by causing division by focusing on the negative. It happens to all of us and I think it's basically related to grifting. It's strange how it works. Basically your attention actually does what you don't want and feeds the problem you are criticizing. You can also strangely start to require what is bad in order to keep going on (even to survive and make money, which probably has become the case with Taylor Marshall). That said. I still like him. Hopefully he doesn't realize that's what's going on. If he does, I'd agree with your assessment, but that kind of stuff is deep within the heart.

Lots of snares, as you say, to fall into. All the while those on the other side don't care and are masters of subtlety, changing and subverting God to fit their conception (out of comfort and a sick need for control). The Catholic Church is in dire need of the masculine side. It takes the masculine to stand up to what is wrong. This could look like division, but it's exactly what is needed at this point. A good pounding is helpful sometimes, you know? As an observer, so far, it seems like every voice within the Catholic Church which has been wholesome and masculine has been cancelled and muffled. Usually muffled with some sort of appeal to "he's not being charitable". I'm not even Catholic and I'm tired of it. It seems wimpy and effeminate to me. Where is a Saint Nicholas when we need him to smack some sense into people?

 

[Genealogist]

^ Not a single mention of Matthew 5:28, which is from the Sermon on the Mount, probably the most important part of all scripture. In other words, your source is garbage.

 

[Samseau]

Your translation is bad because fornication does not occur in the original text, it clearly states porneia (which is best translated as whoredom). On top of that, Jesus says right above your red arrows that adultery can be committed in the heart, and adultery would qualify as porneia (or whoredom), which would qualify for divorce.

Really don't understand why you think it's okay to skip lines of the King. He explicitly states adultery can be committed in the heart, right before preaching on divorce. He did that on purpose, to give context to what follows.

 

[paternos]

Overall I like Taylor Marshall, he seems like he's trying to follow Christ. I agree he's not above criticism, but I like him better than the standard wishy washy Catholic men and priests I've met (I'm not talking about anyone on the forum). I'll preface that I have also met great strong Catholic men in person too, though they are the outlier, not the norm. One of my measures of a man is their handshake and I usually get terrible handshakes from Catholic priests. I bet I'd get a good handshake from Marshall.

I know what you mean by causing division by focusing on the negative. It happens to all of us and I think it's basically related to grifting. It's strange how it works. Basically your attention actually does what you don't want and feeds the problem you are criticizing. You can also strangely start to require what is bad in order to keep going on (even to survive and make money, which probably has become the case with Taylor Marshall). That said. I still like him. Hopefully he doesn't realize that's what's going on. If he does, I'd agree with your assessment, but that kind of stuff is deep within the heart.

Lots of snares, as you say, to fall into. All the while those on the other side don't care and are masters of subtlety, changing and subverting God to fit their conception (out of comfort and a sick need for control). It seems wimpy and effeminate to me.

Good points.

We only disagree on Taylor, he is a politician, like all the others, not a religious figure, it's just his focal point. Just as some prosecutors focused on child abuse in the Catholic church, like Josh Shapiro, it doesn't make him Catholic, he's a Jew actually.

The Catholic Church is in dire need of the masculine side. It takes the masculine to stand up to what is wrong. This could look like division, but it's exactly what is needed at this point. A good pounding is helpful sometimes, you know? As an observer, so far, it seems like every voice within the Catholic Church which has been wholesome and masculine has been cancelled and muffled. Usually muffled with some sort of appeal to "he's not being charitable". I'm not even Catholic and I'm tired of it.

I wholeheartedly agree that the Catholic church needs new propaganda.

This I think binds many of us. We have learned about the Truth and we are now trying to integrate it in our lifes as men.

I'm a bit done with the old generation of nominal Catholics that get enthusiastic about donating to a UN-fund to build a school in an African village. The naivity is shocking. Meanwhile in our country unborns are killed and sin is promoted everywhere. It seems the Church is a secular NGO for some.

It's probably up to us. A new generation of Christians to shape the new wave in the Church.

I have though seen that the Catholic church harbors great priests, great monks, great communities, but you really need to look for it. And you need to read. Finding inspiration in tradition.

I'm sure that goes for the Protestants, Orthodox as well.

Where is a Saint Nicholas when we need him to smack some sense into people?

I'm convinced new saints are or will be rising.

 

[Genealogist]

Your translation is bad because fornication does not occur in the original text, it clearly states porneia (which is best translated as whoredom). On top of that, Jesus says right above your red arrows that adultery can be committed in the heart, and adultery would qualify as porneia (or whoredom), which would quality for divorce.

Really don't understand why you think it's okay to skip lines of the King. He explicitly states adultery can be committed in the heart, right before preaching on divorce. He did that on purpose, to give context to what follows.

Matthew 5:27-28: "You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not commit adultery. But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart." In this passage, Jesus Christ perfects the old law, which made no mention of the acts of the mind and will. To pervert the meaning into a 'get out of marriage free' card is diabolic.

 

[Genealogist]

@Genealogist What's your point on this forum? Bashing Catholics, bashing the structure of the church, bashing the pope?

I find it quite a sad sight. I just read through your post history and almost the only thing I see you do is talking negatively on Catholics.

Acting all "Trad", to me this is a problem like Taylor Marshall.

A year ago when pope Benedict died Taylor posted this:


Reducing the whole funeral to a gossip of rejecting communion on the tongue.

I consider these people as snakes.

I'm all for open discourse, but take some respect to your brothers in Christ and spread the word and love of Christ.

You're spreading division, literally 40 of your 50 posts are "pope bad" and using a condescending tone on Catholics.

All Christian communities have their problems and advantages. I've looked around many in the last few years.
But at the heart is the desire to follow Christ.

I like the protestant intellectuality and struggle, but miss the mystical.
I like the Orthodox mystical and tradition, but for me it's inacessible as it is a foreign language community here.
I like SSPX, love the latin mass, but dislike the constant mocking of Catholics, in the coffee after mass. I like the evangelicals, as I feel they dared to renew their love for Christ, I dislike the personal cults.

What an utter disaster! The most I could glean from all the incoherent feminine gobbledygook in your rambling whine of a post is the fact that none of the reasons you give for being Catholic have anything to do with the objective truth of Roman Catholicism, which is frightfully revealing. Nothing you mentioned is tie to the fact that Catholicism is the one true religion established by God, and the Catholic Church alone is His Church, and that this can be discerned from a study of what are called the "motives of credibility". You don't even attempt to provide an objective vindication of Catholicism. All of your reasons for (supposedly) being Catholic are subjective and based on various personal preferences and experiences: "I like the protestant intellectuality and struggle, but miss the mystical. I like the Orthodox mystical and tradition, but for me it's inacessible as it is a foreign language community here." So what? If the Roman Catholic religion is false, your liturgical/linguistic/cultural preference doesn’t matter. An Orthodox or Protestant apologist could wipe the floor with you.

 

[abraham]

Canon 1404, and yes if you want to call yourself Catholic that applies.

To be clear Sedes are not Catholic and do not represent Catholic views.

Bashing on the leader of the church you purport to follow makes you sound like a woman. Have some respect for yourself. If you don't accept him as Pope then you're not Catholic and stopping trying to speak for Catholics. I haven't read the whole thread but the latter end shows me several folks with the Catholic tag aren't.

If you feel the magisterium has failed then why are you still calling yourself Catholic? The constant bashing of the Holy Father is an effort to make Catholics look completely ignorant. If you're going to criticize a Vatican document then please at least read it first. I can tell not many have. Give examples to discuss not some low intelligence video to watch.

 

[Genealogist]

Canon 1404, and yes if you want to call yourself Catholic that applies.

To be clear Sedes are not Catholic and do not represent Catholic views.

Bashing on the leader of the church you purport to follow makes you sound like a woman. Have some respect for yourself. If you don't accept him as Pope then you're not Catholic and stopping trying to speak for Catholics. I haven't read the whole thread but the latter end shows me several folks with the Catholic tag aren't.

If you feel the magisterium has failed then why are you still calling yourself Catholic? The constant bashing of the Holy Father is an effort to make Catholics look completely ignorant. If you're going to criticize a Vatican document then please at least read it first. I can tell not many have. Give examples to discuss not some low intelligence video to watch.

Who are you kidding?

There's nothing Catholic about THAT.

What is fundamentally Catholic is to know a wolf from a shepherd, and head in the right direction.

 

[Cornelius V.E.]

How true saints from the one true Church bless those struggling with homosexuality (spoiler: not as a couple):

 

[Cornelius V.E.]

You've got to hand it to the Sedevecantists. They won't address Orthodox positions (ie, remarriage being found in the Canons of St. Basil the Great, the Council of Trullo, and the 7th Ecumenical Council agreed to by Rome) since it's out of their league. But they are on point and like fish in water when you get them to talk about their favorite subject: disproving Vatican I (the "ecumenical council" that defined the role of the papacy in the RCC) by highlighting the many heretical teachings and contradictions of the post Vatican II popes.

 

[SeaEagle]

I don't see much fruitful dialog happening in this thread. Perhaps we should take a time out on this one.

 

[Samseau]

You've got to hand it to the Sedevecantists. They won't address Orthodox positions (ie, remarriage being found in the Canons of St. Basil the Great, the Council of Trullo, and the 7th Ecumenical Council agreed to by Rome) since it's out of their league. But they are on point and like fish in water when you get them to talk about their favorite subject: disproving Vatican I (the "ecumenical council" that defined the role of the papacy in the RCC) by highlighting the many heretical teachings and contradictions of the post Vatican II popes.

They can't see the paradox of their position. If you are going to say we should go back to Vatican I, then why not say: go back, all the way back, to when the Pope was still part of the Orthodox Church (for 800 years lol). The vast majority of the Catholic Church is a sad mess. I pray for them all the time.

According to the US Census the Catholic Church lost 5% of it's membership in the past 10 years. It's no joke to say the Catholic Church is collapsing, although they aren't collapsing as fast as Protestant Churches, who lost 10% membership in the past 10 years.

Protestant Churches are being turned into condos, bars, and restaurants at breakneck speed all over the country. But I've seen the same thing happen to Catholic Churches.

Would anyone be surprised if the next Pope allows women as priests, but still refuses to let male priests marry?

 

[Genealogist]

They can't see the paradox of their position. If you are going to say we should go back to Vatican I, then why not say: go back, all the way back, to when the Pope was still part of the Orthodox Church (for 800 years lol). The vast majority of the Catholic Church is a sad mess. I pray for them all the time.

There is no question that the Faith as taught and believed until 1958 (when Pope Pius XII died) is true. The idea a false sect could credibly have all the signs and hallmarks of the true Church for 1,958 years is totally improbable - impossible, even. The Roman Catholic Church is the true Church, and there is none other. She was before, and is now. Our crisis today is about where the Roman Catholic Church is/isn't, not which claimant is the true Church.

 

[paternos]

There is no question that the Faith as taught and believed until 1958 (when Pope Pius XII died) is true. The idea a false sect could credibly have all the signs and hallmarks of the true Church for 1,958 years is totally improbable - impossible, even. The Roman Catholic Church is the true Church, and there is none other. She was before, and is now. Our crisis today is about where the Roman Catholic Church is/isn't, not which claimant is the true Church.

It's probably better to ignore you but I am seduced, I think your binary thinking is foolish man, anyhow as a Catholic I don't feel related to you, good luck building your real life church with others, maybe you can find a few 100 online, but a lot of bad stuff was going on in the worldly Catholic church before Vatican 2, always has been.

The reality is that we have limited knowledge how God wants to be served. It's a life long experiment. But we know he wants to be served. And we know we should. I have visited many Catholic monasteries, Jesuits, Franciscans, Benedictans, and all are different, very different (but the same) in how they serve God. And there is space for that in the Catholic church.

We are broken humans doing our best, with our fallen sinful nature.

You talk about the one true church, while you behave so exclusionary. That's not Catholic.

You'll sit alone in your room, staring at your screen, typing, bad pope, Vatican 2, maybe in your mind you're a Lutheran superstar, I hope there will some be some German aristocrats giving you cash.

I don't know. Anyhow I don't share you obsession and your binary view on faith. Reductio ad absurdum.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Who are you kidding?

There's nothing Catholic about THAT.

What is fundamentally Catholic is to know a wolf from a shepherd, and head in the right direction.

Stop it! You're making me rethink my position on Francis!