Is the Pope Catholic....?

Status
Not open for further replies.

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,436
11,982
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,167,763.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
It's interesting that you and others ignore the multitude of sins that Paul wrote about in Romans, such as "envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice... gossip, slander, God-hating, insolence, arrogance and boasting ...ways of doing evil; disobeying their parents; no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy" [edited for punctuation] and focus on the one sin ad nauseum.
Jipsah made reference to his own sins, even if he didn't go into specifics, but since the topic of this thread is related to same sex unions, why on earth would we need to bring up other faults?
 
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,436
11,982
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,167,763.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
The Pope is still Catholic, unless or until he is excommunicated, and such an event is extremely unlikely.
There is no provision in the Catholic Church for removing or excommunicating the Pope. The pope answers to no one (save God) in Catholic theology.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Leaf473
Upvote 0

chilehed

Veteran
Jul 31, 2003
4,710
1,384
63
Michigan
✟236,715.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Not any more, seeing as he is promoting mortal sin by equating homosexual couples with actual family...

"Homosexual people have the right to be in a family.... What we have to have is a civil union law; that way they are legally covered." Pope Francis endorses same-sex civil unions for the first time as pontiff
It's become clear that concatenation was a deception on the part of the filmmakers. They were actually from very different parts of the interview, with very different contexts; the way they've been stuck together is a lie.

"Homosexual people have the right to be in a family" was in the context of how parents should treat their children who have homosexual tendencies, and communicates that we need to treat them with compassion rather than just disowning them.

"What we have to have is a civil union law; that way they are legally covered" was in the context of how adults who have been in stable relationships ought to be treated by the civil authority. Apparently the Spanish words he used include a legal term of art that, in Argentina, does not indicate what "civil union" commonly is taken to mean in the US.

And in fact, he has in the past repeatedly said that same-sex so-called marriage is unacceptable, and that homosexual activity is gravely wrong.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,436
11,982
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,167,763.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
It's become clear that concatenation was a deception on the part of the filmmakers. They were actually from very different parts of the interview, with very different contexts; the way they've been stuck together is a lie.

Why is this not the least bit surprising?
 
Upvote 0

Virgil the Roman

Young Fogey & Monarchist-Distributist . . .
Jan 14, 2006
11,413
1,299
Kentucky
✟64,604.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
If pope were to fall into heresy, (after presumably having been so admonished or rebuked twice or thrice), the task would therefore fall to an General Council of the Church to judge if the Man who occupies the Chair of Blessed Peter has fallen into pertinacious and obstinate heresy. If he recants, he remains pope; if he remains heretical and pertinaciously so, he is 'held to already have been judged' and fall ipso facto from office: he would no longer remain Catholic, let alone bishop or pope. And thereafter, the See of Peter will be judged to be vacant.

We've not had such an issue since the Great Western Schism in the 15th century; wherein all three putative "popes" were asked to resigned. One did not, was judged to have been pertinaciously schismatic and subsequently ignored and relegated to the dustbin of history and a new Roman Pontiff was duly elected. Pope Martin.
 
Upvote 0

chilehed

Veteran
Jul 31, 2003
4,710
1,384
63
Michigan
✟236,715.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
If pope were to fall into heresy, (after presumably having been so admonished or rebuked twice or thrice), the task would therefore fall to an General Council of the Church to judge if the Man who occupies the Chair of Blessed Peter has fallen into pertinacious and obstinate heresy. If he recants, he remains pope; if he remains heretical and pertinaciously so, he is 'held to already have been judged' and fall ipso facto from office: he would no longer remain Catholic, let alone bishop or pope. And thereafter, the See of Peter will be judged to be vacant.

We've not had such an issue since the Great Western Schism in the 15th century; wherein all three putative "popes" were asked to resigned. One did not, was judged to have been pertinaciously schismatic and subsequently ignored and relegated to the dustbin of history and a new Roman Pontiff was duly elected. Pope Martin.
This is presentation is entirely inaccurate in its central points. There is absolutely no canonical jury over the Pope, and so there has never been a deposed Pope because it is not possible to depose the Pope. A Pope can be removed from his office only by his resignation or death.
 
Upvote 0

Leaf473

Well-Known Member
Jul 17, 2020
8,129
2,191
54
Northeast
✟178,041.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If pope were to fall into heresy, (after presumably having been so admonished or rebuked twice or thrice), the task would therefore fall to an General Council of the Church to judge if the Man who occupies the Chair of Blessed Peter has fallen into pertinacious and obstinate heresy. If he recants, he remains pope; if he remains heretical and pertinaciously so, he is 'held to already have been judged' and fall ipso facto from office: he would no longer remain Catholic, let alone bishop or pope. And thereafter, the See of Peter will be judged to be vacant.

We've not had such an issue since the Great Western Schism in the 15th century; wherein all three putative "popes" were asked to resigned. One did not, was judged to have been pertinaciously schismatic and subsequently ignored and relegated to the dustbin of history and a new Roman Pontiff was duly elected. Pope Martin.
What is the "General Council of the Church"?
 
Upvote 0

Cis.jd

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2015
3,613
1,484
New York, NY
✟140,465.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Not any more, seeing as he is promoting mortal sin by equating homosexual couples with actual family...

"Homosexual people have the right to be in a family.... What we have to have is a civil union law; that way they are legally covered." Pope Francis endorses same-sex civil unions for the first time as pontiff
Homosexuals do have the legal right. I don't agree with gay marriage but if it is out of the church then it's no ones business. This is separation of Church and State. It's their life not yours.

We or the Pope should not intrude our religious believes down others who don't agree with it. You wouldn't want a Buddhist, Atheist, Muslim, or any other form of non-christian demographic telling you how to live your life based on their beliefs, you should expect to give the same respect.
 
Upvote 0

mikeforjesus

Senior Member
Supporter
Nov 14, 2004
3,876
272
37
✟571,244.00
Faith
Christian
Did he say homosexuality is not a sin or just give them a right for a civil union though not approving it as moral. I agree we should not force Christianity on people though it is necessary to speak against the danger of sin that one should not go down that path because you could die while you are living in sin or even if not the longer you stay in it you stay away from repentance and you don’t know if you will die without bearing fruits of repentance
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Inkfingers

Somebody's heretic
Supporter
May 17, 2014
5,638
1,548
✟160,762.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Homosexuals do have the legal right. I don't agree with gay marriage but if it is out of the church then it's no ones business. This is separation of Church and State. It's their life not yours.

We or the Pope should not intrude our religious believes down others who don't agree with it. You wouldn't want a Buddhist, Atheist, Muslim, or any other form of non-christian demographic telling you how to live your life based on their beliefs, you should expect to give the same respect.

Wrong.

Utterly and completely wrong, and also in utter denial of how Catholicism does NOT recognise that there should be a separation of Church and State.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Jipsah

Blood Drinker
Aug 17, 2005
12,294
3,677
70
Franklin, Tennessee
✟218,125.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
It's interesting that you and others ignore the multitude of sins that Paul wrote about in Romans, such as "envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice... gossip, slander, God-hating, insolence, arrogance and boasting ...ways of doing evil; disobeying their parents; no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy" [edited for punctuation] and focus on the one sin ad nauseum.
Maybe it's because we keep hearing that those sins aren't sins at all, and that we must accept them. Face it, lying doesn't have nearly as well-organized an advocacy group as homosexual activity does. No one says "God knows I'm a liar and He still loves me", and there aren't any Adulterery Pride marches through town that I've ever seen. No brightly colored Slanderers' flags, no apologists for chronic murderers. Only sexual sins have fan clubs and gigabuck political lobbies. They ought to get special attention, they've moved heaven and earth to get it. Their only gripe is that it isn't all positive.

At least the Pope is more enlightened than his legalistic, judgmental critics.
"Enlightened" apparently, as I pointed out, meaning devotion to the zeitgeist. Being "judgemental" is the only real sin in that theology. And of course, anyone who continues to believe that any kind of sexual activity at all isn't "love" is an infidel and has to be punished.

Me? I don't have time to worry about the other guy's sins. Got an abundant supply of my own, thanks. But I don't feel the need to advertise mine and demand that they be accepted by anyone at all. Neither do I think that anyone else has the right to demand that I accept their favorite sins as fine and good and normal and acceptable. Ain't happening. It's like the old song says,"Don't ask me what I think of you, I might not give the answer that you want me to." ("Oh Well", Fleetwood Mac).

Zat make me "judgemental"? Well of course it does, and thus subject to judgement from the Righteous Worshippers of the Spirit of the Times. See, it isn't judgement itself that the wonderfully trendy object to, it's judging their values, or lack thereof, idiotic.

I'm intentionally ignoring tragic statements such as "Are we to equate sexual behavior with "love"? and "Dang, there's a whole lotta "love" to be had in sleazie parts of town, isn't there?" and such terms as "do the horizontal bop" (really??)
I'm a child of the 70s and quote old rock songs a lot. "Horizontal Bop" was a Bob Seegar tune. And yeah, we are, de facto, being constantly told that sexual behavior is synonymous with "love". "North American Man Boy Love Association", right? Isn't that what we're constantly being told, that love equates to sex? Even in the sleazy part of town: "And in a pipe she flies to the Motherland Or sells love to another man" (Ed Sheeran, "The A Team"). Tragic? Agreed. But that's what we've come to, isn't it? Can't be opposed to love, now can we?

Is this where your faith leads you??
Yeah, it is. The Bible cites some activities as sinful, in the New Testament. Sexual behavior ("love", if you prefer) of various kinds being amongst them. ("go, and sin no more"). I see no reason to disagree. Do I expect the world to agree with me? No, why should I care what unbelievers think? Don't expect me to act as though it means anything. Do I support laws against homosexual behavior? No, not my problem. As I said, you can't legislate anyone into the Kingdom of God. Civil unions? Sure, why not? People should be allowed to have binding contracts between or amongst themselves to do whatever they like that isn't malum in se. But "marriage" has a historical and cultural meaning unto itself, and ought to be left alone

Or is this part of the canon of the Anglican church??
Far from it. In the CoE, and certainly in the ECUSA (TEC?), celebration of homosexual behavior has all but become one of their creeds. Jack Spong seemed (is he still alive?) to believe that acceptance of homosexual behavior was the lynchpin of the Christian faith. He didn't seem to have much use for anything in the 39 Articles, though, and he systematically rejected every line in the Apostles' Creed, so I don't set much store by his opinion, or any allegedly Christian outfit that embraces his hand-wrought doctrine. I still look to the Creeds of the Church as Christianity 101.

Finally, there is one thing that we can agree upon: "I think love is actually different from sexual atraction [sic]".
Well dang, that's well-nigh heretical, innit? Walking a fine like there, mate.

BTW, thanks for the spell-checking; could I trouble you to vet all my posts to see whether I've nimble-fingered them to the point of being unreadable? I'd be ever so grateful.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Thomas White

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2020
1,193
705
37
Stockbridge
✟78,796.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
The condemnation and hate I see in this thread scare me. What would an unbeliever think if he or she stumbled upon these posts? He or she certainly wouldn't think that we are loving, welcoming people. The fruit of our Christian lives should be love! The Pope said nothing about marriage, but you condemn him because he said all people deserve the love of a family. Tell me, then, what people do not deserve such love? Would you condemn a Hindu marriage or a Muslim marriage because they do not share your beliefs?

John 3:17 "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him."

The comments on this thread are the problems with the Church, not Pope Francis's comments.
 
Upvote 0

Jipsah

Blood Drinker
Aug 17, 2005
12,294
3,677
70
Franklin, Tennessee
✟218,125.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The condemnation and hate I see in this thread scare me.
Sorry, my Rhetorical Rubbish Filter flagged that as Type A Political Posturing and deleted it. Did I miss anything of worth?

What would an unbeliever think if he or she stumbled upon these posts?
Probably that there are some forms of behavior that are considered unacceptable by most Christian groups. Amazingly enough, while I'm sure that many, if not most, people believe that any kind of sexual activity at all is good and normal and wholesome and altogether laudable, there are some Reactionary Elements who would place restrictions on the "any sexual activity with anyone or any thing at any time" rule and express the vile and hate-saturated and probably Nazi opinion that some activities are - horrors! - wrong. These "people" (and I use the term loosely) would have us stifle our natural impulses, and place intolerable restrictions on when and how and with whom we could have sexual congress. Diabolical, innit?

He or she certainly wouldn't think that we are loving, welcoming people.
I have long ago suggested that in order for the Christian Faith to be more attractive to more people that our services ought to be made to show our love. I haven't received any response to the idea of having special services where people have an opportunity to really get to know each other (of course in the Biblical sense, it's church, innit?). I expect that the repressive troglodytes who make up the vestry will ignore it. We're just not loving enough.

Would you condemn a Hindu marriage or a Muslim marriage because they do not share your beliefs?
Apart from their openness to polygamy, Muslim and Hindu ideas of look a lot like those of Christians and Jews and Sikhs and most other religions. Isn't that amazing? It sounds almost as though the idea of homosexual "marriage" really is novel!

John 3:17 "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him."
"Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

The comments on this thread are the problems with the Church, not Pope Francis's comments.
Re Civil Unions, yeah, Re Marriage, Nope.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Thomas White

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2020
1,193
705
37
Stockbridge
✟78,796.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Sorry, my Rhetorical Rubbish Filter flagged that as Type A Political Posturing and deleted it. Did I miss anything of worth?

Probably that there are some forms of behavior that are considered unacceptable by most Christian groups. Amazingly enough, while I'm sure that many, if not most, people believe that any kind of sexual activity at all is good and normal and wholesome and altogether laudable, there are some Reactionary Elements who would place restrictions on the "any sexual activity with anyone or any thing at any time" rule and express the vile and hate-saturated and probably Nazi opinion that some activities are - horrors! - wrong. These "people" (and I use the term loosely) would have us stifle our natural impulses, and place intolerable restrictions on when and how and with whom we could have sexual congress. Diabolical, innit?

I have long ago suggested that in order for the Christian Faith to be more attractive to more people that our services ought to be made to show our love. I haven't received any response to the idea of having special services where people have an opportunity to really get to know each other (of course in the Biblical sense, it's church, innit?). I expect that the repressive troglodytes who make up the vestry will ignore it. We're just not loving enough.

Apart from their openness to polygamy, Muslim and Hindu ideas of look a lot like those of Christians and Jews and Sikhs and most other religions. Isn't that amazing? It sounds almost as though the idea of homosexual "marriage" really is novel!

"Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Re Civil Unions, yeah, Re Marriage, Nope.

Where is the love of Christ reflected in anything you typed?
 
Upvote 0

seeking.IAM

Episcopalian
Supporter
Feb 29, 2004
4,235
4,910
Indiana
✟931,189.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Yes, it is the one sin that the world(?) focuses on ad nauseum, even though that is a huge exaggeration. I'm sick of hearing about it!!

Yes, but it is so much easier to talk about their sins than our sins.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Jipsah

Blood Drinker
Aug 17, 2005
12,294
3,677
70
Franklin, Tennessee
✟218,125.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Yes, but it is so much easier to talk about their sins than our sins.
Just so. That's why I'm less concerned with with the sins of other people than I am with my own. Having said that, I don't feel the need to have anyone make me feel "loved" by assuring me that my sins are something other than sins, and are really just fine after all. That's not love, and it wouldn't be doing me any favors.

"But Jipsah, of course you lie, we all do! God knows that, and He's totally OK with it! Your desire to throttle the young idiot with the loud mufflers who cut you off in traffic is perfectly normal as well, no need to apologize or seek forgiveness for that."

Love, right?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.